Hey all,

Here's the scenario.

Staking arrangement has been going on for about 6 months. Been playing two sites normally. Every month accounting is done. This month the stakee is down 20k in make up.

Stakee gets a new poker account on a site, knowingly, under another persons name.

7k is deposited on the website. Stakee ends up making 16k in profit leaving the balance at 23k. After a month of playing the account gets suspended and later banned and all the money is lost. Reason by the site is that the account is affiliated with someone else who colluded prior to staker/stakee obtaining the account.

How should this situation be dealt with money wise.

This situation isn't even close, you are going to have to cooperate w the stakee ( I assume ur staker) because he won't be inclined or due to pay you the 100%
He obviously should owe the entire amount / add to makeup he decided to do this, and if somehow he had managed to get banned on his own he would still owe you. He knowingly took a risk playing under someone else's account and I it wasn't discussed before hand it was obvious he was taking all the risk since he felt secure to even trust the past friend. You don't even know him.

He owes 100% it's not even close, anything less leaves this so opened stakees scum king stakers. Cba to explain all but use your brains for a little before quoting me.

But Again I imagine the staker in this agreement is almost always kind of forced to take a little hit to keep stakee happy and not be scummed in future.

Im sorry I need to be more clear. BOTH STakee and staker knew the account was under a different persons name.

Ill edit the original post.

EDIT: Seems like I cant edit the original post. Anyway hope everyone reads my second post in this thread.

Am i reading this correct. Staker and stakee both knew that were breaking the sites TOS by playing on another person's account? If that's the case then no one owes anyone anything. Play on your own account to prevent this from happening maybe.

Yes correct. Both knew they were breaking the sites TOS.

You guys are both maing pos and its good that the money got confiscated and the acount closed

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using 2+2 Forums

If you allowed a stakee to play against TOS and you knew it - that was your risk and he owes nothing.

Both people knew about it. So are you saying we are back at 20k make up?

yeah its back to the Makeup he was before playing with this account which got banned. The staker knew and let his horse play with a account of another person and knew that would break the TOS and still allow to play on.

Oh in that case where you were aware makeup should be 20k original + I believe half of the original deposited should be added to makeup. You both took the risk and we're both risking the rewards

How does "the staker and stakee both knew about it" not make it into the OP lol.

Simple and fair is new make-up is 23.5k even so the reason of losing the money is not playing under a false name.
It would be different if either the staker or stakee knew the name/account was affiliated with colluding or if the one that was colluding knew that the account was compromised and still let the stakee play on it, I guess he knew that the stakee was using his account.

+100000000000000 geez

Imo, half of the $7k goes to makeup maximum. You both knew this was high risk and it's not fair to put all of the risk on the backee, nor all the risk on the staker--presuming there wasn't a discussion on what would happen in an instance like this beforehand.

I think it's too much to say someone who needs backing should take on all the risk in a spot like this (especially if not agreed upon beforehand) and I think it's probably too much to even ask that half of the risk goes toward the backee. A backee needs money to play and is therefore in a more desperate situation. A backer has more leverage and can pick and choose his spots better. It feels to me that most of the risk should be on the backer.

This is why we have strict contracts that are multiple pages long, initialed on each page and signed. I suggest doing this so that you have something to refer to in a situation like this. Prepare for everything in it. You want something you both signed and agreed to prior, for reference later.

I'd probably say 25% of the $7k goes to makeup and learn a valuable lesson. Get air-tight agreements that prepare for everything. I think the backee actually has a decent argument for owing $0, but in spots like this I think if needed a panel for arbitration would be best and if I were on such a panel I'd vote for 25% of the $7k going to makeup.

bad luck!

to me, this comes down to who's idea it was to open the second account.

if i picture myself in both scenarios, when floating the idea to my partner, for me part of the deal would be that i would assume the risk of being caught and losing the money. courts deal with it similarly when two people commit a crime together the sidekick usually gets a lesser sentence, right?

