60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Okay. I'm a 5/10 grinder that has had some success in the past. I was "yoguh12" on partypoker back in the 10/20 days. This well known player asked me to borrow money. He said he was cash short at the time but had money. So I trusted him and sent him 30k. Then this came up a while later.

him: lemme throw this out there
him: I dont know exactly when these guys are going to pay
him: I would think in a week or two
him: instead of loaning me money
him: would you like some of my action and just BR me on FTP until I get my funds released?
him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you
me: whoa
me: what's in it for you though?
him: I borrowed 10k from someone else
him: and they are freaking out
him: that I'm playing 1 table of 25/50 ring
him: so it might be easier just to deal with you
him: and that way
him: I dont feel bad borrowing 30k from you
him: and I can play more freely
me: okay sure
me: sounds like a win win situation for both of us

So then this guy loses all 60k and said he's real sorry. Then I find out that he's not paying me back because I was "staking" him. I thought he just needed money at the time and would share half of his profits with me because I'm lending him a huge chunk of money and that he would pay me back when the people that owe him pay him back.

So what the hell? He says he was very clear that it was a "staking" and isn't planning on paying me back. But he was playing 75/150 deep stacked with my money. He sold off half the action but that's still a huge game for a 60k roll. I never stake anyone and definitely would not stake anyone to play so much higher than I do. I never take shots at bigger games and this is just giving me a huge headache.

Do you think it was clear that he was asking me to stake him and what do you think I should do?

Thanks for your replies.

Edit --

This convo is copied/pasted from my AIM log so it's verbatim.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

its def not clear in your mock convo there what the exact details were

i wouldnt have shipped 30k based on that convo

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Based on that convo, how can u not tell he's a de-gin?

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

That was all we talked about. He is a well known player so I just trusted him. I didn't think I was "staking" him so I didn't discuss what limits he should play and whatever. I just thought he was going to send me back 60k when the other people pay him back if he lost.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

well,

"him: that way it's 100% no loss for you "

now that the money is gone, id want to know how this ends up as 100% no loss for you. sounds like you are getting dicked here. oust the name to give the rest a headsup

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
Based on that convo, how can u not tell he's a de-gin?

[/ QUOTE ]

i've always wondered if it was pronounced "de-jen" or "de-gin"

ty sir!

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

You'd think that when you are lending an entire year's salary for an average worker to someone, you'd, you know, ACTUALLY figure out the details and crap.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

oh, and yeah if this convo actually took place, looks like you should get payed back OP

[ QUOTE ]
him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

From when it went from "loaning" to "staking", it is a stake where you take risk. Why would someone take a loan and pay 50% of their profits at high stakes NL games as interest? People take a loan and pay 5-10% interest, and sometimes none.

Makeup option is used when someone gets in the hole at first, and if you choose so to continue staking them, they have to replenish what they lost. If you choose to stop staking them, you take the loss and they are free.

If you stake a winning player, and you have them for make up, in the long run, it is 100% risk free according to fundamental and basic poker logic, as a winning player, if kept in the game, will eventually win money for a profit.

How can you be "staking" somebody, and not think you can't lose money. If I were making a 60k arrangement, I would want to know exactly what was going on and ask 100 questions if I was the least bit unsure or unclear about anything.

In summary, you misunderstood probably, but I dont think it's the other guy's fault that you misunderstood and he shouldn't be at fault for you being uncertain of the status of your money.

Any high stakes poker player that has been anywhere near staking knows what the term "make up" means, which is replenishing the bankroll after they take a loss, if they are still with the same staker.

him: instead of loaning me money

that statement there makes the change from "loaning" to "staking". He never said anywhere that he was "paying back" the money or "giving" it back. He was going to "make" it back up while staked by you.

I think that's all the points I can think of on this particular situation. I've done a LOT of staking/action taking/backing on both sides before and never had a problem with anybody so I think I'm pretty clear and intelligent on these deals.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

what part of

him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you

is unclear? obviously he owes you 60K.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
You'd think that when you are lending an entire year's salary for an average worker to someone, you'd, you know, ACTUALLY figure out the details and crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and you should also know the guy well in real life. IMO, loaning out money or staking people that you only know through the internet is real damn stupid. It seems like one of these stories pops up every few months yet people just continue to get screwed. Blows my mind.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

whats the big deal if this was play money

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
what part of

him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you

is unclear? obviously he owes you 60K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably in the spot where he says he'll provide make up in a staking situation if he loses rather then saying if he loses the loaned money he'll pay it back.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you stake a winning player and you have an infinite bankroll, and you have them for make up, in the long run, it is 100% risk free according to fundamental and basic poker logic, as a winning player, if kept in the game, will win money in less than infinity years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what part of

him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you

is unclear? obviously he owes you 60K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably in the spot where he says he'll provide make up in a staking situation if he loses rather then saying if he loses the loaned money he'll pay it back.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Your post makes absolutely no sense buddy. You're saying if it's a staking deal he WILL pay it back but if it's a loan he WON'T? That's 100% backwards. And he clearly says that he'll pay back in the staking deal. So he's paying back either way. You obviously can't not pay it back if it's a LOAN. And here he clearly says he'll pay it back if it's a STAKE. So he obviously owes the money.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what part of

him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you

is unclear? obviously he owes you 60K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably in the spot where he says he'll provide make up in a staking situation if he loses rather then saying if he loses the loaned money he'll pay it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea

