% trade deal reneged - Page 3

The Bloke · #21 02-22-2005, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
suppose you didn't cash and he didn't play. then would he have to give you back your $0 that you won? that would obviously be wrong, just like it's wrong for him to give back 892 now.

what he should do is to give you back your expected win from the 1% stake. if he were break-even, it would be $11. he should give himself the benefit of the doubt, call himself great, and give you $30.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, this is what I'm saying. I think it's the most logical way to look at it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are two different ways to look at this arrangement:

1. That this was two separate backing deals. OP bought into WSOPguy for $11, and WSOPguy bought into OP for $11. These deals were arranged at the same time, but are otherwise independent. Therefore it is possible and not unreasonable for only one half of the staking to actually occur, because that does not affect the other.

I think this is the view you two are taking.

2. This was a deal/contract based on two events taking place - OP playing in Stars, and WSOPguy playing in WSOP. The two events are thus linked, and if both do not occur, the deal does not stand. Therefore WSOPguy should pay back OP the $892, and they will be even.

To be honest, I can now see your point of view, and I do see that 1. is a reasonable approach. Particularly as the reason for the WSOP part of the deal was only because WSOPguy did not have $11 on stars to give to OP. We would therefore assume that if WSOPguy DID have $11 on stars, he would have staked OP without any mention of WSOP participation, and there would be no argument - the $892 would belong to WSOPguy.

I guess the lesson here is that the terms need to be very clearly stated at the outset - including every eventuality. This may seem awkward if the deal is between friends - but as this shows, they may not remain friends for long if something like this does occur.

As to which path should be taken now - I suppose that really depends on whether OP and WSOPguy can come to an agreement on the terms of their original deal; if OP feels that the deal was definitely conditional on both events taking place (perhaps this was even mentioned), he has a case.

The Bloke · #22 02-22-2005, 12:03 PM

Or, to put it more succintly, either you said:

"I'll back you in WSOP, and you back me in Stars"

or you said:

"I'll trade you a $11 backing in Stars for a $11 backing in WSOP"

If the former, the deals are independent and he keeps the $892, minus the $11 you paid for the unfulfilled WSOP backing. If the latter, the deal only stood if both took place, and so he pays back the $892 and you're quits.

IgorSmiles · #23 02-22-2005, 12:24 PM

Listen to Rushmore, he seems to be the only voice of reason here. Don't settle up until the other party fufils their end.

The rest of you guys have got to be kidding! Of course the guy should return the money. Sure, he was buying a lotto ticket, but the whole point of buying a lottery ticket is you have a "chance" to win. In this case, a chance at .1% of the $9 million anticipated first prize. You cant turn and now say, "well, there's no way I was gonna win so here, take your eleven bucks back." There was a "chance" he was going to win, and that was what the $11 stake was intended for.

Post-Oak · #24 02-22-2005, 12:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
suppose you didn't cash and he didn't play. then would he have to give you back your $0 that you won?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He would have to give $11 because the rest of the deal would be off (and you can't allow him to have gotten a freeroll on your action).

This is a slightly different situation. The deal is still off, but now he has to return the $892 he was given.

What is hard to understand about this situation? If he does not live up to his end of the bargain (PLAYING IN THE WSOP AND GIVING YOU 0.1% OF THE CASHOUT) then the deal is off.

schwza · #25 02-22-2005, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
suppose you didn't cash and he didn't play. then would he have to give you back your $0 that you won?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He would have to give $11 because the rest of the deal would be off (and you can't allow him to have gotten a freeroll on your action).

This is a slightly different situation. The deal is still off, but now he has to return the $892 he was given.

What is hard to understand about this situation? If he does not live up to his end of the bargain (PLAYING IN THE WSOP AND GIVING YOU 0.1% OF THE CASHOUT) then the deal is off.

[/ QUOTE ]

you could make the same argument about the case where the first guy didn't cash. ok, i'll give you back your 0 and the deal's off.

the real issue is that the two guys are friends. it's a dick move to black mail your friend into playing in a 10K event he doesn't want to and try to to stick him for 900. it's a pretty lame effort on OP's part to get out of having to pay the 900 he owes.

adanthar · #26 02-22-2005, 12:56 PM

(blah blah law student not lawyer not legal advice blah blah)

I don't know about morally, but legally speaking, if you take him to small stakes court you have a roughly 100% chance of getting the money back.

Actually, I do know about morally; he's a weasel. Screw him.

Post-Oak · #27 02-22-2005, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

you could make the same argument about the case where the first guy didn't cash. ok, i'll give you back your 0 and the deal's off.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you can't. I thought I just explained that to you.

Let me explain it really simply. Let's say Mr. X and Mr. Y come to an agreement to split lottery winnings. Mr. X is to buy $1 of lottery tickets per week for 26 weeks. Then Mr. Y will do the same. They will split all profits.

After 26 weeks Mr. X has spent $26 and won nothing. Mr. Y says "OK, I don't really feel like trying to win the lottery anymore".

If YOU are Mr. X, you say "OK, pleasure doing business with you."

If I am Mr. X, I say "Pay me $13". And that would be the last time I come to a verbal agreement with Mr. Y (should have known he was a bit shady just from his name).

Do you understand now that the WSOP guy can not freeroll on the satellite tournament and then back out if Rebuy guy doesn't cash? It really is a very simple concept. If Rebuy guy does not cash, and WSOP guy reneges, then WSOP must pay $11.

[ QUOTE ]

the real issue is that the two guys are friends. it's a dick move to black mail your friend into playing in a 10K event he doesn't want to and try to to stick him for 900. it's a pretty lame effort on OP's part to get out of having to pay the 900 he owes.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is not trying to blackmail anyone. He has an agreement with someone. He has fulfilled all of his obligations and he expects that the other party will likewise fulfill their obligations. He is not forcing anyone to join the WSOP. The guy can pay the $892 back if he doesn't want to fulfill his end of the bargain.

Let this thread (and the irrational responses) be a lesson to anyone who considers making these types of deals. You don't want to be dealing with illogical people in business deals (without a written contract). Just because someone is a great poker player does not mean they understand business deals.

drewjustdrew · #28 02-22-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the real issue is that the two guys are friends. it's a dick move to black mail your friend into playing in a 10K event he doesn't want to and try to to stick him for 900. it's a pretty lame effort on OP's part to get out of having to pay the 900 he owes.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a dick move to request a refund on a whelched bet??? Unbelievable.

TomCollins · #29 02-22-2005, 01:41 PM

If Sketchy fails to cash in the first tournament, and WSOP player decides not to play in WSOP, does that mean that "The deal is off" and he owes Sketchy $0? Most sane people would argue that he owes Sketchy $11.

If he could get out of the deal, it would be a wise move to buy pieces of action in return for future tournaments. When the first player cashes, play in your event. When the first player does not cash, call off the deal, and owe nothing. You can never lose.