AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19171
September 11th, 2019 at 11:34:14 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: unJon

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Puckerbutt

Looks like he had backers for WSOP event and they want their share of the money.

Link

Thank you very much Sir.

Now, how'd I know this was going to be a thing? I just know s***. 🤷‍♂️



The backers very unlikely to win their objection.

I don't doubt that since they already got the money, and I'm not sure what type of evidence they have of what kind of deal was actually being made. I would love to know exactly what the deal was, assuming there was one. Just to give us an insight into what kind of terrible deals are being made for the backers(not that I don't already know).

But, going forward, if Phil Ivey (or anyone for that matter) had a legitimate contract with the legitimate company can they keep taking the money above and beyond what the person was actually being pay?

I can't imagine they can keep doing that and keep the guy from working. Obviously they're going to have to scrutinize if these deals are actually legitimate and not some wink wink we have a contract sort of thing.



The article goes into all that.

Contract existed for the backers to put up the entire $50,000 entry fee.

Any profit split 50/50.

Ivey won something like $125,000 (I dont remember the exact amount) so profit was $75,000.

Backers are claiming Borgata only has legal claim to Iveys portion which wiuld be $37,500 ($125,00 - $50,000 entry and backers 50% split.

Backers showed online discussions about the deal prior to the event.

Also, backers are falling back on Nevada laws which protect backers interest in staked games.

My take: this is going to come down to two opposing laws (laws protecting backers vs. Laws establishing garnishment).

The court will use prior precedent to establish which has higher authority. From my experience this is determined by legal "weights"

For example if the garnishment laws have had previous power to overturn legislative laws. Or vice versa.

Thank you, I didn't read it all, I just skimmed through a little. What an absolutely insanely horrible deal for the backers. Of course, I don't know if they have future agreements were makeups is involved, but even then, I still think it's a horrible deal with or without makeup. If he is able to negotiate a 50% free roll on each tournament he plays... he should have that 10 million(or whatever it is) paid back in no time at all.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 2537
September 11th, 2019 at 11:35:58 AM permalink
I'd imagine it's mainly rich guys who are paying to be involved with Ivey and to walk around telling people they are backing Phil Ivey and that they know him and are "friends" with him, etc.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19171
September 11th, 2019 at 11:43:57 AM permalink
Quote: Rigondeaux

I'd imagine it's mainly rich guys who are paying to be involved with Ivey and to walk around telling people they are backing Phil Ivey and that they know him and are "friends" with him, etc.

I would love to know how many people are getting deals of that nature. It doesn't even have to be close to 50% if there's no makeup involved. Just imagine getting a 20% free roll on any tournament you entered.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
September 11th, 2019 at 11:59:09 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

I would love to know how many people are getting deals of that nature. It doesn't even have to be close to 50% if there's no makeup involved. Just imagine getting a 20% free roll on any tournament you entered.



Yes, from an AP perspective its a freeroll.

I can see the backers side of it though.

For them they are "gambling" on Iveys skillset which has historical precedents.

They have no chance of profiting from poker if they played and probably cant waste the time necessary to play so this puts them in the game.

Besides the thrill of the action, they look at it as an easy $37,500 profit they would otherwise have no chance at vs handing someone a freeroll.

EDIT: there is also the possibility that the freeroll element was specifically tailored as a bolster to legal claims that Iveys money was involved.

I.E. Borgata has fully taken the entire stake put up by the backers and not a penny of stake money from Ivey. That would be an interesting legal maneuver probably brokered by a forward thinking attorney
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14232
September 11th, 2019 at 1:25:35 PM permalink
I disagree with what seems to be a concensus this is a loser case.

The backers were not part of the garnishment order.

The stake was an expense to be repaid 100% before there were any earnings.

The earnings, by contract, were only half Ivey.

I would go even further and say a countersuit could win as this one is lost, in that Borgata is killing Ivey's stakehorse stable if this seizure is upheld. Libel, restraint of commerce, illegal confiscation of third party assets, are all in play. He's got to have IRS filed as a pro for a couple decades now. Stake holder rights are in existing laws. The money was earned in Nevada.

