darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 247
  • Posts: 7790
September 11th, 2019 at 2:03:23 PM permalink
I doubt these backers did not know about the borgata issue.

That being said I doubt they did not back Ivey with full confidence of the law that they could collect their winnings without Borgata having legal claim to them.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 247
  • Posts: 7790
September 11th, 2019 at 2:17:44 PM permalink
Quote: DRich

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.



If that is how the law is applied then backing of poker players would end

Backers would be forced to do background checks on garnishment and other liabilities EVERY TIME they staked which I dont see happening

The end result if any backer can have his money garnished by his backee previous legal debt would be for backer to (pardon the pun) back off from any and all such deals.

But these backers I am sure researched the law and felt comfortable if such as this situation arose.

Something tells me the backers are going to prevail based on state backing laws
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 247
  • Posts: 7790
September 11th, 2019 at 2:20:52 PM permalink
Personally if I was the Borgata I would just concede.

Then,

Stake holders are happy at staking Ivey

Ivey gets to freeroll his way out of debt.

The Borgata gets back all their money because Ivey keeps playing even though its in smaller drips and drabs.

But of course stupid Borgata will try to keep the entire $125,000.

Then no one will stake Ivey going forward and the Borgata can kiss their edge sorting judgement goodbye
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 167
  • Posts: 9957
September 11th, 2019 at 2:49:37 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

If that is how the law is applied then backing of poker players would end

Backers would be forced to do background checks on garnishment and other liabilities EVERY TIME they staked which I dont see happening



I think most general investment advice would be to research your investment -- so it doesn't sound too crazy to me as a general principle regardless of what the investment opportunity is about.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 247
  • Posts: 7790
September 11th, 2019 at 2:54:12 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I think most general investment advice would be to research your investment -- so it doesn't sound too crazy to me as a general principle regardless of what the investment opportunity is about.



I actually agree with you.

As I stated above, its impossible the backers didnt know about the situation

Which implies to me that they DID research their investment and came to the conclusion they were legally protected from this
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
LVJackal
LVJackal
Joined: Jun 1, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 85
September 11th, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM permalink
This could get interesting, couple things to add.

Trincher and Cates are regular high limit cash game players- unknown if "winning" players
Backing is extremely common within the circle of people who populate the highest level games, it is not unusual
for multiple players in a game to be staked by another player at the same table. Either they do not have the cash on hand and are fronted their buy ins, or a myriad of other possible scenarios.

A fun twist would be for Borgata to employ Ivey at a fixed hourly income plus incentives based on tournament cash outs. Borgata could front the entry fees as a corporate entity with Ivey as their representative. A legal contract could be worked out.
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2362
Thanks for this post from:
SOOPOO
September 11th, 2019 at 6:59:37 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Does a player actually receive the full payout on something like this, or do they take federal taxes out? If they take taxes, is it only on the amount above the buy-in, or the whole cash? I'm wondering how much rhe Borgata actually got when they garnished his "wages".

Garnishments from a paycheck are after taxes are deducted. I donít know how it works if tax withholding a arenít required, but the full winnings will count as taxable income of Ivy despite the garnishment.

I donít see why people think the backers are getting screwed. If they have a valid backing contract with Ivy, then still owes them the money. Heís just out of pocket for it since the garnishment creditor takes priority over an unsecured creditor.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14231
September 11th, 2019 at 10:04:42 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

Garnishments from a paycheck are after taxes are deducted. I donít know how it works if tax withholding a arenít required, but the full winnings will count as taxable income of Ivy despite the garnishment.

I donít see why people think the backers are getting screwed. If they have a valid backing contract with Ivy, then still owes them the money. Heís just out of pocket for it since the garnishment creditor takes priority over an unsecured creditor.



My question is, there's an entry fee. You can't count as winnings getting the fee back, so how can Borgata take back the replacement of the entry fee? The IRS acknowledges that, so why wouldn't Borgata only be able to garnish the amount over the 50k?
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
LVJackal
LVJackal
Joined: Jun 1, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 85
September 11th, 2019 at 10:20:44 PM permalink
An argument could be made, that given 80%+ lose the entry fee,
This is then forfeit in the pursuit of entertainment.
Therefore all proceeds are profit.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19127
September 12th, 2019 at 12:42:12 AM permalink
I still want to know if you were an employee I'm some company if they could then still confiscate the money? I see no difference between winning at poker tournament for an employee VS selling a product for a company. As far as I'm concerned they're only entitled to whatever Commission or profit that person earned from the sale or Tournament winnings.
♪♪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♪♪

  • Jump to: