I think I will chime in with Kowskie to say a big thank you to iceman.

I've only been here a short time but already I have been highly impressed with the community iceman et al have created here. I never see a disparaging remark in the forums and everyone gets along fabulously.

I am still making my way through iceman's posts but I would say I have learned more this way than most books have taught me. I have become focused on maintaining a low-variance winrate instead of making money, and now the money just naturally follows.

Anyway, I wasn't involved in this staking deal but have to say that I don't understand the point of any incinuations after the fact. It seems obvious to me that no one was hurt in this endeveour. It's a shame that this thread is turning quite nasty --- something that wouldn't usually happen anywhere on this forum --- especially when it is not necessary.

In any case, thank you iceman and good luck!

Thanks guys!

investment=risk
risk=trust

I would be more than happy, I'd even say I would be very proud to participate in another project like this one, not only because find the idea completly amazing and far more interesting than what actual finance could bring to your portfolio, but also because I have a lot of respect for people like Iceman who not only make a community live but also share his toughts and don't keep them for himself.

This community is a really nice one because people from all horizons come and talk about their common passion : poker. No borders, no "nationalism", no "racism" of any sort pollute this forum where trust, confidence, sharing are the main things

Iceman if this project would begin again you'll have my full support and I hope I could be one of your stackers /

I wondered if something like this would come up. Shocked that it didn't come up quicker. I am also shocked at how poorly it is presented.

I think the thing to realize that in the end no matter how small you gained. Meaning you shipped out money and got it back and some. That fact alone completely eliminates any foul play here.

I forget the guys name already but the absolute only problem you should have had was eliminating the deal after a week or what ever it was. The deal was very one sided in that the backers got no choice at all where they exited the agreement. So if he got off to a hot start just jumping out of the deal was not possible. That made a lot of sense. You need to be making a committement of at least some bit of time for BOTH sides.

By ending the deal so prematurely because of some bad luck was bad. Getting hot immediately after ending the deal made that worse.

In the deal should have clearly said what the minimum committment length would be. Certainly should have given the stakers the opportunity to say yay or nay on killing the deal there. Now if Ice was going to completely stop playing 5/10 then ending the deal was the only option but that is not the case here.

So again I read the forum and think it is a good place to discuss poker so I have absolutely no benefit either way. So I am just being honest.

The only complaint any backer should be that they missed an up swing (first ending through the restart). This is why I asked long ago what the stake would be if that gap didn't exist.

So the next question for Ice would be:

If you road out that initial bit of bad luck and not stopped the first time and had the win rate with the upswing would you have ended the deal early?

My thoughts on the answer to this is no.

So as an objective observer I would say that the upswing should be added back into the deal and be paid out.

That is only my opinion.

The original guy would have come off a lot better had he worded it like this IMO.

Ice you do have a mountain of integrity and I believe you are a very knowleable player. I just hope you learned from this experience. I know I have.

Again keep in mind I have no vested interest in this. I am merely expressing my opinion right or wrong.

"Why would I add back in the amount that I made when the deal was clearly not in effect?"

My response to this would be that there should not have been a point between the beginning and a few days ago that the deal was off. Not without a mutual agreement between all involved. Put very simply you had a bad run of cards and canceled the deal. Then because of a good run of cards you put the deal back on.

Just saying I don't feel there should have been any gap at all.

"Do you think if I restarted the deal after taking a big hit, that i would ask the stakers to absorb the loss that I incurred when they werent involved?"

I think if after the initial cancellation of the deal if you went further in the tank you wouldn't continue playing 5/10. If you went completely in the tank you would do what all good poker players do. Rebuild your roll and confidence at the lower limits and try to move up at a later time.

The reason I said above that getting a good run of cards at that time was bad is because it resulted in the staking deal going back on.

"I lost 2 buy ins the day the I ended the whole thing (a couple days ago). Should the stakers be responsible for that? That would make no sense at all. "

I agree it wouldn't. But at this point we are absolutely certain that this deal is over for the forseeable future.

"It was a complete coincidence that I happened to win big during those few days where there was a break in the deal. I didnt even have to mention that to anyone and nobody wouldve ever known about it."

Again your integrity in my eyes isn't in question at all. I don't think it is a complete coincedence not unless swings in poker are a coincedence. I believe they are a huge part of the game.

Again I am merely making the only logical grip that could come from anyone involved and that is it should have been better defined how the deal can be desolved. Getting a bad run of cards should not have been one of them because all involved know that happens to everyone. You agree with that point because you reestablished the deal

No harm no foul in my eyes though as everyone involved broke even. So in essense we got a very good topic to discuss.

I hope this doesn't put me in a negative light. I try to be respectful to all when posting and merely offering a counter arguement.

I don't think it puts you in a negative light at all odogg. I think you have said things that were on a lot of peoples minds, but I also think that Iceman is in the right. The deal was off when he made money the first time, and when he was down a little bit he was still going to give everyone their original stake back. He did not need to tell everyone that he made money when the deal was off but he did. If he had lost money while the deal was off the stakers would not suffer so when he made money they should not profit.

Like I said I don't think it puts you in a bad light at all, but what Suhleafs has said puts him in a bad light. He accused the most respected poster of cheating him and the other stakers, and I think that is a bunch of bullshit. Iceman has helped my game more in the last six months than the previous year I had played poker. I wouldn't mind if I never saw a post from Suhleafs again.

Stealth

Odogg, I have no problem with anything youre saying but I will disagree with one part of it.

You said:

"My response to this would be that there should not have been a point between the beginning and a few days ago that the deal was off. Not without a mutual agreement between all involved. Put very simply you had a bad run of cards and canceled the deal. Then because of a good run of cards you put the deal back on."

This is not correct. Maybe there shouldnt have bee a break in the deal at all. That part I can agree with. I cancelled the deal because of the bad run of cards because I didnt want to lose other peoples money and maybe I shouldnt have worried so much about that.

The main thiing I disagree with is your last sentence. I most certainly did not put the deal back on because of a good run of cards. I didnt want to put the deal back on at all. I did it because I was coaxed into it by several people who thought I shortchanged the stakers by pulling the rug out from under them early. I think we can all agree that if my goal was to rip anyone off, I would have no reason to stop the deal. Why stop it at all if I could just underreport my winnings for as long as I wanted?

I felt bad about stopping it after several peoples coments. I asked all of the stakers if they wanted back in and they did so I opened it back up against my better judgement. I was afraid something like this might happen and as you see, at least one person thinks I pulled some scam.

I'm just going to make one small post here.

I've never met the person who posts as iceman5. i've exchanged poker-based e-mails with him on only a few occasions. my entire relationship with this person has been via UPF and BTP.

That being said, i went into this deal with complete confidence in him, and once the deal was over i informed ice that should he ever be looking for backers, i'd be interested in helping.

I have no question in my mind that this deal was legit, and while i didn't wind up making money, it's not like i lost any either. Instead, i helped take the burden off of a respected aquantences shoulders in an effort to help him move up in limits.

Ice, don't worry. you still have the respect and admiration of almost evryone else here.

Nobody lost any money, I don't see what the problem is.

Molina