Ironside asks an interesting question which hasn't been answered.
If a backed player has his account hacked and loses all his roll, who is liable for that loss?
I guess it's the backer who is always liabile from an ultimate point of view. If they back someone they should always account for the possibility of that money being lost, whether it's lost legitimately or if it's as a result of being grimmed.
Assuming the backed player cares about their reputation and/or has an ounze of moral fibre about them, the money really should go on some sort of makeup arrangement. (I got hacked - yeah right)
Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect the backed player to come up with the money out of their own pocket. They probably couldn't if they wanted to, but also the nature of the arrangement of getting staked means one side does the work, the other side shoulders the financial risks.
Wondering what I'd do if it happened to me (unlikely as I have RSA security token, antivirus bollox, etc)
I play sitngos off a bankroll of $7.5k and I divide any profit and cashout after every 300 games; I get 75% the backers share 25%. If it happened to me today, halfway through a set of 300 games, the hackers would get more than $7.5k from emptying my account as I'm $X in profit since we last divided up.
Things come up in any long term staking arrangement. Communication is always key but, with multiple backers, I've found the best way to deal with things is to call the ball yourself and come up with something that you see as being fair then communicating it to your backers with as much notice as you can (not always possible) and just proceeding. If a backer is unhappy with it they have the option to contact you and pull their money out.
The alternative of waiting for people to ok things can be a logistical nightmare. Even worse is the idea of negotiating with multiple peeps. It's my experience that backers prefer this no feedback required approach so long as you make an effort to do things fairly.I'd probs come up with something like this...
The money that was over and above the 7.5k (the $X I'm up) would be treated (initially) as if it had been lost at the table. The 7.5k would go on to some special dodgy makeup thingy.
My backers pay $300 a slice (25 slices) some of these are now owned by me.
I'd give them the option to come up with another $300 for each of their slices on the special understanding that they'd get $300 back first before I started dividing profits normally again.
If any of them couldn't come up with this money they could probably sub let it without any problem. If any just wanted to take the hit and walk away then I'd sell their slice to someone else as a normal slice without the special $300 makeup arrangement. I'd also sell the slices that are currently owned by me as normal slices without the makeup.
So with the new $7.5k I'd play sitngos again, and would probably flip the 75:25 to be in the backers favour until they'd won their $300 back. Would love to give them 100% but in my world I have to eat.
Obviously all this assumes the security issue that caused the money to be stolen is resolved somehow so that it won't happen again.
If at a point in the future any of the monies lost from the hacking are recovered, how they got divided up would depend upon whether the $300 makeup is paid off yet.
If the $300 was already made up, they'd get 25% of the first $X recovered (as if it was profit from the tables for that period) and I'd pocket remaining $7.5k if that gets recovered too.
If the $300 not yet made up, they'd get 100% share of recovered monies till it was. They would also recieve 25% of the first $X recovered.
Obv this would require a response from the backers, as they have to ship more money to continue, but the pattern of the staked player bearing the responsibility of coming up with a plan is consistant with my philosophy.This is all if I get hacked. If I do the money at the tables they get hee haw. Pay your money take a chance
Author