Tom Dwan - the missing man

Countless businesses limit which customers they serve. Insurance companies regularly turn down customers who represent too great a risk.

Um I said what you said except I said 450k and you said 500k. I could be wrong on that exact amount. But otherwise we're saying the same thing.

Tom was supposed to pay him 225 (or 250k) and still hadn't when Jetten lost 1.6m.

It's a joke to ask your friend for 250k when you lose 1.6 million of his even if you're technically legally right.

So even though he is technically, legally, logically, (insert whatever other qualifier you'd like) right, he's actually wrong? Solid reasoning skills. You sound like my ex-girlfriend.

Its also ironic that your response to have a reading comprehension problem doesn't address the actual issue that I was citing, which is that your analogy of two businesses makes no logical sense and doesn't illustrate or say whatever you think it does.

Just say you don't have any friends so everyone can move on from the squabble

If I owed someone 250k and then lost 1.6m of their money I think I would just write off the debt and try to make up for what happened. It would be pretty reprehensible if I didn't do that, actually. You're like not acknowledging what you did to that person and treating things like they were the same and still expecting the money. You might be legally right to do so, but yeah. I've never been in that position though and I don't know the details of what actually is going on here, but if that's not what I would do in that circumstance...

You're right. The fact that I understand how a contractual business agreement works implies that I have no friends. Another brilliant display of solid reasoning capability.

Maybe its you who has the reading and listening comprehension issue

Borg is specifically talking about Tom giving Jetten the homie hook up and not having it reciprocated. Mr MBA over talking about contracts and stuff.

I choose Tom.

You mean if someone owed you 250k.

Have you stopped to consider the fact that if Tom gets to tap into Jettens winnings for any downswings, then he is getting 50% of the profits for 0% of the risk so long as jetten is in the green? When they settle up and tom takes on a debt of 250k to jetten, consider the two scenarios: jetten wins 250k and jetten loses 250k. By your logic if jetten wins 250k, Tom gets 50%, but when jetten loses 250k tom loses nothing since it comes out of Jettens figure. In other words, Tom would effectively freerolling jetten.

That doesn't seem right, does it? So where is the line? How do staking deals work in your world? When does jetten get to pocket the money he's made? It's clearly not when he's passed an agreed upon milestone according to you, so when is it? Would he owe Tom 250k if Tom had managed to pay it to him before he went on his downswing? Is it only if Tom never manages to pay him? Is it after he goes past a 500k downswing? Why even cap the loss at 250k, and just say that jetten actually owes half the 1.6mm since he should feel morally obligated?

Pretty wild that Dwan might owe 30 million! Jetten's 250k seems like a drop in the bucket at this point. I wonder if he'll even be around in 5 years...

I don't really understand what's going on, but personally if I lost 1.6m of someone else's money and they owed me 250k I would hopefully be writing off that debt and would somehow be working towards making things right for the money I lost if it wasn't money I specifically owed through an agreement, ie. someone somehow gave me the ability to lose 1.6m of their money without the expectation for it to be seen as a debt if that should happen.

If I literally owed that 1.6m why would I ever hold to any agreement where the 250k needed to be paid?

If someone of their own accord buys a round of beers at the beginning of the night, and then when they ask later if you can bring them one back from the bar, do you say "technically, legally and logically, I dont owe you anything?"

The main issue here seems to be that Dwan is so blinded by his many years in high stakes games that he treats these sums as the same kind of favor as buying his mate a snickers without charging, where he psychologically expects a little bit back later even though he didnt make a binding agreement or contract with Jetten. Jetten on the other hand seems to think that these sums are of such a size that normal reciprocal altruism no longer applies. Yes, Jetten seems to technically be right, but its not hard at all to see Tom's side of the matter, especially if the entire reason there are no contracts and that the deals were done at all was sort of a friendly gesture/help from Tom to Jetten.

Until Jetton and Tom come to an agreement ref the Makeup most of this is pointless.

What is happening with the makeup is completely pivotal in this matter.

This is 250000, not a round of beers.

How about you loan me 250k, then I'll stake you for 500/1000 nlh. If you win I get 50%, but if you lose I don't have to pay you back the money you loaned me. Sound fair?

Guys, you’re crushing it with analogies, I’m learning a lot here.

