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

[JimmyG_415]

Chris said he was contacted by someone in april when he lost himslef that he was owed 18K by JY. If that is true it looks like a freeroll.

I don't see how what this guy owes has anything to do w/that debt. He might have incurred it thinking he was good for it, because moneymaker was going to pay him.

Every casino has a loan,
Every bookie I know has a mortgage.
You can't back out of a debt because the guy you lost to owes money, that is a BS excuse.

On the street, w/no loopholes, moneymaker is in the wrong and should pay.

[JimmyG_415]

If Moneymaker is wrong, then Jason should be able to easily prove it by giving details about the bookie and supporting evidence that he paid. The fact that this hasn't been provided yet is a big red flag.

You can't think of reasons why a guy in NY/NJ wouldn't want to name his real-world bookie on the Internet, who is apparently booking what seems to be high-five to six-figures week if not more?

Even if Jason is the bookie, there isn't enough evidence he was freerolling Moneymaker at any point to justify Moneymaker freerolling him. generally when people owe you $20k for 18 months your finances get a little fucked up, which I think is what Sheets is alluding to.

This statement here is the key,
"Moneymaker aka Dunlap lost over 20k NOT directly to me.................",
if moneymaker doesn't dispute that, then there is a bookie somewhere. (and even if he did call them in through JY, I still vote he owes the cash.)
And just because that book scammed someone else, that has nothing to do w/what happened between Chris and that book and JY.


Just amazing the debts people let other people run up in the poker world.
No one gets over a G in my area w/out established credit.

[Steve-O]

You can't think of reasons why a guy in NY/NJ wouldn't want to name his real-world bookie on the Internet, who is apparently booking what seems to be high-five to six-figures week if not more?

Even if Jason is the bookie, there isn't enough evidence he was freerolling Moneymaker at any point to justify Moneymaker freerolling him. generally when people owe you $20k for 18 months your finances get a little fucked up, which I think is what Sheets is alluding to.

This statement here is the key,
"Moneymaker aka Dunlap lost over 20k NOT directly to me.................",
if moneymaker doesn't dispute that, then there is a bookie somewhere. (and even if he did call them in through JY, I still vote he owes the cash.)
And just because that book scammed someone else, that has nothing to do w/what happened between Chris and that book and JY.


Just amazing the debts people let other people run up in the poker world.
No one gets over a G in my area w/out established credit.

Agents around here will usually go up to $5k for people they know, so moneymaker getting $15k isn't that hard to believe.

What is odd to me is that he could owe $15k-$20k for so long. He would have been on the "you're fucked" payment plan if he owed that to people around here. Basically, you pay us $500/week until you can come up with the whole $15k... I know people who have been on one of those plans for years and have paid 10x what they originally owed and still owe the full amount.

Morale of the story, don't owe shady people money

[Dan Druff]

You can't think of reasons why a guy in NY/NJ wouldn't want to name his real-world bookie on the Internet, who is apparently booking what seems to be high-five to six-figures week if not more?

Even if Jason is the bookie, there isn't enough evidence he was freerolling Moneymaker at any point to justify Moneymaker freerolling him. generally when people owe you $20k for 18 months your finances get a little fucked up, which I think is what Sheets is alluding to.

This statement here is the key,
"Moneymaker aka Dunlap lost over 20k NOT directly to me.................",
if moneymaker doesn't dispute that, then there is a bookie somewhere. (and even if he did call them in through JY, I still vote he owes the cash.)
And just because that book scammed someone else, that has nothing to do w/what happened between Chris and that book and JY.


Just amazing the debts people let other people run up in the poker world.
No one gets over a G in my area w/out established credit.

If the bookie doesn't exist, then Moneymaker doesn't owe anything.

You can't owe $20k to a fictitious person.

And if the bookie is fake, then Jason never fronted $20k for Chris, because you can't front money to a fake person.

You can't just go making up fake third parties for people to bet with, and then expect them to pay when they lose (and realize their betting partner was fake).

If Jason cannot prove that the bookie was real and that he actually fronted that money, then Chris doesn't owe it.