if i were the judge in this scenario i would need to hear testimony from both sides about exactly what was said when the deal was made. because there is a whole spectrum of culpability. i can imagine a scenario where the backer brings up opening the second account and the horse reluctantly agrees. i can also see it on the flip side, the horse bringing up opening a new account and the backer reluctantly agreeing. the two sides could have also discussed it at length before ever making a decision to actually open a second account, which would be closer to an even split of culpability.

my default judgement without hearing any testimony would be the originator of the idea assumes 80% of the liability and the sidekick assumes 20%. this could be shifted to as much as a 60/40 split or possibly even 50/50 depending on exactly how the deal went down.

so, if this was the backer's idea, 1.4k is added to makeup and horse is now at 21.4k makeup.

if this was the horse's idea, 5.6k is added to makeup and horse is now at 25.6k makeup.

Why did you guys make a new account under a false name in the 1st place?

Is your horse still involved with a colluder and you send him 7k? and you knew this? and you trust him?

Which site are we talking about?

The 1st question is probably the one I would like to hear the answer to the most..

Backer and Stakee were both introduced to the idea by a third party whos not involved in the staking.

Both Backer and stackee went along with it, without much reluctance. It was an account for an italian poker site so had to be in italian persons name.

I dont want to put any blame on the third party since that person was just talking about how you could get an italian poker site account. Tbh the account being used for collussion before the account was used by the parties involved was just a really unlucky situation. Colluders have nothing to do with the parties involved in this dispute.

"Both Backer and stackee went along with it." 3.5k f%&k up from both so new makeup set at 23.5k seems very reasonable.

Backer takes the full hit imo.the backer always takes the financial risk in a staking agreement and ultimately decides what sites the horse can play.so if he decides it's ok for the horse to deposit his money into someone else's account and play then tough ****.obviously any profit that was made there doesn't count so mu is the same as before you started that site imo.

Yeah I think this seems the most EV way to deal with this so you can both just move on and get back to work.

Maybe I'm missing something (quite likely since I've never staked nor been staked), but isn't there an argument for the makeup to go down? There wasn't just 7 K lost here - it was 23 K. Quite a few suggestions of MU at 23.5 K, presumably with the idea of splitting the blame and thus the loss between the two parties, but the horse is taking the entire loss of the time/opportunity cost in generating the 16 K profit.

I was thinking the same, since the backer chooses the games etc approves and oks everything, says when to withdraw etc, the amount on the acct when it was lost could arguably be 100% the backers, so if thats the case, then whatever was in that acct when it was seized should be taken off the outstanding makeup., so the total would be 20k makeup-16k profits

I don't think there is any argument here. Backer takes the hit, profits as well.
If any backer is stupid enough or dishonest enough to use an account which does not belong to the horse they have to take the hit.
This would leave 4k in makeup.

As someone that has been staked I think what you have both done is wrong.

1. I wouldn't play for this stable.
2. Horse is also dishonest but put in the hard work.
3. If you don't take the hit you were really freerolling.
4. To leave 43k on any poker site without a major series being played is dumb in this current climate as you have found out to your cost.
5. Maybe a 23k integrity coaching session is what was needed.

I would assume it's MU is at 20k before either party entered into this stupidity.

Backer provides funds, horse provides labour. Horse runs it up, but loses his invested time and doesn't get to take a chunk off MU. Backer loses his investment. You could make just as much of a case that you knock 6.5k off MU as add 3.5k. Overall i'd say both parties need to just treat it like the 7k and 23k never existed and resume whatever deal was in place before this account was opened.

After reading it over I can't see how the horse would assume any financial responsibility here. Both parties are stupid but you'd at least think someone in the position to back people financially for five figures would be less stupid.

the money lost on the account is treated same as a loss from playing poker and added to mu, if there's 5k mu and 5k in the acc then it's 10k mu now.
don't break such clear rules btw :/

+1. If I was the horse I'd certainly want the makeup to come down and wouldn't really accept any other arrangement tbh.