TWP, see my 2nd post in thread also. im not familiar with all these arrangements, and apparently neither are you, if BoostedJ's post defines these terms accurately

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what part of

him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you

is unclear? obviously he owes you 60K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably in the spot where he says he'll provide make up in a staking situation if he loses rather then saying if he loses the loaned money he'll pay it back.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Your post makes absolutely no sense buddy. You're saying if it's a staking deal he WILL pay it back but if it's a loan he WON'T? That's 100% backwards. And he clearly says that he'll pay back in the staking deal. So he's paying back either way. You obviously can't not pay it back if it's a LOAN. And here he clearly says he'll pay it back if it's a STAKE. So he obviously owes the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] are you talking about. Who would *ever* ask for a loan, give 50% of their profits if they win and 100% payback if they lose?

Clearly they're talking about a stake and not a loan so if he says "I'll give you makeup" it would by common [censored] sense imply that he'll win the money back on the same stake.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Sounds like I'm wrong here, OP is not owed money, but I'm still confused as to why villain said:

100% no loss

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

The way OP made this post DOES make his stake look like he is in the wrong here, but it's clear he is not after you consider everything.

Since Yoguh denied him "makeup," which HE agreed to in the OP, his stake is not responsible for paying him back.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

yea aislephive i think i get it

so if OP wants his money back, he needs to keep staking the guy until the 60k is made back

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Honestly the flaw in the convo the way I am interpretting it is that the guy says I'll pay you back ___ so you don't have 100% loss, which implies there will still be x% loss and therefore defining y% to pay back should've been discussed but it wasn't.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

but wait

[ QUOTE ]

Since Yoguh denied him "makeup," which HE agreed to in the OP, his stake is not responsible for paying him back.

[/ QUOTE ]

how much "makeup" is OP required to give him? unlimited? is OP supposed to keep bankrolling this guy until he eventually gets even?

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
but wait

[ QUOTE ]

Since Yoguh denied him "makeup," which HE agreed to in the OP, his stake is not responsible for paying him back.

[/ QUOTE ]

how much "makeup" is OP required to give him? unlimited? is OP supposed to keep bankrolling this guy until he eventually gets even?

[/ QUOTE ]

75-150 is a pretty big game.. doesnt seem like a 5-10 grinder would knowingly 'stake' someone for that. something seems off here.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
but wait

[ QUOTE ]

Since Yoguh denied him "makeup," which HE agreed to in the OP, his stake is not responsible for paying him back.

[/ QUOTE ]

how much "makeup" is OP required to give him? unlimited? is OP supposed to keep bankrolling this guy until he eventually gets even?

[/ QUOTE ]

if makeup is agreed to, the staker doesnt have to stake anymore if he doesnt want to, but he can force the stakee to keep playing if he wants him to. In this specific situation, once they got into the positive, there wasn't a real cutoff point and they were just going to end the stake whenever they both agreed to it, the upside was not defined with details, whereas some stakes say "Win $100k and we both cash out"

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

I got a few details wrong in my post, I edited them out.

Greg, I would say 10-15 buyins would be fair, but that's just a rough estimate.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Also in this situation, the staker never said $60k was his whole bankroll, and watched the stakee play in all the games and didn't say anything.

Raptor, Bill Gates has billions of dollars, but I'm sure he knows he can't play 75/150 online profitably, but, he could bankroll it and win money, even though he might be a winning 5/10 player

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]

Greg, I would say 10-15 buyins would be fair, but that's just a rough estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

what happens if the guy blows all the 10 buyins?

[ QUOTE ]

if makeup is agreed to, the staker doesnt have to stake anymore if he doesnt want to, but he can force the stakee to keep playing if he wants him to.

[/ QUOTE ]

boostedj,
so basically, OP can bankroll this guy for 5/10 and force him to keep playing until he wins 60 buyins there to cover the original stake?

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

It seems as if I was purposely midled in this regard. First he tells me that his money is coming in. Then I am suprised that he would give up 50% of his profits to me and I ask him what's in it for me, and he misleads me more with talk about other people bothering him. It seems to me that at this time he was already aware that I didn't know what "make up" meant and thought I was getting my money back no matter what.

And after I send him 30k more he goes and plays 3-6x higher than he was playing a little bit before? It just seems like I'm getting incredibly fcked here.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Also, yoguh has taken 1/4 of 200/400 action before, I am certain of this, so he is obviously willing to put up 10k buyins, so I think the argument of "him staking too high" throws this out the window

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but wait

[ QUOTE ]

Since Yoguh denied him "makeup," which HE agreed to in the OP, his stake is not responsible for paying him back.

