There are exact, well-understood rules for staking here in West Texas. I've played a lot of stake money. Each of you owns half. If you sit in for $500, you essentially borrow $250. If you win, he gets out the money he has put up, and you split the winnings. If you lose you owe him half, but this is important. You say, "I'll pay you when I win." It may take a while. If the player and the backer are not taking the same exact 50 per cent risk, somebody is getting screwed.

Titanic used to get them to write down bets and initial them. Also, written I.O.U.s, called markers are great to keep a record of debts.

Anthony Holden, author of Big Deal, and the President of the International Federation of Poker has announced that a new poker rules book is coming out. I wish it set up rules for stake money, or a standard contract. You could write a business contract, an offer, and acceptance, a consideration, exact rules. I think with a poker tournament, you could get a collection agency or sue in court with a written contract.

'Ol Bill Smith, main event champ of 1985 played a lot of stake money. We staked each other, and I really learned from him. J.C. was his top stake man later. Once when Bill was drinking, he held out a card. J.C. stabbed him in the back of the hand with an ice pick. Stake men can be mean. J.C. had about 50 pieces of barking iron showing at his house when you played poker. Anybody with bullets in their pocket was armed. Barking iron is a two-hundred year old underworld slang term I discovered. It is like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick dipped in greased owl **** to the haters on here. I use it as often as I can.

yup seems pretty black and white , he owes the 10k and the 40k+ for the score

Also, regarding the hotmail incident, doesn't OP deserve responsibility for continuing to allow Brendon to hold his (OP's) money even though he knew (Brendon had told him explicitly) that the account which the money was held in was connected to a hotmail account?

Yes that's what I am saying on PNW. I think the hotmail incident should be completely disregarded when making judgement. It should be edited out of OP as it is swaying ppls opinions towards the backer and not allowing for unbiased discussion.

Copy/pasted from PNW:-


IMO opinion - this is NOT as clear cut as your post and others on here make out this to be. Let me preface this by saying I dont really know either party well - I have spoken to jonno once or twice and have NEVER met or spoken to Brendan.

1. IMO - the 10k is owed no matter what. It is Brendan's responsibility to make sure the party he sourced for the money is good for it.

2. I agree that IF you both agreed to the 6 person thing and go with the majority decision than this should uphold 100%

3. This point is the one that is contentious IMO. I think most people are entirely missing the point. I only bothered to give my two cents worth because I am in business and have many employees (of which stakees are similar too). I get jonno's point about telling Brendan to change hotmail etc. but Brendan offered a reason as to why he won't change. This is the contentious point that I think most ppl are missing. In my opinion if Brendan gave a reason that jonno accepted either explicitly (by saying hmmmmm ok etc etc) or implicitly (by not actually saying anything but continuining to provide the stake knowing full well that Brendan is still using hotmail), then the fact that jonno even raised the issue of hotmail with Brendan should be ENTIRELY disregarded in my opinion. this may or may not mean that jonno is responsible for some of the amount but if jonno continued the stake while knowing Brendan was still using hotmail, then this shouldn't even be brought up as doing so I think unfairly biases people's Opinion.

I look at this like this in the business world:
Jonno (employer): hey Brendan when you are mopping the floor can you do it after we close because the floor is wet and one of our patients might slip and fall and hurt himself.
Brendan (employee): hey jonno, I don't really wanna do that I would prefer doing it before closing time so I can get out of here quicker and not have to stay back to mop the floors and besides, it saves you money having to pay me more for staying back.
Employer: says nothing

For the next few weeks the employer sees Brendan is mopping floors early before finish time and does or says NoTHiNG...

3 months later a patient slips over breaks his leg.

In this case the employer is solely responsible.

I am not saying jonno is responsible for the stolen money just that the hotmail incident should not be used if the above chain of events occurred.

4. I am not sure if Jonno is implying if Brendan is lying about the money being stolen from bwin. If Brendan is Lying then obviously 100% at fault and should have to pay up. If it is proven he is not lying then the decision should be made using an industry standard about what to do about stolen funds and the hotmail incident should be entirely cut from the decision making process.

