Re: Brag: randomly staked a guy and won $96,600
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luckyjim you are a retarded dishonest [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not dishonest, DUCY?
I didn't ACTUALLY do anything. In fact, I have been entirely honest throughout this thread.
I don't see Rupert getting upset about me, so all you guys should STFU.
[/ QUOTE ]
So when you are being staked, you tell the backer that you wont pay them back if you happen to win.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't play tournaments at all, so the situation doesn't come up.
My point was all about scale. I was saying I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to give someone $100k just for lending me $55. I'd certainly wish I'd been able to get hold of $55 myself and kept all the win. I'm sure most people would agree with this. And I said hey, you know, I'd look to renegotiate. Idle speculation, and for this I'm treated like I'm the worst person in the world. So ridiculous.
I've been staked small amounts a couple of times for cash games, and of course I'd have paid their full % of anything they won. But even though the principle is the same, I'm just saying paying $100k back to someone who lent you $55 would feel very different to paying, say, $200 back to someone who lend you $100. It WOULD feel different, wouldn't it, even though it's the same kind of agreement and you're no less bound by it.
I do think this situation relates to Jamie Gold's staking deal. In both cases, a guy does much better than he ever hoped to expect in a tournament, but finds he has to pay a huge % of his winnings to someone else who hasn't really done much. Of course people should pay up; but you can see why, sometimes, they have reservations about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are an idiot and you will never make it in poker or life.. GL
|