blonde poker forum

http://robyongsblog.com/2017/11/12/what-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas-not/

Very interesting. I read some of the accounts of what happened on 2p2 but if that first offer is real then that should be a snap accept. Equity has to be about $2.7 of the $3mil. Of course he didn't have to give a discount but you want to keep the whale playing you. Seems like an absolute no brainer.

So Matt accepted the initial deal and then got the phone call (from backers presumably telling him no?) at which point the deal was off?

Tough spot at the table when Leon is forcing Matt to keep playing. Not sure what I would've done. Probably quit and hope he respects you for it in the morning. Playing someone HU for those stakes when they can barely see the cards just isn't right.

Matt is out of order here. He made a deal he is obliged to honour it.

How is Leon getting any support here?

He owns a casino. A casino which also has a poker room that's gained a lot of notoriety the last few years. Has his casino never taken a bet from a drunk guy? From UK, to Vegas to Macau I'm yet to see a casino that doesnt take action from drunk punters.

Is Leon not old and responsible enough to know that he shouldn't be playing when he's drunk? Rob even said in his post that he's played with Leon before and quit because Leon drinks.

If he was a a new-to-poker new-to-drinking rich guy being deliberately plied with alcohol I see an incredibly strong argument for not paying up but here I don't.

So this 50 year old, extremely rich casino owner throws his toys out of the pram because he is playing while drunk.

He's been around the block more than a few times. PAY UP.

I've lost money several times when drunk and don't moan about it. When you drink you know you're gonna make less good decisions.

And the Elton Tsang thing? Leon just accuses him of cheating based on no evidence whatsoever and decides to not pay?

This guy does not sound like good news but people who can influence Leon need him and his money so are most likely too afraid to tell him that he should just pay in full.

I also have a few questions regarding the rules in casinos and poker rooms and how they are supposed to follow and enforce responsible gaming laws?

- There are dealers, floor staff etc all around - are they allowed/supposed to stop a game/player if they deem the player too drunk to be playing responsibly?

Missed you  :kiss:

Link to the 2+2 thread, please?

Thanks Bipkin.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/leon-tsoukernik-subpoenad-stiffed-aussie-matt-elton-tsang-millions-1672483/ (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/leon-tsoukernik-subpoenad-stiffed-aussie-matt-elton-tsang-millions-1672483/)

I have to disagree Mr P.

Leon agreed to pay, Matt agreed a deal and then renaged.

If Matt agreed the deal and it can be verified then I don't see how his backers can win in court.

For a start it must be , as the young lads say , -EV to sue a potential cash cow.

Secondly , costs can spiral out of control in court cases and eat into any potential winnings.

They should agree on the original deal , advertise and promote the heads up match on
Party Poker live TV channel and arrange a boxing match afterwards.

Sorted.

Matt Kirk is not the type of guy to give a fuck about taking money from him drunk, his worries were entirely about if he's getting paid or not, agreeing to the $1m HU match (as rob says rough equity split) is a good gesture, why on earth the "backers" thought it was a good idea to cancel that after Matt made the agreement is beyond me frankly. Matt could just have said at the start I want the $3m no deals You could have run sick and cleaned me out and I paid you the day before full monies, and obviously that's totally fine, cancelling the deal though with someone as hot headed as Leon was a pretty brutal mistake and unless there is more to it, really, really stupid.

Leon, though, a million times out of order, obviously.

I'm obviously missing something here Dave. Can you point out where Leon is out of order for me please?

Leon is using the excuse that he was drunk but he wasn't drunk enough to confirm
the loan of chips by sending a text message back to Matt to confirm the loan while sat
at the table.

If you lost a few quid while playing poker drunk would you not pay ?

Of course you would and it would be a lesson learnt.

I do think Leon is out of order by not paying but once Rob brokered the deal then
I would say that as a verbal contract this would be upheld in court.

Agree with Dave , bonkers decision to renege on the deal.

A year ago I was out with a couple of mates and we decided to play pool.

Now I haven't played pool in years and knew I was a big dog in the game.

However one of the lads got quite drunk and after starting at £5 a game
it ended up us playing for a considerable sum even though I didn't want to
play for x amount of money , he insisted.

I ended up winning over £500 and thought nothing more of it.

A couple of months later he rang me up and argued the fact that he was drunk
that he shouldn't pay the full amount owed.

I argued , in that case , as in the poker scenario , the drunk is pretty much free
rolling in that he can win but if he loses claim he was drunk.

We brokered a deal because we have been mates for over 30 years and I
certainly was not trying to pull a fast one as I am shit at pool !

Maybe it's because I am a bookie but to me a bet is a bet and you should honour
it , drunk or not.

