Poker backer "Standard Backing" accuses Vegas grinder Raechel Whetsone of stealing backer's share of money

"Standard Backing" is apparently some poker backing group, and Raechel Whetstone is a Vegas-area grinder who was originally from Hawaii.

I had heard of Whetstone before, but didn't know much about her. I had not heard of Standard Backing before, but they appear to be a real backing group.

Yesterday Standard Backing called out Whetstone in a series of tweets, as well as a 2+2 post:

https://twitter.com/StandardBacking/...90707999003065


You can find Raechel Whetstone's Twitter here: https://twitter.com/secretrachita

Fittingly, her profile states, "will eat dog food for buy in", which might be telling regarding the present allegations.



Standard Backing also further explained that the "ROI from this player [Whetstone] was not good", even before this alleged theft:





As soon as Standard Backing made the above allegations, Whetstone protected her tweets, and otherwise did not respond. That's never a good sign.


Standard Backing also made a 2+2 post about the matter, but only included it as part of the "Negative Feedback Thread" as part of 2+2's Marketplace. This post is NOT from the popular NVG section, so it probably won't be seen by many people. Their statement from there is shown below:

Quote:

---

We started working with Raechel Whetstone in April 2023.

After her first large win, Raechel was asked to send a portion of the winnings back, she made several excuses and then a week later told us that she no longer had the prize money.

Raechel Whetstone claimed that one of her roommates, who she knew to engage in heavy drug use, had stolen the funds from her room.

Raechel Whetstone tried to resolve the situation on her own, unsuccessfully. She refused to give any additional details regarding who she claims stole the money nor did she file a police report.

We had agreed with Raechel on a payment plan, on the condition that if she missed a payment we'd be making this post. She missed a payment this week after making just 4 payments, saying:

"Why would I continue paying weekly if I know one missed payment can result in something negative?"

Raechel owes us $14.7k+

---

The $14,700 figure quoted above is one including agreed upon penalties for missing payments, after the "theft" had occurred. I reached out to Standard Backing, and they told me the actual amount "stolen" was $7300.

You can find Raechel's Hendonmob here: https://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/pla...p?a=r&n=239247

You will see that on August 17, 2023, she cashed $8,364 at Venetian. It was confirmed to me by Standard Backing that it was this money which was allegedly "stolen" by Raechel's roommate. I'm not sure why the figure they claim is $7300, when the amount is $8364, but perhaps she actually cashed $7300 as the result of some deal, which is common during smaller tournaments where there's a ton of variance at the end due to fast structures.

A look at Raechel's Hendonmob shows almost $200k in lifetime cashes, but notably she has been playing only 3-figure-buyin events recently, and either did not play any WSOP events, or didn't cash in any.

In December 2022, Raechel cashed $45k and then $13k within the span of less than two weeks. However, before the end of December, she was back to playing $165 nightlies.

Standard Backing claims that Raechel would not name the roommate who stole from her, and would not go to the police about the matter, which is of course highly suspicious in itself. I will post my opinion in the next message.

Life as a tournament pro is very tough and full of variance. I could never do it.

I'm not sure if Whetstone had a backing deal in December 2022, which might explain why she was back to $165 nightly events less than two weeks after cashing $58k. It is possible that she was in makeup (with a different backer), and didn't take home much or any of that $58k. It's also possible that she has a gambling problem or other life leaks.

This is not the first questionable "stolen prize/buyin money" story that players have told to backers. Seemingly every year at the WSOP, we hear stories of someone whose "roommate" stole their buyin money (which came from backers, of course), or other stories where a mysterious burglar broke into their hotel room and stole everything from the safe (again, seemingly always backer money).

One of the best known instances of this was Zo Karim, back in 2017, where he was accused of claiming that $23,000 of backer money was stolen from his expensive Tumi backpack at the airport. It was also alleged that Karim oversold himself beyond 100% at the WSOP Main Event, but then ran it up, and couldn't bring himself to punt it all off, so then he tried to play seriously and ended up in the money.



Whenever these type of allegations surface, the response (or lack thereof) of the alleged scammer speaks volumes. Anyone wrongly accused will shout their innocence from the mountaintops. Not only is that human nature, but it's important to clear your name in poker, especially if you count on backing deals to keep in action. Nobody is going to let a false allegation of scamming go unanswered if they're actually innocent.

When the accused deletes or privates their social media, that's a huge red flag. That makes it clear they're aware of the public allegations, but are trying to hide further scrutiny of their past social media posts. I have yet to come across even one innocent person who has deleted or privated their social media when accused of scamming. Most recently, fake cancer scammer Rob Mercer responded exactly that way when the allegations were posted against him.