[/ QUOTE ]

how much "makeup" is OP required to give him? unlimited? is OP supposed to keep bankrolling this guy until he eventually gets even?

[/ QUOTE ]

if makeup is agreed to, the staker doesnt have to stake anymore if he doesnt want to, but he can force the stakee to keep playing if he wants him to. In this specific situation, once they got into the positive, there wasn't a real cutoff point and they were just going to end the stake whenever they both agreed to it, the upside was not defined with details, whereas some stakes say "Win $100k and we both cash out"

[/ QUOTE ]

So I can send the guy 10k and make him play 2/4 NL until he makes back my 60k right? And if he loses it all he owes me 70k?

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Greg, I would say 10-15 buyins would be fair, but that's just a rough estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

what happens if the guy blows all the 10 buyins?

[ QUOTE ]

if makeup is agreed to, the staker doesnt have to stake anymore if he doesnt want to, but he can force the stakee to keep playing if he wants him to.

[/ QUOTE ]

boostedj,
so basically, OP can bankroll this guy for 5/10 and force him to keep playing until he wins 60 buyins there to cover the original stake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point gregnice, these terms weren't clear I don't think. You could certainly make an argument to play 5/10 or 10/20 to cover the original stake. This would seem fairly reasonable.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

btw TWP,
all this confusion pretty much sums up my first reply in the thread.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Who was the player you loaned to?

How old are u? Seriously though, why would u ever loan that much to a stranger?

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

Makeup doesn't mean he pays back the money. It means he keeps playing until the loss is made up or until the backer ends the deal. That's obviously where the confusion is coming from.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

By the way, this deal was with boosted, which is why he is vehemently defending his own position.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems as if I was purposely midled in this regard. First he tells me that his money is coming in. Then I am suprised that he would give up 50% of his profits to me and I ask him what's in it for me, and he misleads me more with talk about other people bothering him. It seems to me that at this time he was already aware that I didn't know what "make up" meant and thought I was getting my money back no matter what.

And after I send him 30k more he goes and plays 3-6x higher than he was playing a little bit before? It just seems like I'm getting incredibly fcked here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I would say the villain is most def trying to take advantage, esp when hes playing 75/150 B4 youve seen or heard a word from him about youre money.

He's SO OBV trying to chase losses here. If the Stakee is allowed to pretty much play any buy-in games at his own discretion with no regard/repercussions for losing, the deal is def weighted way to in favor of him. This, along with the misleading convo, leads me to believe that this deal was pretty much a scam by the unkown in an attempt to make up losses. When it doesnt work out and he loses, then he has his out to not have to pay, pretty F'ed up.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

I think it's becoming more clear what is going on now.

Technically, according to the agreement of makeup, Yoguh must either continue to back his stake until the loss is made up or forfeit that opportunity and be stuck with the 60k loss (or what is lost during "makeup"). It's quite clear that he was not aware how "makeup" works, and now he is finding out that to win back the money he lost during the staking he must put up more money that he can potentially lose.

Under those terms of this agreement, OP is not owed a dime. It might seem wrong or that he was mislead, but in any event he didn't know exactly what he was getting himself into and it's going to cost him here, I think. Tough break, OP.

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems as if I was purposely midled in this regard. First he tells me that his money is coming in. Then I am suprised that he would give up 50% of his profits to me and I ask him what's in it for me, and he misleads me more with talk about other people bothering him. It seems to me that at this time he was already aware that I didn't know what "make up" meant and thought I was getting my money back no matter what.

And after I send him 30k more he goes and plays 3-6x higher than he was playing a little bit before? It just seems like I'm getting incredibly fcked here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I would say the villain is most def trying to take advantage, esp when hes playing 75/150 B4 youve seen or heard a word from him about youre money.

He's SO OBV trying to chase losses here. If the Stakee is allowed to pretty much play any buy-in games at his own discretion with no regard/repercussions for losing, the deal is def weighted way to in favor of him. This, along with the misleading convo, leads me to believe that this deal was pretty much a scam by the unkown in an attempt to make up losses. When it doesnt work out and he loses, then he has his out to not have to pay, pretty F'ed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

the staker was watching the stakee play the 75/150 games, which he actually won 400xbbs< at

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

i think most people had a hunch it was boostedJ after his first response

there is certainly something fishy by the stakee for him to go play 75/150 on the extra 30k stake. that kind of BR management shows complete disregard for the money staked

since no terms were defined re: the "make up option", well, i dunno. glad im not in either position

Re: 60k \"Staking\" dispute
 

I don't know OP hardly at all aside from his brief stint as a pro/guest pro for Cardrunners, but there are definitely people in his shoes who would "pretend" that they didn't know what they got themselves into to try and get their money back or make the other person look bad. I'm not saying that's the case here at all, just something to keep in mind ..