Agreed. Same goes for a deal.

WTF was Matt doing making a deal he wasn't at liberty to honour?

He should have gone to his backers first before agreeing to a deal but he
probably thought they would agree.

Let's face it , as Del Boy once said  "we have had worse days"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiIIkQO95z4

Matts backers are the stupid ones here. The $~300k in equity they give up in the deal is peanuts in the grand scheme of things to a) make sure they get paid the $2m and b) keep Leon sweet for the future.

Matt should've made this clear to them and even if they said no, probably swallowed the loss on his own dime / find another backer for the $1m hu match.

Red dog's stance is interesting. In your eyes Tom, the second deal supersedes the first (the initial loan of 3m) and now Matt has reneged on it, so.... what happens next? Matt was out of order to reneg, sure, what is the next move now? What are Leon's obligations at this point?

Really interesting take on it.

Wait, why should there be a deal?

Can someone give me a good reason why Leon shouldn't pay the full $3m?

I agree Matt made a mistake making a deal but the fact is, if Leon was a MAN or had any honour about him he would fucking man up and pay his debt.

This is bitter bad loser angling scum bullshit, 'Oh i was drunk'. No, you're a scumbag and you should pay up your money.

In Barcelona he claimed cheating with no evidence other than Elton Tsang making a good call against him. He didn't pay.

How can anyone possibly side with him? There should be no negotiation.

You borrow x amount of money. You pay back that same x amount you borrowed.

The good reason why Matt should negotiate is two fold

1. Going to court is VERY expensive , could drag on for years with counter
claims and appeals.

2. If Leon feels like you have done him a favour by accepting a lower amount
than actually won then he is more likely to give you action and consider you
as a "friend". Rob has done the right thing in the past and walked away when
he felt things were getting out of hand. Some people are more mercenary.

I agree that Leon should pay but that is not the argument now.

I thought the initial loan of 3m was just that, a loan, the re payment of which never seemed in doubt. Then a deal was apparently suggested by Matt and was agreed to by Leon and witnessed by Rob.

What happens next IMO is Leon should pay the 2 milly as per the deal and wait for Matt to honour his part of the bargain.

Apart from being drunk and stupid, I can't really see why Leon is the bad guy in this.

Just my 2c Cos, bear in mind I know nothing of Leon's previous.

Matt was worried about not getting paid which indicates a certain anxiety
about the whole episode.

It was after he spoke to Rob that Rob suggested the deal which Matt accepted
without consulting backers.

Leon totally out of order but if a little common sense prevailed then a solution ,
brokered by Rob , was there for both parties to move forward.

Lunacy to let it get this far out of hand with claims and counter claims.

Both seem determined to dig their heels in and fight it out in court and we all know
who wins there.

I don't get how Matt, who is after all the one who refused to fulfil his obligations, cones off as "worried"

When Leon, who lost a fortune, then squirmed and whined but didn't refuse to pay comes of as, "totally out of order"

Matt was worried according to Rob that he would not get paid what he was owed.

No doubt he had heard the stories about Leon.

You are wrong Tom , Leon did not agree to pay the full amount borrowed as far as
I can tell.

All he did was agree to Rob's plan to pay back $2million and play for the other $1million
heads up.

He should have said to Rob , " No it's ok Rob , I was drunk and stupid and will pay the guy
all the money I lost to him "

Simples , but life is never simple.

Jim, according to Rob, this is what Leon said.


As soon as Leon arrived at Liquid he said to me, ‘Tell Matty not to worry, I don’t remember much but whatever I lost I will pay today’.

Yes but obviously things didn't go that way or why would
there be a need for Rob to get involved and broker a deal.

Something must have happened , words must have been exchanged
for Rob to feel that a deal was needed to resolve the situation.

Leon said that he would pay but he didn't , why ?

@cos
It wasn't Leon's idea, rob said "if you feel bad then how about offering x as a goodwill gesture" which Matt did. According to Rob, Leon was ok to pay the 3m but also accepted Matts offer which seems reasonable.

Everything is reasonable up to the point of the backers cancelling the deal then both sides acted poorly in my view.

Yes, but that's all speculation Jim. We can only judge on the facts as presented to us.

I think Matt got scared and jumped the gun otherwise he would have got paid.

At least he should have said to Leon, "I can't agree to a deal without consulting my backers".

If Rob decided to put the indecent online I'm sure he posted all the salient details.  

With everything that has gone off since with claims and counter claims being issued

I am not convinced it would have been as straight forward as Leon transferring $3 million

that day.

We beg to differ.

Lol at this thread!

Wake up knowing you lost a few quid last night, head banging.
Heads down to the lido and his mate tells him its $3m.
No worries, he has that in a cornflake box on top of the wardrobe.

