Vladimir Geshkenbein finishes 62nd in ME and scams his backers

[Hockey Guy]

You're lecturing somebody on ethics & then you post something as stupid as this?

As a backer this would be way worse than quitting a stake a couple weeks early to protect a profit for everybody.

I can only assume you meant to say "I might go onto a different network than the one I'm playing the stake on & play some with my own funds as long as I had already disclosed to the backers that any play on this network was not part of the stake". Even with this disclosure it would, IMO, be a slightly unethical(only slightly because you disclosed it, but the backer's may not totally understand the implications of this) thing to do since it could be perceived that you really are just using the backer's money to play 100% for yourself. How the fuck would anybody know where the money came from that enabled you to play on this other network 100% for yourself?

If you meant you're gonna play on the same network, whether on the same account or a different account on a different skin, you've lost all moral high ground because that would be blatantly unethical whether you've disclosed it or not. Either way, I think you've lost the moral high ground.

Just my 2 cents.

wtf are you talking about? I have always had set in stone limits that I could play whole backed. Whatever I do with my own money is fine which is why you play different stakes so its not confused with the deal. You're completely looking like an idiot for even posting what you said.

Your totally missing the point. How does anybody know or prove that the backed player would be playing with their own money in that scenario & not the backer's money? Who's to say the backed player has any of his own money online?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here & maybe there could be some safeguards in place to prevent this but it certainly wasn't explained. I really don't understand how this would work other than the backer trusts the player to do right.

[Hockey Guy]

If this is your way of standing up for your buddy you failed miserably because everyone on the planet knows its completely accceptable.

FTR I disagree with almost everything china has said about this fuckhead ending the stake & agree with almost everything Shady J, Steve-0 & Druff said on the matter.

I know china is probably shocked & devastated that his "buddy", Hockey Guy, would stab him in the back this way. Hopefully he'll be able to get over it & our long & storied history & friendship will overcome.

[ShadyJ]

wtf are you talking about? I have always had set in stone limits that I could play whole backed. Whatever I do with my own money is fine which is why you play different stakes so its not confused with the deal. You're completely looking like an idiot for even posting what you said.

Your totally missing the point. How does anybody know or prove that the backed player would be playing with their own money in that scenario & not the backer's money? Who's to say the backed player has any of his own money online?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here & maybe there could be some safeguards in place to prevent this but it certainly wasn't explained. I really don't understand how this would work other than the backer trusts the player to do right.

Your not playing devils advocate you questioned my integrity, and there wasnt anything explained because its not the subject of the thread. You're backtracking now because your way over your head. Stick to hockey or something your not clueless on.

[chinamaniac]

If this is your way of standing up for your buddy you failed miserably because everyone on the planet knows its completely accceptable.

FTR I disagree with almost everything china has said about this fuckhead ending the stake & agree with almost everything Shady J, Steve-0 & Druff said on the matter.

I know china is probably shocked & devastated that his "buddy", Hockey Guy, would stab him in the back this way. Hopefully he'll be able to get over it & our long & storied history & friendship will overcome.

[JimmyG_415]

Your totally missing the point. How does anybody know or prove that the backed player would be playing with their own money in that scenario & not the backer's money? Who's to say the backed player has any of his own money online?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here & maybe there could be some safeguards in place to prevent this but it certainly wasn't explained. I really don't understand how this would work other than the backer trusts the player to do right.

Your not playing devils advocate you questioned my integrity, and there wasnt anything explained because its not the subject of the thread. You're backtracking now because your way over your head. Stick to hockey or something your not clueless on.

The problem here is you guys are stand up guys, and you are going through these scenarios on what he should do, IF he was a stand up guy, and he isn't.
IMO you are just wasting your time, this thread will never end.
China is right, (the gist of his argument anyway, we aren't in a perfect world or Chino Reems would have 2 broken legs at all times.) the stake has to end somehow, it can't go on forever because some stakers aren't happy.

Shady, PLEASE fix that fucking signature, (and tell me you have spell check on your work email, telling someone they are stupid by calling them re"tart"ed is soooooooooo bad.)

[QUOTE=The PHA;14111]I saw Steven A Smith at a restuarant a couple years ago. What people don't know, is the guy is 6'-9" tall. I could not believe it when I saw him. Guy is a large dude. QUOTE]

right before the last QUOTE] put these "[/" then it would look like this

I saw Steven A Smith at a restuarant a couple years ago. What people don't know, is the guy is 6'-9" tall. I could not believe it when I saw him. Guy is a large dude.

[chinamaniac]

I will say if Sheets is really Sheets and he says Im wrong Im willing to take his word on it as far as the subject of this thread.

