A question: The fundamentals of backing

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, the time horizon in this arrangement is far more open. This, IMO, is a lot more like loan sharking. With one difference. The backer doesn't break legs/arms/ribs (that I know of). And if you never play poker again, well then that's part of the risk/loss. But to come back one week later...

[/ QUOTE ]

No loan shark (or credit card) would ever accept the complete loss of the roll under ANY circumstances. Irie is clearly taking such a risk here, and willingly.

In any case, whether OP was wise to accept the arrangement has absolutely no bearing on the issue.

[SuitedPair]

I don't think anyone has looked at this angle, which to me seems logical. Irie backed the OP so he could play at a higher level than his bankroll allowed. So Irie simply augmented the OP's bankroll. Since the OP was able to start playing again after a one-week break, the OP’s bankroll was not fully depleted. I’ll admit I know nothing about backing someone, but this is how I’d look at it as the backer or player.

[SuitedSixes]

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.

[rickr]

One last analogy to see if you understand most of the people's thinking here.
You love to mow lawns. You want to open a lawn care service, but only have a small push mower. Sure you can do this with it, but you can't mow enough lawns to make enough profit to live on. Irieguy say's "Hey, I have a new zero radius 5' deck mower that I can spare. Use it for as long as you need to. While your using it I want 50% of your profit. The deal is done when you give me the mower back." Now, the mower get's stolen while in your care. Should you owe Irie for the mower, or was that a risk he took? The bankroll was a tool he loaned you. While you used the tool he expected to share in the profits that that tool enabled you to make. If I borrow something from someone and break it, I pay them back. Simple as that.
You can say what you like about me, makes no differance. This is not the same as a backer for one tournament. This is not a shared gambling attempt. You have to decide what the actual intent was, and decide what is the right thing to do.

Later,
Rick

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
don't see this as a moral issue at all. I see it as something akin to the following:

The backer bet $55 10 separate times with a 50% chance of winning at least $60.5 on each bet and a 50% chance of winning $0 on each bet. Bad luck hit and the backer ended up winning $0 on each bet and has now lost his roll.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Fishburger, honestly, this is preposterous. I'm sure there are arguments against my line of thinking, but this absolutely is not one of them. Recognize, that of your 10 examples above have a distinct time horizon. Specifically, each is one $55 SNG. If this were the precise agreement, then yes, this is correct (ala tournament backing.) But the agreement was not "Hey, I'm gonna give you 10 freerolls on the $55s. After those ten are done, split the profits 50/50, give me back my bankroll, or if you lose, you're off the hook." This thinking is seriously flawed.

I hope you would agree that if OP thought that this was the arrangement, then he was mentally incapacited when he made the deal.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also, clearly IMO, owe him 50% of any profits until you pay back the bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he started with $1000, then lost it, then wins $100, is this a "profit"? Does he owe Irie $50?

Theoretically, he could pay Irie 50% a month forever, never actually pay off the principal, and never see $1 of profit for himself.

For example....
Starting roll: $1000 of Irie's money.

Month 1 - Lose $1000
Month 2 - Win $1000 (Pay Irie $500)
Month 3 - Lose $1000
Month 4 - Win $1000 (Pay Irie $500)
Month 5 - Lose $1000
Month 6 - Win $1000 (Pay Irie $500)

The result: he is down $500 of his own money, and he still owes $1000 to Irie. Irie has received $1500 in payments so far.

I'm not siding with the villian. I'm just trying to figure out what is going on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorect 50% of any "profits" mean exactly that, and if he is below the BR start amount still , there are no profits.

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the same as what Irie sent to Gaucho, then yes it is an open and shut case in favor of Irie. Pay him his $ back.

But to me, this is far different from what is implied in Irie's original backing post, since this is in no way a freeroll.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

If this is the same as what Irie sent to Gaucho, then yes it is an open and shut case in favor of Irie. Pay him his $ back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. So, Gaucho... is this the same as the email you received?

[networkman]

[ QUOTE ]
I know this thread was just about buried and that is a good thing, but I really think I can convince GauchoFish and he will reply to this post (if he reads it) saying, yes, microbet, I understand what you are saying and I think I should repay Irieguy.

A bankroll to a poker player is a more of a tool than money. Money is what your bankroll produces. Irieguy was letting you borrow a bankroll in exchange for 50% of your profits.

Let's look at how fair your interpretation, that Irieguy 'bet' a bankroll on you is.

As I posted before, consider that situation where you lose all your money but $1. If you come back from there, Irieguy gets all his money. If you lose that dollar and then bankroll yourself and then comeback, he is out of luck. Seems like that possibility alone would require you to at least ask Irieguy to keep bankrolling you.

In your interpretation what is Irieguy's risk? You lose the roll and never pay him back. What is his benefit? Well, he doesn't necessarily have any. That is left up to you. You could repay the roll at any time. If you had won for a little while, you would be very likely to pay back the roll and quit paying him 50%. If Irieguy was going to risk losing the whole roll wouldn't you expect to have some obligation, if you were winning, to generate at least some minimum amount of profit for him? That's why backing for a tournament is so different. The backer risks losing the entry fee, but owns a share of all the profits that the entry fee could ever generate.

Consider the interpretation that you do owe him the roll. If Irieguy thinks you are a winning player he will be motivated to continue providing you with bankroll support. Everyone, including you, knows that Irieguy is familiar with variance. Is 50% a usurous rate for a loan? Hell no, not for this loan. Do you think you can get a loan to buy a business where you are not required to make payments and you only pay interest on your profits? AND you can prepay the loan at anytime without penalty? This is not a 50% loan, it is a 0% loan with some potential fees.

Why did Irieguy say it was a freeroll? Because he intended to give you bankroll support until you were winning. He expected that you would eventually be winning. What if you lost the roll and didn't want to play anymore? I think you had an obligation to play as long as you owed him the roll and he was willing to back you.

Irieguy is your bankroll until you pay him back. This clearly goes for any poker you play anywhere, ever. I would consider gambling of any kind to be using this bankroll. You also, clearly IMO, owe him 50% of any profits until you pay back the bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anyone on this board, I mostly lurk, I'm not much of a writer.

From the info the OP gave I was of the opinion that he should pay Irieguy back but I only felt it was a MORAL obligation. Microbets post is so good I don't think there can be anymore arguement about it. You either pay up or you're a welch.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
its not defensive, i'm provoking a dialogue...there is not right or wrong answer of course...i just want to see what most peoples views of these agreements are

WD

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely a right answer here. Your inability to differentiate between right and wrong is at the heart of this entire dispute.