Ethics Regarding Selling Horses

[Mecastyles]

Originally Posted by Zima421

surprised by shaniac's posts in this thread.

big +1 wtf

[charder30]

agree with Sheets.

[mjw006]

Originally Posted by Zima421

gonna have to explain this one.

just saying that if he chose seabeast over Elio/I for whatever reason, then being sold to me would kinda suck for him? I guess i can agree on some level. guess i just dont like my name being the "worse" choice, even if it is a hypothetical.


carry on

ha, sorry. Just picked 2the 2 most well known stable/names with large stables I saw itt.

[DFish2]

Sheets makes some good (though very specific) points, but in the simple context of "I put up the $, you play tournaments, we split the profits", selling a horse should have little to 0 effect on the horse himself.
Of course if we consider coaching and other intangibles the situation can change, but in a general sense, I see no legitimate reason for a horse to say no to being sold as long as all stipulations of the original backing deal remain the same, unless he is simply trying to sneak out of makeup.

[ryanghall]

Can't believe how many people have gone against Shaniac in this thread. I strongly agree with him. If a backer wants to be able to sell a horse at a later date, one should do as Zima does and outline it at the beginning of the agreement (everything that can cause conflict should be discussed at the start of the agreement).

Now if a horse does something like leaving for another backer without paying back any makeup or the rent money you lent him, well, then him and the backer he left for are just scumbag crooks (Hey, Zach Roeder!)

[FatalError]

Originally Posted by DFish2

Sheets makes some good (though very specific) points, but in the simple context of "I put up the $, you play tournaments, we split the profits", selling a horse should have little to 0 effect on the horse himself.
Of course if we consider coaching and other intangibles the situation can change, but in a general sense, I see no legitimate reason for a horse to say no to being sold as long as all stipulations of the original backing deal remain the same, unless he is simply trying to sneak out of makeup.

because risk of ruin for backer is already calculated into the initial split, imo horses who have a "no trade clause" in their contract are simply worth less and the backers cut should be higher as a result. thats a lot of the reason why very trustworthy high caliber players unlikely to quit playing poker any time soon often get deals as sweet as 70/30 and part of the reason why near bustos who might quit to go work at radio shack get 35/65s

that being said this is also a reason to stake friends over randoms, a friend should basically always be willing to accept a sale into a deal with a backer who will continue the deal uninterrupted with no modifications. i'd never balk at being sold by a friend who backed me and would expect a good friend to accept being sold to help me out of a jam.

backing exists partially so backers can make some money on the side and get sweats out of the portion of their bankroll they can't get in action themelves, but it mostly exists because without it the poker economy would collapse due to the nature of MTTs, a lot of times backing is really more about friends helping each other out because they understand the nature of the MTT world and that it should be a true win/win for both parties. you lose a lot of this when the relationship is "purely business" which is a mistake too many backers find themselves getting into when they expand beyond their circle of friends. I'm sure sheets/bax would tell you that in general backing those they are truly friends with is a lot easier/more pleasant/enjoyable then backing those that are little more than some numbers being passed back and forth for accounting reasons.

this is why when you ask someone if makeup is debt you will generally only get a yes from someone who's backer is also a good friend