Justin Bonomo Reveals One Drop Deal with Fedor Holz

Kanetuck

Kanetuck

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Total posts
1,343
Awards
15
Chips
0
I would think I would be happy with it. He basically cut down on the risk and guaranteed some money. I see four major variables here. 1). Those same people complaining would have been keeping their mouths shut if he lost. 2). I would like to think that you have to trust the professional to make a deal when it presents itself. Who knows how he felt about to go heads-up, maybe the deal took some pressure off and allowed him to win. 3). I am sure there are some trust issues when there are more investors than can be effectively communicated with. 4) If there was a single backer, his attenpts to be above board would have cleared the air.
 
Shells

Shells

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Total posts
17,676
Awards
15
CA
Chips
170
I would think I would be happy with it. He basically cut down on the risk and guaranteed some money. I see four major variables here. 1). Those same people complaining would have been keeping their mouths shut if he lost. 2). I would like to think that you have to trust the professional to make a deal when it presents itself. Who knows how he felt about to go heads-up, maybe the deal took some pressure off and allowed him to win. 3). I am sure there are some trust issues when there are more investors than can be effectively communicated with. 4) If there was a single backer, his attenpts to be above board would have cleared the air.



You make some very good points there.
 
E

EuroJ

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Total posts
11
Chips
0
If he loses HU, does he still reveal the deal? Or does he pay backers based on the advertised 2nd place $? Who knows. That is where this can get sticky.
 
MikeCarasone

MikeCarasone

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Total posts
2,054
Awards
2
Chips
181
There should be a disclaimer on the website regarding deals and chops. I’m surprised this hasn’t been dealt with before. I think making deal is fine and Justin let the Youstake person know before hand therefore he’s done everything to my satisfaction. Guaranteed money in this heads up format against Fedor was very wise. It could’ve gone either way.
 
R

Rolco

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 30, 2018
Total posts
138
Chips
1
There should be a disclaimer on the website regarding deals and chops. I’m surprised this hasn’t been dealt with before. I think making deal is fine and Justin let the Youstake person know before hand therefore he’s done everything to my satisfaction. Guaranteed money in this heads up format against Fedor was very wise. It could’ve gone either way.

I agree - or Justin should state on his staking advertisement that he reserves the right to make deals at the table.
 
Poker_Mike

Poker_Mike

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Total posts
4,753
Awards
2
Chips
347
I posted this on the news story...

If you are willing to invest in a poker player then you trust their judgement.
You are certainly trusting their hand-to-hand judgement. And, yes, their final table “chop” judgement.
Investors always want more money and will sue to get more.
If there was no deal and the player came in 2nd….would investors sue to recoup the extra
prize money that could have been realized if the player made a deal?

I doubt the player would short himself of prize winnings just to cut his investors’ profit.
If anything it should be the opposite. As a player I would want to reward my backers.
Although, every time I watch The Producers I feel a little more cynical.
My backing prospectus should include a statement that prevents liability for decisions in play and
chop deals.

Because the WSOP doesn’t facilitate chops I would assume that investors are entitled to proof of funds transfer to the other player?
There are business deals in poker? Shocking !
 
R

Rolco

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 30, 2018
Total posts
138
Chips
1
I posted this on the news story...

If you are willing to invest in a poker player then you trust their judgement.
You are certainly trusting their hand-to-hand judgement. And, yes, their final table “chop” judgement.
Investors always want more money and will sue to get more.
If there was no deal and the player came in 2nd….would investors sue to recoup the extra
prize money that could have been realized if the player made a deal?

I doubt the player would short himself of prize winnings just to cut his investors’ profit.
If anything it should be the opposite. As a player I would want to reward my backers.
Although, every time I watch The Producers I feel a little more cynical.
My backing prospectus should include a statement that prevents liability for decisions in play and
chop deals.

Because the WSOP doesn’t facilitate chops I would assume that investors are entitled to proof of funds transfer to the other player?
There are business deals in poker? Shocking !

You don't seem to understand the key issue at hand which is that given a number of players owned a % of the action, decisions should not of been made without their permission. Justin acted on behalf of others without a disclaimer or prior notification.
 
Poker_Mike

Poker_Mike

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Total posts
4,753
Awards
2
Chips
347
You don't seem to understand the key issue at hand which is that given a number of players owned a % of the action, decisions should not of been made without their permission. Justin acted on behalf of others without a disclaimer or prior notification.

These circumstances are completely normal, predictable and forseen.

If you look at the business transaction purely from a legal view...

Did the backers tell him their investment was for "no chop"? Or check with them if a chop is considered ? (Maybe they did - I wasn't there)

"Decisions should not of been made without their permission." - I'm telling you brother that is all poker is....making decisions....one decision after the other..

That is why anyone would invest in a particular poker player.....the investor likes or "trusts" the player's ability in decision making.

I mean really? He has to get umpteen people to approve perhaps.....slow playing AA three handed ?? ROTF - Can you imagine?

Or only chop decisions need to be approved? Is that what you mean?
 
Last edited:
R

Rolco

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 30, 2018
Total posts
138
Chips
1
These circumstances are completely normal, predictable and forseen.

