% sale discussion

[Caf]

I decided to go back blonde kinda sick of the brown

Well that solves the whole issue.

[The Aul Switcharoo]

I decided to go back blonde kinda sick of the brown

The fact that you posted this here highlights the fact that you are definitely a blonde

[BallymoreChris]

Its far from as clear cut as some people are making out.

1. Rebel pays his money over - deal done nothing else matters.

2. Jason says as clear as day Rebel has zero % and puts it back on the market - deal done nothing else matters.

I also don't believe that either of them are trying some sort of "angle shoot".

If Jason had failed to cash and now Rebel was looking for his money back how would people respond if Jason replied " well I would have paid you 2% of any money I won mate"?

If I was rebel I'd be looking for my money 100%, but I would not have posted and then deleted - that just seems odd.

If I was Jason I think I would just pay the man in this instance but I also think Jason would have 100% returned the stake if he had not cashed - that is the anomaly.


I hope this does not lead to a lot of red tape in future staking threads - it's a very unusual situation and the first time it came up afaik.

[eamonhonda]

The fact that you posted this here highlights the fact that you are definitely a blonde

Excuse the pun

[Flushdraw]

Its not bullshit its a matter of trying to cut through fluff and recognise the reality. I'm trying to focus on the core issue and ignore the fluff and whether or not Rebel came back on the thread after the stake was assigned and the money was paid is just fluff.

The scenario you present is not what happened here so is just more fluff. Inasmuch as it is tangentially relevant then yes you solicit a stake, you agree to sell it, you get paid and you do not take explicit action to refund the stake then you have oversold. Tough on you.

I can't see how that rule would add anything but whatever. I don't believe that this problem is anything to do with any weakness in the staking rules. If you want to cover every eventuality then you are going to need dozens of pages. The principal here can only be fair play and in situations like this a community debate as to what is fair play.

An interesting point here is that I notice a bias amongst those involved in staking themselves against my position, I think you all should zoom out a bit and try to take a broader view.

There's no bias, and the points you class as 'fluff' are relevant to the situation. You're choosing to disregard them to make your point clearer, but you can't ignore that his deleted posts and non posting occurred.

As for my example, it's similar is so as you said you were taking a %, but you never confirmed how you were paying and if you shipped, and no money arrived before the event started so i'd be under the assumption that for one reason or another you didn't want to take the %. It's not the same as Jason/rebels but it's a situation that could arise in future. We can't go and force every person thats posts on a thread saying 'I'll take x%' to pay up after the event should they change their minds and not post again?

[peterswellman]

Does the fact that Jason would have no access to Pokerstars.com once he enters Italy have no bearing for anyone? I'm unsure of his travel arrangements but you cannot access .com from Italy and therefore after locking up the percentages he thought were on the list didn't bother to check again. Pretty shitty situation for both involved.

[poprock]

I will not voice an opinion because it could be construed as biased however
I will post the standard pm I had with Jason each time I bought a stake.
(Hopefully Jason will not mind)

Hey mate, what reference did you give when you sent via bank transfer?

ah jesus em

ipb I think

That's the one. It's handy to make sure it's you as alot of money.

Cheers mate, Will be updating on twitter.

You are correct, Might just use random code and pm you
in the future

[TheWitchDoctor]

Wow!

Ya worded that badly, obv when someone tells you they have sent he'd check if its there and how much....

[Strewelpeter]

There's no bias, and the points you class as 'fluff' are relevant to the situation. You're choosing to disregard them to make your point clearer, but you can't ignore that his deleted posts and non posting occurred.

But the point is that they can be interpreted in a host of different ways and none of them throw any light or change any of the basic facts.

I didn't mean that anyone was biased I'm just saying that there seems to be a trend towards people who are more involved in staking taking your side of the fence.
I think peoples experience and what has been their own normal practice is blinding them to what I see as being clear.

[PokerPiper]

Given the volume of transactions that Jason deals with I can see why he would need some kind of confirmation either in the thread or via PM/DM on twitter or whatever. Even if there is a previous history with the investor its a good discipline. Jason was clear about this requirement and repeatedly asked for confirmation to no avail.