I think he comes out ahead on this one. May even have done it on purpose to force the issue.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 7273
Thanks for this post from:
SOOPOO
September 11th, 2019 at 1:38:23 PM permalink
I guess I look at it a little differently. Ivey was the contestant that won the money. The money was to be paid to Ivey and then Ivey was responsible for paying the backers. The backers could not have collected the money directly from the WSOP. Ivey had to collect it, My only real point is that it is Ivey that owes the backers and it shouldn't matter whether or not he collects it. The agreement was for a percentage of the winnings and Ivey did have those winnings even if he didn't collect it.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 167
  • Posts: 9997
September 11th, 2019 at 1:42:12 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

I disagree with what seems to be a concensus this is a loser case.

The backers were not part of the garnishment order.

The stake was an expense to be repaid 100% before there were any earnings.

The earnings, by contract, were only half Ivey.

I would go even further and say a countersuit could win as this one is lost, in that Borgata is killing Ivey's stakehorse stable if this seizure is upheld. Libel, restraint of commerce, illegal confiscation of third party assets, are all in play. He's got to have IRS filed as a pro for a couple decades now. Stake holder rights are in existing laws. The money was earned in Nevada.

I think he comes out ahead on this one. May even have done it on purpose to force the issue.



But could the case be decided where the stake holders don't get the winnings, but just what they invested? One thing I was reading is the Verdict might not be sympathetic to the stake holders if it is believed they were aware Ivey was already in default of a judgment of 10 million.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
September 11th, 2019 at 1:48:33 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

But could the case be decided where the stake holders don't get the winnings, but just what they invested? One thing I was reading is the Verdict might not be sympathetic to the stake holders if it is believed they were aware Ivey was already in default of a judgment of 10 million.



Unless there is zero precedent here and I find that hard to believe, the case will not be decided on sympathy.

It will be decided on case law.

If the law says the stake holders have an inviolable right to botb their winnings and stake then thats probably what they will receive.

This almost certainly wont be a jury trial. No one is accused of any criminality. Its going to be determined solely on law precedent
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 110
  • Posts: 7788
Thanks for this post from:
DRichForager
September 11th, 2019 at 1:50:53 PM permalink
Maybe my mind is simple, but this one seems simple to me. Phil Ivey entered into a contract with WSOP to pay them an entry fee and have them pay him winnings if he won. The government took those winnings to pay a debt he owed.

Phil Ivey entered into a contract to pay investors a defined amount of money for paying his entry fee. He would only have to pay the money if he won (cashed) of course. He won a defined amount of money from WSOP, thus he owes the investors.

As far as the government is concerned, they would believe he has not been wronged. His lawful debt is reduced by the amount withheld, no more, no less.

If you believe that the debt he owed is not legal, that is a whole nother ball of wax. Not relevant to whether the investors are owed money by Mr. Ivey. There must be millions of men getting wages garnished who also owe other people money. Their debt just doesn't go away because someone is garnishing their wages first.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
September 11th, 2019 at 2:01:30 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Maybe my mind is simple, but this one seems simple to me. Phil Ivey entered into a contract with WSOP to pay them an entry fee and have them pay him winnings if he won. The government took those winnings to pay a debt he owed.

Phil Ivey entered into a contract to pay investors a defined amount of money for paying his entry fee. He would only have to pay the money if he won (cashed) of course. He won a defined amount of money from WSOP, thus he owes the investors.

As far as the government is concerned, they would believe he has not been wronged. His lawful debt is reduced by the amount withheld, no more, no less.

If you believe that the debt he owed is not legal, that is a whole nother ball of wax. Not relevant to whether the investors are owed money by Mr. Ivey. There must be millions of men getting wages garnished who also owe other people money. Their debt just doesn't go away because someone is garnishing their wages first.



Very true

However garnishments usually have exemptions based on precedence.

For example if u owe 2 different organizations (federal taxes and child support lets say) there are laws which state WHO comes first.

In this case a contract based on legal aspects of gaming law (allowing for backers to stake) may or may not take precedence

That will be for the court to decide
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee

  • Jump to: