Tom Dwan - the missing man
How convenient is it that he just falls off the face of the earth after issuing and bailing half way through a 50k hand challenge when he goes down over a million dollars?
He come out a year or so ago and said that he has this "big" problem with FTP that he would address once he had a decent nights sleep, what ever happened here?
He agreed to pay penalties on a monthly basis for not playing an agreed amount of hands with jungle, did cates ever receive any of the penalty money? I think it's about time the community got some answers. There was a lot of money placed on the outcome of the match which never got resolved, as you can imagine anyone who took jungle's side must be pretty aggrieved.
Ike and Justin bonomo was both judges along with Ivey being escrow, from what I remember Ivey wanted nothing to do with any of the decision making after dwan went AWOL which lead to phil sending jungle his 500k back. What's the point of having judges in any bet if they can't actually enforce any rulings?
If anyone else had bailed on a bet of this size when he should have escrowed the 1.5million it would be a much bigger deal.
To add to that he's listed to play in the 500k super high roller at the aria
1. Numerous people are arguing exactly that.
2. They did settle. Where do you think the figure Jetten is referencing comes from?
3. It would certainly not be standard for Jetten to owe Tom any money for makeup if Tom decides to no longer stake Jetten.
How many people in 1 thread have to question your comprehension ability before you accept it might just be an idea to try?
1. Where?
2. If Dwan hasnt paid it isnt settled.
3. I never said this.
How many people in 1 thread have to question your comprehension ability before you accept it might just be an idea to try?
1. Where?
2. If Dwan hasnt paid it isnt settled.
3. I never said this.
"before you accept it might just be an idea to try?". What? What idea. Finish the thought. Before attempting to insult someone, try making sense.
1. In this thread. Where this conversation is taking place. Have you read it? Also, when you keep putting the word "technically" in quotes, it implies that you are doubting the validity of the word in its surrounding context.
2. Settlement in staking deals happens at agreed upon milestones, during which debts accumulate until physical settlement occurs. If you believe Jetten is owed money only if Dwan has physically settled with him, you're entitled to that opinion, but realize it is conditional and arbitrary.
3. When you say "...the facts are clear as presented its almost certain that the ruling would assign a value to the makeup that would again almost certainly outweigh the 250k", you are saying a standard ruling would assign a value to makeup and be used to offset Jetten's positive balance. Now, you're claiming you never said Jetten owing Tom for makeup is standard? Then how’s Jetten losing the 250k without owing for makeup? Enlighten us with your mental gymnastics.
"before you accept it might just be an idea to try?". What? What idea. Finish the thought. Before attempting to insult someone, try making sense.
1. In this thread. Where this conversation is taking place. Have you read it? Also, when you keep putting the word "technically" in quotes, it implies that you are doubting the validity of the word in its surrounding context.
2. Settlement in staking deals happens at agreed upon milestones, during which debts accumulate until physical settlement occurs
Stop. You are embarrassing yourself with your constant nonsense.
1. You're wrong
2. You're wrong again
3. You've took part of a comment to make it seem like you are correct, but again you are wrong
Even if Jetten had 0 dollars he would still be 30 million richer than Dwan. One of them is broke but it aint Jetten
hi Peter
Hi Tim
Hi Apathy
1. In this thread. Where this conversation is taking place. Have you read it? Also, when you keep putting the word "technically" in quotes, it implies that you are doubting the validity of the word in its surrounding context.
Literally everyone you are arguing against have been saying that technically, Jetten could be right and make an argument for his case. But that hes still a major douche and anyone assessing the situation from the outside sees that its ridiculous to expect to get the 250k after the events that went down.
Onionsareyummy has to be someone who is being staked himself and that is how he is so adamant about arguing that Jetten should be given the 250k even after losing 1.6m of his backers money, based on technicalities. Only explanation.
Here is a situation for you:
1. I expend my own funds in a home game
2. A friend offers to stake me for the rest of the game, friendly deal, he takes on the risk for 50% of profits.
3. Im up 500 dollars and text my friend "hey Im up 500 and I wanna settle ok? but can I keep playing staked tonight, the game is super good!"
4. He says "yea sure"
5. I go on to lose 5k of my friend's money in the same game
6. Later I text my friend "Hey bro you owe me 250, where is my money?"
Whos the douchebag in this situation? If you answer the backer, lol. Only someone who lacks both common sense and empathy can think that the 250 should be paid under circumstances like this, even though its possible to argue that "ackshually, he technically owes 250". Especially when the deal is made between friends, no contracts or anything.
Facts.
Literally everyone you are arguing against have been saying that technically, Jetten could be right and make an argument for his case. But that hes still a major douche and anyone assessing the situation from the outside sees that its ridiculous to expect to get the 250k after the events that went down.
