Very strange staking situation

[ianisakson]

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

Wow, that's a very unusual provision, not at all the norm. What state is that?

it's a federal provision in the securities industry w.r.t. civil and criminal penalties.

[Cody1982]

This guy needs a good old fasion azz whopen....Bond i'd be honered to assist. This is why i could never back someone.....

[pokerdonk1010]

staking is always real sketch unless you can 100% trust the person ive been stacked but i make sure i pay the person back and i have previous experince with them

[sheetsworld]

The player is going to give you exactly the minimum he feels will clear his conscience, regardless of what you say or what you do.

For some folks this will be 101k...for some it will be $100w$. There is little you can do to manipulate this number. You can attempt to "convince him" that he owes you blah blah blah but in the end, it is on his conscience.

Bax and I have always found that players do not play as well with one arm, so that is an option that is sometimes called for, but again, regardless of what you DO or what you threaten, you will get exaclty what he feels he owes, in the time frame that suits his particular mood.

sheets

[sheetsworld]

Originally Posted by Cody1982

This guy needs a good old fasion azz whopen....Bond i'd be honered to assist. This is why i could never back someone.....

QFMFT

[ianisakson]

Originally Posted by HorridSludgyBits

Ok, the whole reason for entering into a staking arrangement in the MTT world is that it increases the chances of a lightning strike, such as the $1K Mansion MTT win, over what one individual player is going to achieve. It's not to help someone out, although it could be mutually beneficial in that respect. It's not just to get their money back, either. Personally, I don't understand how this much money can exchange hands without anything in writing, but that's just me.

I hardly think the staking arrangement is over. The player took the $, which is different than simply losing it on buy-ins. If he lost it in buy-ins, that makeup stands unless there is a mutual agreement between the parties I would think. However, as long as this guy's playing poker, it's on the stakers to forgive the debt. I don't see how the player can simply decide the debt is gone.

Just my 2 cents.

well if the staking arrangement never finished then shouldn't the backers be responsible for all the money he lost playing poker after he took off with their money too? You guys are using a double standard in favor of the backers in when they get to claim they are backing this guy.

[sah_24]

this guy is the lowest of the low and i agree wit bakes, i think ur all r owed around 100k unless he had other backers then u would need to work something out

[obvv]

what if the guy came back in a years time and said he played 3 WPT events, didn't cash, and that bond etc owed him $16k... could he claim that they owed him the money because the backing was never dissolved?

[Todd Terry]

[QUOTE=ianisakson;4452373][quote=Todd Terry;4452178]Wow, that's a very unusual provision, not at all the norm. What state is that?

it's a federal provision in the securities industry w.r.t. civil and criminal penalties.

I just looked it up, the statute dw cited is a Connnecticut state law, therefore dw lives in Connecticut. I'm not aware of any provisions specific to the securities industry that allows for treble damages for theft -- the only thing I can think of is civil RICO, which allows for treble damages and often could be stretched to fit a case involving the securities industry.

[skier_5]

Originally Posted by LearnedfromTV

Let me ask this of the backers. Both Bond/Bakes w.r.t. this specific agreement, and in general. If a horses' entire bankroll at a site is included in an agreement (he doesn't have any of his own money mixed in), and he is supposed to play events up to a certain buyin, and he plays something way larger, what is the penalty? If the account is all the money he has, then "regardless of result he owes the backers the buyin amount" is unfair to the backers because it turns the arrangement into a higher variance situation than the backers were willing to accept. But anything else also gives one side a freeroll. It seems the backers should get the better end of the deal in this situation because the horse is the one who broke the rules. Is this possibility covered in contracts or just dealt with when it happens?

i feel pretty strongly that the backers should get the freeroll here and be entitled to any winnings, while the horse owes them money if he doesnt cash. they agreed on terms and he broke them.

actually after some further thougth, i think that maybe he does owe you the money, esp if you were backing him on mansion

[LearnedfromTV]

another way to think about it (the idealistic question - what should you get?)

If there were a provision in the original deal covering the possibility of him stealing the $, what agreed-upon amount of a big score such as this would make him indifferent to stealing the money? Say you assume he'd find a way to stay in action after stiffing you and end up paying you back regardless some % of the time, but most likely continue to stiff you as long as he stays in debt all over the place. And add that the times he makes a bunch of $$ he wants to make things right. If you look at all the probabilities beforehand and write it into the deal so that if this all happens he has to pay you X% of the big score, or $Y, what would make him indifferent to stealing the money? It's too complicated to actually figure out, but it's got to be way closer to $100k than $13k.

[ShowUthExit]

this is so ****ed, hope you guys get a decent chunk of it

[ianisakson]

Originally Posted by obvv

what if the guy came back in a years time and said he played 3 WPT events, didn't cash, and that bond etc owed him $16k... could he claim that they owed him the money because the backing was never dissolved?

exactly the point i'm making. the contract backers and backee have is that backee will play selected tournaments (or given their own playing discretion) and in return backer returns a portion of the profits with the assumption that in the event of a loss the backer retains the investment risk. Of course the money in possession of the backee is property of the backer until the backee uses it for the sole purpose of the contract. When the backee takes the money supposed to be gambled with and does something else with it the contract is breached. Thus the money belonging to the backer is to be returned promptly and if not, considered stolen.

I am not a lawyer, but i've read about contracts and this seems pretty clear the kind of agreement that was in place.

[ianisakson]

[quote=Todd Terry;4452472][quote=ianisakson;4452373]

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

Wow, that's a very unusual provision, not at all the norm. What state is that?


I just looked it up, the statute dw cited is a Connnecticut state law, therefore dw lives in Connecticut. I'm not aware of any provisions specific to the securities industry that allows for treble damages for theft -- the only thing I can think of is civil RICO, which allows for treble damages and often could be stretched to fit a case involving the securities industry.

you may be right, i'm currently studying for the series 6 exam and somewhere in the code of procedure for the NASD which is authorized by the SEC it mentions treble damages for insider trading, which I thought spanned across the whole series industry.

[Todd Terry]

Just realized that it appears this guy lives in Australia, so if you're trying to determine what is "legally correct" (which I agree with sheets is probably a purely academic exercise), you'll have to speak to someone familiar with Australian contract law.

Edit: FWIW, if a broker engages in unauthorized trades in your account, you are basically freerolling, if he loses money you get the money back, if he makes money it's yours. A stakee playing outside his stake boundaries (which has been discussed here in general, not necessarily applicable to this particular situation) seems analogous to me.