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

[Dan Druff]

This posted by CM a little ago on 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."

Good job, Chris!

[Dan Druff]

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:

Ill start out with this...most of the things that most of you are saying dont mean anything to me because me, and the people involved know the truth, so random people ive never met or never had a conversation with your thoughts and inquiries literally mean nothing.

Some of you that have come in i havent spoke to in a couple years such as jonas (riverboatking) we are cool- we had business with each other and if i recall i let him as well as countless others carry large figures for extended periods of time with me personally. it would be nice to see some sort of mention of that. Off the top of my head I had dealt with jimmyc,professorben,ak87,bkice,jc alvarado, charder, jestein, bronbron, nutshot,howdoiplayxx,zjazja,completedonk,bigpotpok er,max,rbk,gostatego and dozens of other high stakes regs that i cant even recall at the moment in one way or another with $ whether it be pools, backing, vig free action whatever- ive met many of them etc.

i ran a pool on here a few years back bravejayhawk won for close to 10k

people such as chris tryba and mike beasely had pieces of me at various times for large scores where they were paid out large 5 figures within seconds

ive done online swaps for high 5 figures with the likes of the lab rat and many others

ive helped many people by backing them

ive given randoms from 2+2 freerolls into wsop events

ive freerolled people such as ryan eriquezzo, chris lindh, gordon eng in wsop events

this list is rather endless...and if need be i can continue-

assani i feel will be making a post at some point today clarifying our situation to make it a bit more transparent. that was the first time we had ever bet with each other and it was mutually terrible communication on both of our parts- but no bad intent at all.

as for chris- i feel these messages will clarify things alot more for all of you fanboys that have your heads up your asses.

as for allen- shut the **** up, i know you in real life- ive known you for 5 years- you know how to contact me if you have any questions, you know who im friends with, you see me whenever the rare occasion that i do get to play poker these days.

as for me playing- if someone is willing to put me into a tourney of course im going to play.

Here are the texts. Green/Blue is Jason, white is Chris.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[BeerAndPoker]

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):



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:



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???

[ShawnFanningsLimpDick]

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.

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

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.

He wasn't semi-solvent.

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.

[Dan Druff]

I just made this, with my mad MSPaint skillz:

[yaahello]

what does he mean by hidden account?? stars pro having a second account?

[Benford]

So when it's all said and done, it looks like we had two broke, desperate degenerates, each freerolling the other in a sportsbet.

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?

[Deal]

what does he mean by hidden account?? stars pro having a second account?

I think he means access to money his wife doesn't know about so he is free to degen it away.

[Steve-O]

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

[Deal]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

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!


(this doesn't factor in the "fake bookie" / "owing a fake person" argument, which I'm not addressing here)

[BeerAndPoker]

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

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':

Once again- I was never booking these bets- I had enough cred if I wanted action I could have bet whatever I wanted with no less than a dozen guys. I had previously vouched for someone that didn't make good on things...I'm a man and my word means something so instead of telling them they are out of luck I said I'd cover it

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.

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

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!


(this doesn't factor in the "fake bookie" / "owing a fake person" argument, which I'm not addressing here)

It is okay to renege on paying into any scam that you discover while it's in progress.

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.

[Dan Druff]

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?

[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?

[Dan Druff]

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.

[haleylh]

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.

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.