Civil Staking dispute. Please weigh in

Posted by

Posted by posted in Gen. Poker

Civil Staking dispute. Please weigh in

It's not quite a dispute yet, it's just an issue that we shelved and haven't spoken of for a while. We really would like rational, objective opinions and if any come from respected pros that would be amazing.

Sorry if it's long.

Backer and Horse have been friends for year before Staking deal.

Backer started backing early 2019. After initial rocky start, Horse played games live and online producing great results over the year. Horse occasionally sat bigger games (horse was known to be strong player - other friend in circle was willing to put him in bigger games).

Backers financial status stayed private. Backer would give all clear for new games as required.

After positive venture, horse leaves stake to play himself. Various happenings later, Horse returns to backer after 3-4 months. Backer, having had success with horse (a 2 month worldwide trip was had) and having no trust issues, snap agrees.

Horse plays games, live and online. Unlike before, the average stake is bit higher. Confidence is there. Swings are had, make-up is entered. Horse plays a ton of volume. At the same time Horse still occasionally plays bigger live games backed by other friend. Backer doesn't have issue as is not willing to put him in a game that size. Backer does however put horse in the big game once and Horse runs very poorly, ending in terrible result.

Weeks go by make-up is ever present, even growing. The backer finds himself financially stretched thin and let's horse know of this. Games are good and Horse continues to play a ton, hoping to resolve this - Horse is in make up anyway. As the gods would have it, Horse has the worst losing period of poker career. Backer calls it. Backer is essentially straight busto. Horse feels bad. Horse and backer got complacent, Backer was not prudent at all with his financials or checking on details of stake (games/volume.etc), Horse was not diligent enough with following up on things once daily/weekly reports were given.

Horse now goes to be permanently under other friends stake. Backer is fine with this, Meanwhile backer does what he can to sort his finances.

Horse plays under friends full stake and after a rocky start, has a lot of success and becomes independent.

After months, Backer has reorganised some of his finances and approaches horse to continue stake as there is lot of make up.

After discussion, Horse and backer agree that it's neither fair nor productive to put horse in significantly smaller and limited range of games, as makeup was entered playing larger games. it's said that it was not up to the horse to enquire if the backer was financially stable, this was assumed. (This is grey area but was agreed on by all incl. Knowledgeable third party)

So it was agreed that horse could play on his own for now if able/desired, and discussion would recommence when backer would be able to put horse in games that were the same stakes and the same volume as before. In the meantime Horse was welcome to pay the backer back, but it was more so that the whole matter was put into cryogenics.

This is where it gets subjective. ~6 months and half a pandemic later, The backer and Horse are friends still, and they do not want any bad blood. Kept in touch, but backer did not bring up anything during this time. Both got busy, and recovered very well. Backer and Horse both put themselves in good spots. Backer can assumably adequately roll horse for games he was playing before (regardless of horses own roll - this was just a condition of this case being opened up)

Backer touches on existing make up, and both do not know what to do about it. Backer is very conflict avoidant and does not want to cause an issue. however he will not simply let it slide, unresolved. Horse wants do right thing and not let backer feel slighted, especially when backer is friend who did help him out, but equally does not want to give away money without good reason.

Neither is in need ; it is less about the money than what is the right thing to do. But it is a large sum.

The options now are to;

  • Void the make up.
  • Settle on amount to be paid
  • continue stake

Questions being:
How much is reasonable?

As friends, What would the good halfway point be?

(If it's relevant, makeup figure is about double what the Backer had profited from backing the horse. Which means the backer is now at a net loss equivalent to the amount he was in profit e.g +$10 to -$10 overall on the venture)

Some opinions are :

there is reason for makeup to be void as backer was not able to back horse when needed - both for horse to get out of makeup, and for horse to make money (as horse had 20/80 make-up deal from beginning to incentivise horse to play). Friendship has nothing to do with it as it wasn't a loan. Backer only backed horse bc it was viewed as profitable, and initially did bring profits.

**The flaw in this is that when approached by backer to play smaller games, Horse felt it was not right and backer accepted, regardless of whether third parties agreed with it)

the horse is obliged to pay some renumeration to backer as horse is not supposed to play any poker when in makeup.

**The flaw in this is that the backer wasn't able to back horse as he essentially went bust, and so it was made clear that the horse playing was fine

Greatly appreciate anyone who comments. Thanks for reading, didn't want to leave anything out.

Loading 1 Comments...

Be the first to add a comment

You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.

This thread has been locked. No further comments can be added. uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy