A question: The fundamentals of backing - Page 9

AngusThermopyle · #81 03-10-2005, 11:46 PM

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.

"Heres $X to play SnGs."

What do you get?

"Half your winnings."

How long do I have to pay you half?

"You can quit by paying me back my $X"

What happens if I loose half the stake?

"You can quit by paying me back my $X"

What happens if I loose all the stake?

"You can quit by paying me back my $X"

So this is not "backing", it's a loan, right?

"You can quit by paying me back my $X"

So if I go bust, I still owe you $X?

"You can quit by paying me back my $X"

Bottom line, he gave you $X. You lost that. You put $Y into your BR. You started winning. I assume you now had at least $Y + $X + $Z in your BR when he confronted you.

Pay him back the $X. Half the $Z? Not that passionate about that. Maybe negotiate.

Either way, you have more $ than when you started the transaction. And maybe learned a lesson about reading the fine print.

GauchoFish · #82 03-10-2005, 11:47 PM

there was no need for communication, i saw where he stood and wanted to see if others agreed...i had no intention of his identity being revealed unless he wanted it to be, but many people have said they feel it was in poor taste to post this, so i'm inclined to agree, now.

I also did not ask for further backing. Would you ask when you'd just dropped your stake in 72 hours? I assumed asking for more money would be in poor taste.

WD

gumpzilla · #83 03-10-2005, 11:53 PM

I think I would ask what the status of the arrangement was at that point - was I still getting bankroll assistance, did I still need to pay him back, etc. I'm not talking about communicating since he asked for the original stake back, but at the point before that.

GauchoFish · #84 03-10-2005, 11:56 PM

thats what sucks. there were no details. we didn't say anything about this happening, didn't say anything about anything really...he came to me and said 'if you win, and want to go off on your own, you have to give the roll back'...obviously. but if i lost was never discussed.

So then, the purpose of bringing it here was to ask: What is the normal was this is done? If there is a normal way...

WD

lorinda · #85 03-10-2005, 11:59 PM

but if i lost was never discussed.

I remember that the roll was for players who couldn't normally afford that limit.

I don't think losing the roll then suddenly being able to afford the limit crossed anybody's mind.

Lori

GauchoFish · #86 03-11-2005, 12:06 AM

i didn't see him as 'my backer' any more after i lost. I saw it as done, over with. i didn't think there was any chance he'd ever back me again after i'd just lost his role in a couple of days.

WD

GauchoFish · #87 03-11-2005, 12:10 AM

i'd like to see the terms and conditions.

GauchoFish · #88 03-11-2005, 12:17 AM

The backer gets half the winnings. For his risk of losing the money should i lose. That was my understanding of how this works. At the level he backed me at, and the amount he provided, he'd have made 4-6 times his investment monthly if i had a 20% ROI, which is lower than my average.

Its all about risk vs. reward. His risk was losing his roll. His reward was making 4-6 times his money or more, per month.

Seems logical to me. Are you a complete idiot? Or do you see how that makes this a good investment for him, or anybody.

WD

raptor517 · #89 03-11-2005, 12:19 AM

i was going to say you have been making some good points, then you got defensive and started calling people idiots. not the best way to get someone to see your side. holla

FishBurger · #90 03-11-2005, 12:24 AM

Hey Gaucho,

It looks like you are really getting beat up in this thread (unfairly in my mind). First, I think posting here was a good idea. If nothing else, it will educate future backers/backees in the potential problems. However, Irieguy is pretty popular here, so it may be tough for you to get a fair shake here.

FWIW and without seeing the actual terms, I agree with your interpretation of a backing agreement. If your backer expects to be paid back regardless of how you do, then the backer is getting one hell of a deal. The backee is basically taking all of the risk while the backer will enjoy the upside (which may be substantial). I agree with you in that a backee would have to be foolish (or very desperate) to accept such a deal. Any backee that would consider such a deal would be much better off going to a bank and getting a personal loan of some sort.

Anyhoo, at least one person here doesn't think you are scum and agrees with your interpretation of backing. Good luck sorting this out.