I completely understand. Was just tryin to get a feel for how much the money ment to you..


I would like to kno if you are in the +++, or ---- in staking tho.

If u are +++ write it off in your mind as cost of business

If you are ----- take it as a life lesson

It's cool if u don't answer

But I'm sorry u can't stake ppl anymore bc u live in USA and your claim to makeup is much much weaker bc of that fact ( u can't really send him money to play)
Basically BF is unfortunately really bad for backers ... its just added risk of doing business ... its not him quitting u...

I'm sure you are an ok dude and you didn't deserve the situation

You need to work a fair deal out with him... bc u won't get all your make up.

What?

can we have more details about the 1 percent freeroll?

I was actually involved in a similar situation, but my friend and I didnt cash the ME so didnt really matter lol. Im here in vegas with a friend whos staked, but the backer couldnt fork out all the money for the ME because of blackfriday, so what he did was sell 40% at mark up and the backer forked out the rest of the buy in (50% or so). Hes also in make up fwiw.


So his situation is -

40% sold to random investors
50% is part of the stake/make up
10% is mark up money

We ended up swapping a small percentage, and I would assume it comes out of the mark up money, which he was freerolling due to the mark up. In this case, the swap would not go to the backer since he could literally do what ever he wants with the other 50% of the buy in, (ex- buy it all for himself, so if he binked 100k, he would keep 50k+ 25k- make up coming out of only the 25k)

exactly this


That being said, why wasnt this cleared up before he even came to vegas? Why would anyone do this type of deal? It looks like a really bad deal, but seems like the horse took it anyway (by coming to vegas period).


lets say the BACKER sold 80% action on his horse at 1.3mark up, freerolling the tourny (with a little bit of suga) and staking deal is 50/50. The horse and Staker is entitled to a the remaining 20% with make up. This is a total freeroll for the backer, since he isnt forking up any money and not risking anything. the mark up is what the HORSE is worth, not the BACKER. In a nutshell, its a REALLY ****ty deal for the horse

The most important thing here is, did the horse accept this deal, in which it seems like he did by coming to vegas. The horse should have cleared this up with the backer wayyy befere (seems like the jkidd tried this etc). There needs to be better communication between horse/backer obviously, and it seems like the horse was not cooperating. Tbh, this is a mess regardless and the only solution I can think of is the horse keeps the winnings, but pays back all the make up, regardless if that puts him in the black or red.


CLIFFS - The horse should keep the winnings since it was off his mark up

the horse was clearly not cooperating/being shady so should pay back all the make up money. At the end of the day, the horse is responsible for the make up regardless if its by winnings or out of pocket.

Why is this thread still open? The question that has been asked has been answered and now everyone is chirping in about makeup which has nothing to do with the situation.

Clearly its been agreed in this thread that the swap is theeye's to keep.

Jkidd has stated many times that he no longer wants to back theeye and therefore the buying back or sale of makeup (whilst the decent thing to do at an agreed rate) is up to theeye to offer or not offer but he is under no obligation to do it (still maintain that it is the right thing to do).

Oh ya you're right this seems like a completely std. situation where backer drops horse

Yea no ****, just start spitting in backers faces and get out of makeup, ez game.

Defo not condoning spitting in someones face however this happened after everything in this thread so to say thats how he has got out of makeup is wrong.

jkidd1084

The horse is TOTALLY in the wrong here. He has jeopardized the relationship that was forged from the 18 months of previous workings.
This horse has proven that he is no longer trustworthy and must be dealt with accordingly. I would continue to put pressure on him even if it means exposing him to the entire community.

Just my thoughts.
Dave

this sums it up well

I love you Lee, but I think you're wrong here.

I think everyone agrees backer tried to hustle his horse.
Therefore he is responsible for the degradation of their relationship and the end of their agreement.
For this simple reason I do not think the horse is liable for makeup.

Thats a ridiculous statement. Even if its completely clear the backer is trying to "hustle" the horse...& honestly does it even matter(the stakee took the deal why didnt he realize it before if so) he cant just say F the backer. Anyone defending the horses actions and saying he can stiff jkidd is delusional.....business is business, being friends is not required.

No, this is a ridiculous statement.

By your own statement, business is business and the simple business matter is that if there is no agreement between the backer and the player that the player must buy out his makeup then the player is free to leave and is under no obligation to buy it.

Im not saying its the "right" thing to do morally but it is what it is.

If there is an agreement, then lets see it. If not its the end of the discussion.

The horse never took this deal. He accepted a deal where he was freerolling 15% + getting 50% of the other 15% after makeup.

Yeah just seems kind of wrong morally, but i see ur point. Had been following this a bit but hadnt read the last cpl pages....

