http://media.philly.com/images/Scree...8.18.08+AM.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyDeadWood
Good job, Chris!
Printable View
http://media.philly.com/images/Scree...8.18.08+AM.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyDeadWood
Good job, Chris!
UPDATE
Jason Young showed up on 2+2 today and dropped a bunch of embarrassing text messages from Chris Moneymaker.
I will share the post and the text messages, and then will comment myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Young
Here are the texts. Green/Blue is Jason, white is Chris.
http://imageshack.com/a/img513/4926/3gep.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img15/2299/pqf2.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img29/6715/0xa8.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img703/2323/tzfe.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img12/7985/u693.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img12/9360/0hmp.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img202/8282/fx3a.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img20/3525/tyqq.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img541/6131/udwd.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img844/5413/h1rg.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img51/8285/gavy.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img849/3572/dg2i.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img197/3867/aj4e.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img820/7551/a77f.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img600/1994/l93e.jpg
So these texts confirm that Chris was indeed busto when he placed those bets with Jason, and was indeed promising to pay the money he owed.
These texts took place in a 6-week period between July 25 and September 2, 2012 -- about 14-16 months ago.
However, while Chris' desperation is evident and actually kind of sad, these texts don't change the situation at all.
I already mentioned earlier in this thread that I concluded Chris was broke at the time of the bet, and couldn't pay Jason if he lost. This simply verifies that assumption, which wasn't a very difficult one to make.
These texts do nothing to prove that Jason wasn't also freerolling.
These texts also do nothing to prove that this "bookie" really existed.
So when it's all said and done, it looks like we had two broke, desperate degenerates, each freerolling the other in a sportsbet. Jason took it one step further by apparently inventing a fictitious "bookie" taking the bets, thus tricking Chris into thinking he was betting with someone who would likely pay him.
As I said earlier, the bet should have been completely null and void.
If you are being freerolled/scammed while placing a bet, you should never owe that money when you lose. Never. Doesn't matter if you're also freerolling/scamming yourself. That only comes into play if you win (in which case YOU shouldn't get paid, either!) If the person betting with you is doing so with funds they don't have, and they aren't up front with it when the bet is placed, the bet is null and void.
Otherwise, anyone could bet any amount of money, say "I can't pay" if they lose, and collect if they win. Every broke person looking for free money would be placing freerolled bets with people if everyone was expected to pay under such circumstances.
Similarly, if I come to you as an agent of a Nigerian Prince looking to get $100 million into the country, and offer you $1 million for your help, I am scamming you.
If you don't realize it and think you're actually scamming me by paying me the $15,000 "processing fees" with counterfeit money, I can't come to you later and demand the real $15,000, once you realize you were being scammed in the first place.
The whole "agreement" was a scam on both sides, and it becomes void.
Same thing here.
I think I mentioned this somewhere on this forum but if I didn't I know I said something in chat the other night during radio but Chris Moneymaker gets paid to do appearances regularly. For example over the past year and a half they built four casinos down in Ohio (Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati) and I know for certain he has appeared at three if not all four of these. Now what do I mean by this? Well I know some dealers at two of the casinos who pretty much told me that during a big tournament or promotional weekend that they paid Chris Moneymaker $5k to come play there.
It's likely they put comped Chris with hotel, meals, and other misc. expenses to play there as well along with an MTT entry which these are about $300 to $600 tournaments.
Now lets say Chris does 2 or three of these a month that is a sweet gig an extra $10k-15k per month to just appear at these casinos but I also hear he's a massive degenerate who plays $5/10 or higher PLO and isn't very good.
With that said Chris has had at least some money coming in outside of poker and that whole thread proves how much of a degen he is and 2003 is a decade ago which is a ton of time for a guy who gambles on random stuff to shoot off the $2.5 million or I should say like $1.7 million after taxes. I'm sure with all the years at Pokerstars Chris made a few times that in money and entry fees but just saying.
