As for this whole mod comment....I considered that before posting here and almost created the thread on 2p2 just so no one could even say anything remotely along those lines. However, at the end of the day two things made me post it here. 1) I frequent this forum much more often and 2) I finally decided that I am a poster and a mod and I have the right to post on this site as long as I follow all rules pertaining to posting said threads.

I am a mod here and on two other non poker forum sites. (one is a living/traveling in baja calif forum) I have never abused or misused being a mod on any site that I frequent. One of the nice things about having an active MTT player as a Mod is that we are often in tune with a lot of what is going on in the MTT world, so when a questionable post or situation comes up that a mod/admin wants to address, I am sometimes able to provide more information that allows them to address the situation more appropriately...ie..maybe the post is not malicous and just an inside joke among friends. Now in terms of this thread.. even if there was an inappropriate response in this thread, i would not delete it. I would let other mod's on their own decide that the post was inappropriate and let them remove it. I understand my role as a poster and as a mod and the differences very clearly and when I decided to post my thread on p5's, i lost my ability to be a mod over the thread that i created. That is the only fair way to go about it imo.

As far as me being a mod, I appreciate that they gave me that opportunity and I have always been fair and impartial and when I have not had a clear idea of what to do in a situation, I have always sought the advice of other mod's and admins. Me being or not being a mod has nothing to do with this thread. I'm offended that people would even make this comment. The only thing in this thread I was not happy about was how i went about laying out the situation which i already apologized for numerous times.

Makeup is gay.

Backer "X" gives funds to backee "Y" to play for said months and split profits. Y sucks for that amount of time and X decides to cut him loose - but only if someone is willing to buy off his makeup because that is what Y agreed to as part of his contractual obligations. If X has no more money to sponsor Y within the timeframe proposed in the contract, then Y should be free to go minus any responsibility to return makeup funds. If new backer "Z" comes along and offers to buy Y's makeup from X, and X agrees to the proposed amount, then X has been settled (regardless of price the debt is sold at - this is not relevant to Y) and a NEW contract/negotiation needs to be brought to the forefront. Though X is probably pissed about having a shitty horse, he at least was able to get back some money. Now, Z is the new kingpin and essentially bought a horse that he deems has potential. This is his investment and risk, and he his paying for Y because he sees potential and profitability. Y should be starting from scratch by default (unless there is a new contract clearly stating that player Y starts in the hole).

IMO.

The end.

 

Originally Posted by CL Type-S49

Makeup is gay.

Backer "X" gives funds to backee "Y" to play for said months and split profits. Y sucks for that amount of time and X decides to cut him loose - but only if someone is willing to buy off his makeup because that is what Y agreed to as part of his contractual obligations. If X has no more money to sponsor Y within the timeframe proposed in the contract, then Y should be free to go minus any responsibility to return makeup funds. If new backer "Z" comes along and offers to buy Y's makeup from X, and X agrees to the proposed amount, then X has been settled (regardless of price the debt is sold at - this is not relevant to Y) and a NEW contract/negotiation needs to be brought to the forefront. Though X is probably pissed about having a shitty horse, he at least was able to get back some money. Now, Z is the new kingpin and essentially bought a horse that he deems has potential. This is his investment and risk, and he his paying for Y because he sees potential and profitability. Y should be starting from scratch by default (unless there is a new contract clearly stating that player Y starts in the hole).

IMO.

The end.

Make up is absolutely necessary. Just because it gets complicated doesn't mean it is stupid

whole lotta words itt.

feel like bob2bob should be coaching jdpc.....im just sayin

Say a player gets sponsored for the entire WSOP series in 2011, all entries payed for. The player and backer will split the profits minus the entry fees at the end of the year. If the player comes out on the losing end, the backer loses on his investment and that's the end of it.

Now if the backer comes back around in 2012 and offers to sponsor the player for another WSOP run, by no means should the player be responsible to pay back what was lost in 2011 - unless the backer proposes this prior to entering the player in the 2012 WSOP - which is bogus.

^^^^ well said..

your logic is very flawed, just because someone has a 500K badge on p5s doesnt mean they have profited 500k, so yes it is very possible to owe a backer "10s of thousands of dollars" and not have a "serious gambling problem".

And, you are so far from correct OP its not even funny. So many people on this forum are in 10k+ makeup and are high thinking long term winners and it aint even close. You obviously don't understand mtt variance, but good thread!