While I do not know Raechel Whetstone or Standard Backing, I can tell you that Raechel's actions here are very suspicious, and I would be quite surprised if she were innocent.

I also find it highly doubtful that she would ruin her own reputation, simply to protect this unnamed "roommate" with a drug problem.

This story also goes to show that scammers do not fit any one stereotype. While it's easy to picture poker scammers as shifty-looking males, the truth is that scammers come in all genders, races, religions, political beliefs, and sexual preferences. It's important to be vigilant and cautious when dealing with anyone you don't know well, regardless of whether or not they fit the scammer stereotype.

If Raechel is somehow being falsely accused, I encourage her to contact me and explain her side. If I am sufficiently convinced that this allegation is a lie, I will remove this thread. I can be reached via text at (775) 372-8355, or via the Contact Us form at the bottom of the page. Raechel is also welcome to register an account here, and give her side of the story. I have no dog in this fight.

Pretty stiff penalty wouldn’t you say? They went quiet on the last question. Doesn’t look good for her but also doesn’t look good for them with this penalty. If you roll someone for 8K…that’s a lot of juice to double it in a month. Especially ff she made the first 4 payments. Not liking either side here.

https://x.com/JeffreyDime/status/170...855793078?s=20

https://x.com/JeffreyDime/status/170...049269799?s=20

https://x.com/JeffreyDime/status/170...263060122?s=20

https://x.com/JeffreyDime/status/170...780118405?s=20

Not trying to make them the bad guy. But they said she owes them 14K and change and the score was 8K and change. It’s just weird. Yes, the payment plan was beyond lenient…no question.

I agree with you, Jeff. They should leave the whole penalty out of the narrative. That's the type of thing you bring up if suing the person, but in the court of public opinion, you really just want to stick with the exact figure you're out.

Standard Backing told me that she stiffed them out of $7,300 from that August 17 win. It seems they have a fairly convincing case here, especially given Raechel's lack of denial and subsequent privating of her Twitter account.

There's no reason to complicate public sentiment by discussing the steep penalties being charged, even if she agreed to them after the money vanished.

Just stick to discussing the amount of money you're directly missing at the moment, and if she pays it back promptly, just let the rest go and don't do business with her again. We're talking about a period of less than 2 months here, so obviously interest doesn't come into play.

It was just a matter of time before these poker staking sites were going to start to run into problems. But look, even Grama bought up all of Worm’s 10k debt and after a couple years in prison he charged 5K in juice to bring the debt to 15K. Now Grama wasn’t the money store and wasn’t going to enter into a payment plan and certainly nothing like this $50 bucks a week Judge Caprio type deal.

But Grama went 3/2 on the debt in 2 years…this site went 2/1 in 2 months. They really screwed the pooch here where it looks like they were totally rolled by this woman. But their greed clouds the entire thing. She should be blacklisted from all staking sites and no one should stake her….unless she clears her name somehow of course. But as for the site….they blew it with this nonsense penalty talk.

DISCLOSURE: I have sent Standard Backing an E-Mail with a request to interview one of their representatives regarding this matter. I have informed them that I wish to do that and also to know how their operation works, in general.

Unless you're game to team up, Dan, I really don't see how I would write an article about this without Standard Backing talking to me. Of course, since we're a pretty big platform, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to talk to me. Judging from their Twitter posts, they seem pretty keen that putting people, "On blast," as the kids say, is the way these backing entities should go about things. I see the logic. Public humiliation, alerts other backing companies---but also probably that Standard Backing can offer to remove some of these posts if the debt is made good on or a new payment plan agreed to.

In the meantime, absent a full collaboration, I do have some questions for the community here so I can understand this better:

1.) What is the structure of a backing company re: the poker players?

-My understanding of backing has always been that the backer buys a piece of a poker player and gets that percentage of the poker player's results in a given tournament, or other event. It seems, often, that this is done at a markup such that the backer might contribute something like 50% of the stake, but then get 60% of any winnings.

-If backing does not strictly work this way, is it sometimes just functionally a loan? If you enter a tournament and do not cash, does that become debt to the backer? Is there a legal mechanism by which that can just become debt? Can they have a piece of your action in future tournaments and events if you are indebted to them, even if they do not back that specific future tournament or event?

2.) Is there ever interest on this?

-How is it legal for them to charge interest if they do not have ties to a bank? If they do charge interest, then in what possible way is backing different from just being a loan?

3.) What are these, 'penalties?'