Remember, even if the bookie WAS real, there is no proof that Jason actually paid it. He claims he paid it, but if the bookie ran off and vanished, there is no one to verify that this payment really occurred.

The burden of proof is on Jason now, and he's not providing it.

He is conveniently dodging the bookie questions on 2+2, btw, making it likely that the bookie never existed.

[Steve-O]

This statement here is the key,
"Moneymaker aka Dunlap lost over 20k NOT directly to me.................",
if moneymaker doesn't dispute that, then there is a bookie somewhere. (and even if he did call them in through JY, I still vote he owes the cash.)
And just because that book scammed someone else, that has nothing to do w/what happened between Chris and that book and JY.


Just amazing the debts people let other people run up in the poker world.
No one gets over a G in my area w/out established credit.

If the bookie doesn't exist, then Moneymaker doesn't owe anything.

You can't owe $20k to a fictitious person.

And if the bookie is fake, then Jason never fronted $20k for Chris, because you can't front money to a fake person.

You can't just go making up fake third parties for people to bet with, and then expect them to pay when they lose (and realize their betting partner was fake).

If Jason cannot prove that the bookie was real and that he actually fronted that money, then Chris doesn't owe it.

Remember, even if the bookie WAS real, there is no proof that Jason actually paid it. He claims he paid it, but if the bookie ran off and vanished, there is no one to verify that this payment really occurred.

The burden of proof is on Jason now, and he's not providing it.

He is conveniently dodging the bookie questions on 2+2, btw, making it likely that the bookie never existed.

Assuming there is no bookie (which is 50/50 at this point) you're betting through the agent, whether the book is who he says it is or not is irrelevant, as the agent is responsible for the money both ways. One reason the bookie might not exist is that JY doesn't want people saying he is running a book. If someone asks CM if he knows a good bookie he might say "JY books my action", but by claiming to be an agent, he might say, "this guy JY set me up with a bookie, try talking to him".

I don't get why you are hung up on if the bookie is real, a lot of people claim to be working for a bookie but just book the bets themselves, it makes no difference as long as the lines offered and the bets are honored. CM is betting because he trusts JY not because of the reputation of an unnamed NY bookie. Now, if JY used the name of a respected bookie to get Chris to book action through him that's different, but that's not what happened here.

Also, I'll point it out again: real-life bookies in NY/NJ generally don't get named on Internet forums, so 2+2'ers can get to the bottom of something.

[JimmyG_415]

This statement here is the key,
"Moneymaker aka Dunlap lost over 20k NOT directly to me.................",
if moneymaker doesn't dispute that, then there is a bookie somewhere. (and even if he did call them in through JY, I still vote he owes the cash.)
And just because that book scammed someone else, that has nothing to do w/what happened between Chris and that book and JY.


Just amazing the debts people let other people run up in the poker world.
No one gets over a G in my area w/out established credit.

If the bookie doesn't exist, then Moneymaker doesn't owe anything.

You can't owe $20k to a fictitious person.

And if the bookie is fake, then Jason never fronted $20k for Chris, because you can't front money to a fake person.

You can't just go making up fake third parties for people to bet with, and then expect them to pay when they lose (and realize their betting partner was fake).

If Jason cannot prove that the bookie was real and that he actually fronted that money, then Chris doesn't owe it.

Remember, even if the bookie WAS real, there is no proof that Jason actually paid it. He claims he paid it, but if the bookie ran off and vanished, there is no one to verify that this payment really occurred.

The burden of proof is on Jason now, and he's not providing it.

He is conveniently dodging the bookie questions on 2+2, btw, making it likely that the bookie never existed.

LOL REALLY???? I'm just amazed right now.
So a bookie is going on 2+2 for him and legitimize that he took the action and that he paid the debt????
Or will he have to prove it w/receipts? And how would you even know that guy isn't lying?

Obv you have never made a bet outside of a casino.

You make a bet, you lose, you pay. That is how it works,

You don't go looking for loopholes.
Who cares if the guy was holding the bets.
If he won Moneymaker wouldn't care who was really booking it.