Cant fault him for accepting the kind offer of $2m and $1m heads up.
Don't really see how Matt can rescind an offer like that, surely Matt has to stand the difference as Alex suggests?

Leon then offers Matt $1m and he accepts this, and accepts it in front of a witness?
What in the world do you say to someone to make them give you a $2m discount!

Would that deal not stand unless Matt is denying it ever happened?
On that basis I don't see how either of them have a lawsuit.

"What in the world do you say to someone to make them give you a $2m discount!"

I can imagine Leon is a very persuasive guy , or he knows someone who is.

For me if this is what persuaded me to offer a cheeky $2m discount, then i would also be persuaded not to take legal action?

Sometimes you need to get out of a tricky situation for health reasons.

Maybe now there is more than an arm's length distance between them Matt feels a little more comfortable !.

I've never said Matt hasn't handled this situation badly. I think he handled it awfully but I also believe even in light of his mistake that he is due the full $3m and I think Leon should see that.

Leon knows the ins and outs of poker. He knows half the world is backed and if he thinks he's playing a pro in a big enough game where someone can lose several million and the pro has all their own action then I'll add 'delusional' to the list of names I'd call him alongside 'scammer'.

He should realise he owes the full $3m, why Matt panicked and accepted a deal that should not be justified and pay it to be an honourable gambler and respect his decision. He could have also felt aggrieved enough to be dangled the carrot of less money to be paid for no real reason and said to Matt that he'd never play with him or deal with him again and pay up.

But the crux of the matter is he borrowed $3m. He then lost $3m. He owes $3m.

It won't make much difference but I hope there is a boycott of his casino

I went with a friend of mine to look at a plastering job on a newly built house. We had the keys and we let ourselves in.

There were no furnishings what so ever, but the central heating was on, (presumably to dry out the walls).

On the floor of what was going to become the kitchen there was an electric kettle plugged into a wall socket, a jar of coffee, a bag of sugar and a dirty pack of playing cards.

We knew nothing about poker back then but my friend, a truly degen gambler, suggested a game of three card. I refused.

Firstly, I didn't have much money to spare, secondly, he was the jammiest bastard that ever broke bread, and thirdly, but not leastly, I knew my tea would be ready at home and we were having lamb chops and onion gravy.

Undeterred, he asked me if I had seen Bruce Forsyth's new show, Play Your Cards Right. I said I had and without further ado he flipped the first card in the deck over and said, "For a quid, is the next one higher or lower?"

Fast forward 5 hours and I was £1500 up. I was sitting on a concrete floor, drinking coffee from a disgusting cup and wondering..

A- If I was ever going to be able to walk properly again, B- What Mrs Red would have done with my lamb chops, and C- How the Hell I was going to get out of there with my £1500 intact, (or with any money at all for that matter.

I offered him a deal. Quit now and I would knock £500 off the bill. I know this sounds daft but I would still be walking out with £1000, which was a shit load of money in 1980.

He didn't want to quit, so I told him how it would have to be. If he won back the £1500, I only had £200 more that I could lose to him, if, on the other hand he ended up losing, he wouldn't get a penny discount. He said that was fine so we carried on.

We played until almost dawn and he ran so bad, he was going lower than a Q and hitting a K, higher than a 3 and hitting a 2 etc, it was so bad that he agonising over cards like 5 or 6 saying, "I should say higher but I know it will be lower".

When we finally packed in, we were literally unable to walk because we had been sitting on the concrete for so long. On the + side I was £2100 up. On the - side I was expecting Mrs Red to file for divorce. (Remember there were no phones back then, she had no idea where I was)

The next day, I went around to his gaff to get paid as agreed. Normally at this point, once the reddies were in my hand I would give a small % in "Luck money" back as a gesture of good will and a thank you for prompt payment. (This only applies to my traveller friends because it's the done thing and it works both ways) This time though, I told him I was keeping the lot because of our agreement.

He whined and wheedled and begged and called me all the names under the sun and swore he would never speak to me again.

Two weeks later he came to see me and apologised for making a fuss. He said he was bang out of order. I apologised too. I had been thinking that I should never have put myself in a position where I would feel forced to refuse to give him his discount.

I offered him £200, he wouldn't accept it and in the end we used it to take both of our our families for a day out at Alton Towers.

We are still good friends, he's a millionaire now and still a jammy bastard. I don't think I've ever won a bet from him since.

The last time we met he won £400 from me when we played a game using the numbers on the registration plates of passing cars as poker hands.



 

And still with all this going on they play together on partypoker. Much safer online.

Nice story Tom!

