A question: The fundamentals of backing

[microbet]

Dude, it's not that hard to calculate profit. Obviously if he his own money from outside of gambling it doesn't count towards profit.

If he deposits X himself and then goes on winning to have the original bankroll + X, he has no profit. Anything above that would be profit.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Profit = Current Bankroll - Original Bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he deposits $5000 into his account, he immediately owes Irie $2000? ($4000 = $5000 - $1000, Irie gets 50%=$2000).....and he still owes the $1000 principal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not be silly, Phil.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate this thread so much, for so many reasons, and I just wish it would die. What I post here, may either render the point moot, or stir up another 1000 views. I hope I am not over-stepping my bounds, but when I first approached Irieguy about backing this is the response I received:

[ QUOTE ]

Well, here's my deal, in case it sounds like something that would be good for you:

1. Send me your spreadsheet covering 300 consecutive SNGs at the $11 level. I also need to see a few HHs from tournaments you finished ITM.

2. If we agree on mutual benefit and trust, I will provide you with $330 as a $11 bankroll.

3. For the next 500 SNGs, you would give me 50% of the profit. I would help you analyze your spreadsheet and hand histories at that point, and if things look good I will give you another $330. That would be $660 of support from me, which is enough to bankroll the $22's if your ITM% is at least 40%. The benefit to you is that you can keep all of your share for spending money... you don't need to build a bankroll.

4. Each time you are ready to move up a limit, I will provide you with the marginal increase in bankroll needed. You will always give me 50% of your profit until the deal terminates. You can terminate the deal by paying me back the entire bankroll. My profit-sharing payments do not count towards bankroll pay-off. If you never pay me back... then you owe me 50% of everthing you make at poker forever and ever.

What this deal gives you is a risk-free bankroll and mentorship from somebody who has played poker for over 15 years. I currently have a 40% ITM rate and 20% ROI at the $55's while 6-tabling. What it gives me is 50% of your winnings until you have reached a level high enough to where you feel you no longer need the bankroll support. I will go as high as you want. That could mean a lot of money for me, too. I am now an obstetrician starting my own practice. Within 6 months, I will not have enough time to play even 100 SNGs a month... so I want somebody to play them for me- they are THAT profitable.

Get back to me if you are interested.

If not, I sincerely wish you the best of luck and happiness.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

What I hate most is that Gauchofish has taken advantage of the kindness and trust (although monetarily motivated) of a stranger.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one clearly indicates that money is owed back. Morally at least. I think slavery agreements might not be legally enforceable [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] It seems like an incredibly stupid contract to enter into. You are accepting all the risk (unless you plan on quiting poker) and investing all the time. The only value is the mentoring. Otherwise you should work at McD's for 2 weeks and get your 22 roll and go from there.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Greetings,

I recently accepted backing from a member of this forum, and an odd situation has presented itself now, and i'd like to turn the issue over to the members of this forum for some feedback and a possible resolution:

Unless he wishes to make himself known in this thread, I will leave the backers identity anonymous:

I was to play SNG's with the backing and chop the winnings 50/50 for the length of the arrangement. I could stop the arrangment whenever i liked by returning the roll i had been provided. Other than a couple of small other detials not pertaining to the issue at hand, that was the extent of our verbal and written (emails) agreement.


Well to make a long story short, from the moment i began playing on the roll, i caught cards from hell. Every big pair lost to one over card, all KK vs. 77's went down in flames etc. The money was gone within 72 hours.

I sent an email to the backer sniveling about by beats and apologizing for losing all his money. He made a very simple reply: "thats poker"



I took a week of and gathered myself and am now back in action, placing in over 50% of tourneys since my comeback, on my own bankroll.



I never heard from the backer again, until this morning:

He checked me out on Poker Prophecy and sees that i'm winning nicely again and wants his cut. He says he is entitled to half my winnings and his original backing.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa!

[img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

You want what? [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] He says that he is entitled to this, as his backing was 'eternal' and that i am not out of this deal unless i repay the stake or 'die forever'.


hmmmmmmmm

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 ]

having not read all of the responses, i feel it is your duty to repay THE loan; however, i don't feel you owe the backer anything beyond that once you got back on your feet with your own money. [key thing that hits me]: "the length of the arrangement". point being, once you lost the roll, the arrangement was done, at least in my eyes. unless the arrangement was based on factors beyond just the one single loan, i think the backer is way out of line. me personally, if i loaned you the money with the same stipulations and you lost it but then got back on your feet with your own money, i'd expect my loan back. nothing more. i feel i'm not entitled to any of your current good fortune because my roll/loan had nothing to do with it.

*again, i say i have'nt read any of the other posts*

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
for this i apologize, to you to irie and to any others offended, i'm an open person, doens't bother me. i didn't mean to emberass/offend/annoy anybody...i assumed these arrangements were fair game for this forum. in retrospect, maybe i should have posed a hypothetical or not posted it at all.

WD

[/ QUOTE ]

i, personally, am not offended. frankly, i never would have put you on the spot like that in the first place unless it was spelled out beforehand. case in point, keeping copies of the drafts (emails) discussing the arrangement. if it did'nt say all future winnings plus the roll, there's nothing for you to feel bad about.

[ayamaguc]

[ QUOTE ]

I find it very interesting that EVERY SINGLE poster whose name I recognize as having read QUITE OFTEN agree's with Irie, and all of the people who agree with me are people who I don't recognize all that well. Seems you 'lifers' are a tight knit group.

Raptor, SuitedSixes, Atticus, Scuba Check, Stuipid Sucker...can anybody come up with a list of six names who post more on this forum? Seems comraderie, familiarity and the lack of (forgive me but its late and i'm quite tilted over this) a productive life outside of this forum, overrides all sense of logic and reason.
WD

[/ QUOTE ]

: Don't impugning the integrity and 'life' of people you don't know. You came here asking so opinions you got. It's no one's job to tell you what you want to hear.

: I'm pretty new. You probably don't recognize me all that well. Count me among those who don't agree with you and find this all really sad.

: Legal is legal. If you wanted those answers you shouldn't/wouldn't have come here. The courts are (exclusively) about winning anyways.

: Business is business. If you want to focus on the agreement minutiae, etc. that's your choice. Business is quite often all about winning too.

: In my opinion you missed a chance here to come out a huge winner. Regardless of fault or the details, you could have cemented a big-time reputation, either with Irie and his select circle, or the community at large, as a stand-up guy, someone who goes out of their way and beyond the call to make right and ensure everyone feels like they're getting a fair shake. When you have nothing else you have how you carry yourself, your reputation/history, how you treat others, and the respect & accumulated goodwill you've built up with your friends and loved ones. That for me is worth far far far more than some piddling bankroll even if it's the last bankroll you'll ever have.

It all starts with reaching out to Irie and saying 'hey, here's my situation. what do you think would be fair?'.

-akira

[GauchoFish]

Atticus, it seems me and you are in disagreement over what a 'freeroll' is and what somebody means when they say 'if you don't win you don't pay'...we also disagree on FUNDAMENTALLY what a backing agreement entails. You seem to think that a backer is providing a loan, i thought/think it is akin to money placed in a stock.

I appreciate your concern for my personal morals and ethics, though i kindly ask you to mind your own [censored] morals and stop making this personal.

WD

[GauchoFish]

i agree

[GauchoFish]

you are correct mr. finch, we have a legally binding oral contract that says that he was to back me for 500 SNG's per month with a specific bankroll and provide 'ongoing bankroll support'. Part of the agreement also states that 'if you lose its a freeroll' and 'if you don't win you don't pay'

We do not have an agreement that states that he is loaning me money to play poker with, and if i lose the money i still have to repay it. When his 'bankroll support' stopped, so did the agreement. End of story.

WD

[pokerlaw]

Was thinking about this situation today and it reminded me of an analogy that my first year contracts professor gave:

Hasidic Jews involved in the diamond business do not use written contracts (helps keep transaction costs down). Instead, they have a tight-knit community of businessmen who rely on each other's word and reputation to enforce deals. Should someone reneg on a deal, they have a one strike and you are out policy - i.e. they are out of the diamond business for life. It is actually quite an efficient system when you think about it - no lawsuits bickering over terms of a deal.

I think similar analogy can be made here. poker's "legal" status make contracts of this sort legally unenforcable in the US Court system. further, this is a fairly tight knit community, and maintaining the reputation of a player with integrity should be paramount.

So, i guess my question is, was this the strike? In my eyes, it more than grazes the corner of the plate.