Re: A question: The fundamentals of backing
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mr Fishburger, honestly, this is preposterous. I'm sure there are arguments against my line of thinking, but this absolutely is not one of them. Recognize, that of your 10 examples above have a distinct time horizon. Specifically, each is one $55 SNG. If this were the precise agreement, then yes, this is correct (ala tournament backing.) But the agreement was not "Hey, I'm gonna give you 10 freerolls on the $55s. After those ten are done, split the profits 50/50, give me back my bankroll, or if you lose, you're off the hook." This thinking is seriously flawed.
I hope you would agree that if OP thought that this was the arrangement, then he was mentally incapacited when he made the deal.
|