you're such a sad pitiful character. laughed at and mocked in every thread you enter. constantly being called out as a child by multiple posters. i used to enjoy poking at you, but i was just a bully pulling the legs off a fly...constantly owning you just pointed out my own shortcomings. now i actually feel sorry for for you, having to constantly scam and hustle, defend the indefensible to keep some tiny scraping foothold in the HS "community".

You are worthless. All you can do is spout your moral high ground, then when someone is willing to consider your perspective, you refuse to offer it up.

What's even more pathetic is that you yourself admitted that you don't even follow those morals. I would probably commit suicide if I lived like that.

You realize that it's impossible under your moral guidelines to both consider myself a moral person and be a poker player? I asked you why you thought all of the poker players immediately jumped on you, THAT IS WHY. We are realists. The world is a certain way and we accept it as such.

I don't live in a world where contradictions in my beliefs run rampant. If I did, I'd be broke.

Jesus BAS I'm essentially arguing the same thing you are but try to be less condescending and realize that you don't know everything. And super lol at your comments about bankers/politicians it'd be like listening to a CEO of a bank give a speech and tell him how ******ed he was for giving it or listening to a politician debate a bill and tell him it was terrible and no one would be convinced. Obviously it's possible for someone to notice when something is terrible if there were an argument between the experts and an outside observer I would probably trust the experts. Anyway Marshall I think it's a pretty big deal that he wasn't staked to play in the games he played in. Obviously if he was staked to play Alec in the 50k freezeouts all of this is null and void, but it's possible the stake started after he owed the money and if it didn't the dump was not part of the stake and occurred after the poker game in question also.

I'm kinda confused that you think I wouldn't owe you the 5k in that example. I guess you could argue he has 2 debts one to you and one to me so whoever is in possession of it should be the one to have the claim to it? Like you do agree that if instead of scamming you out of a stake he just went and robbed a bank I'd 100% owe the 5k back to the bank right? I'm trying to come up with the difference between that scenario and my example (and the difference between my scenario and what really happened which I think logically there are none). Like even if he's holding the money it is yours you can ask for it at any time he's just using it to play. Does your opinion change if instead of asking for a stake he steals the money out of your bag and uses it to pay me back a debt he owed me? Do I now owe it back to you?

Perky was playing on his own when he lost 150k to alec

lol i said that if perky's backer thought he was a winning player simply because perky told him he was and he did zero research to find out if it was actually true, i'd have no sympathy for him accidentally backing a losing player.
and you're saying thats scummy.
i never said its ok to steal money from a gullible person, i said if you're so gullible you back a losing player because you just took their word they were good thats on you and you deserve zero sympathy.

The only difference I see is that a bank is an equal opportunity lender. Lots of people can get a loan and whether you get one or not has nothing to do with your moral compass. I would think if a bank was robbed to pay a debt, that money should be returned as it's the right thing to do for society. If everyone robbed banks in order to pay off debts, those of us who wanted to take a loan from a bank wouldn't be able to because banks would go out of business.

With regards to money loaned from individuals, as I said previously, I think it is on them to use their own judgment to make the best decision for themselves. In this way, everyone has a chance to act in their own best interest without the meddling of others who would wish to push their holier than thou morals onto you when they wouldn't even follow those morals themselves.

In your example, yeah I think there are two separate debts. When he hands you the money, he is agreeing to pay you what he owed you. When he gambles the rest of the money he has left, he is making the decision to gamble money that he owes me. If he had no other way of paying that money back, I'd consider it my own fault.

These are just my opinions though, and my guidelines for how I conduct myself in the world.

I mean what kind of ****** backs the one and only perkyschmerky. If anyone has contact details for snout362, I would like to back him...

perky does not owe me money personally, but i think he should be paying the money back that he has effectively stolen.

lol limon the only way you could ever own somebody is if you travelled back in time and bought a slave.

If this happened, I would explain to you the situation and I would ask for the money back. If you refused to give it back, I would think you are scummy, but I don't think there's anything I could do about it.

If you were a friend I would expect it back 100%. If I didn't know you, I'd probably expect not to get it.

I think we have different definitions of the words "owe" and "should". I just think that if someone owes me money, they also think they owe me money. Because other people may think they owe it doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. If I think someone owes me money and that person doesn't think they owe it, I've chosen the wrong person to trust.

