A question: The fundamentals of backing - Page 12

AtticusFinch · #**111** 03-11-2005, 01:58 AM

You owe him the roll back without question. You also owe him 50% of whatever profits you have made in excess to the roll.

Say he backed you for $1k. You lost it all, then made back $500 with your own roll. You still owe him $1k.

If you made back $1500, you owe him $1250, not $1750, as your profit over and above the original $1k is only $500.

This is 100% clear to me. I don't understand how you can possibly think that you don't owe him anything in this situation. His backing was a loan, not a gift. Just because you had to take out another loan, or dip into your own pocket, does not free you from your obligation.

Even if your argument had legal merit (which, as a lawyer, I can tell you it doesn't), if you honestly believe you don't have a moral obligation to repay your backer here, then I absolutely would never do business of any sort with you.

raptor517 · #**112** 03-11-2005, 01:58 AM

yea, this goofball that posts sometimes daliman is a pretty good sng player, and seems to know what he is talking about. its probably going to pay for itself the mentoring he can give u over 10 sngs, might want to consider the offer.

ps, your a sweetie dali [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] holla

GauchoFish · #**113** 03-11-2005, 02:01 AM

i had to play 500 per month, and i could only do it at one level...and when i stopped i had to return the roll to him...this was never addressed as far as what i should do if i stopped after i had dropped the roll. i didn't think this would happen, and i assume from him putting up a comment on this forum that said 'If you lose, its a freeroll' that he didn't expect to be paid back.

wd

AtticusFinch · #**114** 03-11-2005, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

That's one hell of a deal with no risk on the backer's part.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) There is risk to the backer. The backee could blow the roll, and either quit entirely, or lose more of his own money. It's clear from the details that Irie would not have demanded his roll back in this situation.

2) What's wrong with the backer getting a good deal? If the backer profits, then by definition the backee has profited. Honestly, it's the backee who takes absolutely no risk here, as if the only way he has to repay the whole roll plus juice is if he makes money. Once he has built up a roll of his own that he is comfortable with, he can terminate and everyone comes out a winner. The deal is perfectly fair.

GauchoFish · #**115** 03-11-2005, 02:06 AM

then please explain what he could have meant by posting

"The good thing is, if you lose, its a freeroll. You can play without fear of going broke"

AtticusFinch · #**116** 03-11-2005, 02:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
then please explain what he could have meant by posting

"The good thing is, if you lose, its a freeroll. You can play without fear of going broke"

[/ QUOTE ]

To me it's 100% clear that this means if you lose your roll and never earn it back, you never have to pay it back. Irie did not force you to continue playing with your own money, and you might not have won with it anyway, as far as he knew. That was the risk he took. But if you earn the bankroll back, you are obligated to repay it.

Besides, this was a subsequent statement in another context that doesn't have any binding legal effect on your agreement. But that's lawyer talk. Just think of it from a moral perspective. You owe him the money, plain and simple.

GauchoFish · #**117** 03-11-2005, 02:19 AM

I'm a winning player. I depend on the money to some degree. I was not going to walk away from a souce of income. He knew that.

Why on earth would I allow him to back me if I had to pay it back if I lost? Why would anybody do that? That defeats the whole purpose of what is attractive about having a backer.

It seems you are one of Irie's buddies on this issue, and as a lawyer and obviously a very intelligent person, i suggest you have him use a contract next time, that outlines all of this. Because it appears that there are many people in this thread who feel somewhat strongly that i am a scum bag and should pay him back, and quite a few that beleive that it is rediculous to think that i would be required to.

WD

Scuba Chuck · #**118** 03-11-2005, 02:22 AM

[ 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.

Scuba Chuck · #**119** 03-11-2005, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why on earth would I allow him to back me if I had to pay it back if I lost? Why would anybody do that? That defeats the whole purpose of what is attractive about having a backer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I do now feel sorry for you. This statement is so naive...

FishBurger · #**120** 03-11-2005, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]

1) There is risk to the backer. The backee could blow the roll, and either quit entirely, or lose more of his own money. It's clear from the details that Irie would not have demanded his roll back in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't some dude that Irie pulled off the street to play poker for him. The OP was a proven winner. I would say there was a 0% chance that the OP wasn't going to play SnGs again, so there was essentially 0 risk taken by the backer.

[ QUOTE ]

2) What's wrong with the backer getting a good deal? If the backer profits, then by definition the backee has profited. Honestly, it's the backee who takes absolutely no risk here, as if the only way he has to repay the whole roll plus juice is if he makes money. Once he has built up a roll of his own that he is comfortable with, he can terminate and everyone comes out a winner. The deal is perfectly fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with the backer getting a good deal. If the backer puts in the agreement that he must be paid back out of any winnings the backee may have in the future, then that is the deal. That particular term seems to be missing in this "contract." Contracts are construed against the writer, which would be the backer in this case. Furthermore, when there is no term covering a particular aspect of the agreement, you look to custom and practices in the field. I believe it is customary for backers to bear the risk of loss of the entire roll in a backer-backee arrangement.

In this particular deal, the backer put out X and was likely to get back 2X-4X but may get back nothing. If the backer wanted to make sure he got back at least X he should have explicitly put that in the agreement or else the backee would be justified in assuming that the backer bore the risk of loss.