Staking dilemma

[THAY3R]

Scenario :

Staking team is built of 3 backers, A, B and C.

A has a horse from before the team was formed. Let's say he has 9k in makeup. A wants to bring him onto the team, what amount should B and C pay for this right?

It seems to me that theoretically if horse gets out of makeup 100% of the time, B and C should pay A 3k each. Of course this is not a certainty, hence the dilemma.

My brain has exploded thinking of what to do.

For the love of [censored], MTTC help us!

[shaundeeb]

I obv suck at this but I think that B and C should be in on A in all future but backtrack it since the 9k in makeup was all given by A when horse gets even first 9k goes to A and rest is split up based on the standard deal.

While if the horse gets further into makeup BC can now cover the future buyins It doesn't have to be equal sending as long as everyone has an equal share in profits just because say B is giving the money doesn't mean A and C aren't still invovled. Now it's just as if it was always going on with all 3.

[THAY3R]

thayer: your post makes no sense
Shaun: lol
Shaun: fu

[Dawg24]

If person A is ok with that deal it sounds fair to me...translate...

A gets first 9000 made by stakee and then the horse is split 3 ways.

sounds fair...

[Body Man D]

[Bakes]

my solution works, i think. was there beef with it?

[Doylestown]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

the best

[ASPoker8]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

[Confused1]

I think it should go like this:

Player starts getting backed by group, player A has 9K of makeup on him.

When player wins $$, third it up and pay each person their share (makeup first, then their split). Player A get's the 'players' share against his makeup until he's out of the hole.

For instance...let's say he goes $6K more in the hole, then has a 15K score. $5K (1/3 - all makeup) goes to player A and he still has $6K makeup on that. Other two guys get $2K each (their makeup) and their 'split' their profit (at 50/50, that's $1500 each). That leaves the player with $3K in 'his' pile...but then that goes to player A and reduces his makeup to $3K.

Rinse, repeat.

That doesn't subject staker b and c to buying bad debt, but provides staker A a way to get out of his makeup with less future risk.

Obviously if B or C WANT to buy some debt, then they could, but I wouldn't do it without some vig (nobody pays full price for debt). If Staker A wants some money, he could sell $3K of that makeup for say $2500, should he be willing to do that (rate depends on likelihood of return).

oh - and stake me.

[Todd Terry]

There is no fair or correct solution to this problem. The player is worth a certain amount to a backer, in NPV terms, over the length of the backing period, call it X (obviously X is subject to a great amount of uncertainty, but ignore that for a second). B and C should be willing to pay any amount up to 1/3 X for the right to receive 1/3 of the player's profits over the backing period. Obviously, if the player were JC Tran live or Imper1um online, B and C should be willing to pay a lot more than they would for someone else. Essentially, A is giving up something of very uncertain value -- to wit, 2/3 of the profits of the player -- and how the parties value that something is dependent on the parties.