blonde poker forum

I bought 25% of a friend (at 1.2) in a tournament. He wins the tournament which includes a £550 seat to another tournament. I offer him his action for the subsequent tournament back at 1.4. He accepts it but thinks it should be his for 1.0.

His argument is that I am entitled to 25% of his prize and the prize is essentially the winnings + £550.

"the added prize is really just money in my pocket after the buyin
i'm £550 richer after playing than i would have been if i hadn't come 2nd in notts
you're entitled to 25% of that £550 but not more
otherwise i'm being punished
just to be clear, from my point of view if i have to pay 1.4 the buyin costs me £550 plus an extra £55
which is a bummer if i was gonna play anyway
which is kind of irrelevant but it helps make my point i think
so i'm penalised for winning the seat"

My thoughts are that the action follows through and i'm entitled to 25% in the subsequent tournament since he was paid in a seat rather than cash.

Anyway thoughts appreciated!

If the deal was for one tourney, and if he doesn't want the action to follow through on the seat he won, then it clearly doesn't.

So long as he gives you £137.50 for 25% of the seat, he is doing no wrong.
Doesn't matter if you bought the initial 25% at 1.0 or 1.8.

This is exactly the sort of thing you should have sorted before hand.

No arbitration necessary as none can be given. This has been discussed in the past..some people would give it and some wouldn't (he atleast owes you the 25% of 550 though)

I've honestly never seen a more contrived attempt to squeeze £55 out of a mate.

this

Well part of the prize he won was the equity which has value >25% of £550.

And neither of us are trying to squeeze a few quid out of a mate, we just want to come to a fair answer in case it ever happens in a far bigger tournament.

you can't argue that. he could just as well say that he's -ev to the field in the other tourney so your share should <25% of £550

if you want a % of the 2nd tourney you need to agree that beforehand. otherwise you need to work it out at it's face value and figure out any staking deal on the 2nd one seperately

Fair play, I maybe shouldn't have said that. Sorry.



Here's the gig though, as I see it.

When you bought 25% of him in the original tournament you paid a premium of 0.2
This was to pay for his labour and expertise in playing the tournaments.

The prize he won was 1st place money + a buy-in to another comp. You are entitled to 25% of this.

The prize was not 1st place money + a buy-in to another comp + the labour and expertise of someone to play this comp for you.

ergo, you are not entitled to anything greater than 25% of the cash value of the buy-in.

quite a tough one, and one that me and claimer nearly had to come to terms with, i think either you should get 25% of the cash (if a cash is scooped) in the 550f or he should buy the 25% back @ 1.2.

Man how is this difficult.
You bought 25% which means you get 25% of the seat won. Why do people move the goal posts after they win summut. Forget trying to sell back the share just have 25% of the next event, you both must have known this seat was added before the event began and if not who cares.

^^Agree with this...

I agree with this- you still own 25% of total prize as you paid @ 1.2 for total prizes given- i.e £xxxx + £550 seat so you should effectively still have 25% in new tourney

lol @ all this

Having to pay a premium on your own action is absolute tez imo

That's like a taxi driver wanting to drive himself to the 24hr shop on his day off, but waiting till 6am so he won't have to charge himself as much of a fare.

this is deffo right

I agree, when the % was bought, you both obviously knew that a seat was added if you won the thing. So you get 25% of any cash/seat imo.

yes, but if the guy who won the seat wanted to buy it back he should have to pay the value that its worth.  And the true equity is probs > 1.0.  So if he wants to buy it back he should pay an approximate value of it.

Sorry yeah, misunderstood the thread Q.

The bare value of the seat in comp2 is only £550, nothing more.

He adds to that value with his silky skills when he plays the comp.

He didn't win these aforementioned silky skills in comp1.

he shouldnt be allowed imo, you decide pre comp that he will play it and % deal will carry.

 ;tightend;

but if he wants the % back and rupert is happy to sell it back then a price has to be agreed upon.

I find it quite easy to put a price on a £550 entry into a tournament. I'll give you a clue, it's £550.

do you think if he was allowed to unregister and take the cash he could ask them for £660 cos that's what it'd be worth to him if he played cos he has skillz?

no it isnt thoooooooo, DUCY?

the value/equity of his 25% share isn't £137.50, so Rupert isn't going to accept that, he'd just let it ride. 

Put Rupy paid for skillz in comp1 only, why does he auto get free skillz in comp2?

Caveat Emptor

Sounds good, eh ?  Shame I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about in latin.

But 'Let the buyer beware'

As the purchaser, it's up to you to sort out the details in advance.  You didn't.

Therefore you lose out trying to define them now.  For next time, agree about the seat in advance.  It's easy.

But for this one.  You agreed a cash only deal.

And that's what you've got.

25% of the cash value of the prize.

If he's a mate, stop arguing now, and put it down to experience - learn from it. 

he gets 25% of the skills in comp 2 cos thats what he paid for at the start in comp 1. if he has a problem with giving away free labour in comp 2 then i suggest he doesnt offer 25% of any comp that gives away free seats. i wouldnt judge comp 1 and 2 exclusively.

if the only way a player could get into comp1 was thru backing then why should he take more of the prizepool by isolating the backer out of the value of the seat. 25% carries fwd

If I agree to get 25% of what you win and you go on to win £1000 in cash plus a seat into a £1000 comp, then I'd be expecting to get £250 cash and 25% of whatever happens in the £1000 comp.

+ 1 simple.

I say ban staking!!!!

or is that stalking.....I can never remember ;carlocitrone;

Surely if this deal is with a friend it hardly needs public forum to sort things out between you?

No he didn't otherwise there wouldn't be any argument. At the start of comp 1 he paid for comp 1 and there was no discussion of comp 2


This is circular logic and makes no sense whatsoever, carries zero persuasive weight.



Now you've just lost me completely.




To clarify my position, the backer still gets 25% of the cash value of the seat. Just as if a car was won as part of the prize the backer would get 25% of the value of that.

It would be impractical to suggest that the 25% share in the car carries forward though. wtf, is he going to use it on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

You can only expect to get what you actually agree upon in advance.

To add my 2p's worth, the backer should get 25% of comp 1 and 25% of comp 2.

Reasons
1) the prize includes entrance into comp 2 (not a £550 cash alternative)
2) the player would not have won the seat without the backer's backing
3) you are supposed to be friends and this is the only fair result.

^^what he said.

Why would anyone want to fall out with someone who has been good enough to back em over a few quid?

If you won a car would you expect to pay 25% of the RRP or 25% of the market value?

Lets say market value.

Now how about if I won a car that was in need of some work done to repair its engine.

The market value will be worth more after the repair?
What if I do this myself and it takes about 30 hours?

Your mate had 25% of you in that tournament so even if you won your wife in it he should be allowed to have her for 3 months of the year.

Seriously though, to me this is simple. He had 25% of what you won in that tournament so he should have 25% of your action in the next tourney.

where u winning this car? distraction?

part of the prize is the next comp, so 'labour' carries on. if the added seat was a suprise bonus then your arguement holds, but if both parties are aware of the full prize and nothing is said before comp 1 then the two competitions can be seen as 1 in terms of work.

but w/e it should never come to this

What if the wife isn't his type?

And why three months? Why not just every fourth day - he may not have enough crockery and clothes to get him through the 9 month wait....

Ahhh, right.

In the instance of enough crockery every fourth day is acceptable.

We agree on this at least.


They forgot to discuss it beforehand, so for all intents and purposes, that's pretty much the same thing isn't it?

we seem to have completely overlooked what was written in the op. original share was bought at 1.2 so why should the guy have to buy back his action at 1.4?