This situation is merely hypothetical, it does not apply to my staking deal or any friends I know. I'd like clarification if this is allowed or not. I would appreciate it if people read the OP and then give their reply, rather than reading all other replies and quoting other people. I would like to see if their is a consensus on this or not.

Let's say someone has a full-time online backer, and the horse wants to fly out to Vegas for just the WSOP Main Event. The online backer agrees to pay for half the $10,000 buy-in, which goes towards their long-term 50/50 staking deal with makeup. The horse then sells the other 50% of his action (with the backer's permission) at 1.2 markup. So he sells the other $5,000 at 1.2, and the markup price totals $1,000. The horse pockets this money, and uses it for travel expenses (or to buy a TV? Does it make a difference?)

So we have a 10 K event the horse wants to play, and he would have $1,000 up front + basically 25% of his own action (his part of the staking deal.) Is this allowed? Or does markup have to go towards the buy-in, and not expenses?

I think you would have to run it by the backer but sounds fine if both partys agree. Ive had friends that did that (not to that extent where they sell all 50% but a huge chunk

If I'm understanding this/reading it correctly, If the person sells 50% at 1.2 and everyone's happy and in agreement, I see no ethical question at all.

Although if I sold while backed (to play higher tournaments than our agreement covered) the markup went to our part of the buy in. If your backer is not asking for that then np. Travel does cost money.

As a buyer, as long as I knew the player's arrangement when I decided whether or not to buy the action, I would have no problem with him having $1,000 up front and 25% of his own action. I would, however, have a problem if that information was not fully disclosed. As long as the buyer knows the information, he can make an informed decision.

It would not matter to me what he used the $1,000 on.

I'd clear it with the full-time backer first, since he may not want horse to sell 100% of self or any action to someone else. Also, obviously can't do it when he owes makeup to backer

When posting in marketplace, he should state that he has already sold 50% of action to full-time backer

fine as long as they tell all investors. people might not want to buy if they know someone is freerolling

Confused a bit here...you're asking if they'd have to instead sell $4,166.67 of the buy-in (at 20% MU = $5,000) and put the full $5k towards the buy-in? So now the horse would have "25%" from the normal staking deal, and ~8.33% (1/12) from the side deal?

No difference because they are both forms of the horse using their own money. (As long as the horse fulfills their responsibility to get to the event, which will happen since it's is a condition of getting the money anyway.)

Not reading replies, but it's my opinion horse can do whatever he wants with the MU, seeing that the backer put the onus on him to come up with the other 50%. Totally diff if the backer put up the entire BI

Yes that was the alternative I thought of.

Why? Are you saying this screws over the full time backer or the investors? If the backer only wants 50% then the other action is all the horse's to do what he wants. Like a hoes can play any tourney he wants on his own dime if the backer will not put him in that tourney. Or do you think this arrangement would screw over buyers because the horse would not in your opinion have sufficient motivation to play well?

I would appreciate clarification, jw123. Also, other opinions would be appreciated.

no real life experience in this area, but I can imagine a situation with a horse deep in make-up with long time backer, then he sells pieces to new investors who get winnings before long-time backer is paid back. This could put horse in a strange spot.

Like most people ITT said, if long time backer approves it up-front, and there is transparency with new investors, it should be good.

Like half the people appear to just be not getting the question, but I think the clear answer is that as long as this information is disclosed to everyone that invests, it's fine. If someone oversells themselves to the point where they have virtually no investment themselves in the tournament, then I don't like that from an ethical standpoint, but as long as the horse still has 25% of his action, I think selling the other 50% in full and using 1K for expenses is fine.

I agree. the private backer and the Horse need to discuss and agree before any action is sold as to exactly how & where the markup funds should be spent..