PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical situation, i'd like opinions.


Daliman
07-08-2005, 02:03 AM
Ok, I'm gonna place a hypothetical situation, and you tell me your opinions, please.

Lets say a player asks you to play in a multi-table tournament for him for the first couple hours on his account, then he will take over when he gets home. You assume you are going to be 50/50 on this, but it's never specifically discussed. You build a nice stack for the guy over the course of 2 or so hours you play, then talk to him on the phone going over hands when you turn it over to him for the next 3 hours, in which time he gets to the final table.

All the sudden, when it gets down to 4 handed, and you are both in for a big payday, he tells you he is only going to give you a little less than 20%. You aren't gonna make a big deal out of it at the moment, cuz he might stiff you entirely then. He goes on to win, and throws you about 18%. What do you do? What do you think? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Nick B.
07-08-2005, 02:06 AM
I think 18% is about right for 2 hours in the beginning of the tournament.

Scuba Chuck
07-08-2005, 02:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think 18% is about right for 2 hours in the beginning of the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nick, are you the other guy?

Anyway, without a solid verbal agreement, I think 15-25% range seems fair. I know the worst is that you were expecting more, and that sucks. If you felt there was an arrangement for 50% and he's disagreeing, I'd go with your gut instincts. If you really don't think he thinks he was going to split 50/50, then let it go. For example, if he said, "Dali-my man, will you play the first couple hours of an MTT for me, and if I cash we'll split it?" This is precisely the kind of thing I'm guessing took place. Then I'd say, hey, you said 20%, why the jip?

Scuba

Daliman
07-08-2005, 02:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think 18% is about right for 2 hours in the beginning of the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also coached/compared ideas with him for the final 3 hours he played, all the way through the last hand. Maybe my initial post was entirely clear on this point, but it's there.

[ QUOTE ]
You build a nice stack for the guy over the course of 2 or so hours you play, then talk to him on the phone going over hands when you turn it over to him for the next 3 hours, in which time he gets to the final table.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand some may think the sencond player did most of the heavy lifting by winning, but building a stack early is obviously an integral part of tournament success. As he remembered, he was about an average stack when it was passed off, and at that rate, if he had 40% of the play, he should get 40% of the take, but saying 50% cut of 40% play i suppose comes out close, but then the other guy is getting way more than a 50% cut of the 60% he played.

DonButtons
07-08-2005, 02:24 AM
you like starting very controversial topics between friends ehh? lol

curtains
07-08-2005, 02:26 AM
Don't play a tournament for someone without discussing the financial plans in advance and you'll avoid all of this trouble.

Irieguy
07-08-2005, 02:35 AM
25% would be the "standard" toke for something like that. I bet if you asked 100 regular tournament players who have been in the poker community since before the WPT, Chris Moneymaker, and the Unabomber... 75 or more of them would say "25%."

I would have given the dude 25% and asked him if he was cool with that... willing to go up to 33% if it seemed like he was bummed. On the other end, I would have expected 25%, but taken 20% without any fuss.

Irieguy

zaphod
07-08-2005, 02:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Don't play a tournament for someone without discussing the financial plans in advance and you'll avoid all of this trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

ilya
07-08-2005, 02:37 AM
You don't say whether the two players had split the entry fee.

If they had, I think the player who played the first 40% of the tournament and helped with decisions for the next 60% should get 50%-60% of the prize money. 18% is outrageously low and I would lose a lot of respect for the person and would probably not want to interact with him again in any way. I definitely wouldn't do any more business with him.

If they hadn't, I think the first player's cut needn't have been as high as 50-60%. But it should still have been in the 35-45% range.

Anyone willing to do this sort of thing repeatedly for less than a third of the winnings is a stone cold sucker IMO.

ewing55
07-08-2005, 02:38 AM
With the lack of agreement from the two of you, then I think the actual winner becomes the "owner" of the money and can split it any way he/she sees fit or "fair." It you disagree with the split never "do business" with them again.

You can't just end up with a pile of money and then start discussing how you are going to split it. I do things like this with a number of my good friends and I write it all down just so I don't forget exactly what we agreed on. That's why I still have these friends.

---------------Jeff

PS. Now that's it's done, I have no idea what's "fair."

AJo Go All In
07-08-2005, 02:45 AM
you are lucky you got anything. i have people do this for me all the time and i usually give them nothing.

Daliman
07-08-2005, 02:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
25% would be the "standard" toke for something like that. I bet if you asked 100 regular tournament players who have been in the poker community since before the WPT, Chris Moneymaker, and the Unabomber... 75 or more of them would say "25%."

I would have given the dude 25% and asked him if he was cool with that... willing to go up to 33% if it seemed like he was bummed. On the other end, I would have expected 25%, but taken 20% without any fuss.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I wouldn't look at it like a toke, I'd look at it like a split. Sure, details shoulda been firmed up before, but like I said, seemed like a gentleman's agreement.

Daliman
07-08-2005, 02:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
you are lucky you got anything. i have people do this for me all the time and i usually give them nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

KInda surprised anyone plays for you then.