This doesn't change the fact that the funds were shipped and Jason had the 2% in his account. The options now are 1)reserve the 2% for annonymous or 2)ship the funds back to the account they came from and then resell the %% to the next reserve. Unfortunately retaining the 2% payment leaves the door open. It may be that Jason didn't know the funds were in his account until it was too late but surely thats not Rebels problem ?

If I had shipped 2% I would have made it my business to confirm.
If I was Jason I would have returned the 2% before the event kicked off to avoid any ambiguity.
If I was either party, I'd be working an amicable resolution and Jason has put one foot forward here with his offer.

I don't know Rebel but I do know Jason and I think this is all very unfortunate and takes the gloss off his fantastic achievement. I think this is all an honest mishap and hopefully it will serve as a lesson for future staking deals on the forum.

[KevIRL]

% sale discussion

Going to seperate out the discussion from San Remo EPT thread to here as per blaaaaah's request.

[Strewelpeter]

Given the volume of transactions that Jason deals with I can see why he would need some kind of confirmation either in the thread or via PM/DM on twitter or whatever. Even if there is a previous history with the investor its a good discipline. Jason was clear about this requirement and repeatedly asked for confirmation to no avail.

But he doesn't mention it until 2:30 on the 4th which is two days after we are told he had got the money. At 7:30 he re sells it.

I know its harsh and its unfortunate but Jason is the business here and Rebel is the customer and Rebel did his business according to the T&C's as posted in the charter and in the OP and that is that. Jason made a mistake by not reconciling his pokerstars account between 14:30 and 19:30 on the 4th.

I agree with most of the rest your post except that I don't believe it diminishes Jasons achievement in San Remo in any way.

[nicnicnic]

Reserved the % then shipped the money, anything else is not required.

Personally if I reserved and paid for % then I might not even check the thread again until after the tourney, there is no need to confirm particularly if there was past business and transfers between the two.

If I was in Jason's shoes and had a 2% shipment and I didn't know who it belonged too I would keep 2% for that person on the basis that if I win whoever it is will make themselves known quick enough, either that or ship the funds back pre tournament. Once you have the money in your Acc and the tourney starts its booked, end of.

Been thinking about it a while now and feel MPT's post get's to the core of it - it's an unfortunate situation with no bad guys, but I think the 2% should be considered booked and paid.

[TheDrunkenOne]

If a player advertises that he is selling 30% and 10 ppl say they want 4% and ship the money then effectively player has 40% sold.

Player doesnt want 40% so he posts up that he will be returning 'x' ammount to whatever stakers to make up the 30% he planned to sell. Receiving / sending the money doesnt automatically gtd a stake.

In this case Jason was selling a % and managed it by saying what / who was confirmed before he started the EPT, listing the investors and their stake.

Although Rebel had sent the money he was not on 'the starting list'

The offer of a % in next event is fair to me and was bad beat for Rebel

[SatNav]

Well that solves the whole issue.

I was trying to diffuse the situation

[poprock]

l

[Max Silver]

I haven't looked too much into this but if the following is correct then Jason owes nothing.

- Jason posted a list of people who had a percentage immediately before the event

The fact that money was shipped or not shipped and sent back or not sent back is irrelevant and proves nothing that the tiniest bit of laziness by Jason.

This situation has come up before and has always been resolved in the favor of the seller.

[shanno66]

[QUOTE=TheDrunkenOne;620981]If a player advertises that he is selling 30% and 10 ppl say they want 4% and ship the money then effectively player has 40% sold.

Player doesnt want 40% so he posts up that he will be returning 'x' ammount to whatever stakers to make up the 30% he planned to sell. Receiving / sending the money doesnt automatically gtd a stake.

yes,but the money is returned before the tournament starts.the main mistake here is Jason overlooking the funds in his account.Had he not did that either of 2 things would of happened,A he would of worked out that the funds came from Rebel or B he would of sent the funds back to the account they came from and then resold the % but he didnt.That makes him liable imo

[Strewelpeter]

I haven't looked too much into this but if the following is correct then Jason owes nothing.

- Jason posted a list of people who had a percentage immediately before the event

The fact that money was shipped or not shipped and sent back or not sent back is irrelevant and proves nothing that the tiniest bit of laziness by Jason.

This situation has come up before and has always been resolved in the favor of the seller.