[Hockey Guy]

Assuming there is no bookie (which is 50/50 at this point) you're betting through the agent, whether the book is who he says it is or not is irrelevant, as the agent is responsible for the money both ways. One reason the bookie might not exist is that JY doesn't want people saying he is running a book. If someone asks CM if he knows a good bookie he might say "JY books my action", but by claiming to be an agent, he might say, "this guy JY set me up with a bookie, try talking to him".

I don't get why you are hung up on if the bookie is real, a lot of people claim to be working for a bookie but just book the bets themselves, it makes no difference as long as the lines offered and the bets are honored. CM is betting because he trusts JY not because of the reputation of an unnamed NY bookie. Now, if JY used the name of a respected bookie to get Chris to book action through him that's different, but that's not what happened here.

Also, I'll point it out again: real-life bookies in NY/NJ generally don't get named on Internet forums, so 2+2'ers can get to the bottom of something.

While I agree with almost everything here the bolded part if what they are in disagreement about & I'm not sure of the answer without all the information.

I actually think it's probably closer to 90/10 that JY is the bookie. Bookmakers try to get equal action on both sides in such a way that they make money regaedless of the outcome. Of course, if the bookie doesn't get paid by the losers he'd better have enough cash on hand to pay the winners & go after the losers that don't pay so they won't lose money themselves. It actually looks like this may be the case, that JY was running a book without the cash for backup if he got fucked by the losers. He probably had every intention of paying the winners with the money he got from the losers & everybody gets paid & nobody is the wiser & JY makes some money.

I actually believe it was sheets who was getting freerolled & not Chris although I can see why he thinks he was.

[JimmyG_415]

"If the bookie doesn't exist, then Moneymaker doesn't owe anything.

You can't owe $20k to a fictitious person.

And if the bookie is fake, then Jason never fronted $20k for Chris, because you can't front money to a fake person."

- Druff


This is totally wrong too.
Almost every book I know, started off booking their friend's and/or coworker's shit.
They have books, and they can pass it on, but they don't have to tell their friends or clients which ones they booked and which they passed on.

You are thinking in a legal way (there is no customer service supervisor, or host to listen to you) and this is illegal betting.

I'm done w/this, unless you have something new to add, I won't read a 3rd or 4th post stating that this guy should validate shit.
That isn't how it works. (That said, you really should stay inside the casino for your gambling.)
Not going to listen to the same argument.
You make a bet, you lose, you pay.

[JimmyG_415]

Assuming there is no bookie (which is 50/50 at this point) you're betting through the agent, whether the book is who he says it is or not is irrelevant, as the agent is responsible for the money both ways. One reason the bookie might not exist is that JY doesn't want people saying he is running a book. If someone asks CM if he knows a good bookie he might say "JY books my action", but by claiming to be an agent, he might say, "this guy JY set me up with a bookie, try talking to him".

I don't get why you are hung up on if the bookie is real, a lot of people claim to be working for a bookie but just book the bets themselves, it makes no difference as long as the lines offered and the bets are honored. CM is betting because he trusts JY not because of the reputation of an unnamed NY bookie. Now, if JY used the name of a respected bookie to get Chris to book action through him that's different, but that's not what happened here.

Also, I'll point it out again: real-life bookies in NY/NJ generally don't get named on Internet forums, so 2+2'ers can get to the bottom of something.

While I agree with almost everything here the bolded part if what they are in disagreement about & I'm not sure of the answer without all the information.

I actually think it's probably closer to 90/10 that JY is the bookie. Bookmakers try to get equal action on both sides in such a way that they make money regaedless of the outcome. Of course, if the bookie doesn't get paid by the losers he'd better have enough cash on hand to pay the winners & go after the losers that don't pay so they won't lose money themselves. It actually looks like this may be the case, that JY was running a book without the cash for backup if he got fucked by the losers. He probably had every intention of paying the winners with the money he got from the losers & everybody gets paid & nobody is the wiser & JY makes some money.

I actually believe it was sheets who was getting freerolled & not Chris although I can see why he thinks he was.

I completely agree w/this. And if Chris won he should have been paid (even if there wasn't a 3rd person).

