Don’t expect last year’s World Series of Poker (WSOP) winner to have to give up half his prize money, despite the fact he’s being sued for that sum.

The whole crazy case rests on whether or not there was an “oral agreement” to split the $12 million prize, and legal experts PokerHelper.com has spoken to say it’s almost impossible to prove an oral contact exists when one side in the pact denies the existence.

And that’s what’s happening here.

In case you’re not familiar with the case, here are the basics:

Bruce Leyser sued 2006 WSOP main event winner Jamie Gold last year, saying that he and Gold had an agreement to split Gold’s tournament winnings and that Gold reneged on the deal.

In the lawsuit, Leyser says Gold verbally agreed in July of 2006 to split his WSOP winnings 50-50 in exchange for Leyser helping him find celebrities to play in the WSOP main event while wearing labeled attire of Internet poker site www.pokerhelper.com/1/go.php?l=Bodog”>Bodog.com.

www.pokerhelper.com/1/go.php?l=Bodog”>Bodog.com paid the $10,000 WSOP entry fee for Gold.

Leyser says he fulfilled his end of the deal by getting “Scooby Doo” film star Matthew Lillard and “Punk’d” TV star Dax Shepard to wear the attire, and now Gold has refused pay Leyser half his $12 million prize.

Gold counters that he promised to share his winnings only after Leyser had gotten celebrities to play, reducing the arrangement to a gift, rather than an oral contract.

Leyser has a voicemail from Gold on the final day of the tournament, in which Gold promises to pay Leyser ”your half.”

But Gold says in his legal response to the lawsuit that he only intended to make a gift of some of his winnings, and it never amounted to 50 percent.

So far Gold has received only $6 million of the $12 million WSOP top prize he won, as a judge has frozen the other $6 million in case Leyser prevails in the suit.

But it will never happen, at least according to the legal experts PokerHelper.com has discussed the case with.

In an informal poll of several legal authorities, including lawyers and students of law, they all agreed an oral contract is, at best, very difficult to prove, and, at worst, impossible to prove.

Said one legal source: “If two parties make an oral agreement or oral contract and one party later reneges on the deal, how can you prove the deal ever existed?

“It’s one person’s word against another. Unless both sides admit a verbal deal was made, or there’s a recording of the conversation in which the deal was made, there’s no definitive way to prove it.”

“That’s precisely why people make written contracts,” said another legal source. “It’s too easy to back out of an oral contract by merely denying it exists.”

“No way will Gold have to give up the gold,” said a third legal source. “This lawsuit may be a long, drawn out, protracted process, but in the end Gold will win and Leyser will lose.

“There’s simply no proof any agreement or arrangement or deal or contract or whatever you want to call it ever existed. If this was such a great deal for both of them—one guy gets his fee paid and the other guy gets a cut if he wins—they should’ve put it in writing.”