Really...hmmm Many times? Where? Any links would be helpful.

Because that is the only thing that would sway me towards this even being a tough call.

[Lplated]

But he doesn't mention it until 2:30 on the 4th which is two days after we are told he had got the money. At 7:30 he re sells it.

I know its harsh and its unfortunate but Jason is the business here and Rebel is the customer and Rebel did his business according to the T&C's as posted in the charter and in the OP and that is that. Jason made a mistake by not reconciling his pokerstars account between 14:30 and 19:30 on the 4th.

Think bolded bit is the nub of it.

A number of posts here and in BBV seem to concentrate on 'what if' scenarios - with respect it doesn't matter what might have happened if Blaah hadn't won - what matters is that a % was booked and paid for in good faith.

Why should the customer suffer because the business didn't reconcile his accounts correctly?

[mcnugget]

Agree with MrsFD here that a consensus opinion will never be reached, it's one of those things where people will make up their mind quickly and are not going to change.

As others have said there is no slight on either poster's character, just a really unfortunate situation.

[8611]

Poprock you must work in a GIF factory or something

The Brad Pitt one was epic

[shanno66]

I haven't looked too much into this but if the following is correct then Jason owes nothing.

- Jason posted a list of people who had a percentage immediately before the event

The fact that money was shipped or not shipped and sent back or not sent back is irrelevant and proves nothing that the tiniest bit of laziness by Jason.

This situation has come up before and has always been resolved in the favor of the seller.

LOL

[EnzoScifo]

Jason may have got the money but he clearly cancelled the 2% before the event started so its null and void.

OR

Jason may have cancelled the 2% but the money was in his account as requested and its down to him to honour it.

Everyone going for 1 of the above, just gotta wait for Jason's input later. Shit situation

[The Aul Switcharoo]

I must ask the question though, where the feck is Rebel? He says he is in Qatar but he is able to post.

With a nice chunk of money at stake here I'd be doing my best to get it back if I felt I was in the right. He's made a couple of piss poor attempts so far.

I have no idea how this is going to pan out. Both sides of the argument seem valid and it's just some spot to be in. At the moment I am 55-45 in Rebels favour but he should be on here trying to back himself up.

edit: Site will probably explode with the amount of users online waiting with popcorn in hand

[Ace]

If a player advertises that he is selling 30% and 10 ppl say they want 4% and ship the money then effectively player has 40% sold.

Player doesnt want 40% so he posts up that he will be returning 'x' ammount to whatever stakers to make up the 30% he planned to sell. Receiving / sending the money doesnt automatically gtd a stake.

In this case Jason was selling a % and managed it by saying what / who was confirmed before he started the EPT, listing the investors and their stake.

Although Rebel had sent the money he was not on 'the starting list'

The offer of a % in next event is fair to me and was bad beat for Rebel

But AFAIK jason didn't ship back the money, he recieved x amount in his account, he didn't know who this was from, but it matches exactly the amount of the % in the thred that rebel asked for.

1. if you don't know who owns the money - should he not state on the thread "hey guys have 2% from xyx.... - which one of yous is it"

2. if he stil does not know who it is - he either keeps the % for them, or else he sends it back, the fact is he did neither.

[The Aul Switcharoo]

But AFAIK jason didn't ship back the money, he recieved x amount in his account, he didn't know who this was from, but it matches exactly the amount of the % in the thred that rebel asked for.

1. if you don't know who owns the money - should he not state on the thread "hey guys have 2% from xyx.... - which one of yous is it"

2. if he stil does not know who it is - he either keeps the % for them, or else he sends it back, the fact is he did neither.

This is the detail that swings it towards Rebel for me

[Zod]

There should be no ambiguity here, Rebel considered it a bad beat that his 2% fell through. If his "personal best bad beat" is not being able to rail a tournament online I'd love to run that good.

[8611]

Yes but it should be recalled that he specifically asked Rebel where his money was

Then sold another 2% to someone else

Thus incurring a €3,400 debt to them

Which tends to swing it back to jason for me

And also its not clear (yet) that Jason in fact noticed that someone had shipped 2% in that he hadn't accounted for

[Zod]

But AFAIK jason didn't ship back the money, he recieved x amount in his account, he didn't know who this was from, but it matches exactly the amount of the % in the thred that rebel asked for.