[Crime Buster]

Ahmad Pourhamid,

He is one of the senior director of Chris Moneymaker, frankly i cant say if Chris is or is not, however Mr. Ahmad Pourhamid from Marbella, Spain is a full time Scam. you can google him out.

[chinamaniac]

"If the bookie doesn't exist, then Moneymaker doesn't owe anything.

You can't owe $20k to a fictitious person.

And if the bookie is fake, then Jason never fronted $20k for Chris, because you can't front money to a fake person."

- Druff


This is totally wrong too.
Almost every book I know, started off booking their friend's and/or coworker's shit.
They have books, and they can pass it on, but they don't have to tell their friends or clients which ones they booked and which they passed on.

You are thinking in a legal way (there is no customer service supervisor, or host to listen to you) and this is illegal betting.

I'm done w/this, unless you have something new to add, I won't read a 3rd or 4th post stating that this guy should validate shit.
That isn't how it works. (That said, you really should stay inside the casino for your gambling.)
Not going to listen to the same argument.
You make a bet, you lose, you pay.

what if the guy was freerolling him and owes others a lot lot more than moneymaker owes him? Should chris pay him if he never would have gotten paid?

[Dan Druff]

There is a difference between paying a bookie who is potentially freerolling you because you're afraid of getting your legs broken, and paying because it's the moral and right thing to do.

I think it's pretty clear that neither Chris nor Jason are going to beat each other up. So this really comes down to whether or not the bet itself was valid.

The bookie's reality is a HUGE factor in this, because Chris was (likely) falsely led to believe he was betting with an established bookie, rather than an individual degen poker player (Jason).

People who say, "You make a bet, you lose, you pay" are just making trite statements that sound good but fail to hold up to common sense scrutiny.

What about Peter Falcone? He had plenty of ongoing action with people when he was outed as a scammer. Should anyone have paid him what they "owed" him once it came out what he was really doing? Obviously not.

You should NEVER pay someone who was scamming you, no matter what the circumstances. Once it is clear you were being scammed, you should refuse to pay until they provide evidence that you weren't being scammed.

But we don't even have to get as far as whether or not Jason was freerolling.

Chris placed the bet under false pretenses. He placed it with a "bookie" that likely didn't exist. Had Jason been honest about who was really booking the bet, he might not have placed it. It's not fair to still hold him to that.

Chris initially simply had to trust Jason's word that the bookie he was suggesting was legit. He did not have to worry about Jason's own financial health. It turned out he really did -- and it turned out that Jason likely did not have the money to cover it. That looks like an obvious freeroll to me.

When you put your money on the line for a bet, you have a right to know who is betting against you on the other end. If the guy arranging the bet is lying about the third party backing it, then he is committing fraud, and you owe him nothing if you lose.

Incidentally, Peter Falcone used this exact con quite often. He would claim that he had some rich guy in New York backing all the bets, and he was simply an agent for the guy. You (the victim) would be the runner for the bets, and then after a few successful runs, Peter would ask you to put up your own money temporarily, because the rich NY guy couldn't get the money over in time, or whatever. And then eventually, after the "rich NY guy" owes you tens of thousands of dollars in lost bets, Peter vanishes. Rinse and repeat.

BOTTOM LINE: Chris was likely betting with a fictitious entity. He owes nothing to this fictitious party. I can't see how people are saying he should pay, when it looks very much like he was being scammed/freerolled here, and was doing it through a phony third party to boot.

[Hockey Guy]

They've resolved their issues to their mutual satisfaction:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...2/index34.html

[Dan Druff]

Alright guys...we have reached an agreement- I had a long post to try and answer some of the ridiculous questions in here. Some of you guys just choose not to read, or it will never be enough- even more of the reason im glad this is all over with.

And it will be mentioned that like I said all along, I was never scamming anyone, I wasn't this "boss" person, my timeline was correct that in between the 2 instances let me remind you guys that I opened a substantial business- which again is why my liquid cash wasn't available to handle 2nd situation. I got screwed just as much as anyone, and ive been simply trying to make things right with all parties to move forward...and I believe that is happening now.

as for chris- I was always a fan as well as many of you are. But even outside of that I believe him to be a good genuine guy, him and I have had many conversations about everything ranging from poker, and sports to my business, our families and our mutual hatred of being taken advantage of. I don't feel like he had bad intentions ever, and he is incredibly jaded by that world and people in general, as am I...

there are no hard feelings, and we will probably have a beer out in vegas next time I see him...

