1. Green Jacket > Capital > South Africa DISPUTE

Good evening to all poker industry enthusiasts.

We are poker affiliates under the name ZR, primarily working in poker apps.
Previously, I’ve never had to create threads like this on media platforms, although I’ve had plenty of reasons to and I think the time has come 🙂

About 10 months ago, through Bros technical support, I was introduced to the head of the then-African union, @Chad.
We started working with an initial deposit of $5k.
Some time later, the union closed, and @Chad offered to continue working in his private club, outlining the conditions for rakeback and chip value.

Everything was going well until recently, when I started seeing good results in that club.

Chad's main complaint was that I brought in a strong player who, according to him, wasn’t suitable for this type of private game.
In response, I offered Chad a few options.
We agreed that if my agency was in profit for the week, my chip value would be counted 20% lower than if my agency were in loss.
To be precise, if in profit — 1 chip = 0.45, and if in loss — 1 chip = 0.55.

On my side, I paused all agents and started selectively adding players into this private game based on the new terms.
By the end of the second week under these new conditions, Chad approached me saying I only had 1-2 active players and that this wouldn’t work for him — and he cut off access to the game for my player.

Then Chad clarified that if my agency generates 20k rake per week and I have more active players, there would be no issues even if players are profitable.
When I asked whether the same player could continue playing, Chad said yes, provided I add more active players.

On Monday, he brought up some completely new, unspoken terms.
At that point, two of my players were in profit, with the following results:

Chad said he had no intention of paying out those winnings if they were still standing by Monday.

I didn’t argue with Chad, even though that’s completely inappropriate — he essentially imposed new payout rules retroactively.
I was confident that I’d still be able to bring in enough players and our results would meet the new requirements.

On my end, I sent a sufficient number of players to the club to meet all agreed terms.
I even told the player that from Monday onward he could continue playing from a new account, as we had agreed with Chad that under the new conditions — rake volume and active players — everyone would be satisfied.
The player created a new account and joined the club again.

Then Thursday came.
Chad entered our group chat and declared the player a cheater because he had a second account!?

I showed him a screenshot of our conversation where I asked him directly whether that player could continue playing.
Chad failed to give a clear response and just kept saying “it’s obvious” and that he won’t pay out any winnings earned by that player from Monday onward.

As a result, we now have a dispute:

* On one hand, I’ve made it clear that I didn’t violate any agreement and no one deceived him.
* On the other hand, Chad is convinced that he has the right to withhold the winnings — even though previously he simply said we wouldn’t be able to work together under those conditions, but now he's talking about confiscation and claims that he has the right to do so.

Frankly, I’m not surprised by such behavior from a private club owner,
but Chad himself has no objection to this conflict being made public.

So I’m turning to the poker community:
Please assess the legitimacy of Chad’s decision — head of the private South African club “Capital”.

From my perspective, no one has the right to confiscate my funds if the player didn’t violate any game rules!
This numbers ~ 20k that Chad decided to confiscate

Everything could’ve been fine, everything could’ve been just fine…