Onionsareyummy has to be someone who is being staked himself and that is how he is so adamant about arguing that Jetten should be given the 250k even after losing 1.6m of his backers money, based
Based on logic you mean.
It's interesting that you bring up both common sense and empathy, given that your message seems to lack the former and applies the latter selectively. You think that a $250,000 debt just gets written off out of goodwill? On top of that, your analogy is nonsensical because it suggests you either think Jetten pulled the settlement figure out of thin air or you're clueless about how staking deals work.
To fix your analogy, consider either of these:
- You put up the money to play in the game. The amount you lose is more than the amount you put up. Your backer refuses to pay you back the buy-in.
- Your friend agreed to back you and settle at every $500. You finish your session and are up $500. He says he'll pay you the $250 later. Before he pays you, you lose 3k. He terminates your deal and says he doesn't owe you anything anymore.
As has been stated numerous times, there is nothing wrong with the argument technically, "ACKSHUALLY" when you put it like you do. Without a contract though (the only way you would ever be able to recoup any money under such bs circumstances) as well as written proof that Tom agreed to settle at the 500k+ mark, he has 0 real world claim to any money. Where is this proof? Shouldnt be hard to produce if it exists. Anyone who pulls this kind of bs in a non contractual staking deal amongst friends is a massive douchebag.
The kind of warped reality you live in to expect to get 250k under these circumstances is baffling.
Moral of the story kids. Don’t settle without actually settleing.
It seems that Tom and Peter had multiple dealings wih each other. Some of them may include:
1. Tom staking Peter and Peter cashing when he is in profit.
2. Tom staking Peter and ending up in makeup for 1.6 million.
3. Tom staking Peter and Ike fronting the money for those buy ins (Could be while 1. or/and 2. or a seperate occasion).
4. Tom bought pieces of Peter in tournaments. (And didn't paid)
Don't know what happened in what order.
But it looks like Tom was purposely not clear and trying to mix everything to confuse people in these interviews. I wonder why he would do that?
Is it standard practises for horses to pay a % of their makeup at the end of their staking arrangement? If not then Tom has no argument for not paying for situation 4.
no, its not what Jetten did. What you wrote makes no sense like I said in my last post, but the fact that you just completely ignored it seems to imply that you have a reading comprehension problem.
to explain it to you again, jetten won ~500k. they SETTLED. since you seem to have a hard time understanding what it means to SETTLE, it means that the profit is taken among the relevant parties, Tom takes 250k, Jetten takes 250k, and all balances are reset to zero. After that, Jetten lost 1.6million
1. Numerous people are arguing exactly that.
2. They did settle. Where do you think the figure Jetten is referencing comes from?
3. It would certainly not be standard for Jetten to owe Tom any money for makeup if Tom decides to no longer stake Jetten.
I've read some of Jetten's tweet and he said that the 250k Tom owed wasn't from cashout.
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.
No it's not. Just settle for the make up the way you're supposed to. Owing 1.6 million is not the same as being 1.6 million in makeup.
Imagine how much money Tom would be able to pay back if he stopped flying private and eating thousand dollar dinners
Imagine if you were not a scumbag who blew 1.5 mega of your mates whaling it up and then tried to scam 250k back publicly so you could pay your mortgage.
I feel like I might be able to understand this Dwan-Jetten thing if we could just get a few more analogies.
I think dwan owes the buy ins bc that was the deal they had. Dwan would snap pay provided receipts which is what he said.
It also wouldn’t make sense for jetten to put up half the buy ins and have it go towards make up. That’s just not a thing. If it was part of makeup then dwan would have put up the entire amount which was not the case.
The make up then should be decided by all parties involved.
Most likely there’s no point to continue investing in jetten so the make up is worth $0. The fact jetten is out of poker means the make up could actually be negative in value bc if he tries to play there’s a good chance he would lose more especially not being able to get any profit. He’d basically be a slave to the deal.
Let this be a lesson to all to not invest in your friends and if you do invest in friends or anyone for that matter make sure you make the terms as clear cut as possible.
With all that said if I were jetten and I lost all this money I’d probably be trying to get dwan to just absolve the number on his side and call it a wash, the only problem is the other backer basically gets screwed if that happens.
Imagine if you were not a scumbag who blew 1.5 mega of your mates whaling it up and then tried to scam 250k back publicly so you could pay your mortgage.
gotta be a good chance Jetten is running low on cash, otherwise why start pressing the issue so hard after 4 years?
Feel like most really well-off people would be glad to let this go and call it a wash after losing 1.6M of toms money
