A question: The fundamentals of backing

[microbet]

You had to at least give Irieguy the opportunity to continue backing you.

If, instead of going broke, you dropped down to $1 and then made your way back to profitibility you would owe him all the bankroll. Thanks to losing that last dollar you don't owe him anything?

I don't think you are a scumbag. I think it was an honest misunderstanding. But, I think my powerful argument here as well as my taco cart analogy should convince you.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would I allow him to back me if I had to pay it back if I lost? Why would anybody do that? That defeats the whole purpose of what is attractive about having a backer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because they depend on poker for income, and you can't play without a roll. 50% of any amount of winnings is better than 100% of no winnings because you can't play.

Same reason people pay three-fold for a house by taking out a mortgage. They don't have any other options.

eastbay

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would I allow him to back me if I had to pay it back if I lost? Why would anybody do that? That defeats the whole purpose of what is attractive about having a backer.


[/ QUOTE ]

To take a shot at a higher limit, to make a stab at going pro, to build up a bankroll at no risk of going broke yourself, to play even if you can't afford to lose any of your own money -- there are any number of reasons.

[ QUOTE ]

It seems you are one of Irie's buddies on this issue, and as a lawyer and obviously a very intelligent person, i suggest you have him use a contract next time, that outlines all of this.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are 100% correct that he would be well-advised to use a written contract. Were I his attorney, I would have insisted upon it. He apparently deemed you an honorable enough person to make the contract unnecessary. So far, your position on this matter leads me to believe he misjudged you, and that's a shame.

[ QUOTE ]

Because it appears that there are many people in this thread who feel somewhat strongly that i am a scum bag and should pay him back, and quite a few that beleive that it is rediculous to think that i would be required to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know you personally, and I haven't concluded that you are a scum bag per-se. But this is a pretty scummy thing to do. Good people do bad things sometimes, and I am certainly no exception. Whatever the technicalities may be (and I don't know the details of your oral agreement), they are beside the point in my opinion. This is not just a contract dispute; it is a matter of personal integrity, and your behavior here indicates a decided lack of it. It may just be an aberration, but if that's the case then in my mind in your heart of hearts you must honestly believe that paying Irie back is simply the right thing to do. If you truly think otherwise, then as I said, I would never do business of any sort with you, and would strongly advise others to follow my example.

[FishBurger]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Just think of it from a moral perspective. You owe him the money, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]




This is what haunts me the most about this post. Particularly those who seem to take sides with OP. This is a question of moral "fiber." OP has revealed himself here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I 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.

Would this still be a morality issue if the backee had gotten knocked out of all ten tourneys in 4th place when he was allin with a 55-45 chance of making it into the money each time? That just seems like bad luck to me and has nothing to do with morals.

If the above situation were the case, would you still say that the backee has a "moral" obligation to repay the backer just because the backee ran into a cold deck?

[Turk]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a large hole in your logic. It is not a strange coincidence....none of them have confronted this issue yet BECAUSE they have not yet lost.

I'd be interested to hear if they all feel they need to pay him back if they lose. If i thought this was our agreement, i'd not have brought it to this forum.

I thought there was some sort of a general way these things went down, i guess i was wrong.



WD

[/ QUOTE ]


Irie has been backing me for going on three months now and I received an initial email outlining the way the program works followed by a telephone conversation, he was very specific & detailed as to what my obligations were to him and his to me.
This has been my first experience with a backer and I liked the whole idea simply to improve my game, in fact I had talked with a couple regular posters about a coaching arrangement prior to this arrangement.
To suggest that not knowing the deal is anyone elses responsibility is rediculous and insulting, provided of course that you are over the age of twelve.
I was taught long ago by my parents, grandparents, and the world at large, that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and any "deals" that sound too good to be true, most likely are.
So, to accept a sum of money, lose it, then claim ignorance and somehow imply foul, I think is plain wrong, weather well intentioned or otherwise.
Pay the guy the money he gave you and next time ask all questions prior to the cyber handshake if you aren't sure how things work.

[Prickly Pete]

Gaucho,

Unfortunately, you're running into a group that strongly favors Irie here. And I think most are being blind to what seems pretty obvious to an outside observer. Without any terms and conditions otherwise (and it sounds like there may not be any), then let's look at Irie's original backing post:


Irieguy's Original Post

From that post,

[ QUOTE ]
The good news is that you don't pay if you don't win, so it's a freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can there be any debate as to what the offer is here? If Gaucho loses the roll, it's over. It was a freeroll.

Whatever he does afterward is irrelevant. What if won back $ playing $50 Party HoldEm SNGs with his own roll? What if he won back $ playing $10 Omaha SNGs on Paradise? Hmmm, what if he won back $ at the dog track? IT DOESN'T MATTER. If it was a loan, then it would get paid back, but I don't see how anyone can mistake a freeroll for a loan.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]

You are 100% correct that he would be well-advised to use a written contract. Were I his attorney, I would have insisted upon it. He apparently deemed you an honorable enough person to make the contract unnecessary. So far, your position on this matter leads me to believe he misjudged you, and that's a shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

atticus, im no lawyer (but my father is, and biz law was one of my fav. classes) but didn't irie and op enter into a contract due to the fact that there was an agreement, consideration, capacity, and legality? im sure that the emails exchanged would be more than enough to prove in court that a contract existed between the two parties.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Gaucho,

Unfortunately, you're running into a group that strongly favors Irie here. And I think most are being blind to what seems pretty obvious to an outside observer. Without any terms and conditions otherwise (and it sounds like there may not be any), then let's look at Irie's original backing post:


Irieguy's Original Post

From that post,

[ QUOTE ]
The good news is that you don't pay if you don't win, so it's a freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can there be any debate as to what the offer is here? If Gaucho loses the roll, it's over. It was a freeroll.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is it so clear cut? He did win. It doesn't say "if you don't win using the initial stake." It says "if you don't win."

eastbay

[WarDekar]

Why do you ask for other people's opinions? They give them to you, and then you go off trying to argue why you shouldn't repay him. Why ask? You must feel some guilt?

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it so clear cut? He did win. It doesn't say "if you don't win using the initial stake." It says "if you don't win."

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say Gaucho was given $1000 to play $50 SNGs on Party. If he then lost all $1000 and had to reload on his own before he started winning - then yes in my opinion, it is clear cut.

Back to my other hypothetical situation. Say Gaucho never put a dime back on Party. But he started playing Omaha on Paradise and won back thousands (on his own stake). Would he owe Irie still? What if he won the lottery?

If you think it's a loan, then ok I see. But the "he's since won money, so he owes the backer" argument doesn't make much sense to me, if he won with his own $.

I've read Turk's post since my initial post and if Gaucho had a similar agreement, then this is all just wild speculation for nothing anyway. And shame on both Irie and Gaucho if they didn't.