From 2004-2013 Chris has only earned another $1 million in MTT cashes according to his hendon mob results page:
http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&n=18826
Now it's clear Pokerstars put hm up in several MTTs and Chris may or may not have sold action in others but his results since the epic 2003 win haven't been that impressive. I mean playing 10 - 10ks a year for 10 years without any cashes and their goes a million but Chris is likely playing way more then $100k in buyins each year and has the added travel expenses to go with it.
All In Poker documentary segment with Chris (starts about 9:15 into clip):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6BkxAZ5zlo
25:40 into clip Chris Moneymaker comes back on to tell the rest of the story. Moneymaker goes on about stiffing bookies in this part of the clip.
36:00 - Chris back on again continuing his story (this movie jumps all over the place)
Now in part 2 of the clip Chris is back on 3:20 into the clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXG8An-vP4A
27:00 into the clip is when Moneymaker is back again for a longer segment about winning the 2003 WSOP Main Event.
So in quick summary Chris Moneymaker was a HUGE degenerate before becoming a house hold name among poker players and appears to still be.
Whether he should pay this money is a sticky situation but both Jason and Chris were not honest about everything so in ways both broke their own terms so I kind of side towards them working out a deal in the middle if not just forgetting about this thing like it didn't happen due to the dishonesty and freerolling that appears to have gone on.
NOW I have to ask WHY in the hell did Jason Young not post these texts sooner???
Moneymaker's justification for not paying (after 18 months!) was that he was being freerolled. We know now with absolute certainty that Moneymaker was freerolling himself - making bets that he couldn't settle if he lost. So how can his justification be valid? With hindsight there's certainly some doubt whether Jason would have paid - we can't really be sure either way - but Moneymaker most definitely went into the whole thing knowing perfectly well he was broke. Don't understand how you can side with Moneymaker here. Maybe he should offer 50% as a settlement but you think he owes nothing after reading those texts??? He's exhibiting all the classic signs and excuses of a scammer himself while I still believe Jason was just cutting corners like hell and becoming over-extended in an attempt to make it as a bookie. Once a bookie doesn't pay it ends their business so I still think Jason was semi-solvent at that point and would have found a way to pay if Moneymaker had won that week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
He wasn't semi-solvent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnFanningsLimpDickMoneymaker's justification for not paying (after 18 months!) was that he was being freerolled. We know now with absolute certainty that Moneymaker was freerolling himself - making bets that he couldn't settle if he lost. So how can his justification be valid? With hindsight there's certainly some doubt whether Jason would have paid - we can't really be sure either way - but Moneymaker most definitely went into the whole thing knowing perfectly well he was broke. Don't understand how you can side with Moneymaker here. Maybe he should offer 50% as a settlement but you think he owes nothing after reading those texts??? He's exhibiting all the classic signs and excuses of a scammer himself while I still believe Jason was just cutting corners like hell and becoming over-extended in an attempt to make it as a bookie. Once a bookie doesn't pay it ends their business so I still think Jason was semi-solvent at that point and would have found a way to pay if Moneymaker had won that week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Both were broke, and a long line of Jason's creditors have come forward in that 2+2 thread.
Jason was doing more than "cutting corners". He was freerolling, and clearly had zero ability to pay Chris, had he won.
Furthermore, Jason did an additional scummy thing by creating a fictitious character booking the bets, thus allowing himself to wriggle off the hook if he lost (blaming the unknown bookie).
Chris was also freerolling.
The whole bet should be void, since it was a double freeroll, with the added complication of a fictitious third party supposedly booking Jason's side of the action.
Had Chris won the bet, though, I would have been on Jason's side, especially after seeing these texts.
Basically, I'm on the side of whomever is being asked to pay in this double-scam. No money should change hands in this clusterfuck.
I just made this, with my mad MSPaint skillz:
http://toddwitteles.com/pics/betting-flowchart.png
what does he mean by hidden account?? stars pro having a second account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Basically it can now be reduced to two six year-olds on a school playground playing "rock, paper, scissors" with not even any school lunch money changing hands? A giant internet circlejerk with an adult emotional charge thrown in for background decoration from a large audience?
