I thought this was interesting

Pokerfuse: Lee Childs Wins Historic Court Case Between Backer and Stakee

Very

So his backer dropped him and demanded 40k MU, then sued him when he didn't pay?

"YES!" - Brandon Cantu

So a staker has no recourse other than trying to ruin ones good name to recoup money lost in a staking agreement?

6:15

in most cases even trying to ruin someones name would be wrong

I mean it sounds like someone could stake me, I could "lose" how much ever and then they have literally no way of ever seeing that money again.

Yes that is how staking works. Don't stake people who would do that to you.

courts thinking: You were dumb enough to give him money to gamble, knowing it may be lost. DEAL WITH IT

The title of the article is misleading, it's definitely not a historical case.

The jury just found that the plaintiff was delusional in their expectation of MU repayment (after the backer terminated the deal) and perceived breaches of contract.

Safe to guess that the plaintiff didn't have a ton of staking experience, their first foray didn't go their way, they got pissed off & filed a flimsy case.

This would've been a non-issue with a competent backer. I'm glad Lee didn't get hit with an unfair judgement.

RA

Some backers are cool. Others are giant jackwagons who think their money entitles them to make veritable slaves out of their horses. Seems one of the latter did not get his way in court. Too bad for him. Moral of the story: neither stake nor be staked by a scumbag.

You do understand that staking someone is an investment and not a loan right?

Can someone please explain what happened between lee childs and his backer for those of us who are not english native speakers

Thank you in advance

............?

Staking or MU?

Staking obv investment. Article and case, and thus my comment, was about MU tho.

Also why "lose" was in quotes....

David Zeitlin has a very detailed analysis of the case and trial on his website:
http://davidzeitlin.com/mitchnick-v-...poker-justice/

Lol who would ever stake this guy after that qq hand

Sent from my LG-P659 using 2+2 Forums

Good write up, even posts the contract that both of the parties signed.

Somewhat rigged opinion tho obv as this guy was Lee's lawyer yes?

From the article linked above:

You mean burden as in the guy read over the contract, had his counsel at the time read it over, and agree to it? Did it to him self imo.

Rest is basically fine, and it was interesting how they had to describe MU to a jury of people who prolly have no idea what that is.

A+

It sounds like Childs got pretty deep into make-up, so the backer tried to find some technicality to unilaterally decide that the staking arrangement had been violated and demand payment for the make-up. This is not a case where Childs tried to get out of the arrangement, in which case we would normally think he would have to pay the make-up.

The contract had 6 rules the horse had to follow. Some of them were like "play your best" and some of them were pretty non-standard like "give me tax documents by January 31st."

The jury found that the horse violated all 6 rules. The contract says that if he violates ANY term of the contract, he must repay his makeup.

However, the jury also found that none of the violations actually cost the staker any money, so they awarded her $0.

That's it.

And for slightly more details: 1 of the rules was found to be impossible to obey, 2 of the rules were sort of maybe violated but it was stupid so they didn't matter; that left 3 that were irrefutably unquestionably violated, but again, they found that it didn't actually hurt or cost the staker anything, so she got nothing for it).

You could speculate that the staker was freerolling the horse, but having read all of the documents online, I personally think that a.) I can't tell if she was freerolling him or not, and b.) she got what she deserved in the trial.

Lesson learned. Never stop banging your stakehorse.

Great ramifications for pool players everywhere if it sets a precedent. Many have been know to dump their stakehorse until he pulls up then play with their own money and beat the other player for his and the stakehorses money.

That's well written. Enjoyable read.

This it seems like the backer was angleshooting him to get out and recover all losses in full from from the info we have, if Childs had stolen from him/deliberately dumped money to other players/whatever then yes he owes the makeup but makeup is not a debt unless a backer maliciously breaks a contract, never rule for the angle shooter in poker regardless of whether it's the horse, backer or angleshooter at the table

If the violations cost the backer any money fair enough. In this case they didn't.