-As JeffDime mentioned, how do you have a 100% penalty for non-payment? That's patently ridiculous. Even if agreed to by both parties, I believe some civil courts would render the debt unenforceable as its terms would be considered palpably unfair.

4.) How does she owe more than the stake in the tournament?

Standard backing responded to JeffDime with this:

https://x.com/JeffreyDime/status/170...049269799?s=20

What does that mean that she was already, "Holding funds?"

Had they already fronted her money for future tournaments?

Standard Backing claims that her RoI isn'y very good (easy to see why based on what has been claimed), but was it sub-100% even had this debt been paid in full? If they stake you for a particular tournament or event, and you lose, do you not owe them that money in any way whatsoever?

These are the sorts of things I would need to understand to semi-competently write an article.

OPINIONS:

It's probably not a good idea to poke at the very people I want to interview, but I do have a few opinions.

1.) Basically, it sounds like they are essentially out 7.3k, or something. That's the amount of money they are actually out.

2.) Of course, it sounds like part of the money, "They are out," comes from the fact that, according to them, they had a substantial portion of her roughly 8.4k winnings.

3.) That being the case, one imagines the amount of cash money that they are actually upside-down is significantly less than 7.3k.

---Specifically, it appears that the Venetian event had a $400 buy-in. There were 87 entrants and Hendon reports a prize pool of $28,971. Assuming they all paid, that means $34,800 in Entry Fees thereby resulting in a hold percentage of 16.75% which seems pretty fucking gross if I have that right. Why would anyone pay to participate in that tournament, much less stake someone else to do it? That seems like a terrible investment.

4.) With all of that, it seems that this Standard Backing entity is actually out $400 cash (assumes 100% stake, so probably less) as well as whatever amount that they claim she was holding even before this, which didn't seem to be specified. It's kind of like, "Cry me a fucking river," on that one, I'm not going to lie. I would think that they'd consider these kinds of losses just part of doing business, given that they are glorified loan sharks.

5.) Why glorified loan sharks? I want to understand how you double the amount owed, by way of penalty, for one missed payment. Even if they claim that they substantially reduced penalties for entering into a payment arrangement, then they are only reducing penalties that were ridiculous to begin with, then acting like doing so makes them Mother Theresa.

6.) Of course, that does explain why they would agree to such low weekly payments. One suspects that it wouldn't take very many weeks for them to get the actual cash layout (read: money they spent) back. Why else would you agree to $50/week on a 7.3k debt? The reason is because they have a cash layout that is significantly less than that. It probably would only take a few months of payments before they are cash even on the affair.

7.) This Raechel Whetstone's story about the roommate...haha, no.

8.) However, even if that makes her a piece of shit; she's a piece of shit who did not satisfy a contractual agreement with a company whose policies, practices and tactics seem to be fairly ridiculous anyway.

Also, they stake poker players. Why should anyone cry when they take an extremely minor loss?

Perhaps, they will tell me more about these things. My article will obviously be much less aggressive against them than this post. I do want their side, but it doesn't look all that compelling from where I sit. Not that it excuses the Whetstone, it doesn't, but it seems to me like she's taking advantage of an entity that itself takes advantage of lots of people.

Also, her RoI from prior to this incident is immaterial to both the incident and outstanding debt. Certainly, they must have seen some potential there in order to continue to invest in her, right? Her RoI wasn't so bad that they just said, "Yeah, we're done staking this player," or we wouldn't be discussing this.

Of course, it occurs to me that if you splash around with enough players, you only need a few decent scores (and for them to pay) in order to be profitable.

For example, let's go back to the particulars of this Venetian tournament:

Quote:

---

---Specifically, it appears that the Venetian event had a $400 buy-in. There were 87 entrants and Hendon reports a prize pool of $28,971. Assuming they all paid, that means $34,800 in Entry Fees thereby resulting in a hold percentage of 16.75% which seems pretty fucking gross if I have that right. Why would anyone pay to participate in that tournament, much less stake someone else to do it? That seems like a terrible investment.

---

But, maybe it's not that bad of an investment, after all.

Let's suppose that Standard Backing had a 50% piece of every single player in the tournament, but then, had some sort of agreement by which they would get 70% of any winnings those players had.

(28971 * .7) - (34800 * .5) = 2879.7

The only possible result would be that they profit nearly $3,000 and it doesn't matter to them who would place where if they have a piece of everyone. Even if they shelled out 50% stakes for everyone and only got 60% of any winnings, which are functionally 60% of the prize pool since they have a piece of everyone, they would only lose $17.40.

