Vladimir Geshkenbein finishes 62nd in ME and scams his backers

[JimmyG_415]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you are telling me there are actual cases, gambling related, where the investor (who got screwed by the gambler) got his money back?

I'm just having a hard time thinking a poker player's forum post begging for stakes holds the same water as a deed of trust, which needs witness's and/or has to be notarized.

[Steve-O]

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

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



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

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

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

So you are telling me there are actual cases, gambling related, where the investor (who got screwed by the gambler) got his money back?

I'm just having a hard time thinking a poker player's forum post begging for stakes holds the same water as a deed of trust, which needs witness's and/or has to be notarized.

Jamie Gold would be the most obvious example. Or the civil suit against Tobey Maguire et al. As long as you're not breaking the law they are responsible if you can prove it.

Verbal contracts can be binding if you can prove them, an Internet post (where the identity can be confirmed) is as good as any non-notarized agreement.

[JimmyG_415]

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

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

So you are telling me there are actual cases, gambling related, where the investor (who got screwed by the gambler) got his money back?

I'm just having a hard time thinking a poker player's forum post begging for stakes holds the same water as a deed of trust, which needs witness's and/or has to be notarized.

Jamie Gold would be the most obvious example. Or the civil suit against Tobey Maguire et al. As long as you're not breaking the law they are responsible if you can prove it.

Verbal contracts can be binding if you can prove them, an Internet post (where the identity can be confirmed) is as good as any non-notarized agreement.

Jaime tried screwing that guy out of his winning, and I'll admit that is gambling related, that is no way the same thing.
And I still would have a hard time thinking these guys could take him to court or why didn't they?

Maybe there is a way it can possibly end up in court, the same way a bat might fly out of my ass, but we all know it won't. (Or Chino would live in court and not at the poker table.)

My point is this, the same point I've been making.

# 1 I don't care what the law says,
# 2 I don't care what agreement the backers had, or how the forum post reads exactly
# 3 AND I'm certainly not saying this is morally right,
But I am saying this, If he wants out, he is out, and the backers have no say, UNLESS they want to get physical.

Lets get away from what he should have happened & tell me exactly how you (if you were one of this backers), would have stopped him from entering the ME?
I'm saying you couldn't. If there was a way to stop this, Chino wouldn't be in every single tournament he can get in.

[Steve-O]

So you are telling me there are actual cases, gambling related, where the investor (who got screwed by the gambler) got his money back?

I'm just having a hard time thinking a poker player's forum post begging for stakes holds the same water as a deed of trust, which needs witness's and/or has to be notarized.

Jamie Gold would be the most obvious example. Or the civil suit against Tobey Maguire et al. As long as you're not breaking the law they are responsible if you can prove it.

Verbal contracts can be binding if you can prove them, an Internet post (where the identity can be confirmed) is as good as any non-notarized agreement.

Jaime tried screwing that guy out of his winning, and I'll admit that is gambling related, that is no way the same thing.
And I still would have a hard time thinking these guys could take him to court or why didn't they?

Maybe there is a way it can possibly end up in court, the same way a bat might fly out of my ass, but we all know it won't. (Or Chino would live in court and not at the poker table.)

My point is this, the same point I've been making.

# 1 I don't care what the law says,
# 2 I don't care what agreement the backers had, or how the forum post reads exactly
# 3 AND I'm certainly not saying this is morally right,
But I am saying this, If he wants out, he is out, and the backers have no say, UNLESS they want to get physical.

Lets get away from what he should have happened & tell me exactly how you (if you were one of this backers), would have stopped him from entering the ME?
I'm saying you couldn't. If there was a way to stop this, Chino wouldn't be in every single tournament he can get in.

You're making the same mistake Chinamaniac has, you are confusing practical with legal. The reason Chino doesn't live in court is two-fold:

#1 -- most of the scamming is done for amounts that don't make litigation practical from a money standpoint
#2 -- you can't get water from a stone and there is no debtors prison, so the outcome is basically unenforceable

I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, I'm simply stating that it is within their rights to do so, and never stop pestering the guy about the money he owes them. If he won millions it would be a slam dunk court case, but since we are dealing with thousands of dollars it's not worth going to court as they can't do anything. If he won millions they could put a lien on his bank accounts and such t get the money.

