Sigh, now you make the assumption that because a few people have done shady things that all of us need YOUR guidance as to how to be morally responsible?

Geez, you really do think highly of yourself. So you, a self admitted hypocrite thinks the rest of us who have clean records need you to point us in the right direction? What planet do you live on ? ? ?

earth

my point is that dismissing people's views because they do not inhabit the same 'world' as you is pretty foolish

Yeah I already established we're talking about if he wasn't aware of any scam and thought the money his debt was being paid with was 100% clean. I still think he owes in that case.

But that's not what the question is. Again think about a bank loan. If the bank loans money to someone who isn't able to pay them back they're out of luck, however if someone steals the money from them to pay someone else back they can 100% get it back. It's obviously slightly different from robbing a bank but I think ethically it's about the same he took money meant to be used for him to play poker and instead used it to pay a debt.

let's use a more realistic and concrete example that would work. You're splitting a room in vegas with someone you stake. You give him 5k to play 5/10 with. Before he gets to Vegas I ship him 6k online money for 5k cash which he says he can pay me when he gets to Vegas. He snap loses the 6k. You hand him the 5k you're tired and want to sleep. You wake up the next morning and he says sorry he doesn't have the 5k anymore he used it to pay me back. Let's say I'm still playing poker in the same room and still have the money in the exact same envelope you gave your horse untouched other than to put it in my pocket? Do I owe you the 5k or not? I think most people would say yes and that your horse now owes me 5k. The time period changes it a bit but I think given that he says his rep is worth the 150k I think that should negate the time aspect although it's possible I'm wrong on that one.

That's the entire point though, you seem to think he's playing with money he already stole, which I've already said would mean the backer is just out of luck. But if the match was played and proof was not given that he had the money I think it should be just as if the theft happened after the loss in the poker game played on credit in which case you would agree that Alec would owe the backer the money right? Like if when they played the game Perky was busto then after he lost the 150k he then stole the 150k to pay back you do agree Alec owes the backer right? If so please explain the difference between that scenario and the actual scenario.

Am I the only one wondering who would back Perky 150k to play cash games?

ugh, I'd really like to read through this thread since it looks like a good ol' trainwreck where OP seems to be owning himself, but it's too tilting reading through Alec's posts. I'm only on post #138 and already want to knock my teeth out with a crowbar.
wtf? these posts read like an 8th grader trying to sound sophisticated. if his blog was anything like this then I can see why there were threads making fun of it.

In your example, I wouldn't think you owed me any money. Any deal I agreed to with someone I am staking is between that person and myself. If you wanted to be a good guy you could give me that money and I might accept it, but as far as I'm concerned at that point it's yours. -- I would never lend money to someone I didn't have complete faith would pay me back, and if that person happens to scam me, it was my own fault for not assessing the situation and making a better decision not to loan the person that money.

I know not everyone will agree with this, but this is the way I would treat it.

The more time I spend thinking about it, I just flat out don't think it's wrong for him to have accepted the money EVEN if he knew it was stolen. Yeah it's a scummy thing to do, and I would struggle with my own conscience if I knowingly partook in something like that, but the money WAS given to him to play poker, and he lost the money PLAYING poker. It's the backers fault for putting such faith into someone who can't be trusted. Survival of the fittest. People who trust shady people with money pretty much deserve to lose it.

In your example regarding if proof wasn't given and perky flat out stole the money after the fact, then yes I'd agree with you that Alec should return the money. But this situation is a little more complicated than that since perky was given this money to be backed to play poker and he lost the money in a game of poker. I realize SNG's were not designated by the backer, but I just think that is beside the point.

its actually easier than ud think. even with my laughably small level of 2p2 fame i get hundreds of coaching requests. many of these people are rich fish who want to stop bleeding money and i coach them on the up and up and they get a lot out of it (ive never had a formal complaint). if i was a scum i could constantly try to befriend these people instead of just coaching them and hustle for stakes...it would be easy. i had one guy practically beg to put me in a private 100-200nl game where he was losing his ass and i declined w/o hesitation.

message to rich dudes: if any superstar on 2p2 ever asks you for a stake RUN. if you offer a stake to a superstar on 2p2 and they accept RUN.

yet another jfc moment in this thread

Occupying that 'world' and making assessments of situations within it assumes that you understand specific parts of it in order to make educated statements regarding things that go on within it. If you don't have that frame of reference, as an outsider you might seem like you know what you're talking about, but to people who are actually in it you come off as obviously not knowing what you're talking about.