If you look at the business transaction purely from a legal view...

Did the backers tell him their investment was for "no chop"? Or check with them if a chop is considered ? (Maybe they did - I wasn't there)

"Decisions should not of been made without their permission." - I'm telling you brother that is all poker is....making decisions....one decision after the other..

That is why anyone would invest in a particular poker player.....the investor likes or "trusts" the player's ability in decision making.

I mean really? He has to get umpteen people to approve perhaps.....slow playing AA three handed ?? ROTF - Can you imagine?

Or only chop decisions need to be approved? Is that what you mean?

Only non-routine decisions (such as deciding to chop, particularly via a private agreement). The point is that the stakers OWNED some of the action so decisions like that should not be made on their behalf without their consultation or a prior disclaimer.
 
Poker_Mike

Poker_Mike

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Total posts
4,753
Awards
2
Chips
347
Only non-routine decisions (such as deciding to chop, particularly via a private agreement). The point is that the stakers OWNED some of the action so decisions like that should not be made on their behalf without their consultation or a prior disclaimer.



So the player with investors needs permission of all stakeholders to make a deal ?

What if you can't get a response from some of them? No deal?

What about just a majority vote ?

And here's the real kicker...it they all had been informed and exercised their vote...do you think the final outcome would be different?
 
Last edited:
R

Rolco

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 30, 2018
Total posts
138
Chips
1
So the player with investors needs permission of all stakeholders to make a deal ?

What if you can't get a response from some of them? No deal?

What about just a majority vote ?

And here's the real kicker...it they all had been informed and exercised their vote...do you think the final outcome would be different?

Justin should of made a notice upfront in his staking advertisement [prior to anyone investing] stating that he reserved the right to make deals at the final table.
 
lulu pk

lulu pk

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Total posts
3,303
Awards
10
Chips
0
I would agree with his decision.

The part that I do not understand is the transparency from wsop organizations who do not shows those deal at the end of the tournament (or they do but we are not aware).

I'm use to watch some EPT coverage and there you can see those deal between players and at the end the exact amount of what they won.
 
J

Joonnn1212

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Total posts
120
Chips
0
It is perfectly fine to make a deal here and to pay the backers based on the deal money in my opinion. I would think anyone who is backing a player in one of the highest buyin tournaments of all time would understand that deal making at final tables is a possibility. In addition, a backer should always be paid their percentage of the money earned, not what the payout without a deal would have been.
 
Nelson1712

Nelson1712

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 2, 2018
Total posts
181
Awards
1
Chips
1
I think I should pay what was agreed on by the WSOP prize structure, the sponsors have nothing to do with the deal I made with Fedor Holz ... it's my point of view ... now, of course, if the deal is shown, investors should be a little more aware since later they could continue investing in it ... and he (Justin Bonomo) should learn from what happened.
 
T

TheShek

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Total posts
214
Chips
0
I completely disagree with those investors who suggest they are entitled to a share of $10 million. Deals are commonplace, and against one of the best in the world heads up, is the most sensible financial decision. As others have suggested, if he lost and got the money for the deal, they would be happy and wouldn't be demanding they be paid out for second place prize money. It's ridiculous and greedy.
 
Vfranks

Vfranks

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Total posts
2,181
Awards
1
Chips
1
It's kind of a tricky situation, unless there is some sort or disclaimer about deals with the staking site. I guess that it why he made it public, trying to be transparent and all. I think I would be happy about getting a return on my investment, even if it is a bit smaller than if he had not taken the deal.
 
Poker_Mike

Poker_Mike

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Total posts
4,753
Awards
2
Chips
347
Justin should of made a notice upfront in his staking advertisement [prior to anyone investing] stating that he reserved the right to make deals at the final table.


I have been suggesting that he already has that right and doesn't need to "state" it. Chopping is a common, forseeable event under the circumstances.


Investors trust the player to make the best profitable decisions for him and his backers.

He is making the chop agreement in the BEST INTEREST of him and his backers. This is implicit in the investment of any poker player (unless stated otherwise).

Investors that feel "shorted" need to show fraud on the part of the player and, on the surface, we just don't see that here

Would you not invest in this particular player again ?
 
mtl mile end

mtl mile end

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Total posts
11,293
Awards
23
CA
Chips
138
It took me a while to figure this out. They were playing for $16 million total prize for first and second. Bonomo's tweet is pretty confusing:

“Fedor and I chopped half of the prize pool when we got HU and played for the other half,” Bonomo wrote. “My final share was: $8,751,111.”

The way Bonomo describes it, he is referring to splitting half the prize pool ($4 million each) and playing the HU for a $4.75M to $3.25M payout. He gets $4M in the chop and $4.75 for winning. Holtz gets $4M for the chop and $3.25M for second.

This is a most unusual (to me at least) way of "explaining" the chop. This explanation took me the better part of half an hour to figure out. :icon_scra

To actually and simply explain what has happened, I would say that they each took $7.25 million and played for the remaining $1.5 million - winner take all. :deal:
 
HAMC81

HAMC81

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Total posts
606
Chips
0
yeah not good to change deal affecting backers
 
Top