As Jason stated we have reached an agreement. I talked to a lot of people the last few days including sheets and jason. I may be gullible or an easy target but I am giving jason the benifit of the doubt based solely on his reputation in the past. His past reputation by all accounts is impecable. He has stayed in contact with the 3 guys I know he owes and is working to pay them off over a year later. My money will be going to that purpose and not to jason himself. I still know my timeline and my reasons for not paying are accurate and acceptable however jason has been around the poker world a long time and I couldn't find one person he has wronged outside of this situation. Based on that I am paying the money

[Dan Druff]

This is a complete mess, and the "resolution" was terrible.

Here are my conclusions:

1. There was no bookie. Jason was booking the bets himself. This thread on 2+2 is now 35 pages long. Jason has dodged all questions about the bookie, including requests to privately name the bookie to a trusted third party. It is reasonably certain by Jason's lack of response here, along with the general suspicious nature of the entire situation, that there was no third-party bookie.


2. Jason did not have the money to cover the bet when Chris placed it. It is unclear of the reason for this. It had to be one of three things:

-- a) This was an outright scam/freeroll, born out of desperation to get out of a huge financial mess.

-- b) This was a "middling" or "make guaranteed juice" situation, where Jason got someone else to take the reverse of Chris' action, perhaps at a worse line, and then the whole thing collapsed when Chris couldn't/wouldn't pay.

-- c) Jason did not set out to scam Chris, but was simply booking too much action that he couldn't cover, unrealsitically telling himself that somehow he would eventually pay everyone if he lost. This is what I call "The Lindgren Excuse", and while more noble than outright scamming/freerolling, is still pretty scummy.

If I had to guess, I would say that "c" above is what really happened.


3) Chris also did not have the money at the time the bet was made. I believe that Chris believed a staking deal was coming in the near future, and would be able to cover it somehow through that if he lost. When the staking deal fell through, Chris was probably unable to pay the $20k, and rather than snap-pay Jason as he would have if flush with money, probably decided to research the situation a bit more before paying. Once he found that Jason also did not have the money to back the bet, and in fact appeared to have lied about the bookie, Chris felt justified not to pay him at all. Obviously this also means Chris was not completely innocent in this situation, either. However, the difference is that Chris bet the money as himself (with Jason's full knowledge and ability to ascertain his financial health), while Jason bet the money as a fictitious person (which is fraudulent).


4) The biggest winners here are Jason's creditors -- sheets, et all. They were probably coming close to writing off this money as uncollectible. Now they will be likely be getting paid -- at least partially -- fairly soon, and via an unrelated third party! Talk about pennies from heaven!


5) The second-biggest winner here is Jason. He likely created a fake "reputable" bookie to take large sportsbets, booked the action himself with money he didn't have, and somehow is able to get one of his winning bets paid in full! He doesn't make out quite as well as his creditors, as he simply is having debt erased rather than any kind of cash infusion (the thing he really wanted), but that's still a great result when you were freerolling/lying and got caught.


6) The loser here is Chris. He pretty much lost in every way here. Now a large group of 2+2 readers know that he is a broke sportsbetting degen. Some now believe him to be a shady character, who tries to weasel out of bets. And worst yet, despite all of that, he's still out 20k! Wow! This couldn't have ended worse for him.


I still believe Chris was in the right, simply because he bet with a fictitious third party, and you cannot owe a fictitious entity money. Once that was discovered, the bet should have been immediately considered null and void. Furthermore, Jason himself clearly didn't have the money to cover it at the time, so he was being both lied to and freerolled. Even if Chris was somewhat freerolling himself, that isn't material here, because he lost the bet. Had the bet fallen the other way, it would be a much tougher call, since at least Jason's bet would have been with a real person (Chris).

[JimmyG_415]

Just admit you are wrong for once in your life.

I just heard the segment, (as much as I could anyway, )
and read how it was resolved.