It also occurs to me that this scales up. If you invest in these players for small top prize tournaments like these and get them doing business with you, then perhaps they will do business with you for larger tournaments. If you have a piece of a lot of players in major tournaments, then it probably only takes one of them to do extremely well (and also satisfy the debt) in order for the company to absolutely clean up.

My interview offer has been declined.

I sort of expected that; I wouldn't have went easy on them.

It appears that, absent Druff's help, I will just have to see what I can find out about the specifics of backing. I'll probably write an article more generally addressing the predatory nature of poker, and many involved, and this will serve as but an example.

It seems to me that poker, in a vacuum, is a bunch of different entities all trying to cut their piece out of an ever-decreasing amount of money. If you had ten poker players at a table, and agreed to play to last man standing (basically a tournament), but it was a cash game, then eventually the last remaining person would not have the sum that all bought in with, due to rake. The best thing would be for everyone to go all in every hand, then the rake can't slowly whittle you down, much like what would happen if you play a slot machine long enough. Of course, you have to prioritize winning, not paying as little total rake (as a table) as possible.

Of course, were it a limit game, then the last person standing wouldn't have anything even in the vicinity of the total buy-ins.

Fundamentally, poker relies upon outside money to come in, or it is not sustainable as an enterprise. Hence, online classes, software, one-on-one lessons, money spent on advertising to try to get more people into the game, etc. That's not to mention Youtube revenues and revenues from other things like that. Oh, and let's not forget cancer GoFundMe.

In the Twitter thread, someone stated that they had seen this Whetstone donking off on slot machines after a big poker win. Standard Backing as much as said this is no surprise to them. Of course, they wouldn't care what she does with her money as long as they get paid---which they shouldn't. (They shouldn't care that is; they should get paid)

But, at the end of the day, we are now talking about an entity publicly putting someone on blast for non-payment due to what appears to be a gambling problem. That really looks great for the poker industry. A nice and positive light to shine on things.

But, perhaps some other backing entity would like to discuss with me what they see as the right way to do business when something like this comes up. I guess I will have to put my feelers out there and see if any of them are willing to discuss their perspective on this.

I think my article would have been a positive for Standard Backing, but that's fine. Sure, I'm confrontational, but I do try to be fair. If I'm not at least going to try to ask tough questions to get to the bottom of things, then there is really no public benefit to me conducting, and having published, an interview and article about such things. Plus, my mind is always willing to be changed. They could have presented a story about someone who they backed in the early stages of their poker journey who eventually became very successful.

Am i the only one who thinks this amount they claim she owes is 2X what she actually owes. Im not saying it seems like loan sharking but it kinda looks like it. owes almost 15K but the base amount is $7300

That is explained in the thread….penalty for not paying is 100% of owed.

https://twitter.com/holdem213/status...49677879427482
https://twitter.com/holdem213/status...53438634946893


Another person PM'd me and let me know that they saw her playing mid-stakes Buffalo Slots right after winning a daily tournament.

So that's what this seems to be. She's a slot degen and can't help herself.

Also, Whetstone posted a brief Twitter response, but most can't see it because her tweets are still protected. Someone who follows her sent me this:




Given that she's outright admitting to have stolen the funds, rather than just staying quiet, I'm more seeing this as an addicted gambler out of control than a cold-hearted scammer.

However, she's apparently stopped making payments to Standard Backing (at $50/week lol), and someone else told Standard Backing that Raechel did the same to them last year. So she couldn't feel TOO bad about all of this, or she'd be making more effort to rectify everything.

I hadn't heard of Raechel until recently, so it surprised me to find this article from 2012, when she was sweating the bubble at a WSOP event: https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-new...e-money-bubble

Her tournament history is weird, in that she cashed 2 events in May 2012, then nothing for 4 more years, then one in 2016, and then again nothing until 2019.

Hard to believe she's been around for 11 1/2 years straight, so I'm guessing she bounces in and out of poker when she can find backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryback_feed_me_more

Am i the only one who thinks this amount they claim she owes is 2X what she actually owes. Im not saying it seems like loan sharking but it kinda looks like it. owes almost 15K but the base amount is $7300

---

They directly said there's a 100% penalty for non-payment, but they said they were willing to reduce the penalty that is objectively ridiculous, and in some cases, probably not even legally enforceable, to begin with.

Basically, everything that they do is going to be strong arm tactics, like threatening to publicly humiliate people, then following through on those threats. Charging 100% penalties, that they generally have no actual intention of enforcing, but that they use as an intimidation tactic and reduce by some arbitrary amount or forgive, despite the fact that a 100% penalty is capricious anyway.

