60k "Staking" dispute

[The.Filth]

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.

[greg nice]

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

i wouldnt have shipped 30k based on that convo

[TravestyFund]

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

[The.Filth]

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.

[greg nice]

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

[HP]

[ 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!

[Equal]

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.

[HP]

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 ]

[Boosted J]

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.

[TheWorstPlayer]

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.