From a practical standpoint nobody is disagreeing with you, but you guys are dead wrong in thinking that their only recourse is "Gamblers Justice". If Mason Malmuth had a piece of this guy and he pulled this shit he might sue him to simply prove a point (ask Dutch Boyd). Again, it's not about what the practical solution is; the point is you can pursue this as a legal contract if you really wanted to.

[garrett]

Jamie Gold would be the most obvious example. Or the civil suit against Tobey Maguire et al. As long as you're not breaking the law they are responsible if you can prove it.

Verbal contracts can be binding if you can prove them, an Internet post (where the identity can be confirmed) is as good as any non-notarized agreement.

Jaime tried screwing that guy out of his winning, and I'll admit that is gambling related, that is no way the same thing.
And I still would have a hard time thinking these guys could take him to court or why didn't they?

Maybe there is a way it can possibly end up in court, the same way a bat might fly out of my ass, but we all know it won't. (Or Chino would live in court and not at the poker table.)

My point is this, the same point I've been making.

# 1 I don't care what the law says,
# 2 I don't care what agreement the backers had, or how the forum post reads exactly
# 3 AND I'm certainly not saying this is morally right,
But I am saying this, If he wants out, he is out, and the backers have no say, UNLESS they want to get physical.

Lets get away from what he should have happened & tell me exactly how you (if you were one of this backers), would have stopped him from entering the ME?
I'm saying you couldn't. If there was a way to stop this, Chino wouldn't be in every single tournament he can get in.

You're making the same mistake Chinamaniac has, you are confusing practical with legal. The reason Chino doesn't live in court is two-fold:

#1 -- most of the scamming is done for amounts that don't make litigation practical from a money standpoint
#2 -- you can't get water from a stone and there is no debtors prison, so the outcome is basically unenforceable

I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, I'm simply stating that it is within their rights to do so, and never stop pestering the guy about the money he owes them. If he won millions it would be a slam dunk court case, but since we are dealing with thousands of dollars it's not worth going to court as they can't do anything. If he won millions they could put a lien on his bank accounts and such t get the money.

From a practical standpoint nobody is disagreeing with you, but you guys are dead wrong in thinking that their only recourse is "Gamblers Justice". If Mason Malmuth had a piece of this guy and he pulled this shit he might sue him to simply prove a point (ask Dutch Boyd). Again, it's not about what the practical solution is; the point is you can pursue this as a legal contract if you really wanted to.

Very, very wrong here sir.

You can get liens on them so that in the case they ever do bink, win the lottery, collect an inheritance, end up actually owning anything etc, you get what you are owed, at some point. To play this down like you did when these are often massive amounts of money to normal/poor people like me, is naive and a tad bit ignorant.

[Steve-O]

Jaime tried screwing that guy out of his winning, and I'll admit that is gambling related, that is no way the same thing.
And I still would have a hard time thinking these guys could take him to court or why didn't they?

Maybe there is a way it can possibly end up in court, the same way a bat might fly out of my ass, but we all know it won't. (Or Chino would live in court and not at the poker table.)

My point is this, the same point I've been making.

# 1 I don't care what the law says,
# 2 I don't care what agreement the backers had, or how the forum post reads exactly
# 3 AND I'm certainly not saying this is morally right,
But I am saying this, If he wants out, he is out, and the backers have no say, UNLESS they want to get physical.

Lets get away from what he should have happened & tell me exactly how you (if you were one of this backers), would have stopped him from entering the ME?
I'm saying you couldn't. If there was a way to stop this, Chino wouldn't be in every single tournament he can get in.

You're making the same mistake Chinamaniac has, you are confusing practical with legal. The reason Chino doesn't live in court is two-fold:

#1 -- most of the scamming is done for amounts that don't make litigation practical from a money standpoint
#2 -- you can't get water from a stone and there is no debtors prison, so the outcome is basically unenforceable

I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, I'm simply stating that it is within their rights to do so, and never stop pestering the guy about the money he owes them. If he won millions it would be a slam dunk court case, but since we are dealing with thousands of dollars it's not worth going to court as they can't do anything. If he won millions they could put a lien on his bank accounts and such t get the money.