 

Originally Posted by pfontec

Aynone with a $500,000.00 badge that is in debt from being staked for gambling has a serious gambling problem. Anyone backing him now or in the past has only added to his problem. Is this not clear to anybody on here? By posting these problems on this site these players and backers are hurting the comminity of responsible gaming poker players who are fighting to keep our right to play online. So GTFO all of you!

Use simple logic.. 500K is only Tournament Winnings.. These play who play the high stakes im sure put up a good amount more than that in buy ins yearly if they play a full time schedule.. Just think the 3 1K Weekly tourneys along equal about 155K alone. Thats just 3 tourneys.. Doesnt even account for Sundays. Rebuys, FTOPS COOPS etc etc..

 

Originally Posted by pfontec

Show this thread to any U.S. legislature or representative and this thread can only help our cause. Tell you legislature that we are all in gambling debt and MU. This will only help our cause. Tell your legislture that our badges only represent total profit and not loses and that we most likely didn't pay taxes on it. This will only help our cause. Tell your legislature that you are only accusing other players in this forum of stealing because we want to get the money back that we gambled on them. This will only help our cause.

LOL

Whether bob2bob's side has merit or not, he clearly went about this in a backhanded, shady fashion.. It sounds like he secretly decided that he was getting that 12k one way or another and disappeared with it the first chance he got. JDPC did absolutely nothing wrong here and honestly I dont think the character attacks are that out of line considering what happened. If you fuck someone over your business becomes everyones business...

Also why the f%# would it matter that he is a mod?

Pfontec, please lose your password, you are an ignorant, and your ignorance is deviating the attention from what the real discussion is.

 

Originally Posted by pfontec

The recent Bob2Bob thread is a discussion that in my oppinion shows only how certain players that have serious gambling problems get themselfs in finacial trouble and then are accussed of stealing from their backers whom in my opinion have either the same gambling problems or cannot see how they are only hurting their staker by enabling them to continue gambling for their own greed.

Aynone with a $500,000.00 badge that still owes backers 10's of thousands of dollars has a serious gambling problem. Anyone backing him now or in the past has only added to his problem. Is this not clear to anybody on here? By posting these problems on this site these players and backers are hurting the comminity of responsible gaming poker players who are fighting to keep our right to play online. So GTFO all of you!

'

gtfo and plzzz die
edit: ahah plenty of fish you lonely bastard, nice pic gayboy

 

Originally Posted by chardrian

help this old fart out please...

when jdpc bought bob's makeup for 8k why would bob remain 33k in makeup? It's not like jdpc now has 8k of the makeup and the previous backer still has 25k. jdpc bought him out. This means that the previous backer has setlled the contract and is willing to let bob out of the backing deal for 8k and is taking a 25k loss. Bob now comes to the new backer with no previous makeup since it was paid off.

The MOST I can see anyone saying bob was in MU would be $8k. jdpc was 8k in the hole to start with so it seems reasonable to me that bob would be starting the agreement with 8k in makeup. Why jdpc would suddenly be getting an extra $25k just because bob was previously in MU to a different backer makes no sense to me.

I mean the whole reason for buying makeup at a reduced rate is because the original backer just wants to cut his losses and try and recoup some of his money correct? I don't understand at all why a horse or staker would assume that make-up carries over when it is bought out at a reduced rate.

 

Originally Posted by AFink93

when jdpc bought bob's makeup for 8k why would bob remain 33k in makeup? It's not like jdpc now has 8k of the makeup and the previous backer still has 25k. jdpc bought him out. This means that the previous backer has setlled the contract and is willing to let bob out of the backing deal for 8k and is taking a 25k loss. Bob now comes to the new backer with no previous makeup since it was paid off.

Im trying to figure this out as well for information purposes. JD did risk 8K of his own money. Buying makeup is an investment I assume. Using logic I cant think that he would shell out 8K of his own money and not get anything back on the return of his investment.. Now whether he thinks hes entitled to the entire 33K I dunno.. I would think not.. But maybe hes entitled to something.. Sounds like it was poor communication in the initial contract. Hug it out boys and compromise or find some kind of arbitrator whos good at stuff like this.. Ask Dip or Bax or Sheets what the solution should be and abide by that.

Because if you let someone reduce his MU to 0 by doing this then when someone got in heaps of makeup he would just stop caring and start losing knowing he would be dropped soon and get out of makeup. This way he has to keep playing well if he ever wants to be staked again.