As an aside, has Jason acknowledged anywhere that he saw the amount in his account? It's possible he missed it entirely.

[thedini]

Yes but it should be recalled that he specifically asked Rebel where his money was

Then sold another 2% to someone else

Thus incurring a €3,400 debt to them

Which tends to swing it back to jason for me

And also its not clear (yet) that Jason in fact noticed that someone had shipped 2% in that he hadn't accounted for

Is it not his business to notice????

[Gimmeabreak]

Then sold another 2% to someone else

Thus incurring a €3,400 debt to them

Which tends to swing it back to jason for me

And also its not clear (yet) that Jason in fact noticed that someone had shipped 2% in that he hadn't accounted for

why is this point being brought up? It is completely irrelevant. At best you can call it a Tax on Jasons carelessness.

[Ace]

As an aside, has Jason acknowledged anywhere that he saw the amount in his account? It's possible he missed it entirely.

on the pm - first page

From where I was sitting 2% was shipped and sitting in my Stars account yet I did not know from who, like I can't go pm'ing you with screen names that would be wrong and highly unprofessional of me

[Denny Crane]

There should be no ambiguity here, Rebel considered it a bad beat that his 2% fell through. If his "personal best bad beat" is not being able to rail a tournament online I'd love to run that good.

I think booking and shipping the money is a hell of a lot more pertinent than a post in the thread, and certainly more so than however much was sold afterwards.

As an aside, has Jason acknowledged anywhere that he saw the amount in his account? It's possible he missed it entirely.

So the transaction just doesn't count then? You seem to be bringing up a lot of fringe issues to defend that position, the case for other side is far more straightforward.

[poprock]

But AFAIK jason didn't ship back the money, he recieved x amount in his account, he didn't know who this was from, but it matches exactly the amount of the % in the thred that rebel asked for.

1. if you don't know who owns the money - should he not state on the thread "hey guys have 2% from xyx.... - which one of yous is it"

2. if he stil does not know who it is - he either keeps the % for them, or else he sends it back, the fact is he did neither.

1) In an open thread to the internet " hey guys who is username "ilikebuttholes" on pokerstars, they sent me money". What a joke that would turn into. Jason asked rebel 3 times in original thread to respond.

2) Jason has probably numerous ventures on back and forth, he was doing his best to establish who sent it before sending it back. If i send money to any business in the world they are not sending it back until they establish who it is and why it was sent.

[1foryou3forme]

Jason is one of the good guys on the poker scene so I have no doubt he would of payed the guy back his 2% after the tournament.

However, we can only go on the facts.
Rebel reserved 2% and paid for it which was never returned before the start of the tournament.
Rebel has no obligation to check over the thread again he's done what he needed to do and did nothing wrong.
The only thing I can see wrong
with this is that Jason never returned his stake before the tournament started which IMO means Rebel deserves his stake in full.
if u had taken money for more then u wanted too sell and you over stake its not anybodys fault but your own imo

[Angry-Ball]

Is SatNav going putting peroxide on everything?

[ferg]

Is SatNav going putting peroxide on everything?

She can't, sure didn't she show you the cream she used

[8611]

oh what a mess

[Ace]

What is this tripe

1) In an open thread to the internet " hey guys who is username "ilikebuttholes" on pokerstars, they sent me money". What a joke that would turn into. Jason asked rebel 3 times in original thread to respond.

2) Jason has probably numerous ventures on back and forth, he was doing his best to establish who sent it before sending it back. If i send money to any business in the world they are not sending it back until they establish who it is and why it was sent.

So you think it is right that he just kept the money not knowing what it was for despite it matching 2%.

From the original thread, only one person request 2%.

So by logic, jason has 2% unaccounted for in is stars account, would he not assume this is Rebels?

[danutpeddler]

Agree with MrsFD here that a consensus opinion will never be reached, it's one of those things where people will make up their mind quickly and are not going to change.

As others have said there is no slight on either poster's character, just a really unfortunate situation.

I for one have changed my mind about ten times already.

Healthy and needed debate with a side of popcorn, sure where else would you be but IPB!!!!