From a practical standpoint nobody is disagreeing with you, but you guys are dead wrong in thinking that their only recourse is "Gamblers Justice". If Mason Malmuth had a piece of this guy and he pulled this shit he might sue him to simply prove a point (ask Dutch Boyd). Again, it's not about what the practical solution is; the point is you can pursue this as a legal contract if you really wanted to.

Very, very wrong here sir.

You can get liens on them so that in the case they ever do bink, win the lottery, collect an inheritance, end up actually owning anything etc, you get what you are owed, at some point. To play this down like you did when these are often massive amounts of money to normal/poor people like me, is naive and a tad bit ignorant.

I'm pretty sure Lien isn't even really the right word if we are talking about future winnings. A lien is on current assets. If you won a settlement and Chino put future winnings into a new bank account you would have to file a lien (not sure if this is the right word) against the bank account.

If you sued Chino and won the judge might put liens on his current assets, but to get future assets you would have to 1)know about them and where they were, and 2) file new court motions... I believe anyway

[JimmyG_415]

[QUOTE=Steve-O;187039]

Maybe there is a way it can possibly end up in court, the same way a bat might fly out of my ass, but we all know it won't. (Or Chino would live in court and not at the poker table.)

My point is this, the same point I've been making.

# 1 I don't care what the law says,
# 2 I don't care what agreement the backers had, or how the forum post reads exactly
# 3 AND I'm certainly not saying this is morally right,
But I am saying this, If he wants out, he is out, and the backers have no say, UNLESS they want to get physical.

Lets get away from what he should have happened & tell me exactly how you (if you were one of this backers), would have stopped him from entering the ME?
I'm saying you couldn't. If there was a way to stop this, Chino wouldn't be in every single tournament he can get in.

You're making the same mistake Chinamaniac has, you are confusing practical with legal. The reason Chino doesn't live in court is two-fold:

#1 -- most of the scamming is done for amounts that don't make litigation practical from a money standpoint
#2 -- you can't get water from a stone and there is no debtors prison, so the outcome is basically unenforceable

I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, I'm simply stating that it is within their rights to do so, and never stop pestering the guy about the money he owes them. If he won millions it would be a slam dunk court case, but since we are dealing with thousands of dollars it's not worth going to court as they can't do anything. If he won millions they could put a lien on his bank accounts and such t get the money.

From a practical standpoint nobody is disagreeing with you, but you guys are dead wrong in thinking that their only recourse is "Gamblers Justice". If Mason Malmuth had a piece of this guy and he pulled this shit he might sue him to simply prove a point (ask Dutch Boyd). Again, it's not about what the practical solution is; the point is you can pursue this as a legal contract if you really wanted to.

YEAH, BUT SEE, I ONLY WAS LOOKING AT THIS FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. And that is the only point of view I care about, also.

I don't see how you can call that a mistake in fact, I'd say the mistake is confusing possibilities w/ what is practical.

China and I were only speaking on what was actually happening, and what was likely happen, in other words the truth.



And I was not promoting gambler's justice, just saying that is physically stopping him is the only option. I wouldn't do it.

[Steve-O]

[QUOTE=JimmyG_415;187395]

You're making the same mistake Chinamaniac has, you are confusing practical with legal.[/B] The reason Chino doesn't live in court is two-fold:

#1 -- most of the scamming is done for amounts that don't make litigation practical from a money standpoint
#2 -- you can't get water from a stone and there is no debtors prison, so the outcome is basically unenforceable

I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, I'm simply stating that it is within their rights to do so, and never stop pestering the guy about the money he owes them. If he won millions it would be a slam dunk court case, but since we are dealing with thousands of dollars it's not worth going to court as they can't do anything. If he won millions they could put a lien on his bank accounts and such t get the money.

