blonde poker forum

What happens when a staker goes bust and cant fund his horse(s) anymore. If the staker gives no indication of a return to funds, does he have any rights to make claims upon any makeup that the horse owes?

If the horse goes elsewhere does the staker have any claims to future profits?

No to all of the above. If a staker goes bust, he/she is unable to fulfill the agreement made at the start of a staking deal, to be able to stake his/her horse into the tournaments promised. At this point, unless noted in the terms of the staking deal, the deal becomes void and the horse can break from the deal, with 0 make-up.

If horse isn't a dousche tho they will give backer some time imo esp if been backed for a while but sometimes, understandably that isn't possible but yeh no obligation on either side

what they said

Blatch will be gutted.

Does the horse not stay in makeup if the backer then backs him again  in the future? Thinking about it why would the horse go back with the original guy if someone else is willing to back him and is not owed the makeup

If they have some integrity. However it is not always possible. Just depends how long the staker thinks they're gonna be stuck for dough. If they're stone cold busto then obv the horse isn't going to wait

non of the abovementioned

I believe the official expression is that the make up is "frozen" meaning that the make-up still exists but the backing deal is, for now, dormant, horse free to go off and do whatever he likes. If a backer went broke, froze his horses MU, then found himself in a position to back him again later on, the horse would have zero obligation to re-enter the deal (there are a ton of reasons why he would re-enter though, most commonly would be between personal reasons towards to backer, or because of the deal - hemight get to play different, more preferable games etc)

You find though, just like in the working world, personal relationships are built up and that usually makes everyone act very reasonably

Is any of this legally enforceable and has anyone ever tried?

no, i'm pretty sure they'd get laughed at if anyone ever tried to as well. it's all done by trust pretty much. stuff's written down in facebook messages/ skype convos but no1 ever signs a contract.

I had a stable of 6 when I went busto - mostly playing SNGS (one MTTs) and one PLO.

None had an obligation to pay me back and I wouldn't have expected that.

3 of them waited until I had built my roll back up enough so they could resume play and did so.

One of them got a new backer who bought the small makeup from me.

One who had like $1.4k makeup won a big stars tourney for $60k months later and unexpectedly shipped me the makeup figure + drink. <3 PLINTON.

The last one had a new backer and things became a bit awkward as they were unwilling to play off makeup but I think that was me having unreasonable expectations because all my other horses had been such good guys about the whole thing.

I was very happy with the way things worked out and think what I learnt is that I wouldn't stake anyone I didn't trust over 99.5% with my money. They would have to be good but first and foremost completely trustworthy.

Just had 2 post as this is the MOST MATURIST POST YOU HAVE MANGED IN YOUR LIFETIME ! Happy xmas.......................

Thanks re haralambeh. You too xx

Cos, are you still staking people?

If no, at what financial position would you consider getting into staking again?

It seems that players generally understand the outline rules for bankroll management when it comes to playing themselves, but is it fair to say that backers are often less disciplined / have poorer BRM when it comes to staking?
Are there any BRM guidelines that stakers should apply?

Wow. Amazed to hear that Pete Linton did this as generally he don't get to much positive press. Wp him

Plinton is misunderstood

i was backed by an american backer pre blackfriday, and in the contract he sent to me it stated that if at any time he was unable or unwilling(ie it was too goddamn difficult to get the money to me) to continue backing me, and makeup was null and void...... once this case came up because it was hard to get money to me, any of the potential ways were going to cost extra due to double conversion rates( him to me, then me to poker sites), so he cancelled the agreement and swallowed the 15k of makeup and we parted on good terms.

i would assume it should always be like this, the contract either verbal or written is usually based on the premise that the backer can provide funds for the promised games, and if he cant then he is violating the terms of the contract and will allow the horse to seek staking elsewhere.

on a side note i think its absurd that anyone would enter into a long term arrangement without a contract written up showing expectations, outlining exactly what will be the case if these sorts of situations arise.

i think greek was very very lucky to have such decent horses that would do the things they did upon him reaching that financial situation, i would suggest a high percent of people wouldnt wait around for you to regain financial stability and a lot more would react like horse number 6 and give you nothing if u broke the terms of the arrangement (even if it was unintentional and out of your control)

I'd imagine most deals are without contracts esp. amongst British players. Maybe that's why we're so great. Cos most of us are trustworthy although u do get the odd exception.

I was in a pretty similar position to discomonkey (circa $28K MU though). I didnt have a contract with my backer though we both have a solid understanding of how things work. My backer knows that he has technically no claim on the makeup but I will buy it out at a favourable rate as and when it becomes possible. If he is in the position to back me again in the future I would seriously consider it based on circumstances at the time and the deal on offer. I am under no obligation to accept any deal but based on friendship and other things I would likely accept anyway.

Contracts, even emailed ones, are fast becoming the norm and its backer going bust isn't something usually covered in them which is something that should probably change at some point.

Hey sir.

First question is a sick rub! Wp. I don't even stake myself atm hahaha.

I honestly don't know - really there are only a small group of people I'd stake, having learnt the biggest lesson I could have ever learnt with Riverdave. That being if you have the slightest tiniest little doubt, it's not worth it (and I had a much bigger doubt than that with him).

I was lucky in that I was in a position to be able to stake some of my best friends in poker - Linton, Bedi, Sovietsong. At any time I would give any of the 3 my password to log in and send themselves funds and never had the slightest doubt or worry about them.  It was kind of just lucky circumstances that these guys wanted staking at similar times and I was in a position to be able to do it. My roll was only about $30kish when I began the staking and that was really sufficient for the games they were all playing - none got in very high makeup at all but I was very selective in kinda staking beneath their skill sets. For example - Linton beats much higher than $100PLO but that's all he would play. Same with Bedi and Sovietsong in the level of SNGs/MTTs they were playing. I made sure I was combatting variance as much as possible.

In fact it was the most tilting thing about going broke - the fact that I could no longer stake these guys. Bedi has obv done well since. Linton won some sick amount at 100plo in the weeks or so that followed, something like 200 buy ins and then went on to chop a big comp on stars, all action that could have been mine. Not that I begrudge anyone ofcourse - Pete is one of my best friends and I'd bend over backwards for the guy but yeh my own personal mistake cost me a lot as the stable was making as much per week as I was.

I'm not sure what rules backers should apply really but I guess a lot of backers are poor in their judgement of what players should play. A lot seem to stake players for games with buy ins that really are higher than their skill set or games that they are breakeven/small winners at when it would be more financially rewarding for them to play lower.

So how would you rate trust against potential when choosing a horse.

Well I wouldn't have anyone as a horse I didn't think was going to win at a nice rate at the games I was going to stake them for but trust definitely comes first and foremost.

Let's say linton's win rate was 4bb/100 hands (it was much more in reality), I would sooner take him than someone who showed me a 300k sample of winning at 15bbs/100 if I thought there was even a 5% chance something could go wrong.

there r no contract anyway. if I cant afford staking at one stage or the horse
r not making me any profit and on a big makeup, u can just say " hey there i am SORRY u not winning and i have to pull out "

simple as that.

 ;thankyou;