Zima why don't you comment further? If it's not worth it why offer to arbitrate? Do you think stuff I've posted is incorrect/non-standard?

IM NOT A FRIEND OF EITHER PARTY >> Seems this needs to be stated.

In cases like this people need to stick to the facts and not decide based on personal beliefs of what is correct etc.

The whole point of this thread was to ask if JKidd has any right to the 4% swap that was made. It has been said time and time again by everyone itt that he doesnt and that the 4% was theeye's to swap as he wanted. / thread

JKIDD, please can you answer the question above...

What was your original agreement with theeye regarding the deal if he was to be dropped or leave in make up?
If there is no agreement in place then / thread
If there is an agreement in place then show it and it can be discussed.

The 4% is his, he still owes the 15K buy back, or now since your not backing him anymore, the buy back is 7.5K, which he should pay out of the 22K he won off the 4% swap. You DON'T spit in another man's face, regardless of anger. These kind of incidents are bad for backer's and horses. If the dude put him in online for 18 months, he deserves more respect than a spit in the face.

why must he buy back his makeup? please stick to the facts and dont judge based on anything other then the facts. The spitting incident (whilst very bad) is irrelevant.

Nowhere so far in this thread has it been claimed that the agreement was that theeye must buy back makeup in the case that the backer drops him and until this is claimed then saying that he *MUST* buy it out is quite frankly ridiculous.

Agreed.

Op said he was prepared to keep backing him and had paid for later action in the 1K and ME and horse voided his commitment. I stated the horse should be allowed to keep the 4% trade, but he should have paid backer at least some of the buy back. Where did you get the idea that if a backer drops a horse, that the horse does'nt have to pay the backer back half of the buy back. That would be a hell of a way to get out of a backing agreement, when the buy back got to high. No where in this thread was it said the horse does not owe the backer half of the buy back if backer drops him? Where is that ever stated? The backer should be paid the half of the buy back, but should not be expected to pay it all back the first score (small) he makes. Dude, the spit in the face is NOT irrelevant, nor was the "Go F urself" comment. Both incidents hastened the dissolvement of the backing agreement and it speaks to the character of the horse negatively. I would rather a man punch me in my face, than spit in my face. These guys had a 18 month (or longer?) history, it should have been worked out amicably. The horse was helped by the backer for 18 months and did'nt drop him, and put his horse in action, which surely helped the horse survive financially. Would you continue to back someone who treated you in this manner? It seems like a easy way to get out of a contract. Backers and horses need to state everything they expect in the backing agreement ( And sign a contract), to avoid such misunderstandings. Thats the lesson everyone should get out of this incident. Is the 18 months he backed him online irrelevant too? And I am sticking to the facts as stated by OP. I don't know either of these guys, so I have no vested interest. During the WSOP he had part of his action and quit him from his action in the 1K and 10K ME. So tell me, who quit who, and stick to the facts, please.

pokerjuice your tone in all of your posts seems to be that the backer is doing the backee a favor by backing him. Staking is not a favor, rather an agreement of two parties mutually agreeing to a deal that they both deem of best interest. A stakee is not obligated to buy back makeup if he is dropped.

Jkidd obv. doesnt want to keep staking theeye therefore he is dropping him. If you want to continue the stake then that is your right. Saying that you cant trust him after that incident is an understandable reason to drop a stakee, but does not automatically result in him just owing you makeup.

Seems pretty clear to me it belongs to the horse

Im only replying to this out of sheer boredom as you clearly are either biased towards the backer or have no idea how staking works.

In the OP it is clearly stated that JKidd has no intention of continuing to back the horse.

Lol! If the backer drops a horse then why on earth should the horse pay back any % of the makeup. By your argument you seem to think that the backer should assume no risk and get the makeup back if a horse loses. Please think about this and realise how stupid this comment is.

Its not for the horse to state. Its up to the backer to tell us the agreement he is claiming as he is the one that is claiming he is owed money. DUCY?

This happened after the agreement broke down. Have you even read this thread? Im not condoning the spitting and think that it was a horrible move by the horse however it is completely irrelevant to the agreement.

This is you starting to understand things.

This is you not understanding things.

Have you read the thread or are you just going by the OP? Even if you are just going by the OP, it clearly states that “I have no intention of backing the horse going forward”
That is the Backer dropping the horse.

Again it is still irrelevant, if there is no mention of what to do with makeup at the end of the period in the agreement then the horse is under no obligation whatsoever to buy back any of the makeup.