I think he means access to money his wife doesn't know about so he is free to degen it away.Quote:
Originally Posted by yaahello
Utterly shocked at the level of naiveté in some of the responses here and on 2+2 to this situation.
It's all pretty simple: What you think the person's financial situation is doesn't matter, you made the bet so you have to pay. If later on you "THINK" you were getting freerolled it's your own fault for making illegal bets with someone you don't explicitly trust in the first place. Obviously there would be certain exceptions, but there is nowhere near the level of proof needed in this case to void the bets.
It's a good thing for moneymaker that Jason isn't a NY bookie, and its a good thing for Jason that Sheets isn't either
MoneyMaker is an idiot letting this get out in the public over peanuts. His name is still marketable. Having this story get out is a huge risk to future sponsorship deals.
I agree with this. What are all these complicated rules about when it's ok to renege on a bet? When two parties bet, each one is promising "If [some event] happens, I will pay." If you make a bet and lose, you pay. Period. If you made a bet with someone who was not solvent (duh), couldn't pay (duh) or wouldn't pay (lol), then YOU FUCKED UP by making a bet with such a person! You shouldn't have made a bet in the first place! You can't go back after you lose and calculate the chances that your opponent wouldn't have paid you if you'd won. That's insanity!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
(this doesn't factor in the "fake bookie" / "owing a fake person" argument, which I'm not addressing here)
It's weird situation because if their is another bookie then their is a golden rule you don't snitch and post their name in a public forum but if Jason Young is the bookie then obviously he's not going to say he is either since we are talking about illegal activity.
Druff kept requesting for a name which in something like poker scandals we see time and time again that is a legitimate question but when it comes to something like sports betting where the government takes a big interest to nobody is going to to just out the person immediately like that. Now is it fair to let a thieve continue on? No, but whenever you get into activities like sports betting you must understand the risks of rollings and shadiness that can happen.
It's just an excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker
If this guy really scammed him and everyone else, and if Jason is really that scared of the guy to where he can't reveal the name even though the dude ripped him off, then that's Jason's fault for turning these other guys onto betting with him.
Jason could also out this bookie's identity privately to a trusted third party, but also won't do that.
He also has conflicting stories as to when the bookie disappeared on him, as well as goes back and forth between his claims that people (besides Chris) owed HIM and owed the bookie -- like he can't even keep his own lie straight.
Look at this quote by him from today, and it will become very clear why he invented this 'bookie':
The "bookie" was an extra layer inserted so he could excuse himself of any debts -- kind of a premeditated way to weasel out of any bets he couldn't cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Young
Without the bookie, Jason is just a freerolling scammer/a-hole who took way more action than he could cover.
With the bookie, Jason is a fine, stand-up gentleman, who is going above and beyond by covering the debts of a third-party he vouched for.
See the difference?
Same exact bets, but totally different image he can present with the addition of the "bookie" people were betting with.
This was no accident. It's exactly why the bookie was created -- so he could have an evil (yet unnamed) third party to blame when he couldn't cover the action he was booking. And then he can make himself look like a saint by paying ANYTHING that the "bookie" skipped out on, as opposed to looking like a shady POS for no-paying/slow-paying his own debts.
To me, this is MUCH more shady than your standard degen freeroll (which is also bad), because this added a level of premeditation to the whole thing.
The fact that he will answer ZERO questions about the bookie is a very bad sign, and highly indicative that the whole thing was a ruse to shield himself from responsibility.
It is okay to renege on paying into any scam that you discover while it's in progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by SandwichI agree with this. What are all these complicated rules about when it's ok to renege on a bet? When two parties bet, each one is promising "If [some event] happens, I will pay." If you make a bet and lose, you pay. Period. If you made a bet with someone who was not solvent (duh), couldn't pay (duh) or wouldn't pay (lol), then YOU FUCKED UP by making a bet with such a person! You shouldn't have made a bet in the first place! You can't go back after you lose and calculate the chances that your opponent wouldn't have paid you if you'd won. That's insanity!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
(this doesn't factor in the "fake bookie" / "owing a fake person" argument, which I'm not addressing here)
And by "in progress", I mean before you have finished paying the person.
