Staking dilemma

[FatalError]

SOLVED!

B + C pay A 3k

if at the end of the horses deal the horse is between 0k and 9k makeup then A pays B + C 1/3 of the makeup amount, if it is more than 9k then B + C each get their 3k back

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
SOLVED!

B + C pay A 3k

if at the end of the horses deal the horse is between 0k and 9k makeup then A pays B + C 1/3 of the makeup amount, if it is more than 9k then B + C each get their 3k back

[/ QUOTE ]

This arrives at very similar results to my proposal, except mine doesn't have the money going back and forth and back again if the horse remains in makeup -- it's accounted for in the percentages.

[Exitonly]

This is such a non-dilema. There are plenty of fair resolutions to this, and i dont get why Thayer is being [censored] retarded.

THIS ISNT THAT HARD< AND I BASICALLY TOLD YOU THE SAME [censored] EXACT THIGN LAST NIGHT BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED>

[shaundeeb]

[ QUOTE ]
This is such a non-dilema. There are plenty of fair resolutions to this, and i dont get why Thayer is being [censored] retarded.

THIS ISNT THAT HARD< AND I BASICALLY TOLD YOU THE SAME [censored] EXACT THIGN LAST NIGHT BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED>

[/ QUOTE ]

obv not a marginal decision thayer grow a sac.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
SOLVED!

B + C pay A 3k

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense.

To bring him into the fold B + C have to pay a third of his makeup (9k) to A? 2 reasons this is illogical (very much connected):
1) When A put up the 9k he did so with a chance of substantial return on that money, you're asking B + C to do it only for the possibility of a return on even more money.
2) If X had made A 9k before entering the team, would A give B and C 3k each to take him on? Of course not.

****

Overall,
Because makeup != debt you can't really appeal to consolidation law standards, and despite people's best efforts there really isn't some intuitive math answer to this. Whatever deal you guys think is fair go with.

[FatalError]

KneeCo

thank you for not reading the 2nd half of my explanation

[KneeCo]

FE,
The prob remains that you're asking them to pay something for nothing essentially, or at best asking them to pay 3k just for the chance to spend money staking someone. This seems unfair, esp since A never had to put down a dime that didn't have the potential of return, why should B and C?

Also, 3k may not be a lot but it isn't an insignificant amount either and staking deals can last for years, sometimes longer.

[Boise123]

Ask The Alex, he has 20k of staking experience!

[ADLinden]

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out that this is the person I have to deal with every day :

thayer: your post makes no sense
Shaun: lol
Shaun: fu
Shaun: how doesn't it?
Shaun: as long as its clear all 3 are in on the staking deal
Shaun: when the horse gets out of makeup he gets all
Shaun: but if the deal ends and it's -$
Shaun: then A B and C just sqaure up
Shaun: and all have an equal loss
thayer: do you nont understand what the dilemma is
Shaun: that theres 9k in makeup from A backing him
Shaun: while B and C want the action
Shaun: if A hadhad say 60% of the action
Shaun: and then had 20% and we had 20% a piece
Shaun: then if the horse gets up 20k we would spit that up normally
Shaun: I dunno how this sitatuon is ever different
thayer: so you think we should each give A 3k
Shaun: no
Shaun: nothing
Shaun: when the horse gets out of makeup
Shaun: A just gets 9k
thayer: so you think we should assume all future risk equally, while me and you get shafted on the 1st 9k
Shaun: to cover what he fronted
Shaun: yah
Shaun: it's bascalilly as if we were always there
Shaun: and A just gave him 9k to use first
thayer: so its basically me and you picking up a player at a loss
thayer: so A is freerolling
thayer: do you not see this
Shaun: no
Shaun: we all have equal equity
Shaun: and he just sent more to the horse
Shaun: just like with X
Shaun: we had equal shares
Shaun: but I got like 30k of his makeup
Shaun: cuz I had sent it to him
thayer: no its not just like X
Shaun: how so?
thayer: nobody joined in on us staking him
thayer: we were equally sharing in X's losses from the start
thayer: it wasnt like hey thayer want to absorb half my losses
thayer: and i was like yah ok
Shaun: but we aren't absorving half his losses
thayer: dude
thayer: lol
thayer: me and you miss out on the 1st 9k he makes, while A gets it
thayer: yet me and you assume equal risk on future losses
Shaun: but it's as if we were there from the start
thayer: just imagine if he was stuck 10 billion dollars
thayer: why would we do that
thayer: where we share future losses while A gets the 1st 10 billion
thayer: in future winnings

[/ QUOTE ]

[KneeCo]

Shaun,
how do you not see how this:
[ QUOTE ]
thayer: so you think we should each give A 3k
Shaun: no

[/ QUOTE ]
and [ QUOTE ]
Shaun: when the horse gets out of makeup
Shaun: A just gets 9k

[/ QUOTE ]
are not pretty much the same thing? (they only aren't exactly the same because he won't get out of makeup 100% of the time).

Also, as mentioned,
[ QUOTE ]
Shaun: it's bascalilly as if we were always there

[/ QUOTE ]
It's nothing like that, because when A put up the money, he had a possibility of return. Also, if it would be basically like you were always there, then if X were a winning player instead of a losing player as a backee to date, you'd be getting 1/3rd the profits which LDO you wouldn't.