Chris Moneymaker a scammer? Say it isn't so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerAndPoker

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.

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.

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

Public offers to money launder sports betting proceeds seems like a fantastic idea.

---

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Moneymaker

Public offers to money launder sports betting proceeds seems like a fantastic idea.

---

---

I saw that.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

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.

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 believe the law in most cases provides good guidance to what is ethical...and this case is no exception to that general rule...

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of the Fraud

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.

---

---

:facepalm5

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

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

cliffs:
degens gonna degen
nuthuggers gonna nuthug

---

and uninvolved parties gonna uninvolved party.