DonButtons
07-08-2005, 02:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
you are lucky you got anything. i have people do this for me all the time and i usually give them nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also kind of agree with this. Even though if I won, I would give a small cut, 18% is a nice sum.

I just would like the person to return the favor to me.

Irieguy
07-08-2005, 02:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
25% would be the "standard" toke for something like that. I bet if you asked 100 regular tournament players who have been in the poker community since before the WPT, Chris Moneymaker, and the Unabomber... 75 or more of them would say "25%."

I would have given the dude 25% and asked him if he was cool with that... willing to go up to 33% if it seemed like he was bummed. On the other end, I would have expected 25%, but taken 20% without any fuss.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I wouldn't look at it like a toke, I'd look at it like a split. Sure, details shoulda been firmed up before, but like I said, seemed like a gentleman's agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why it's not a "split" is because the tourney was played on the winner's account. The first leg player wasn't going to give the winner 50% of the buy-in back if he busted... he was on a freeroll.

Anytime a player accepts all of the risk, he deserves more than 50% of the payout... almost regardless of other factors.

Irieguy

Daliman
07-08-2005, 03:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
25% would be the "standard" toke for something like that. I bet if you asked 100 regular tournament players who have been in the poker community since before the WPT, Chris Moneymaker, and the Unabomber... 75 or more of them would say "25%."

I would have given the dude 25% and asked him if he was cool with that... willing to go up to 33% if it seemed like he was bummed. On the other end, I would have expected 25%, but taken 20% without any fuss.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I wouldn't look at it like a toke, I'd look at it like a split. Sure, details shoulda been firmed up before, but like I said, seemed like a gentleman's agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why it's not a "split" is because the tourney was played on the winner's account. The first leg player wasn't going to give the winner 50% of the buy-in back if he busted... he was on a freeroll.

Anytime a player accepts all of the risk, he deserves more than 50% of the payout... almost regardless of other factors.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

The first leg player assumed he would be liable for half the entry if he lost.

newfant
07-08-2005, 03:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The first leg player assumed he would be liable for half the entry if he lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you make all these assumptions? Talk this stuff out beforehand and then everyone is on the same page.

Big Limpin'
07-08-2005, 03:10 AM
What happened to just doing people favors? Just offer to be a friend and play the 2 hours for him pro bono, with the general understanding that he'll do the same type favor for you down the road when you are in a bind.

If things good well and he offers to toss you a few bucks/case of beer/new car then just be happy for that.

I presume though that there was some sort of vague agrement to "split" or "give you a cut" or whatever. But if you make a post and dont specify what went on behind the scenes, how are we supposed to vote/opine on what was right?

Summary: You got 18%. Why so whiny?

BL'...dons mudslinging attire

Edit: in time spent typing, i see you would have considered yourself liable to re-imburse if you busted. Ok, evidently this was more of a joint-effort than jsut "covering for a guy"

Disregard any parts of above post than are no longer applicable.

introv
07-08-2005, 05:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say a player asks you to play in a multi-table tournament for him for the first couple hours on his account, then he will take over when he gets home. You assume you are going to be 50/50 on this, but it's never specifically discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this just some random guy or a friend? Sounds like some random guy.

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't gonna make a big deal out of it at the moment, cuz he might stiff you entirely then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, I wouldn't be entering into an agreement that doesn't exist with a person I thought may shaft me if I so much as mentioned that I thought the amount offered was unfair.

Very silly hypothetical situation if you ask me!

AceofSpades
07-08-2005, 05:43 AM
Last part of the tournament is where it becomes more difficult.

Plus you didn't have to put up any buyin.... But he said 20% so he should payup the other 2%

HesseJam
07-08-2005, 05:49 AM
Right, 50/50 seems to be too much (I answered "meh").

Anyways, there was no deal, so you had to make one. He offer about 20%. You accepted. That's your deal! You got 18% which is "about" 20% in my book.

If you are dicontent now, maybe you should have been put more effort in the deal making process?

kasey2004
07-08-2005, 05:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Last part of the tournament is where it becomes more difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but it helps to have built a nice stack. At first i thought it said u had a solid aggreement to split, after seeing that i think 20% is fine.

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Kasey /images/graemlins/spade.gif

kamrann
07-08-2005, 11:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The first leg player assumed he would be liable for half the entry if he lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find this a rather strange assumption to make, based on my experience. I think it's impossible to give a verdict on the situation without knowing the dialog of the (non)-agreement. There would have to have been something very specific said for me to assume I was liable for half the buyin, and this would have a major effect on what should be expected regarding payouts.

As other have said though, you simply shouldn't do it without making a solid agreement, unless you are prepared to play for nothing and just accept any toke that may or may not be offered.

junkmail3
07-08-2005, 11:11 AM
I'd try to get a little more, and unplug his power next time he was just about to get to the bubble with a large stack.

Also, I was hoping this thread was about AA vs. KK for your first hand in the WSOP ... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Dan Rutter
07-08-2005, 11:33 AM
I would have come to a decision on the monetary details with him before I had started the tournament.

Freudian
07-08-2005, 11:39 AM
I assume your pay for those hours was ok in the end, and you learned the lesson to always clarify before making the deal.