More than that, they said they had a piece of her in that tournament, a big piece, but never disclosed what percentage that piece was. I was told all relevant information is already publicly known, but it's not. What they want you to know is already publicly known. What I want to know and doesn't seem to be public is how much cash are they actually out?. What actual monetary loss did they take to see fit to publicly blast someone rather than accept it as a cost of being in the glorified loan sharking business?

We know the Entry Fee to that tournament was $400 and they didn't say they had all of her, but they did say she was, 'Holding' other funds...which they also didn't specify.

How much do you guys think they're actually out? A grand? Maybe two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I hadn't heard of Raechel until recently, so it surprised me to find this article from 2012, when she was sweating the bubble at a WSOP event: https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-new...e-money-bubble

Her tournament history is weird, in that she cashed 2 events in May 2012, then nothing for 4 more years, then one in 2016, and then again nothing until 2019.

Hard to believe she's been around for 11 1/2 years straight, so I'm guessing she bounces in and out of poker when she can find backing.

---

Hmmm...she might be a better interview than these guys at Standard Backing anyway. I'll try her on Twitter, but do you know anyone that could perhaps put me in touch with her?

Raechel, if you happen to read this I just want to get your story on your poker journey, mostly. I want to know if the slots thing is true. I will not attack you or even be remotely aggressive in my questioning. I'll also compensate you half of what I make on the article a couple weeks after it is published.

My reasoning is if she is willing to eat dog food, talking to me for an hour is only slightly worse than that, so maybe she'll do the interview.

Poker sure does destroy a lot of people.

It gives people struggling with mental health / addiction the perfect environment to get lost in delusion and dig themselves a hole that is bigger than most other environments would enable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlowRoll

Poker sure does destroy a lot of people.

It gives people struggling with mental health / addiction the perfect environment to get lost in delusion and dig themselves a hole that is bigger than most other environments would enable.

---

that is true for all forms of gambling.

She's unprotected her tweets and posted a statement: https://twitter.com/secretrachita

However, her statement was somehow posted out of order via tweets, so she then posted an iPhone Notepad version in full, which I just saved. Here it is:

This one isn't as simple as it first appeared, and public sentiment is definitely turning against Standard Backing at the moment, due to their unreasonable penalty enforcement.

Many on Twitter are calling them "usurious", and some are even suggesting to Raechel that she should stiff them entirely as a result.

She mentioned "arbitration", yet I don't know what she means. Someone they already know? Professional arbitration? The latter would be way too expensive for a matter of $7,300.

I volunteered to arbitrate for free. We will see if they take me up on it.

In any case, here are the facts:

1) Raechel and Standard Backing both agree that she stole the $7,300 which was supposed to have been paid to Standard Backing. So right there, it's clear that, at minimum, Raechel owes them $7,300.

2) Standard Backing allowed her to pay $50 per week, which she acknowledges was "lenient" (and I agree).

3) Both sides agree that she made 4 payments, and then couldn't keep paying.

4) There is some disagreement/confusion regarding when Raechel knew about the penalty, and the amount of it.


Here's my opinion at the moment:

1) Raechel needs to get a job and start earning the money back. It is ridiculous that she asserts she can't afford $50/week.

2) Standard Backing needs to drop the 100% penalty, regardless of what was agreed to. In fact, that penalty may be illegal anyway. In fact, they should drop all of the penalties and just focus upon the $7,300 owed.

3) Standard Backing DOES have a right to be skeptical regarding her ability/willingness to pay regularly. That was the reason they demanded the penalty, so this way she is incentivized to keep on schedule with the $50 payments, which will indeed take about 3 years to pay off, even if she sticks to it. However, the penalty isn't really the way to go here, and right now we see exactly why.

4) Raechel needs to voluntarily assign $100 from every bi-weekly paycheck (or $50 from each weekly paycheck) to Standard Backing, once she gets a job. If she already has a job, she needs to do this now. A voluntary assignment is similar to a wage garnishment, except it's one where the employee agrees to allow a third party to take part of their wages.

5) The wage assignment above is important, because Raechel seems to have a gambling and self-control problem, and this is the only way Standard Backing can be assured she regularly pays.

Alternately, if Raechel can somehow get backing with another person, in lieu of a job, she needs to have part of the backing deal involving paying back Standard Backing. They can be paid back out of profits, at some sort of agreed-upon rate. And the new backer needs to be informed of this, and agree to it. However, I think a job would be better at this point.

She has registered an account here, and we have had some limited discussion in Twitter DM.

Interested to read what she has to say here, if she chooses to post.