Sheets was on radio tonight

[JimmyG_415]

Sheets said best when he said the backers wanted both the refund AND to get paid on the tourney, in other words the backers wanted to free roll the ME. It was a shitty position they were in, and I know I'd be pissed if I was a backer, that said I'm officially done w/this topic.

[Steve-O]

I will say if Sheets is really Sheets and he says Im wrong Im willing to take his word on it as far as the subject of this thread.

Sheets was on radio tonight

Problem is he didn't say ShadyJ or Druff were wrong. He agrees with you on a practical level (which I do too) not that it is the right thing to do. Your argument is that ending the stake is the best way to get paid, but this doesn't make it the required way for his backers to end the stake. you're calling the practical or prudent decision the required decision, which isn't the case.

Also, all along I said any backer refusing to end the stake is not entitled to a ME refund of he plays the event. Yes, they are unlikely to get paid, but it's still their prerogative to continue the deal if he plays the tournament.

[ShadyJ]

[QUOTE=JimmyG_415;185669]

Your not playing devils advocate you questioned my integrity, and there wasnt anything explained because its not the subject of the thread. You're backtracking now because your way over your head. Stick to hockey or something your not clueless on.

The problem here is you guys are stand up guys, and you are going through these scenarios on what he should do, IF he was a stand up guy, and he isn't.
IMO you are just wasting your time, this thread will never end.
China is right, (the gist of his argument anyway, we aren't in a perfect world or Chino Reems would have 2 broken legs at all times.) the stake has to end somehow, it can't go on forever because some stakers aren't happy.

Shady, PLEASE fix that fucking signature, (and tell me you have spell check on your work email, telling someone they are stupid by calling them re"tart"ed is soooooooooo bad.)

I saw Steven A Smith at a restuarant a couple years ago. What people don't know, is the guy is 6'-9" tall. I could not believe it when I saw him. Guy is a large dude. QUOTE]

right before the last QUOTE] put these "[/" then it would look like this

I saw Steven A Smith at a restuarant a couple years ago. What people don't know, is the guy is 6'-9" tall. I could not believe it when I saw him. Guy is a large dude.

Cant do it. My signature is the nutz.... oh wait is it nuts or nutz?

[Moral Fiber]

So, now that Mr. Hahber has given us his expert opinion on last night's show, are we all agreed? The stake was done and Beyne doesn't owe his original backers profit from the ME cash, right?

[chinamaniac]

So, now that Mr. Hahber has given us his expert opinion on last night's show, are we all agreed? The stake was done and Beyne doesn't owe his original backers profit from the ME cash, right?

That's what I thought he implied

[JimmyG_415]

So, now that Mr. Hahber has given us his expert opinion on last night's show, are we all agreed? The stake was done and Beyne doesn't owe his original backers profit from the ME cash, right?

That's what I thought he implied

He expressed it. There was no doubt that he is on China side. I like his point, you get refunded the ME, end of stake. You don't get both the refund and a piece of the prize pool. But obv this wasn't settled like that.

It is a shit situation for the backers to be in, but seriously what say do they even have?
I see why dandruff says he would not let him play for this other backer, but how exactly could the backers stop him?
The fact that Chino is in every tourney, tells you that they couldn't stop him from playing by telling the TD, 'he owes us so he should not be able to play for this new guy'. Unless they wanted to get physical, which the poker world obv doesn't, they are out of options.

And like Sheets said, they should hope he hits just so he can pay back the amount he F'ed them.

They can make sure everyone knows what a scum bag he is so it is hard to get a stake, but after listening to this podcast, I doubt that would do much good, he will find someone to stake him.

[Steve-O]

So, now that Mr. Hahber has given us his expert opinion on last night's show, are we all agreed? The stake was done and Beyne doesn't owe his original backers profit from the ME cash, right?

That's what I thought he implied

I thought it was pretty clear: They SHOULD do what you (and Sheets, and Reggiman and even myself) suggested, BUT they are not obligated to accept these terms. Again, you're thinking only practically about the situation and not legally.

Suppose someone owes you $10,000 and just assume he has no way of paying in the future. He offers you $1,000 but you have to agree to forgive the rest of the debt, your only other option is to take him to court (which will cost you more money and no matter what he can never pay you). The practical solution is to accept the $1,000, but it doesn't mean you have to from a legal standpoint. You can take him to court if you want to.

What you are arguing in this thread is that the practical solution is how it would play out legally, which simply isn't the case.

Beyne and his backers had a binding agreement, he can't cancel it on his own if he is still planning on playing the ME (he can cancel it if he doesn't play). Just because he's now playing on someone else's money doesn't void the previous agreement. You can't lease a car and then go back to the dealership and say "someone else is going to lease me a car so here you go, I'm cancelling the lease."