Tom voluntarily agreed to stake him to the tune of 1.6 mil and stood to gain had jetten run better during the staking. That’s the main point is that just because Tom lost doesn’t mean be didn’t realize EV. The 250 that jetten is owed is his share of a score he won under dwans stake. It’s owed to him regardless of subsequent staking and should have been paid on the spot. The reason the staking arrangement works is Dwan takes a significant cut from any score, so it wouldn’t make sense for him to not have to pay the horses share.
It sounds like it was a fully backed staking arrangement which is maybe kind of unusual and the large amount dwan lost makes it seem like a horrible deal from his perspective but there’s nothing wrong with the idea of fully backed staking.

If that was what was agreed upon (there are circumstances where I think it might be right not to pay on the spot though, hypothetically, like if you realized you were getting utterly abused unethically in a deal and you decide to take appropriate action). I don't exactly know what happened but my understanding was the $1.6m loss happened after the 250k was owed. If he owed $1.6m and won 250k through staking I don't really understand why that wouldn't just go against his debt. If he was owed 250k and lost $1.6m I stand by what I already wrote.

“Should have been paid on the spot” is just to highlight the fact that the 250k is separate from anything else. It’s not part of any staking accounting going forward. It’s an amount that’s owed regardless of future events.
Whether jetten has a right to ask a friend and backer who lost on his behalf for the 250k is another matter entirely. I’m not weighing in on that I’m just trying to clarify the staking bit

I guess it might make sense from a strictly business perspective of the expected value of the different transactions (though not really) and the possible literal terms of the staking agreement if it was stipulated that this was an entirely separate arrangement that was not to be affected by any future events, but once losses occur I don't really know why you wouldn't hold the losses against the debt. If it wasn't strictly stipulated that future losses wouldn't affect the debt I don't know how in good conscience someone could expect that money after they lost more than what they owed, even if it wasn't through a staking arrangement, but just as a friendly gesture, you're entering into something that is strictly litigious at that point and I don't think there is really any moral validity to it. Even if it was strictly stipulated, I think the right thing to do is to just to forgive the debt at that point. If Dwan offered a "fully backed" staking arrangement where he would incur all the losses if Jetten lost, then I can see where Jetten is coming from in still expecting the 250k, because how do you know all the circumstances of everything to know that you're actually entering into something that would jeopardize your debt (like putting your friend in a bad spot if you lose). At that point as far as you know everything is all good regardless, there's no way you can anticipate things going sour, all is on the up and up as things are still good with the debt you're owed. Once things go bad, it's like, well, I was under the impression everything would be good at that point in time and you still owe the money, but yeah, I think I'm still writing off the debt at that point once it's obvious what's actually going on. It's an enormous sum of money, but yeah.

Can we talk amore about 30m owed to Triads, rather than some paltry 250k to a washed up reg. Much more exciting imo.

Yes agreed

somehow despite us saying the events happened in the same exact way you keep saying i disagreed with you on the events that happened. I don't.

Your reading comprehension skills are ATROCIOUS which makes your commentary ironic. It's actually embarrassing you even mentioned reading comprehension considering what a piss poor level your reading comprehension lingers at. If you're about six years old then I apologize because it's actually okay for your age.

What we disagree on is Jetten still wanting to collect after losing 1.6 millon dollars of Dwan's. You think it's fine, I don't.

You should at least understand where our disagreement lies which for some mind boggling reason you've yet to comprehend.

I said letter of the law he's probably right, and he's also super scummy for it. If he wants to go letter of the law let him take Dwan to court and have them sort it out.

I mean you can do a lot of things in life that are legal yet scummy, but you shouldn't.

lmao@ you talking about Tom free rolling Jetten. Jetten is down roughly 1.1 million dollars of Dwans money and asking for 250k. You tell me who got free rolled.

Here's a hint when it comes to free rolls- the guy putting up 0 dollars is always the one on a free roll.

.

What I said, in so many words, was that your assessment of the situation is narrow-minded and incomplete. Again, reading comprehension. At least three different people have tried to dumb it down for you with simple pointed analogies that you completely ignore and respond to with incoherent, illogical, whiny nonsense.

Speaking of illogical, when you take a break from "lmaoing", consider the fact that since you say you agree with the sequence of events, that would imply that jetten had a 250k positive balance, and if that's the case then it would also mean he didn't actually put up 0, did he?

And a bunch of people told you that you'd be scum to try and collect 250k after losing 1.6m of someone's money .

I never misunderstood the sequence of events. You're laughably poor reading comprehension skills made you think I did.

Nothing I said was nonsense - but you sure have spewed a ton of it in this thread over and over again. Next time drop it in the toilet where it belongs.

Seems like he did in fact put up 0. The person getting staked is always the one free rolling. They can win and they can't lose.