Staking Group files complaint for 10% of Nick Marchington's WSOP winnings

August 03, 2019Valérie Cross

Betting offers are part of the fabric of poker tournaments, allowing players to minimize their spreads while investors have the chance to earn some good winnings if their horses can make the distance or at least make a great race.

Although such agreements are common, the cancellation mechanisms of these agreements have been taken into account, with a picketing group taking World Series of Poker 2019 Main Event seventh place Nick Marchington in court, claiming that they always had the right to their 10% stake. Marchington would have canceled the agreement in writing before the tournament began.

"It is disappointing to see a support operation arguing that a player does not have the right to cancel a bet before the start of a poker tournament, especially after accepting the refund." of his player. "

Marchington, a 21-year-old British poker pro, sold a portion of his action before cashing the jackpot for $ 1,525,000 after finishing seventh out of 8,569 participants on July 14th. The ongoing lawsuit against him alleges the violation of an SMS cancellation to the sponsors in question, David Yee and Colin Hartley of Cake Poker Biscuit. He sent the text before the start of the event.

These supporters allege that Marchington only returned the $ 1,200 Main Event entry after entering the event, thus retaining its 10% share. Yee and Hartley brought a lawsuit in the Clark County Court the day after Marchington's release of the event under the representation of lawyers. Richard Schonfeld and Robert DeMarco. Following the filing, Caesars put the $ 152,500 in issue on hold and these funds are now held in a trust with Marchington's lawyer.

Details and chronology

Most of the players who sell in the Main are at the margin and can get away by charging more margin than usual because of the huge potential for gains at stake and the perceived weakness of the field. This was certainly the case for the young Internet mill playing in its first Main Event.

The piece in question was a 10% stake that Marchington originally sold to the owners of C Biscuit at $ 1.2 mark, which means the staking company bought the $ 1,000 coin for $ 1,200. In this arrangement, C Biscuit bought the Main Event stake and 10% of its share in Event 70: Hold 'em No Limit at $ 5,000 to $ 5,000 at 1.1 beacon.

According to the exhibits presented by the complainants at the hearing, the above-mentioned agreement was concluded on 29 May. The funds were transferred and received by Marchington on June 4th. On June 28, when the monitoring group followed up with Marchington, he told them, "Most likely, do not play the 5K or the hand." The next day he wrote, "What's up, I'm canceling my WSOP tracks. I do not go home early, "further confirming that he owed them a refund for putting the $ 1,750 that they had sent.

After playing a complete WSOP program with little success before the flagship Main Event, Marchington was late on the trip and apparently had a better contract than the one he had already accepted. According to the complaint, Marchington told Yee and Hartley that he had found sponsors willing to buy the action from his Main Event at a higher price, telling them on July 1: "I could play the main. I sent a message to a few people and I can sell at 1.7. "

Action, no action

Although it seemed that C Biscuit's coins in both events were to be canceled, communication around this point is a little fuzzy as Marchington then sent C Biscuit a photo of the tournament's receipt. a value of $ 5,000, indicating that their room was still active for this event. . C Biscuit replied to clarify: "Hey nick just for a few – so I guess 5k is with our action then and that's the receipt – thanks for that. I guess the main event of the WSOP is always booked with us?

Marchington replied, "Yes, it's reserved with you and I have a nice rug, I do not know about the main event. I'm sorry for the confusion you will find out. "

Stake members have expressed dissatisfaction with Marchington that it is canceling their agreement for the Main Event because of a better offer. In any event, Marchington played Day 1b on July 2 before announcing to C Biscuit that he was playing the lead role but that their betting agreement was not in place for the event, writing by SMS: "I play the main event but unfortunately your room is canceled. I know it's bad practice, but I have to do what's best for me since I lost on a trip. I will answer you about your refund. "

"He has the free will to go out of the agreement at any time."

Once Marchington informed C Biscuit's representatives that he was unilaterally canceling the betting agreement with the group for the Main Event, both parties entered into discussions with a view to obtaining the same. 39, a refund of the participation of $ 1,200. C Biscuit arranged with Marchington to return the refund to "one of their badociates" in person, which Marchington complied with.

In a statement to the court, Marchington wrote that he "was trying to pay back the money from C. Biscuit as soon as I informed them of my cancellation; the delay in this process was due to the fact that they needed time to locate a partner who would meet me to receive the refund. "

Label vs law

Although the prosecutor argues that Marchington only paid off the bet after the start of the tournament, it is clear that there were indications that he had intended to cancel the deal before the start of the tournament. competition.

"Requiring that a player participate in an event on a given issue would be illegal," said Marchington's lawyer. Ronald Green written about the rights of his client. "He has the free will to go out of the agreement at any time."

The rules or terms of these unique betting agreements vary depending on how the deal is made, but they are generally considered a form of "gentlemen's agreement", with modifications or cancellations allowed until a player enrolls in the event in question, or more precisely, before his starting stack is in action.

"Such shame that one of my personal achievements has been tainted by the greed of others."

To this end, Marchington's legal representative wrote in a document filed by the court that the Biscuit sponsors "had an agreement that Mr. Marchington was free to cancel at any time prior to the Main Event. Mr. Marchington exercised his right to rescind the agreement in question. and the complainants were reinstated when they agreed to repay their money. "

What may be a violation of the generally accepted etiquette with respect to the poker wagering protocol can not be in violation of law, as Marchington's legal representation argues that Marchington was legally entitled to set aside setting arrangement before the event in question.

Maurice "Mac" Verstandig, another Marchington lawyer, commented on the case as follows: "It is disappointing to see a support operation claiming that a player does not have the right to cancel a bet before the start of a poker tournament, especially after accepting the refund of the player. However, we look forward to continuing this case in court and hope that the justice system will do justice to Mr. Marchington. "

The interruption of celebrations with friends and family after his great victory was naturally unwelcome for Marchington, who wrote on Twitter: "It's so bad that a personal exploit has been tainted by the greed of others" .

He surely hopes to put this spot on his exploit as soon as possible, but he seems to have to take it to court first.

Make sure to complete your PokerNews experience by looking at an overview of our mobile and tablet apps here. Stay on top of the poker world from your phone with our iOS and Android mobile app, or launch our iPad app on your tablet. You can also update your own number of chips at poker tournaments around the world with MyStack on Android and iOS.