If you change the deal between Beyne and his backers to a $1,000,000 tournament, an amount worth suing over for sure, how would the court case play out? And right there you have your answer. You're simply looking at it practically, and letting the amount be the deciding factor. The amount doesn't matter: Stealing is stealing, and a contract is a contract. The only difference is that when it's for smaller amounts it will cost you more to sue, this doesn't mean you can't sue though.

[JimmyG_415]

That's what I thought he implied

I thought it was pretty clear: They SHOULD do what you (and Sheets, and Reggiman and even myself) suggested, BUT they are not obligated to accept these terms. Again, you're thinking only practically about the situation and not legally.

Suppose someone owes you $10,000 and just assume he has no way of paying in the future. He offers you $1,000 but you have to agree to forgive the rest of the debt, your only other option is to take him to court (which will cost you more money and no matter what he can never pay you). The practical solution is to accept the $1,000, but it doesn't mean you have to from a legal standpoint. You can take him to court if you want to.

What you are arguing in this thread is that the practical solution is how it would play out legally, which simply isn't the case.

Beyne and his backers had a binding agreement, he can't cancel it on his own if he is still planning on playing the ME (he can cancel it if he doesn't play). Just because he's now playing on someone else's money doesn't void the previous agreement. You can't lease a car and then go back to the dealership and say "someone else is going to lease me a car so here you go, I'm cancelling the lease."

If you change the deal between Beyne and his backers to a $1,000,000 tournament, an amount worth suing over for sure, how would the court case play out? And right there you have your answer. You're simply looking at it practically, and letting the amount be the deciding factor. The amount doesn't matter: Stealing is stealing, and a contract is a contract. The only difference is that when it's for smaller amounts it will cost you more to sue, this doesn't mean you can't sue though.

He has a binding agreement according to who? I get it is morally is binding, and I get that is what I would do,
but there is no court of law or anything that will listen to this. (or is there? Sheets said he was an expert witness )

If the guy tells you,( for no reason) he doesn't want to play for you, and says I'm not playing for you, here is your 10k back, (or here is an IOU) what recourse do you have? How can you stop him from playing for someone else?

[Steve-O]

I thought it was pretty clear: They SHOULD do what you (and Sheets, and Reggiman and even myself) suggested, BUT they are not obligated to accept these terms. Again, you're thinking only practically about the situation and not legally.

Suppose someone owes you $10,000 and just assume he has no way of paying in the future. He offers you $1,000 but you have to agree to forgive the rest of the debt, your only other option is to take him to court (which will cost you more money and no matter what he can never pay you). The practical solution is to accept the $1,000, but it doesn't mean you have to from a legal standpoint. You can take him to court if you want to.

What you are arguing in this thread is that the practical solution is how it would play out legally, which simply isn't the case.

Beyne and his backers had a binding agreement, he can't cancel it on his own if he is still planning on playing the ME (he can cancel it if he doesn't play). Just because he's now playing on someone else's money doesn't void the previous agreement. You can't lease a car and then go back to the dealership and say "someone else is going to lease me a car so here you go, I'm cancelling the lease."

If you change the deal between Beyne and his backers to a $1,000,000 tournament, an amount worth suing over for sure, how would the court case play out? And right there you have your answer. You're simply looking at it practically, and letting the amount be the deciding factor. The amount doesn't matter: Stealing is stealing, and a contract is a contract. The only difference is that when it's for smaller amounts it will cost you more to sue, this doesn't mean you can't sue though.

He has a binding agreement according to who? I get it is morally is binding, and I get that is what I would do,
but there is no court of law or anything that will listen to this. (or is there? Sheets said he was an expert witness )

If the guy tells you,( for no reason) he doesn't want to play for you, and says I'm not playing for you, here is your 10k back, (or here is an IOU) what recourse do you have? How can you stop him from playing for someone else?

Of course there is. Agreeing to something and having it in writing on the Internet is most certainly a contract, especially with his later admissions of what happened. 10x the money to make it worth the time and trouble and he loses 100% of the time in court.

contract 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law

[JimmyG_415]

Well that is a whole other discussion. I don't see this holding up in court, and even if so, I think him canceling is enough.
NOW I'M DONE (3rd time is the charm), I'm not looking at this thread again,

This conversation had been exhausting, LOL
Could you imagine being one of the backers?????
I probably couldn't sleep.

He has a binding agreement according to who? I get it is morally is binding, and I get that is what I would do,
but there is no court of law or anything that will listen to this. (or is there? Sheets said he was an expert witness )

If the guy tells you,( for no reason) he doesn't want to play for you, and says I'm not playing for you, here is your 10k back, (or here is an IOU) what recourse do you have? How can you stop him from playing for someone else?