This is a losing battle with all of TheEyes housemates and friends coming in here and saying whatever they want to make their scumbag spitter friend look good.

ENJOY YOUR SHADY 4% SWAP, KEEP IT. PAY BACK JKIDD THE MAKEUP SINCE YOU QUIT ON HIM WHILE IN MU AND PART WAYS.

While obvious the horse doesn't want to work with the backer, if the backer is unwilling to work with the horse surely that just means he drops him and the makeup is void? If not, then the horse should either pay back some or all of the makeup or play until he is out of makeup.

kinglega is just another one of his toolbag roomates. he was there when the incident happend at the rio and when the cops asked him for a statement, he declined and continually told me I'm a moron for reporting anything and that I should just allow him to spit in my face and walk off like it didn't happen. F this kid and all the roomates that don't understand the concept of UNINVOLVED THIRD PARTIES. I haven't had a single friend come in here to defend me.

Also lega, why would I agree to a deal where the horse receives 23.5% and I have 6.5%? I wasn't hustling and, like I said, never actually broke down the numbers. My bad for not thinking everything through, but this was far from a hustle. I offered him something and he accepted it. It's on him to look over the deal and renegotiate it if he isn't satisfied. If he had pointed out before coming to vegas that the deal was bad and broke it down for me, I would have been willing to make a fair deal. I still don't think the deal was horrible, but I assure you I was not trying to angle or hustle. I've never done that in my life.

Also, to my knowledge, the person who bought the 70% does not take deals that allows the player to 100% freeroll or make money. They want the player to have something invested. To say that I provided essentially nothing and he could have gotten a deal without me isn't necessarily true. He needed the 12.5% of his buyins in order to play. He also clearly needed some money to cover his expenses.

seams like the horse should keep the 4%. that being said if the backer wishes to still stake the horse, and the horse does not want to keep this deal then makeup should be paid to the backer. if the backer does not want to back the horse anymore because he has done shady activity/is afraid of being scammed again then the horse should keep all the 4%(and not pay back mu)

i got sick of reading it at around page 4 so i'm not sure if i got everything but it sounds like the horse had 15% of his own action and swapped it...if it's his own action he has every right to sell it if he wants to, i think...i don't really understand what makeup has to do with it, just coz ur in makeup doesn't mean every cent in your pocket belongs to your backer

so i guess you can keep playing for him to clear your makeup or just pay it off with the proceeds but i'm unsure of what makeup has to do with anything

edit: OP, when you said you each had 15% of the action were u saying you covered the entire 30% as part of the stake? if so then you are owed the money, but if he has 15% of his own action i don't see what claim u have to it

Pointless discussing anything with you, you keep lying or/and twisting things.
And yeah you're a big fanny for pressing charges to the police.

I don't think I've ever met the horse in question fwiw, but I went to university with kinglega and have the utmost respect for him and while he is obviously biased I really don't care what the outcome of this case is. IMO jkidd you are very clearly in the wrong about the swap (as nearly everyone ITT has said although you seem to like to cherry pick posts of people on your side and cite everyone else as a toolbag roommate) but the existing makeup issue could be debated further.

The whole spitting in face/police debacle is a fairly mute conversation. It is very obvious the backer provoked the horse a lot and the horse reacted immaturely. People don't just spit in other peoples face for no reason. Just donk on donk violence.

jkidd, could you post the total value of buyins the horse was expected to play and the total amount of money you gave him to play those tournaments. Exclude the 70% of action sold at markup, just the money you gave him personally.

It seems really bizarre that OP thinks that putting in 12.5% of the buy-ins entitles him to 30% of the profit (15% after clearing 15k). If the horse is selling at mark-up, you don't get that markup. If you wanted to apply that markup to the makeup, that's one thing, but it should have been discussed. If I'm reading this correctly, there are 41k in buy-ins, so the markup that could have been applied would be about $7500. However, it certainly seems like the horse should get 17.5% and the 12.5% is on the backing deal where the 1st 15k goes to OP and any additional is split 50/50.

As swaps were not discussed, I can't imagine OP getting a % of that 4% swap. However, I also can't imagine swapping 4% when I only have 15% of myself to begin with. Meh?

The OP's understanding of this backing deal seems ridiculously unfair to his horse. Hell, the Horse's understanding of this backing deal seems slightly unfair to the horse. Though I guess if OP is putting in for expenses, getting 15% for 12.5% is reasonable.

Conclusion: unfortunate misunderstanding about the backing deal. Also, theEye should get the entire 4%.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, i get it now, horse sold 70% of action at markup and made a profit, which he used to buy a piece of another player and backer thinks it's his money...lol

lol


this thread is ridic.


i wanna comment further, but just not worth it. all of the horses friends coming in are laughable.