60k "Staking" dispute

[EmpireMaker2]

Alright disregard my post till I learn more details of the situation.

[raptor517]

well, from my standpoint, it seems as though yoguh can tell boosted to play 5-10 for 60 buyins or whatever, move up to 10-20 somewhere along the way, until he has the 60k made back. if im backing someone in live mtts, and i say they get a 50k roll to work with or whatever, and they play 2 25k events and lose, im going to make sure that they are playing 1-2k buyin mtts until i make my money back. thats just part of what they will have to do being staked, otherwise theres no reason why IIII wouldnt get staked and just play 300-600 against aba and pat all day, i mean, i could run good. its pretty clear at this point that yoguh isnt just getting paid back 60k, but i feel like its perfectly in his rights to have his stakee play smaller to grind it back.

[MasterLJ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is there any debate what-so-ever? Stakee has said that he will pay it back in one form or another (makeup or straight up by suggesting 100% no loss). Stakee owes OP $30k unless stakee can produce conversations to the contrary.

[aislephive]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is there any debate what-so-ever? Stakee has said that he will pay it back in one form or another (makeup or straight up by suggesting 100% no loss). Stakee owes OP $30k unless stakee can produce conversations to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not getting it, Yoguh is not giving him "makeup."

[cero_z]

Hi The Filth,

You were obviously scammed. I'd bet almost anything that when the guy "threw out there" the idea of staking him, he had already lost the money you lent him and had no intention of paying you back. You fell for his BS and gave him an easy way to do this.

"100% makeup" generally means that if you continue to stake him after the initial stake is lost, you start counting profits from net 0 (including the first 60K), so that if he wins 60K off the 2nd stake, you get your money back and he'd still get nothing yet. This is why these deals don't work well; if he gets buried, he's working solely for you for the next 60K, and so there's much more incentive for him to ditch you (if he's a d-bag) and find someone else to stake him or go it alone, than to keep playing for you.

Mark Blade has a book that discusses staking options at length, and he argues that no-makeup deals are generally best for both parties (staker and horse), as long as the staker gets a substantial share for assuming the entirety of the financial risk. So, 60/40 or 70/30 in favor of the staker with no makeup is the ideal arrangement, he claims, if I'm remembering this correctly.

Anyway, I don't think this would've worked out for you, regardless of how you structured it, since this guy appears to be a scammer. This really sucks for you, but I think you have to say lesson learned and move on. He said, "100% no loss for you," but how can you enforce this? My advice is to not waste any more time.

Posting his screen name is a very good idea IMO, and your only recourse in this matter. A gambler's reputation is important, and at least you can make him pay in that regard, though it probably won't make you any richer.

[TravestyFund]

I feel like his initial 30k should be payed back since the terms for it sounded like it was a loan. The other 30k should be payed back thru makeup w/ the stakers discretion on size of games.

[TheRedDragon]

In the interests of fairness, I'm a good friend of Justin's, so I might be a tad biased here. That aside, I've engaged in similar arrangements with him on a VERY frequent basis (wherein he's staked me with makeup, and occasionally when I've staked him). Given the conversation posted by OP, it's VERY clear that Boosted intended to change the arrangment from a loan to a stake with makeup.

It's also beyond dispute that OP, with knowledge and understanding or otherwise, agreed to this (albeit without spelling out the terms NEARLY as much as might be expected). Consequently, OP's argument that he's "owed" money is clearly without merit.

As I understand it, Boosted's willing to make up the losses. Under a standard arrangement, makeup would take place at the same limits where the loss occurred. Given OP's (credible, in my view) claim that he didn't understand what he was getting himself into, I think Boosted should make up losses at lower levels (25/50, possibly 10/20, absolutely no lower than 5/10).

Boosted was wrong to say that there was a 100% certainty that OP would not lose money, but the rest of the conversation makes clear that an agreement was made, and both sides consequently have an obligation to fulfill the terms of that agreement, as well as to explicate it in a more clear fashion.


-Neutrality

[HP]

sweet dramabomb

[TheRedDragon]

Cero-

Boosted is a VERY reputable HSNL player who has entered into staking arrangements with many satisfied parties (myself among them). He is CERTAINLY not a "scammer"; my hope and expectation is that, despite the misunderstanding, even OP doesn't subscribe to that point of view.

-Neutrality

[bkholdem]

For debts of this size I would have NO PROBLEM hiring a professional collector. Cut Vinnie The Hammer in for 10% and let him work his magic.