Of course there is. Agreeing to something and having it in writing on the Internet is most certainly a contract, especially with his later admissions of what happened. 10x the money to make it worth the time and trouble and he loses 100% of the time in court.

contract 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law

because I don't think if he told them before the event he is out, any court would make him pay. And if they did, so what at least he tried to get out.

[Steve-O]

Well that is a whole other discussion. I don't see this holding up in court, and even if so, I think him canceling is enough.
NOW I'M DONE (3rd time is the charm), I'm not looking at this thread again,

This conversation had been exhausting, LOL
Could you imagine being one of the backers?????
I probably couldn't sleep.

Of course there is. Agreeing to something and having it in writing on the Internet is most certainly a contract, especially with his later admissions of what happened. 10x the money to make it worth the time and trouble and he loses 100% of the time in court.

contract 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law

because I don't think if he told them before the event he is out, any court would make him pay. And if they did, so what at least he tried to get out.

one party can't cancel a contract. It has to be mutual. "JimmyG415 I know you are five years into paying your mortgage but we found someone else who will pay more. Get out." "Sorry Toyota, I changed my mind about this car, you can have it back."

Unless he specifically said I have the option to end the stake at any time for any reason, no dice. If he doesn't play the ME he owes them a refund; if he plays the ME the backers can either A) hold him to his original agreement and forego a refund or B) accept the refund. They can't have it both ways, and he can't make the decision for them. There is a huge difference in saying: "I'm ending the stake because I'm broke." and "I'm ending the stake because I'm broke but I'm still playing in the ME." Hell, even "I'm cancelling the stake because I'm broke," and then three days later "good news, found a new backer," is acceptable to me. the way he did it was like spitting in their face, "I blew through all your money so I can't play the Main Event for you, instead I'm playing for this guy."

[ShadyJ]

Sheets said best when he said the backers wanted both the refund AND to get paid on the tourney, in other words the backers wanted to free roll the ME. It was a shitty position they were in, and I know I'd be pissed if I was a backer, that said I'm officially done w/this topic.

I havent listened yet, but how could they be freerolling him? They invested money in him to make money not get their money back. I know theres no perfect solution, but theres only 1 person at fault and hes somehow going to profit while no one else does.

[Beyn]

Sheets said best when he said the backers wanted both the refund AND to get paid on the tourney, in other words the backers wanted to free roll the ME. It was a shitty position they were in, and I know I'd be pissed if I was a backer, that said I'm officially done w/this topic.

I havent listened yet, but how could they be freerolling him? They invested money in him to make money not get their money back. I know theres no perfect solution, but theres only 1 person at fault and hes somehow going to profit while no one else does.

I have been reading this thread for a while but after you statement i feel compelled to post.

You must be completely out of your mind for thinking i am actually profiting from this situation. Apart from having irreversably destroyed my reputation I have also lost more money than any single staker in the process.

I have so far paid out about 120k from the 124k that i cashed in the main event. Most of the backers have been fully paid out, a few are still left to receive their full funds asap.

I absolutely agree that I made many mistakes at the beginning, I was putting too much trust in other people (who promised to send me funds that they owed me - which i was planning to use for the WSOP buyins - but never happened) and I was playing cash games which i should not have. At the end I had a decision to make.. i guess in hindsight it was the wrong decision and i should've just cancelled the whole thing and not played it at all. But then again the backers would've had to wait a considerable while longer until i could be able to pay them..

I was never intending to defraud or scam anyone, everybody who knows me well can confirm this. I have issues with BRM but that does not make me a cheat. I am deeply saddened by the way i am beeing labeled here.. I guess i deserve some of it but I never was and am not a scammer..

Regards,

Vlad

[chinamaniac]

I havent listened yet, but how could they be freerolling him? They invested money in him to make money not get their money back. I know theres no perfect solution, but theres only 1 person at fault and hes somehow going to profit while no one else does.

I have been reading this thread for a while but after you statement i feel compelled to post.

You must be completely out of your mind for thinking i am actually profiting from this situation. Apart from having irreversably destroyed my reputation I have also lost more money than any single staker in the process.

I have so far paid out about 120k from the 124k that i cashed in the main event. Most of the backers have been fully paid out, a few are still left to receive their full funds asap.

I absolutely agree that I made many mistakes at the beginning, I was putting too much trust in other people (who promised to send me funds that they owed me - which i was planning to use for the WSOP buyins - but never happened) and I was playing cash games which i should not have. At the end I had a decision to make.. i guess in hindsight it was the wrong decision and i should've just cancelled the whole thing and not played it at all. But then again the backers would've had to wait a considerable while longer until i could be able to pay them..

I was never intending to defraud or scam anyone, everybody who knows me well can confirm this. I have issues with BRM but that does not make me a cheat. I am deeply saddened by the way i am beeing labeled here.. I guess i deserve some of it but I never was and am not a scammer..

Regards,

Vlad