A question: The fundamentals of backing - Page 2

BigHobo · #11 03-10-2005, 03:51 PM

Reason #4,526,525 for not getting involved in a backing arrangement (for either party to the transaction).

Seriously, in these online days of micro-limits and 5+1 sng's does anyone REALLY need backing? If so, maybe they need to focus on other things in their life rather than poker.

Voltron87 · #12 03-10-2005, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't backing him in a tournament. For a one-shot deal the vig is much higher than 50%. I was providing ongoing bankroll support.

I will not comment any further on this.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is purely between you and the backee (sp?), and not really the forum's business. I was wondering if you had given him a number like 20 buy-ins, or whether you had just said "I'll back you with whatever you need and monitor your growth and development, etc". But it really isn't my business and it's not something I can answer... so I'm done with the thread as well.

rickr · #13 03-10-2005, 04:04 PM

As others have said, this really isn't the Forums business, so I'll just make a couple of small comments and drop it.
If this was the agreement mentioned in earlier threads where Irieguy also coached, this should be taken into consideration. If he improved your game to a point where now you are making a profit, you should really think about the fact that he earned the money through coaching. My only other thought on this is that what I read into his original offer was to back and teach people. He stated that his share was high, and that both sides had to agree before this started. I'm not accusing, but this seems like a gentleman's agreement. I can't imagine the intent was to throw x number of dollars at people and see if they could be winning players. He was mentoring. I would think you would want to live up to your end of the bargain just out of shear principle. That's of course if I understand the situation completely, which I'm sure I don't. Just don't take advantage of someone's generousity.

Later,
Rick

mackthefork · #14 03-10-2005, 04:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As others have said, this really isn't the Forums business, so I'll just make a couple of small comments and drop it.
If this was the agreement mentioned in earlier threads where Irieguy also coached, this should be taken into consideration. If he improved your game to a point where now you are making a profit, you should really think about the fact that he earned the money through coaching. My only other thought on this is that what I read into his original offer was to back and teach people. He stated that his share was high, and that both sides had to agree before this started. I'm not accusing, but this seems like a gentleman's agreement. I can't imagine the intent was to throw x number of dollars at people and see if they could be winning players. He was mentoring. I would think you would want to live up to your end of the bargain just out of shear principle. That's of course if I understand the situation completely, which I'm sure I don't. Just don't take advantage of someone's generousity.

Later,
Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

First and last word, I agree completely with your post, this sounds more like a loan than a backing arrangement.

Mack

PS Be good to people who are good to you, or eventually karma will bite your ass.

Mr_J · #15 03-10-2005, 04:11 PM

I guessed as much. Personally I see backing someone as giving them a loan, not a 'free shot'. Even if this wasn't specified at the time, I think it's unfair not to pay him back when you can afford to.

jcm4ccc · #16 03-10-2005, 04:12 PM

But was mentoring part of the arrangement? And did Irieguy stop mentoring after the bankroll was lost?

I think it's a complex situation. This should have been thought through when the arrangement was made. On the original post about backing, several people mentioned this potential difficulty (how long will the arrangement last)?

When I read Irieguy's original post, it said something about the freedom to play without worrying about a bankroll. Now I'm hearing that, once the person lost the bankroll, he was now under obligation to either win back the bankroll or never play poker again. So here's the poor guy's situation. He played at a level higher than he is comfortable, because Irieguy agreed to bankroll him. He lost that bankroll. Now he is playing at smaller buy-ins, but he's still obligated to pay back the money to Irieguy. It will take him months or perhaps years to earn back the money (since he's not playing at those buy-ins anymore). That's enough to make a guy quit poker for good. That wasn't exactly the spirit of the original arrangement.

SuitedSixes · #17 03-10-2005, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
any thoughts, suggestions? Am i a bone head to think that when i dropped his roll and came back on my own i was ON MY OWN?
WD

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not a bonehead, you're a dickhead, but since you're doing so well would you consider backing me? I promise to pay you back.

Voltron87 · #18 03-10-2005, 04:19 PM

I can't edit my post because it's too late, but when I wrote it I didn't understand the agreement and it's not even my business. So disregard it.

adanthar · #19 03-10-2005, 04:21 PM

Under the terms Irieguy outlined in that post a couple of months back, I think you owe him the stake.

This kinda makes me sad, too.

citanul · #20 03-10-2005, 04:21 PM

Jeez, I don't understand how there can be much discussion about this.

Whatever the original terms of the agreement were, that's what the terms were. Sorry if that's idioticly simplistic or whatever, but I'm sure that Irie had at least semi-explicit clauses for the lenght of the contract and the provisos for if the player busted the provided bankroll.

I am currently backing a pair of players, both of their contracts have a buyout clause. Neither of them have a "if you bust, you owe me nothing" clause. They both explicitly have a "you must pay me back if you bust the br" clause. Basically, the exact same clause as it seems that this one did, which is the "I own x% of your profits until you buy me out."

Other details of my arrangements can be had if there are interested people in such details, but really, much like Irie's arrangement, I tend ot keep such things private, instead of airing this stuff out in public.

OP: posting this here was about the lamest possible thing that you could have done. it's pretty evident from the way you wrote the op that you didn't try like, oh, discussing this with the backer much, but instead just went and flamed away.

try harder to be a decent person next time. it might not come naturally, but in time, it'll be like second nature.

citanul