[poprock]

So you think it is right that he just kept the money not knowing what it was for despite it matching 2%.

From the original thread, only one person request 2%.

So by logic, jason has 2% unaccounted for in is stars account, would he not assume this is Rebels?

No i do not think it is right, Jason would have shipped that back to whomever
owned it and I doubt you will find anybody on this forum to suggest Jason would angleshoot anybody.

People who assume are arseholes.

[Zod]

So the transaction just doesn't count then? You seem to be bringing up a lot of fringe issues to defend that position, the case for other side is far more straightforward.

I asked for clarification. It helps in discussions.

I personally find someone posting to a thread saying it's a bad beat that the 2% didn't go through, deleting the post, then continuing on as if the 2% was live to be very relevant to the discussion at hand.

The other side is only straightforward if you disregard everything that complicates it.

[Wesley Harms]

Ok I've made my mind up eventually.

Jason posted a list of people who had action prior to kick off. Rebel was not on this list therefore has no action.

Similar to a sign saying we reserve the right to refuse admission. I'm not saying it was refused, it just wasn't accepted

Verdict. Zero payout

My 2c

[FlushNut12]

if u had taken money for more then u wanted too sell and you over stake its not anybodys fault but your own imo

if this was a problem would jason not have kept rebels 2% and not sold it to the next person on the list?

over selling was not the issue here...

[Denny Crane]

Ok I've made my mind up eventually.

Jason posted a list of people who had action prior to kick off. Rebel was not on this list therefore has no action.

So if he decided to clear list of other people that would have been fine too?

The other side is only straightforward if you disregard everything that complicates it.

It's mostly fluff though. Looking at it as a contract/agreement, offer was accepted, money was shipped, little matters after that.

[Strewelpeter]

No i do not think it is right, ]Jason would have shipped that back to whomever
owned it and I doubt you will find anybody on this forum to suggest Jason would angleshoot anybody.

People who assume are arseholes.

I'm really not trying to cast aspersions on anyone here but what you are doing here in the bolded part is making an assumption.

Its one myself and everyone else is making but that does not change what it is.
In a matter like this you just cannot get to a solution making assumptions and speculations about what peoples intentions were. You can only deal with the facts of what actually happened.

[Ace]

This is pointless, the facts are simple.

Rebel sent the money for 2%, Jason recieved this.

He has 2 options now.

1. Accept the 2% and that person has the action.
2. Ship the money back to him before the tournament starts.

He didnt do option 2, so how anyone else can say it's rebels fault i just don't know.

Just be glad we never won the euromillions on ipb - imagine the fights over stuff there would be - he sent after 5pm, and the op clearly said this and that...

People live and learn in life.

[Zod]

So if he decided to clear list of other people that would have been fine too?

It's his barbeque so he can cook the meat however he wants. If people don't like that in the future they can choose not to attend his barbeques.

It's mostly fluff though. Looking at it as a contract/agreement, offer was accepted, money was shipped, little matters after that.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Jason requested clarification from Rebel that he had shipped several times. He set a time limit for Rebel to respond. Rebel did not respond. He sold the 2% to the first name on the reserve list. He posted up the list of stakers and their amount and confirmation he had recieved their funds.

that's the important pre-tournament facts.

[Ace]

It's his barbeque so he can cook the meat however he wants. If people don't like that in the future they can choose not to attend his barbeques.




That's just like, your opinion, man.

Jason requested clarification from Rebel that he had shipped several times. He set a time limit for Rebel to respond. Rebel did not respond. He sold the 2% to the first name on the reserve list. He posted up the list of stakers and their amount and confirmation he had recieved their funds.

that's the important pre-tournament facts.

But he did not state in the OP that Rebel had to confirm on thread, he added that part in after rebel had sent the money, i have no idea what rebel does, but he doens't seem to have must internet, as per the outline offer he did nothing wrong,

[ferg]

I asked for clarification. It helps in discussions.

I personally find someone posting to a thread saying it's a bad beat that the 2% didn't go through, deleting the post, then continuing on as if the 2% was live to be very relevant to the discussion at hand.

The other side is only straightforward if you disregard everything that complicates it.

That bit is all about interpretation, only one man knows the true meaning of that statement and afaik iirc he said he didnt want to derail the thread.