I've had mixed experiences with letting people off money. E.g. in poker hands, telling people I've got it, or in chinese back in the day I remember missetting a hand on purpose costing me several hundred. Some worth it, some not. Lessons always learnt though.

The way I see the $1m situation is that as Rob described, Leon spoke to Matt like he was a kid, offered him $1m, which completely enraged Matt, who knew in his head that he was going to sue Leon for the rest, but kept cool, took the $1m because that is all he was being offered and then in his words "use it to ruin Leon's reputation".

Tom, presumably you had to spend all your winnings on reconstructive facial surgery after Mrs Red set about it with the frying pan once you came home.

I made the £2100 into a fan shape and wafted her with it. It had a strangely calming effect.

I'm curious as to whether Matt's backers who vetoed the deal the following day actually okayed the loans during the game.

You are missing something Tom :)

Leon agreed to pay $2m and a $1m HU match, decent spot for him. After the fucking about, I don't know why Matt fucked about like that telling no deal after getting leon out of bed hungover and shaking on it, surely anyone with an ounce of social intelligence would have realised that was a really stupid thing to do. 

Leon 100% owes $2m cash, no doubt there whatsoever. IMO what he should have done is paid $2m and said you got 4 days to play me HU for the other $1m, or actually tbh after the threats of lawyers etc I wouldn't actually have thought that bad of Leon if he said, here's the $2m now go f**k yourself for the other $1m if you hadn't of been such a dick since with lawyers etc i'd have played HU for the other milly. Matt gets done out of about $525k~ equity or something which for how badly he handled a delicate situation I think would have been a decent result for him.

So what you're missing is the fact when Leon made a "deal" to pay $2m cash and paid $1m - that's where he's out of line.

I mean in you are backing Matt Kirk you obviously love a big gamble, why the hell not lend him $3m!

I guess Matt might now be in makeup having failed to collect the other $2Milly  ::)

But initially Leon agreed to pay "Whatever he owed" and Rob advised Matt that he thought Leon would pay, then Matt offered the deal, then he renaged.

Yep, understand that, but he owes $2m and paid $1m, you seem to be suggesting that because Matt agreed a deal then changed his mind Leon is justified in slashing the debt in half?

I imagine it's not backers like you think just guys who take pieces of him in these big spots he gets in, like $3m HU swings vs Leon for example

Isn't it $3m total that he was owed of which he got $1m?   

That's not quite what I'm saying.

I think Matt should stick to the deal and so should Leon.

Agree, once the deal of $2m + a $1m headsup was made then they should both stick to it, but in answer to your question...


Neither of them stuck to the deal, so that's where Leon is out of order.

Fair comment, it just seemed to me that Leon was getting all the stick while Matt was getting sympathy.

In truth, what Matt did by welching first was to give Leon an excuse to do some welching of his own.

Hmm i'm not sure if Kirk was actually welching, he basically settled for $2m cash + ~$550k equity and then reneged on the deal, which I think is more very poor form rather than welching - Leon had agreed to pay $2m and only paid $1m which is the perfect definition of welching.

What a horribly handled situation lol what on earth was Matt thinking.

He goes from getting $3m in cash to getting $2m in cash, to getting $1m in cash, to spending most of his $1m on lawyers, to getting counter sued for $10m. Reminds me a story my Dad always loves telling about my Mum in Morocco when she was at the market and negotiated the price of a scarf from £15 to £20 by not understanding the money :D

Ahhh. From reading some stuff on 2p2 actually makes 100% sense for the mystery backer to be Bobby Baldwin.

Explains to sudden aggressive change from "I'll pay you it" to "$1m gfy for the rest" and why he made a big deal of MK being staked...and why he's naming Aria in his lawsuit.

Hmmmmmmmm

Oops, I thought he was one of the Baldwin brothers when i read the 2p2 thread!

A lot of it makes more sense now I know who he is.

Still probably think that he should have paid the $2m originally agreed and just sat that is what we shook on by the pool.

Does it actually have anything to do with us ?
What these high rollers do / get up to ?
Does anybody think they read this ? / even care ?
It certainly happens at much lower levels we’ve all been knocked for a bit of dollar here n there n learnt ?

Nope, but people like to speculate over a good grim  :D

Ye me too lol 😝

how often does something this exciting happen Tony? Get involved mate lets start some wild speculation :)

Pretty sure all the dealers, floor and bar staff were actors in scooby doo style full face masks, the whole thing was a set up

Remarkable that people are interested isn't it?

I could understand the outrage if Leon was a bird wearing a low cut top but when it's just two regular guys fighting it out in court of millions of dollars won in a drunken poker game, how this thread has reached 5 pages I'll never know!

Wins the day, possibly the year.