I'm not saying that you can suddenly demand proof of someone's financial solvency when you lose a bet to them.
I'm saying that, if information comes out that strongly suggests they were scamming/freerolling you, then you would be a fool to still pay them. You would essentially be knowingly paying into a scam.
This isn't a matter of trying to assess someone's chances of being paid and not paying them based upon flimsy evidence.
There is STRONG evidence here that:
1) Jason invented a fake bookie in order to have a third party to blame when he couldn't pay off winning bets.
2) Jason was freerolling several people in sportsbets, Chris included, in 2012.
Once the strong evidence has been uncovered, if the bet isn't paid yet, the burden is on Jason to prove it's not a scam.
This situation is VERY different than the average sportsbet between two people, where the loser suddenly demands proof of solvency to stall/avoid paying.
Anyone who disagrees with me, answer this:
Peter Falcone was scamming everyone with freeroll bets. This was uncovered to the masses in December, 2010.
If you had lost bets to Peter, hadn't paid him yet, and then saw the strong evidence that he was a career scammer, would you have still paid him?
If so, you would be a HUGE sucker.
And if not, then how is this situation any different?
All I'm saying is he can't really answer in a public forum the bookie's name if their actually is one. It's true he could share with a trusted third party but that can be difficult to do as even the most trusted can turn at some point either posting the name anyway or even blackmailing him to keep quiet.
The whole situation is one big cluster fuck.
You have Chris Moneymaker who has publically admitted to stiffing bookies in the past who appears to be desperate dodging Jason from those texts to a guy who has lied/changed his story several times. I just can't read that thread you have too many idiots who are fantards and haters for both individuals posting a bunch of nonsense.
I just think their may be much more to come from this that hasn't been presented yet and if it comes to a point of where Jason's reputation is beyond repair then will he pull the famous disappearing act?
He hasn't even stated that he's afraid to post the bookie's name because of repercussions/fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker
Others in his corner are using that as a possible excuse, but even Jason himself won't say that.
And again, even if it's true, it's still not an excuse. If he was dealing with such a fearsome "boss" that he couldn't even name the guy in the event of a scam, then he has to eat the consequences of his own bad judgment. Otherwise it's just a stock excuse that can allow him to blame an imaginary person for his own failings/scams.
This is true, but then again, Chris used every bit as bad a judgment in placing action with Jason. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I have to side with some of the others here in that it doesn't matter if JY is scum or not, Moneymaker should've still paid up if he valued his own reputation. This reminds me of the time Mike Sexton and Amarillo Slim freerolled each other, but that one worked out about even and no one got hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffHe hasn't even stated that he's afraid to post the bookie's name because of repercussions/fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker
Others in his corner are using that as a possible excuse, but even Jason himself won't say that.
And again, even if it's true, it's still not an excuse. If he was dealing with such a fearsome "boss" that he couldn't even name the guy in the event of a scam, then he has to eat the consequences of his own bad judgment. Otherwise it's just a stock excuse that can allow him to blame an imaginary person for his own failings/scams.
I'm trying to look at it from both sides. What we know is Jason "allegedly" knew a guy that ran a book and he was being the middle man placing/relaying bets for Chris.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffHe hasn't even stated that he's afraid to post the bookie's name because of repercussions/fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker
Others in his corner are using that as a possible excuse, but even Jason himself won't say that.
And again, even if it's true, it's still not an excuse. If he was dealing with such a fearsome "boss" that he couldn't even name the guy in the event of a scam, then he has to eat the consequences of his own bad judgment. Otherwise it's just a stock excuse that can allow him to blame an imaginary person for his own failings/scams.
Now if the bookies name was irrelevant to Chris Moneymaker at the time he got involved with this in the first place then Chris was being too trustworthy and naive about it all. Chris was willing to place bets through Jason to this bookie without the bookies name so he's putting his faith in a guy on the internet kind of like other people have in the past including here on PFA (tough but fair regarding Jasep).