From a practical standpoint nobody is disagreeing with you, but you guys are dead wrong in thinking that their only recourse is "Gamblers Justice". If Mason Malmuth had a piece of this guy and he pulled this shit he might sue him to simply prove a point (ask Dutch Boyd). Again, it's not about what the practical solution is; the point is you can pursue this as a legal contract if you really wanted to.

YEAH, BUT SEE, I ONLY WAS LOOKING AT THIS FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. And that is the only point of view I care about, also.

I don't see how you can call that a mistake in fact, I'd say the mistake is confusing possibilities w/ what is practical.

China and I were only speaking on what was actually happening, and what was likely happen, in other words the truth.



And I was not promoting gambler's justice, just saying that is physically stopping him is the only option. I wouldn't do it.

That's fine but you've been arguing with someone who agrees with you. I've just been extrapolating the scenarios out to cover the different possibilities. If you don't want to consider them that's your business, but calling them "wrong" is actually, well, wrong. Beyne CANNOT cancel the stake without his backers agreeing, but the catch-22 is that they can't really stop him either, which tells me a major flaw in poker staking has just been brought to light

[DrexelsNo1Fan]

I have no doubt greedy people like the person that staked him in the ME will continue to come along and allow him to get the better end of the deal, either being ignorant, greedy or just naive, believing he will not outsmart them!

I too enjoyed the sheets interview my only problems is if people scammed him he should have always outted them, I think that would have also served to protect him from scammers.. as if they knew he would out them and he's obviously so well respected that would have to decrease the chances of them being shifty and scamming!

I can also understand sheets is a family man and also want to protect he's deals and clients from backing privacy, but how much should you respect the privacy of a shady scumbag!

[ShadyJ]

[QUOTE=JimmyG_415;187395]

You're making the same mistake Chinamaniac has, you are confusing practical with legal.[/B] The reason Chino doesn't live in court is two-fold:

#1 -- most of the scamming is done for amounts that don't make litigation practical from a money standpoint
#2 -- you can't get water from a stone and there is no debtors prison, so the outcome is basically unenforceable

I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, I'm simply stating that it is within their rights to do so, and never stop pestering the guy about the money he owes them. If he won millions it would be a slam dunk court case, but since we are dealing with thousands of dollars it's not worth going to court as they can't do anything. If he won millions they could put a lien on his bank accounts and such t get the money.

From a practical standpoint nobody is disagreeing with you, but you guys are dead wrong in thinking that their only recourse is "Gamblers Justice". If Mason Malmuth had a piece of this guy and he pulled this shit he might sue him to simply prove a point (ask Dutch Boyd). Again, it's not about what the practical solution is; the point is you can pursue this as a legal contract if you really wanted to.

YEAH, BUT SEE, I ONLY WAS LOOKING AT THIS FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. And that is the only point of view I care about, also.

I don't see how you can call that a mistake in fact, I'd say the mistake is confusing possibilities w/ what is practical.

China and I were only speaking on what was actually happening, and what was likely happen, in other words the truth.



And I was not promoting gambler's justice, just saying that is physically stopping him is the only option. I wouldn't do it.

Im pretty sure what I heard China say was his opinion that the guy shouldnt owe any profits. The whole moral of the thread is about what should happen not what can actually happen or what will actually happen. I disagreed with Chinas point of view that the guy shouldnt have to pay them any of his profits, which to me is still insane.

[JimmyG_415]

Im pretty sure what I heard China say was his opinion that the guy shouldnt owe any profits. The whole moral of the thread is about what should happen not what can actually happen or what will actually happen. I disagreed with Chinas point of view that the guy shouldnt have to pay them any of his profits, which to me is still insane.

What?
I don't get why you guys would waste your time on that,

To me this thread was about reality and what could the backers realistically do to stop this, which is nothing.

That has been my main point, then the other is to figure out EXACTLY how much he owes.
I liked Sheet's "They can't ask for the refund, AND part of the prize pool" to figure out the exact amount owed, they get the refund.

FTR
No way do I think, and no way did I ever say, this was a morally right decision on his part.

So if that is what this thread is about YOU ARE RIGHT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS.