A question: The fundamentals of backing

[GauchoFish]

thats a pretty specific detail to not tell somebody...'if you lose the roll, you have to play on your own money to pay it back'....i never saw any agreement that said anything close to that...and suited's was not the one he gave me, i posted it...of course w/ any agreement there are ways to wiggle into things and ways to try and wiggle out...but a clause so fundamentally important, you'd think he'd have made a point of letting me know, not sliding it in after i'd lost...THEN got even with my own money

wd

[$DEADSEXE$]

Gaucho I just think your being dumb...who in their right mind stakes somebody say $500 or $1000 bucks to play sit n go's...and then gives that person an even 50/50 split...and then if that person blows the whole roll in 5 hours the deals over and both people go their seperate ways???

Nobody would do that in their right mind.

He wasn't buying a stake in you(i.e. Greg Raymer at the WSOP)...he was loaning you a roll and in return for that loan you owed him 50% of whatever you won unles you chose to pay back the roll and end the deal. Until you chose to pay back the money loaned to you the backer is owed his cut of your winnings FOREVER.
However since you bombed it and managed to not win a single thing...you owe him the roll back and then the deal ends.

If he was gonna give me say $1000 to play the step tourneys..which make more sense because the risk to reward is much better...$12 risked to win $4500....and the argeement was I would be getting backed and if I lost it all I wouldn't have to pay it back at all...the backer would at least want to be entitled to $60-$70 percent of all winnings.
Now if you were Barry Greenstein etc then maybe you just give him a 50/50 or even 40/60 split and say [censored] it...take the $500/$1000 bucks etc and say go do your thing...hopefully you don't lose it...I get 50%. That would be different because your saying the players huge amount of skill/advantage is worth the risk.
But your not Barry Greenstein or a Pro etc or most likly even a real strong sitngo player...no offense intended.

You should pay back the roll or 50% of all your winnings should go to him thats the deal you struck(doesn't matter if you sucked so bad that you lost all of his money)....I'de assume it would make more $$$ sense just to pay back the roll, unless your playing $5 sit n go's.

Am I the only one that doesn't think this is just common sense?

[curtains]

If Gaucho was able to end the bankrolling at any moment and return the stake, then I beleive it's clear he owes Irieguy the money. No backer would allow the backee to stop the deal at any moment, unless the backer had no risk involved.

I'm not sure if this was the case however...

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
thats a pretty specific detail to not tell somebody...'if you lose the roll, you have to play on your own money to pay it back'....i never saw any agreement that said anything close to that...and suited's was not the one he gave me, i posted it...of course w/ any agreement there are ways to wiggle into things and ways to try and wiggle out...but a clause so fundamentally important, you'd think he'd have made a point of letting me know, not sliding it in after i'd lost...THEN got even with my own money

wd

[/ QUOTE ]

There was an exit clause stated in the agreement. You didn't fulfill that.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
G
Am I the only one that doesn't think this is just common sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is common sense. Backing isn't a zero risk investment. The backer should expect a certain percentage of his stable to go bust which is why the ROI on the other ones has to be so high. That is in general . This is a specific case which comes down to the agreement they signed/agreed to. One clearly states that GF owes money. But GF says that is NOT the one he recieved. Only two people here know what was in the agreement between the two of them.

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
curtains sed: ...I feel like I’m on another planet here. If you back someone you are usually taking risk that the player will lose. If they lose the amount you backed, and you choose to no longer back them, then the arrangement is over.

The backer was the one who ended the agreement by not offering more funds to the player he was backing, once the original stake was depleted.

Once again, I don't know all of the exact details, but assuming it was the standard type of S+G backing I'm used to, the above should hold true.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is generally correct and in conformance with standard backing proceedure absent any clear and specific agreement to the contrary, and thus it appears to trump any other arguments in this case.

However, there are some areas in this situation where the backee does not appear to act in good faith. The offer Irie posted in this forum specifically detailed that it was intended for people who did not have a roll of their own. The backee did not fit that criterium - he was merely seeking an alternate risk free source of funds. One has to wonder if he was as upfront about that when the arrangement was made as he is now. It makes one wonder if Groucho wanted to experiment with some limits or playing strategies he was not adequately familiar or comfortable with.

It seems very possible that he might not have treated the money with as much respect as someone who had no other source of funds. He might have played carelessly, recklessly, or when he wasn't in top form. To completely bust out $1000 in several days in small stake SnGs doesn't sound easy with any kind of decent play. Couldn't he win or place in any of them?

The Backee didn't update the Backer at any point during this horendous slide until it was over. While it is incumbent on the backer to monitor the progress of his backees, I think it would also be morally responsible for the backee to keep his backer informed of his progress and situation. In particular, I think the original offer included some proviso for mentoring. If so, the backee was particularly negligent not to take advantage of this. The backee might have been playing on tilt or otherwise poorly and likely would have been wisely counseled by the backer in some appropriate way.

I don't think the backee has a legal or strict moral obligation to repay the backer.

However, I think this horse took advantage of his backer in a way that was unanticipated, was at least somewhat irresponsible, employed poor judgment, and demonstrated a carefree disregard for the backer’s money.