I'm not saying any of this stuff is right or justifies a reasoning to do something a certain way but Moneymaker has shown tendencies to be very naive in this situation not caring enough to demand that name himself even if it's just a nickname when starting out so he's guilty to a fault especially when Chris has been betting for years.
Chris states he's been stiffed multiple times (he rolled some himself too) so whenever that happens to you in life shouldn't you be more protective of yourself not to get rolled again by getting as much information as possible? Well, he didn't because Chris was more desperate to place some bets then care about that at the time.
Fictitious???
Fuck that. moneymaker is a bitch, pure and simple.
if he just paid like he was supposed to he would have never heard any of this shit.
just stall for 2 years, then to come out all righteous, "I'm not paying now" because of some BS loop hole?
I've dealt w/over 200 people (or more) on shit like over the years.
I've heard that word used 0.0 times.
Thank god the computer nerds are confined to 2+2 and don't get out into the real world.
Those bets weren't "fictitious"
Druff if you think that will work, open up as many illegal/credit accounts as you can,
when you lose, just start pulling this shit
make sure the guy was solvent for not only your bet, but every bet he booked at the time, or you aren't paying.
I love the part from the podcast "yeah he could have paid, if all the stars were aligned and everything fell into place" you mean like if MM just paid his debt? That is how all books operate. They don't have the gaming board on them making sure all funds are on hand. Books get ST loans all the time.
Don't care, MM is wrong and druff has a new hobbie, helping people welch on bets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Moneymaker
Druff
I think you made the correct decision, Moneymaker doesn't have to pay, but you reasoning was wrong ("fictious person")....
The basic rule in law is that fraudlent contracts are unenforceable by the courts or legal system. So while there was a contract (sportsbet) it was a fraudlent one...Moneymaker was induced into the contract by Jason's fraud of saying he was an agent with full authority to take bets for a bookie able to payoff bets taken from Moneymaker. Indeed, there is an implied warrenty in any contract of a bookmaker that the bookmaker can cover all bets he loses.
I understand the legal definetion of a fraud is a knowingly made misrepresentation of a material fact done with intention to deceive, the deception was relied upon and loss was caused. That seems to fit here: the actions of Jason (misrepresentation, intent to mislead, knowlingly made) plus a loss to Moneymaker (that is him being in a contract he can not profit from). But it would be up to a trial court to find decide what is the truth here and a judge to apply the law to the facts.
Also, i believe Nevada is the only state that holds gambling debt are enforceable, no other state allows one to use the courts to enforce these types of contracts.
To wrap it up neatly, Moneymaker should say to Jason what our all hebrew friends say: "Aw, so sue me"
This debate was never about legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger
It was about ethics.
Basically, the question is, "Can Moneymaker walk away from the bet at this point with reasonable justification, or is he just a scumbag welcher?"
I feel he can walk away and should not pay, even if his own actions were not particularly honorable at the beginning.
I feel you should NEVER pay into a scam, no matter what.
A guy booking a bet with you without the proper funds to cover it is scamming you -- even if he feels that he's not and he will somehow find a way to pay it when he wins.
A guy booking a bet as an agent for a fictitious third party is even worse, because he is already setting himself up with a way to avoid paying losses, and that shows a disturbing amount of premeditation.
I saw that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno
Funny post and name, but I'm not laundering anything. Laundering would be an offer to take the money from Jason for some "legal" purpose, and send it to Assani as a gift, thus making Assani's receipt of the money legal.
I am simply forwarding the money from one to the other, involving a debt that both acknowledge exists. I'm not exactly worried about the FBI banging down my door.
I believe the law in most cases provides good guidance to what is ethical...and this case is no exception to that general rule...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis debate was never about legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger
It was about ethics.
Basically, the question is, "Can Moneymaker walk away from the bet at this point with reasonable justification, or is he just a scumbag welcher?"
I feel he can walk away and should not pay, even if his own actions were not particularly honorable at the beginning.
I feel you should NEVER pay into a scam, no matter what.
A guy booking a bet with you without the proper funds to cover it is scamming you -- even if he feels that he's not and he will somehow find a way to pay it when he wins.
