Playing satellite for somebody else - opinions please

[AlexB]

Hello Everyone

I have been asked to play in a super satellite ($500+$25) on behalf of an acquaintance who is unavailable to play himself. The prize will be entry to a major poker event with a package value of $17,500. I have simply agreed stating that should I be successful, we should split any and all proceeds on a 50/50 basis, that is 50% of the expenses portion of the package(equal to 50% of $17.5k minus event buyin), plus 50% of any winnings that this person may go on to receive in the major tournament itself.

The person in question and I have never been in this situation before, and I would never wish to be unreasonable or take unfair advantage. Does this appear to be the case? Is the arrangement I have illustrated unreasonable? What is 'the norm' for this kind of situation? Advice / opinions appreciated.

AlexB

[Claw75]

Not been in that situation myself either, but gut feeling is that if he's putting up all the money then asking for 50% seems a bit much.

[outragous76]

if he cant unreg - and you are as capable if not better than him - seems fine to me

if you (or someone else) doesnt play its gg 525

[toddswain]

Id say seeing as its his money and hes going to be playing the event, 75/25 in his favour seems fair for the actual event... if the rest of the package is expenses and doesnt already have hotel paid for, 50/50 seems fair. however if the package includes accom, dont think you can be asking for 50% of this as they tend to have a ridic value to them

[AndrewT]

Surely 100% of the expenses need to go to whoever is actually playing the event.

If he agrees to give you 50% of him in the event and is happy with that then fair enough.

[tikay]

Surely 100% of the expenses need to go to whoever is actually playing the event.

If he agrees to give you 50% of him in the event and is happy with that then fair enough.

This is the only "mandatory", the rest is purely between the 2 of you to decide & agree, but he HAS to have all the exs.

[toddswain]

Surely 100% of the expenses need to go to whoever is actually playing the event.

If he agrees to give you 50% of him in the event and is happy with that then fair enough.

This is the only "mandatory", the rest is purely between the 2 of you to decide & agree, but he HAS to have all the exs.

Surely 100% of the expenses need to go to whoever is actually playing the event.

If he agrees to give you 50% of him in the event and is happy with that then fair enough.

Actually, reading these, i 100% agree about the expenses, stll dont think he should be giving you anywhere near 50% of main though, id strech to 70/30..


Gl in the sat

[tikay]

Surely 100% of the expenses need to go to whoever is actually playing the event.

If he agrees to give you 50% of him in the event and is happy with that then fair enough.

This is the only "mandatory", the rest is purely between the 2 of you to decide & agree, but he HAS to have all the exs.

Surely 100% of the expenses need to go to whoever is actually playing the event.

If he agrees to give you 50% of him in the event and is happy with that then fair enough.

Actually, reading these, i 100% agree about the expenses, stll dont think he should be giving you anywhere near 50% of main though, id strech to 70/30..


Gl in the sat

Yes, but that's a matter for them, whereas the suggestion of going 50/50 on the exs is obviously wrong.

[AlexB]

All comments appreciated and acknowledged.

The more I dwell upon the matter, the more I feel that my impulsive proposal to this chap clearly requires a little more thought. I do know that whatever happens, I will play on his behalf, as he is aware of my track record which speaks for itself. I also know that he will be in the vacinity regardless, whether qualifying for the event or not, which may have been incidental in suggesting a sharing of any value over and above the event buyin.

I know he's happy as is, but viewing the general concensus has certainly prompted me to revise things prior to the satellite this coming Sunday. I would rather be shortchanged than be shortchanging, if that's even an appropriate analogy!

AlexB

[AlexB]

Wow Sunday already! Our arrangement has been modified to the following - $2k plus a 70/30 chop in his favour of any main event returns. All I need to do is bink this (at present 15 runner) satellite for a $2k bankroll boost!

[toddswain]

Gl in that, btw what is the satellite for ?

[AlexB]

Gl in that, btw what is the satellite for ?

tyty, it's for the Aussie Millions where the chap I am standing in for has a daughter and heads there in Jan anyway - either way he'll be sunning it up down under the lucky so and so ;-))

[action man]

win seat then worry. Not about what to do with the package, but about whether to pay my $1k ransom so i dont informt he site that your ghosting the account

[sovietsong]

win seat then worry. Not about what to do with the package, but about whether to pay my $1k ransom so i dont informt he site that your ghosting the account

I will be also looking for $1k

gl

[AlexB]

win seat then worry. Not about what to do with the package, but about whether to pay my $1k ransom so i dont informt he site that your ghosting the account

I will be also looking for $1k

gl

Really? Oh damm just bust with AA vs KK allin pre how ul is that! ;-)) Oh, it hasnt started yet, that was in the binkfest lol