It is simply unbelievable to me, that you still think you are right. even try browbeating the co host into agreeing and couldn't

[Hockey Guy]

Just admit you are wrong for once in your life.

I just heard the segment, (as much as I could anyway, )
and read how it was resolved.

It is simply unbelievable to me, that you still think you are right. even try browbeating the co host into agreeing and couldn't

Hard to believe he wasn't chosen to mediate this dispute when he offered. I haven't listened in the archives but I'm pretty sure I know where Druff stands.

They've resolved it to their mutual satisfaction. Obviously it's nice to know I shouldn't do business with JY(or CM for that matter) but if CM is okay with paying the 20K and say it's resolved who are we to argue with the outcome. Anything else is just:

[JimmyG_415]

Hard to believe he wasn't chosen to mediate this dispute when he offered. I haven't listened in the archives but I'm pretty sure I know where Druff stands.

They've resolved it to their mutual satisfaction. Obviously it's nice to know I shouldn't do business with JY(or CM for that matter) but if CM is okay with paying the 20K and say it's resolved who are we to argue with the outcome. Anything else is just:

CM did the right thing in the end.
I don't think JY is wrong in the least, if someone stiffed me 20k I'd be late paying others, too.

If we all opened account w/ a bookie,
and when we won we went and collected, and when he lost we stiffed him.
it wouldn't take long for this guy's credit to go to shit.

Druff thinks bookies need to have the funds on them to cover all of that, like a casino, but is is an ILLEGAL business.
all bookies operate on the "he have 5k on visitor, we have 10k on the home team, we are exposed 5k."
its only when people pull shit like this, that it all crumbles.

Then the loser pulls the oh fuck it, if he isn't current w/everyone, I'm not paying now???????????????????
I don't get how you can say, this guy was free rolling me, because you find out he owes 18k to his friend, when you owe the guy 20k????????????
JY should have had the debt cleared AND have 2k in his pocket.
but according to druff, he was scamming. He was trying to make a buck for sure, but this isn't a scam.

By druff's analysis I owe a lot of people money, then. I've held on to my share of bets over the years.
Never had to prove i had a book, or that I laid it off to collect. No one was getting free rolled either.

Like I've said a 1000 times, I'd rather get ripped every now and then, over living like everyone it out to get me.

[Dan Druff]

First off, Jimmy, I don't see why you're treating me as if I'm holding some crazy fringe opinion and can't admit I'm wrong.

In a 2+2 poll yesterday, over 80% of the posters there agree with me. If anyone needs to reevaluate their stance and admit they're wrong here, it's you.

But putting egos aside, I have a serious question for you.

I'm sure you are very familiar with career scammer Peter Falcone, who primarily scammed people via sportsbet freerolls.

Let's go back to December 1, 2010. Let's say that you had a $5,000 bet with Peter (whose reputation was good at the time), and the bet lost. Let's say that you didn't have the money to pay him immediately, and were scrambling to get it together.

Then, a week later, it comes out that Peter is a career scammer, and was freerolling everyone. Peter does not admit to this, but the evidence speak for itself. Peter was obviously freerolling you and everyone else.

Do you pay Peter at this point?

And if not, how is the Jason/Chris situation any different, since it's become reasonably certain from the 2+2 thread that the bookie didn't exist, and Jason didn't have anywhere near the cash at the time to cover the bet?

The bottom line is that any bet -- or any business transaction for that matter -- should become null and void once it is clear it was a scam/freeroll.

I'm not saying you have to suspect everyone of freerolling you and demand proof otherwise prior to paying them, but if you have substantial evidence that you were being scammed, YES the other party needs to counter that evidence to prove they were on the level.

You are reducing this to "Chris heard that Jason owes money to some people, so now he doesn't want to pay a bet he lost to Jason", and that's totally not what this is about.

[DannyDeadWood]

This was posted by CM a little while ago on 2+2...this is not over

"Given new information and most importantly how it was handled by jason I am not paying him at all. He would of found 2+2 if he won and dodged that guy. I was fooled again talking to him and how he was a good guy just trying to pay everyone off. In reality he is talking to them and making promises while playing 5k events. End of discussion for me."