A guy booking a bet as an agent for a fictitious third party is even worse, because he is already setting himself up with a way to avoid paying losses, and that shows a disturbing amount of premeditation.
What would be unethical in my humble opinion was for Moneymaker not to go public with the experience, and thus others who might have avoided Jason if they knew about Moneymakers ordeal might have fallen sucker to Jason.
I agree with this post from 4: Druff/Killowatt is injecting himself into the situation. Fine if the parties agree to him as arbitrator but he enters as almighty without any invite. Jason also made it clear he wants nothing to do with Druff holding any money.
Originally Posted by KidFernandes
Sorry guys, but I'm with Jason on this part of it. I have absolutely nothing to do with this other than reading a few hundred posts and being fascinated that this is all being aired publicly. But Kilowatt came into this thread and took it over with very pointed and personal accusations which he appears to have very little factual information to back up. Attacking someone the way Kilowatt did based on "hunches" and a "vibe" he got is bull****. He came off like a bully. If I was Jason I woud have nothing to do with the guy either. Screw sending him money as a 3rd party. Kilowatt had nothing to do with this and made himself a part of the story by posting a crapload of accusations over and over. He should back the f off and let these guys work out their situation on their own. My .02.
Seems like all bets are back on "again"
MM latest post on 2p2.
Quote:
Spent the last three days talking to all parties involved including the one who never posted. I was sent information and I am satisfied I was not freerolled. I apologize to jason and am paying the money out as directed by him. This thread had many turns and drama. I really felt like I was protecting myself for once and I was proven to be incorrect.
:facepalm5Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Fraud
Actually gave up on involvement with the whole situation a few days ago. Total mess, and Moneymaker is acting more wishy-washy than the girls I dated in high school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
As I said above, I backed out of involvement with the whole thing because it's a mess, and it's not like I have any personal involvement with either side.
However, to call me a "bully" is a bunch of crap. I didn't just show up on 2+2 and call out Moneymaker/Young for their private dealings. Both voluntarily brought the situation to a public area of 2+2 (though Moneymaker supposedly did so because he knew Jason was about to, and wanted to get out the first shot). At that point, you can't hide behind "It's none of your business" or "This is our fight, stay out of it."
I never overstepped my bounds. I gave my opinion, and that was it. If they did not want opinions, accusations, and theories posted in that thread, it should not have been brought to a public forum.
I offered to escrow because I got sick of seeing that Assani guy claim that Young couldn't pay him because of lack of certain bank accounts on Assani's side. If Jason chooses not to use me to escrow, that's fine, and actually understandable. I never demanded anyone escrow through me, nor did I criticize anyone for failing to do so.
With all of that said, I felt the entire thread became a trainwreck (as often happens on 2+2), so I gave up and figured I'd let everyone solve the matter without my further input.
Moneymaker admits in "All In" to stiffing bookies in the past:
Fast forward to about 25:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6BkxAZ5zlo
I posted that video several days ago Druff on the previous page of this thread. If Moneymaker was to stiff bookies prior to winning the main event whose to say he wouldn't today despite becoming a household name to poker enthusiasts? Without incoming cash and being freeolled into lots of tournaments from Pokerstars the well has ran dry for Chris.
So I see he paid, or at least is leaning towards paying again? (I'd wait to count the chickens if I was JY)
I just made a post on that 2+2 thread that is sure to light a fire, basically ripping everyone trying to help Chris welch,
62-13 the vote is to stiff the guy, unreal that so many people in the gambling world would be on the side of the guy NOT paying mhis debts,
and now he has an admitted pattern of it?????? LOL what BS.
Everything druff said, I can see asking for, PRIOR to making any bets.
After, it is just plain welching on a debt.
I wonder what Chino would have to say on this topic.
I wonder if we really have heard the last of this saga? My guess is no.
I'm too lazy to create a new topic but here is a bookie refusing to payout because he claims their is an error in the betting slip:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...ut-11k-2785642
cliffs:
degens gonna degen
nuthuggers gonna nuthug
and uninvolved parties gonna uninvolved party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal