[WarDekar]

Again I'm not "stressing" over $15k in make-up, that's not the point. The amount of make-up isn't really an issue here, the issue is the size of the live tournaments I would like to play. Since we never had any kind of agreement on what exactly I'm being staked in (again this was originally just a for-the-summer deal) it brings up these issues - I guess the lesson to be learned is have all terms of length of the deal, etc. clear ahead of time.

The point is there's a point where it's obviously much more beneficial to me to play under my own roll than be staked if I'm only playing in $300 or whatever of buy-ins in a day. That's my point the entire time, and maybe I'm being a bad stakee, but if I'm getting a certain % of wins and I'm only playing in a $300 buy-in live, or I can play in more where I get 100% of myself (albeit with risk) then I'm making more by playing online by myself. The reason I'm staked in the first place is to play high buy-in events so (obviously) I can hope to make more. But where is the cut-off on what I'm staked?

W/e, sorry I brought it up, I guess it boils down to I don't know where the cut-off on where I'm staked is because we didn't have clearly defined rules setup ahead of time. Can I play a $100 live? I don't know. I mean I play $215s online, etc. on my own, can I play a $215 live? Well why not a $300? I don't know.

As I said I'm just trying to figure out what's "fair" in these situations. I don't think it's fair for him to pay for $1k+ buy-ins and shoulder all that risk and then I go pay for smaller ones and say I run hot there and win, well then that's really [censored] for him obviously.