Why do you think all of the poker players immediately jumped on you and ebarnet?

What do you do for a living? I wouldn't come into some forums where you were discussing prevalent situations and assume I knew the inner workings of it and could make knowledgeable assessments regarding what you guys happen to be talking about. Then on top of that, be so pompous as to argue with all of you that I was right and claim that you are foolish.

lol this whole post is just a totally irrelevant trying to brag post.
perky doesn't post on 2p2, perky has never been a winning player, he's never once tried to pretend he's a winning player, he's never had any kind of reputation other then a pill popping degen who loses tons of money.

how does any of that lend itself to him being able to con some rich person into backing him?

i have no idea how even you could stretch it out so thinly to try and make that brag post but its pretty LOL.

Do you think non-politicans can contribute to a discussion of politics?

Do you think non-bankers have a right to comment on the way banks are run?

etc

I think poker players immediately jumped on me and ebarnet because a lot of what we're suggesting is uncomfortable to them. 7 years ago a person questioning the practice of multi-accounting would've been dismissed by you with a 'lol, you just dont understand. Thats just how things are. You're clearly not a poker player, you have nothing to contribute'.

Uhh how do you know?

I can't continue with this. So foolish of me to assume you would be able to put two and two together. RBK you're gonna have to spell it out for this guy, I don't have the patience.

That's fine bro, you keep on thinking that being a poker pro is a prerequisite for understanding ethics as they relate to poker.

You clearly have a fine understanding of how to conduct your business, as demonstrated by your 'survival of the fittest' abortion of a post.

cuz i ****ing played with him a **** ton of times and have talked to him a bunch.

and even if he did try to convince some guy he was really good if that person was stupid enough to give him 150K just on his word and that alone since there is nothing else that he could use to convince someone he was a winning player then that person is too stupid to have pity for.

some rando comes up to you and says hey i'm a really good poker player pls give me 150K to play and you just take his word for it and don't ask for anything to corroborate his claim you deserve to lose your $.

lol.

Dumb/gullible people deserve to be robbed/scammed. Got it.

Poker world is ****ed up man.

actually you have it totally backwards.

the business world could learn a thing or two from the poker world.

yes there are cases of scumbags doing scummy things but it pales in comparison to the number of six figure transactions that are done every single day in the HSNL community with nothing but peoples word as the guarantee.
no contracts or lawyers etc....people screw each other over in the business world all the time even with contracts.
i can't think of any other community where you have people that trust each other with hundreds of thousands of dollars on a daily basis.

i've bought pieces of people where i'd never have any way of verifying their results because i trust they'd never screw me over, and vice versa.

yes there will always be examples of people doing scummy things but for every case of shadiness there are 10 cases of people being super trust worthy and honest.

see thats your problem you can't just have a sincere and rational discussion.
you just take what i say and totally strip it down of all context and meaning and then make some one line sarcastic reply.

I have to clarify something I said because obviously people who don't have very good reading comprehension will misinterpret it.

In no way do I think it is okay to knowingly accept stolen funds.

In these particular circumstances, this person was backed to play poker and he lost that money PLAYING POKER. It's not like he went and robbed someone. These funds were given to him by some person to play, and if that person is so naive and gullible as to assume it was a smart idea to give this person that much money to play, I just don't think it's wrong to collect it.

If the money were flat out stolen that would obviously be a way different issue and I would say absolutely the funds should be returned. That's not the situation here.

No, not out of context at all. I took the scummy part of your post and highlighted it. If you don't want people to do that, don't post scummy things.

More rubbish. Stealing is fine as long as it's disguised as a game of poker. Nonsense.

The money was flat out stolen. I dont think even rbk disputes this.

Derailed thread sucks. These were the only 2 posts worth a damn.

Majority of threads last few pages is just RBK babbling on about how dumb other people are while posting like a blithering idiot. Far as I can see itt, there's only one person foaming at the mouth and eagerly fumbling at the keyboard for the chance to make a troll post. The pseudo elitist attitude as if it's still 2004 and he's still good at poker just comes across as pathetic.

K. Prove to me they were stolen. Unlike you, I don't see everything in black and white and actually do have an open mind to other alternatives.

Try reading the thread