And I don't think anyone should do anything because outside forces say they should. People should have autonomy, and I expect them for the most part to do the right thing. If they don't, I should have known better.

this isn't the first time one of your posts has made me laugh a lot out loud

RBK and co have made a zillion posts in the thread yet Traheho, the one who should be trying to clear his name in the face of pretty damning accusations, has disappeared. hmm

huh? I thought that you were leading the "they had timing tells b/c Perky had a backer and the backer was watching" convoy? Do you mean playing on his own = unstaked / his own money? Or playing on his own = no one else in the room? Either way, I thought this contradicted what you were saying earlier...?

perky was playing on his own when they were playing freeze outs

When they cheated the guy he was watching perky,

This thread gave me a headache, too many people trying to flex the fact they made it to 8th grade English...

Main question has not been answered...

Did Alec Know Perky Was Being Backed When He Chipdumped?

(capitals for effect, ty)

This whole thread is nonsense. If you give someone credit you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. Namely that they may not pay you. You can make a thread to sound the alarm but the fact is, its on you to collect.

I dont feel bad for Alec. From what it sounds like, they sheared this fish for millions until they finally skinned him. Now they want him to make good when he is likely busto. I just see this as part of the territory when it comes to professional hustling. When a fish is completely cleaned out you don't keep chomping at the bit. You accept those "losses" (unpaid debt) as part of the game, part of your line of work and move on.

And lets be clear. In this setting, Alec et. al are basically professional hustlers. Their primary goal is not to play better than others in an open competition kind of way. Their goal is to setup high-stakes games with fish where they are massive favorites. Then when the fish dumps it all off, they move on to the next mark. This guy was probably such a mark that he was basically drawing dead at having a penny left over. Legally the money is yours, but if someone played a game where they didn't know that the end result is that 100% of the time they'd be broke, most people would call that being cheated. So in that sense its somewhat immoral to take their money.

But I'm not here to tell you how you should make your money. After all, I'm a professional gambler, so I'm guilty too. My point is that you should feel blessed for the money you did win (which I see almost as a gift), instead of praising yourself for all your hard work and dedication at fleecing someone and then feeling entitled to the guy's bank account as you break him. Get over yourself; this poker arena is the wild west. You have two options when it comes to this kind of debt: get violence involved, or swallow your pride. Own up to whatever choice you make, instead of crying like a bitch.

Marshall28: I flat out don't think it's wrong to have someone chipdump to you if you know the money is stolen

Marshall28: Wanna clarify this, IN NO WAY do I think it's okay to accept stolen funds, so...

Marshall28: I don't think it's wrong to accept stolen money.

.....

Dude are you out of your mind? The fact that it was given to him to play poker makes no difference, lol. If Perky chipdumped it the $ is 100% stolen and no pretense of playing poker with it will make a single bit of difference.

Also, I disagree with BAS on a lot of things but not his arguments with you. I'm a professional player and basically think you're saying a bunch of **** that's straight up ridiculous then backing it up with 'well you have to be a pro poker player to understand LOL'.

Maybe the ethics comittee needs to re-evaluate its comittee members. Shouldnt the judges of other ethics be held to an even higher standard then those being judged. Alec needs to rethink this whole situation.

Looks like the ship is sailing on the right course here, finally.

@doubleices post: I think your moral judgement is clear and honorably directed. Where you say legally, however, I think that is arguably false. Casinos are licensed in America, an their actions are overlooked with a fine-tooth comb to prevent sundry financial crimes. iPoker's not regulated- so while many aspects are not believed to be legally prohibited, they're not legally condoned either... I think saying the 150 is legally Alec's is a short-cut for arguing that there is no legal avenue to force him to repay the money... like saying "legally, OJ didn't do it." On the other hand, legally in civil court, he had to pay 30MM to Ron Goldman's family for.... what?...."wrongful death"


IMO, it's a farce to say that Alec was virtuous. If you have a different moral code than me, then you might believe he acted morally, but the truth is Alec took the rules into his own hands. To me, the only satisfactory conclusion is that the way Alec collected this debt(according to Viff) was wrongful.

What perky did was wrongful as well... it was a hustle any way. Some hustles are criminal.

So, if Alec wants to come to 2p2 and have us believe in his righteousness, then he must return the 150. And, then he can go on about perky any way he wants as far as I'm concerned.

I was a little out of my mind last night. I hadn't slept in about 40 hours and probably shouldn't have been on here posting.

I'd still argue though that the money was as good as stolen the minute it was fronted to him. It doesn't really matter if he was backed to play SNG's or cash games because he was a losing player. If he was a winner in cash games and a loser in SNG's then I think you have an argument, but that wasn't the case.

Anyway, in light of new information it doesn't even matter.

Okay okay, start over.

RBK you need some counseling bro. if you're not mad then i dunno what to say except you come off really awkward.

Would have been a smart play for Haseeb to preemptively snap up those gimmick accounts.

this thread has gone full on ******

well played alec, had justin and others come in and distort the topics and throw off people, at least the smart people know what happen ed