Danutpeddlar has it right, it's so hard to make your mind up on this one

[TheDrunkenOne]

% RELEVENT TO PAYMENT

[Hectorjelly]

The relevant facts as we know them are;
Rebel reserved a stake and the reservation was confirmed
He paid his money.
Jason had days to deal with the payment he did not do anything about it.
Jason played while that money was in his account.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

First of all I've been away and not paying much attention to this, I also have no special expertise on the subject. That said, the mistake you are making is classing all staking deals as the same. They aren't.

From my understanding, Jason offered a chance to buy a piece of him. To do so you had to follow a set of simple instructions. If you don't agree to them, then you don't need to get involved. The rules are simple and fair. You agree to the rules when you take part. One of those rules is that you need to post in the thread after sending the money.

Rebel didn't followed the agreed upon rules, and was informed of this BEFORE the tournament started. There is no question of Jason angle shooting here to avoid a payout, he made a post stating that the money was not accepted, and that someone else had taken his place. Clearly the money now belongs to Rebel, but a few days tardiness in returning it is neither here nor there. Had Jason not posted this before the tournament this would actually be a tough problem, but as far as I see it isn't.

I think its very healthy to have this debate here and don't understand people who want to shut it down. Neither party have behaved badly and no-ones reputation is at stake.

I have sympathy with Rebel, but I don't think Jason should be shamed into shipping any funds. The good will gesture is a nice gesture.

If I've made a factual mistake please let me know.

[Ace]

One of those rules is that you need to post in the thread after sending the money.

Clearly the money now belongs to Rebel

No where in the OP does it state you must post on thread after sending the money.


How you say the money clearly belongs to Rebel when it's sitting in Jason's account is beyond me?

[tylerdurden94]

It's a pretty messed up situation and this is coming from me as a member not in anyway an official capacity.

The onus of the situation should be up to Jason to be keeping track of all the comings and goings into his account/accounts, he seems like the kinda person who would be doing so. I'm sure he had money coming in from all angles be it Pokerstars/Moneybookers/Bank Transfer so he should have meticulous records of what is coming from where.

He ended up selling to 9 people of those he would know 3 very well Nick/Max/Chiao of the others he has sold action to both 8611 & kincsem multiple times so would no doubt have them locked up for knowing who is who as for the other 4 I wouldn't be too sure but it's since been revealed from Rebel that he as done business with Jason before.

Here is the original list with who has done what,

kincsem - 3% - paid
rebel - 2% - reserved
Gozoboro - 10% - paid
poprock - 10% - reserved
Fogsy - 5% - paid
Max - 10% - reserved
Chiao - 2% - paid
Nick Abau - 6% - paid

At that time there was 3 people who hadn't ponyed up any loot with Max known to him and the difference between 2% for Rebel & 10% for poprock he should of been an easy process of elimination to conclude that the exact amount lying in his account for 2% belonged to Rebel. So for all the people saying he does X amount of transfers for this that and whatnot I'm sure at the time of selling percentages Jason would be on the ball about checking his records.

A fair assumption to think any amount of money shipped is booked, should it all be tied up before he sets off probably but it isn't always done that way Max for example gave him money at the event and in doing so it's taken as good faith.

[poprock]

There are so many 2 cents being thrown in, I think we will have enough to pay rebel 2%

[TheWitchDoctor]

So what if someone Jason didnt want to play for, for whatever reason reserves and ships him the money, is he obliged to play for that person??
And what if rebel had paid someone to ship money to Jason from their account (x) and then Jason ships rebels money back to that account, who is responsible if the x won't pay back rebel..

[Ace]

So what if someone Jason didnt want to play for, for whatever reason reserves and ships him the money, is he obliged to play for that person??
And what if rebel had paid someone to ship money to Jason from their account (x) and then Jason ships rebels money back to that account, who is responsible if the x won't pay back rebel..

What if Jason won the whole thing and decided not pay anyone their winnings?

There is no point talking about what if's, just deal with this situation on hand.

[poprock]

How you say the money clearly belongs to Rebel when it's sitting in Jason's account is beyond me?

Now hold on a second, that money was just resting in his account

[eamonhonda]

Now hold on a second, that money was just resting in his account

/