Re: A question: The fundamentals of backing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just think of it from a moral perspective. You owe him the money, plain and simple.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is what haunts me the most about this post. Particularly those who seem to take sides with OP. This is a question of moral "fiber." OP has revealed himself here.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as a moral issue at all. I see it as something akin to the following:
The backer bet $55 10 separate times with a 50% chance of winning at least $60.5 on each bet and a 50% chance of winning $0 on each bet. Bad luck hit and the backer ended up winning $0 on each bet and has now lost his roll.
Would this still be a morality issue if the backee had gotten knocked out of all ten tourneys in 4th place when he was allin with a 55-45 chance of making it into the money each time? That just seems like bad luck to me and has nothing to do with morals.
If the above situation were the case, would you still say that the backee has a "moral" obligation to repay the backer just because the backee ran into a cold deck?
|