{"id":1512,"date":"2012-06-25T13:33:54","date_gmt":"2012-06-25T17:33:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/?p=1512"},"modified":"2012-06-25T13:33:54","modified_gmt":"2012-06-25T17:33:54","slug":"dan-sues-beth-shak-shoe-collection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/dan-sues-beth-shak-shoe-collection","title":{"rendered":"Dan Shak sues Beth Shak over Massive Shoe Collection"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/beth-shak-poker.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-1515\" title=\"beth-shak-poker\" src=\"http:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/beth-shak-poker.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"182\" height=\"240\" \/><\/a>In a story that seems better suited for The Onion or a Saturday Night Live skit, former poker couple Dan and Beth Shak are in a bitter post-divorce battle over a massive shoe collection. Getting into the specifics, Beth Shak has around 1,200 designer label shoes that are collectively worth $1 million. If you&#8217;re doing the math, that&#8217;s an average of $833 per pair of shoes!<\/p>\n<p>Apparently, Dan Shak wasn&#8217;t happy when he heard about how much the shoes were worth because they weren&#8217;t included in the divorce settlement. Considering the fact that he thinks the $1 million in shoes could&#8217;ve given him at least another $350k in the divorce, Dan has chosen to take Beth to court. An excerpt from his lawsuit that was printed in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nypost.com\/p\/news\/local\/manhattan\/foot_the_bill_E50UuDXaI73l0kgMZO8tjL\">New York Post<\/a> reads as follows:<\/p>\n<p><em>In the summer of 2011, Daniel became aware that Beth owned and failed to disclose an extensive . . . collection of Christian Louboutin shoes . . . and other high-end designer shoes and bags.\u00a0Dan trusted his wife and was not inspecting his home to try to find inventory or secret rooms.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/dan-shak-shoes.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-1516\" title=\"dan-shak-shoes\" src=\"http:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/dan-shak-shoes.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"276\" height=\"183\" \/><\/a>The thing that really sticks out here is how Dan Shak is trying to say that Beth hid the shoes in a secret room. She responded to this thinly-veiled accusation by saying, &#8220;I&#8217;m shaking my head over this whole thing. He is saying he didn\u2019t know the closet in our master bedroom existed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>On the surface, it doesn&#8217;t seem like either member of this former couple is doing too well. Beth claims to be a poker pro &#8211; despite not having cashed in a tourney since 2010 &#8211; while Dan saw his hedge fund company, SHK Asset Management, lose millions of dollars after the gold market plummeted. And the shoe lawsuit is just the couple&#8217;s latest debacle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a story that seems better suited for The Onion or a Saturday Night Live skit, former poker couple Dan and Beth Shak are in a bitter post-divorce battle over a massive shoe collection. Getting into the specifics, Beth Shak has around 1,200 designer label shoes that are collectively worth $1 million. If you&#8217;re doing [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[626,625,627,913,912],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1512"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1512"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1512\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1520,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1512\/revisions\/1520"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepokerpractice.com\/poker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}