Finally, this view is one that is not based on my own feelings towards either party or what I believe is the morally correct thing to do, It is based on the facts

@fakerfaker
So the morally correct thing to do is stiff the backer the buy back? Thats laughable, and a darn good way to never get backed again. Dude, I'm only replying to this out sheer boredom too, and either your biased or have no idea how staking goes. I've been in this racket since 1983 WSOP. So don't be so arrogant kid. Did the backer say, he would not back the horse after the horse told him he was nullifying his last bit of action in the 1K and the 10K ME? Who the hell would back someone anymore that spits in your face and tells you to "Go F urself". Who made you the interpreter of the rules of backing? You make the rules? lol This is clearly you not understanding things. I still owe players buy back, and will pay them when I make a score. I wish I did'nt have to pay them back, but it is the honorable thing to do. The way this whole thing ended up going down is bad for backers/horses. I understand your going to take your friends side, but the morally correct thing is to come to some sort of settlement, and not to flame each other in this thread. I told you I don't know any of you players, and stated the 4% swap should be all your friends. I have no vested interest in this, other than its bad for poker, and should be settled amicably. He should pay his backer the buy back out of the proceeds from the swap or a settlement figure. The reason I'm being undiplomatic to you faker, is because of the condescending, I know all about backing, arrogant comments you directed my way. I have a right to state my opinion without being shouted down, just because I have a differing opinion than yours, and I will state my view. I'm sure all you guys are good dudes, but the key to a resolution is communication between the late backer/horse. The OP was diplomatic and stated they had done business for 18 months and everything was fine, he did'nt even want to name the horse. He started this thread to get feedback from the 2+2 community, and accepted the verdict, that the 4% swap was the horses. They did business for 18 months, so if they ever were friends, they need to open the lines of communication, and settle this situation. This is all I will say about this matter, good day.

You ever need a backer dude? Its alot easier to find people needing backing than finding a backer. Where is it written, that you don't have to pay your backer the buy back, sign me up for some of that. You pay em back, not coz its written down, you pay them back because its the honorable thing to do, unless you have a written agreement stating otherwise. I don't have a vested interest in either side. I don't know any of you players. I understand you taking up for your friend, I'd probably do the same thing, if he were my friend. I'm more concerned about both parties being treated fairly. I do have a vested interest in making sure that backers and horses are treated fairly and respectably. My tone is the voice of reason. I don't know how backer acted towards your friend, he may have acted like a ignoramus, for all I know. From OP post, he was just trying to get the 2+2 community verdict on the 4% swap, and verdict was for your friend to keep the swap. He did'nt even want to reveal the name of the horse. They should communicate and settle this mess.

would i be an idiot for suggesting that the eye pay Jkidd 15K out of the 22K he won and call it a day? seems like both are at fault for the backing agreement ending imo

Bro, the backing agreement went south, so all the horse would owe would be 7.5K. No, my friend your not an idiot for suggesting that, you're the voice of reason, and this is exactly what should be done.

@Pokerjuice, Do you realise how stupid you sound in your posts?

Shrug, read the other guys posts directed at me and you'll see why I replied like I did. I at least know how to spell realize. I guess your another friend.

stupid is as stupid does

at least part of your name is right, you are a ****

mmm strawberry lemonade

I concur, Zima

And your a FLOP kid. And stop quoting Forrest Gump. I cry uncle, I'm out.

Fyi, not sure where poster lives, but in USA u spell it like so realize & across the pond, u spell it like so realise.

Just to be clear. I've said this many times already, but I'll say it again. The horse sent me a text essentially telling me to F off and that he is playing the last 1k and main event on his own now. That is HIM breaching OUR agreement. I never dropped him. He bailed on our arrangement. I never broke any stipulations in our agreement and never once threatened to drop him. He chose, therefore he is responsible for paying back makeup. If spitting in someones face or doing any of the things that he has done is acceptable and not a reason to drop someone (and them needing to pay makeup), then every horse would tell their backer to go F themselves and pick fights with them just so they don't have to grind out of makeup. Clearly that is what he is doing here.

Tell backer to go F himself + Spit in his face. = Take all of your own main event and 1k action, get all of your swap without any negotiation or arbitration and no longer have to grind your way out of makeup?

You posted here to arbitrate, you're just waiting to hear the answer you want to hear.

You may as well post the text conversation, if both of you post it that would be even better.

So what you are saying is that it was in your original agreement that he would buy back makeup if he was to end the agreement? If so, at what price did you agree this?

horses just cant leave backers when they are in make-up.

there shouldnt be a "price" that they agreed on. it should never happen. the horse leaving in make-up is about the worst thing a horse can do to a backer.

I have actually had horses just buy their make-up from me if they wanted to go in another direction. actually, a person i backed was in decent make-up and than hit a score to clear all but like 1200ish of it and he asked me if he could just do a buyout and go on his own way. He offered to buy out at 100%. Obv i accepted and all was good. i prolly woulda taken a bit less than 100% (hope he stopped reading this thread now, ha ha). I am sure whatever jkidd was putting his horse in, the horse woulda been a huge winner in. and 15k make-up really isnt much for what the horse was most likely playing.

I dont think you understand the point here. Its nothing to do with what is morally correct or what the "industry" standard is for staking.

JKidd and theeye had an agreement, the agreement (i like to think considering how much money was involved) would have been quite detailed, ie. what he can play, stop losses, reloads etc...

In this agreement there should have been something that addressed when the agreement would end, who could end it and any repercussions if it is ended early by either party. This would then deal with makeup.

If there was no mention of makeup needing to be paid if the horse quits, then it doesnt matter how morally wrong it is or how unlikely it is that theeye will be staked in future, he is under no obligation to pay it back.

Again, im not saying this is the morally correct way to do things or the "industry standard" but if theeye doesnt want to pay it, and he didnt agree to having to pay it when then agreement was first set up, then he doesnt have to.