Indeed I did omit this part...

"he tells me that I have 24hrs to accept his offer to which he will be putting in writing for me to formally accept. Despite any two-bit moron knowing that a contract signed under duress is null and void, I agree to his ultimatum, accepting that $16/42k is better than $0/42k"

Jonno, I doubt any court would consider your circumstance as being under 'duress'. You may be able to argue economic duress as illegitimate pressure was applied to you in the form of Brendon threatening to not perform the contract (i.e if he said he wouldn't pay you anything if you didn't agree to signing an agreement for 16k).

Also it is not clear how you accepted this settlement, did you accept it orally or sign it?

Finally and most importantly, the contract which he asked you to 'formally' sign is going to play a part too. If he wrote it up as a deed, you may lose your rights to the money. Otherwise, I remember in my contracts class reading if X owes $100 to z and X says I'll give you $80 and Z agrees, unless X gives consideration for the remaining $20, the $20 is still owed.

You should still sue the degen gambler in the small claims court. Dong, you should have seriously sought legal advice before you went signing documents thinking you knew what the f was going on.

You werent lending him the money you were lending hte acquaintance money. Other dude owes you that 10k not him. And if you continued to back him knowing he hadnt changed from his hotmail account then i think youre just as responsible for that hack as he is. If hed told you hed switched to a new account and then didnt and got hacked then id say its more his fault. I think you got a good deal, and you agreed to it. So trying to get more money now shouldnt happen.

That being said i think his hacking story might be complete bs but unless you can prove that it shouldnt factor into whats right here. You knew he was shady and did shady stuff but continued to back him.

Just my 2c.

Ah, good old tort law and vicarious liability. In your example, the employer is liable regardless of knowledge. The test is if the employee is operating within the scope of his/her employment. Public liability insurance will most likely cover the employer.

As for Jonno or the big dong as he likes to be called, his knowledge of brendon's continuous use of the hotmail account and silence to do anything about it can constitute Acquiescence. Basically, this is tantamount to affirming the behavior/contract. Facts suggest after Brendon told Jonno he didn't want to change from hotmail, Jonno fell silent.

I do believe both issues should be included in the story. No reason to omit this juicy piece of steak.

I would say this turned out as successful as possible. Before getting to the end I thought you were going to get stiffed for all the money. Funny how these guys got solid MTT skills but the worse money management/tilt control imaginable and even after the screw backers repeatedly, more backers continue to offer them stakes...

this is not the case in this situation at all. Plus, nowadays, there are so many different type of staking deals that are not the "standard" 50/50 deal.

I don't know the details of Jono staking brendoor, but presume that brendoor was putting up none of his own $$ - incredibly standard.

Lol at people making ridiculous analogies.

Yep, it's completely the same as a guy mopping the floor. Yep I see it now.

CASE CLOSED.

Lolza, well put.

some people...

Pretty sure you missed the point of my post completely. With respect to the actual issue (and not a one liner), can you not see if jonno knew this was still happening and did nothing about it, then the hotmail Incident should be disregarded?!? I also think you missed the part where I explicitly state this does not mean jonno is responsible, I DO NOT know what the industry standard is but after speaking to two well known and respected members of the community - both have different opinions on how the money should be handled.

The reality of the situation is this:
Jonno: stop using hotmail.
Brendon: no because (insert reason here)
Jonno: *thinks* Hmmmm annoying that he won't stop, I should probably do something about that like stop the stake or convince him to stop..... But hmmmmm, he is such a good player and if I cut him off someone else will snap him up and the chances of getting hacked really are low....
Jonno: stays silent on the issue after consideration.

Just adding to the basic legal posts, there is a well established principle in English law that part settlement of a debt does not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole although I don't know if Australia has case law to the contrary (but as Australia is still in the Commonwealth, Pinnel's Case would still be relevant). Therefore depending on what dong actually signed (i.e. if there are any clauses in which he agrees not to pursue the matter legally) he may still have a legal right to reclaim the $26k. As someone else said above, consult a solicitor.

just another example of OP's greed coming before OP's sense.

rinse. repeat.