Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

I say give him 90% of the rakeback because you have 0 risk. seems like the idea was that he would "borrow" the money and that 10% of total profits was the "fee or interest"

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, lets start over. I pretty much want to reconstruct the "contract", and am looking for advice. I stated the original contract for background information only.

Based on the fact that I probably wont make him pay me back (considering I dont see him going into debt at the limits he is at), what is a reasonable percent of profit, should I reasonable request?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd consider giving him between 25-50% of total profits (gameplay+RB+bonii) or keep the current deal and give him most/all of the rakeback money. if he is your friend, maybe you should help him out since its only 50 bucks

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

Its really not about the money. I would happily pay the $600 debt for him. Its really about teaching him to use his money (in particular, his poker BR), more appropriately. The reason he lost the $600 in the first place was playing in games he was way under-bankrolled for. In addition, I like to stay as professional as possible when it comes to matters of money, and would like him to learn whats its like to be under more strict rules regarding money management. I admit, the orginal deal was terrible, which is why I came to the forums to seek advice from people more knowledgable in this area.

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

The standard deals Ive heard are more like this:

You take all the risk.

He gets to keep 35% of the profit.

Of course normally the player has some of his own money in there as well so he's actually getting more than half of the profit.

Are you a Poker Player? He'd be better off either giving or oweing you money and you stick it in your bankroll and give him a share of your profits. Less messy anyway...

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He can't open an account, I stated that already. There are other (legal) reasons besides "he has no bankroll".

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are legal reasons why he is barred from playing, you shouldn't be backing him. Also, by letting him play on your account, you're creating legal reasons why you should be barred from playing.

But to answer your actual question;

1. Your agreement stated a no-loss situation for you; you have no risk, because their loss becomes a loan, while their win gets cut. This is not standard, and is not backing, it is loaning. Standard backing is that you put up the $600; if he loses, you lose. If he wins, he gets 50% of the winnngs. You're loaning money -- $600 -- all of which he must pay back. You're also loaning use of accounts on which he can generate action to create the profits/bonuses.

2. In your original loan agreement, you specify that you take 10% of all winnings + bonus, with no mention of rakeback. The spirit of the agreement seems to be "you get use of my account and money, I get 10% of earnings with no risk." In that spirit, you should earn 10% of any revenue generated by their action. Rakeback is revenue generated by their action. It's revenue you would not otherwise have any of.

3. You haven't said how often you take down! This is key! Are you staking him for one session? One tournament? One week? One month? If he turns the $600 into $1200 this week, do you get your $60 now? Is it now $600 your and $540 his? If he loses back to $600, did he lose $284 of his, and $316 of your? Or did he lose his? Or did he lose yours? There's $600 left, whose is it?

4. For future reference, the negotiation of the percentage is primarily a function of how good the player is. You haven't mentioned what is pretty much the most important factor to negotiate against when backing! Of course, this is also critical to consider when staking someone, because you assume all the risk. Even in a "you must pay back losses" arrangement, loaning a loser money is a big risk, especially a loser who has gotten themselves blacklisted.

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its really not about the money. I would happily pay the $600 debt for him. Its really about teaching him to use his money (in particular, his poker BR), more appropriately. The reason he lost the $600 in the first place was playing in games he was way under-bankrolled for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know his 600$ debt was gambling related. That does change things somewhat. It's not like the debt was a car or rent payment, but presumably something much more irresponsible. hopefully, he'll learn from that

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

He owes you 600. Count 100% of total money earned towards this debt. If you want to back him after you are even, just sign him up at a site where you get a % of his rake, and let him keep all his money.

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

Why not make the deal like this:

He gets to play for the 600 dollar, and has to pay them back to you no matter if he wins or loose. Any rakeback or bonus generated is split between the two of you.

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

I wouldnt give him ANY of the RB.

It is your account, not his. Does he deserve a percentage of your party points, too (or equivalent)?

Consider this: If your account did NOT have rakeback, would you pay him rakeback equivalent to his play because he COULD have had it, or because he WOULD have had it if he had his own account? I think not.

Re: What % of winnings reasonable for \"backing\" someone?
 

It sounds more like you are extending him a further loan, rather than backing him. If he goes broke, he still owes you the amount he loses?

If this is correct, IMO you should not get any of his winnings unless you are 'juicing' him or charging him some kind of interest. As far as the bonus goes, 10% is awfully low and the rakeback should be all yours.

FWIW, I have done similar deals. The player was responsible for the original sum and got all his winnings and 50% of his bonus cleared. Rakeback did not come into play but had it, he would not have seen it. In my case, the player would have played at the particular site anyway, without a bonus, so why not clear mine?