Its as simple as, If you break a contract, you are lible for all losses.

Simples

after all the trouble xereles went thru to get his stake back, do you really think there is a chance that brocky would cough up 7.5k extra? do you see how much of a problem it is for brocky to pay back $200 to scarface? and btw that situation is money-wise the same as if brocky staked xereles to play an mtt (except brocky plays). if that kind of stake would be -EV for xereles to back (which it probably is), it is also -EV for brocky to make, which is imo totally fair. and rolling a stake is supposed to be +EV for staker. if it's -EV then it would be in stakee's interest to roll and it would be dumb for a staker to make such an arrangement.

i think everyone is misunderstanding this. We all agree taking money that is staked for HU SNG or whatever the deal is, and using it for nosebleed cash, wsop or whatever is wrong. But there is a correct way to handle it. You can call the guy out and go to 2p2 to reveal him as a scammer, you can hunt him down and try to collect, but dont pretend that it is ok or even logical to make up terms that neither of you agreed to. You may think in terms of, If he is "stealing" my money and using it for other stuff than I can "steal" his money by pretending i should get some of the luckbox gains is just ridiculous. His using your money for anything but the stakes agreed to is scummy, but dont reach down to his level and call it a wash.

I think the million dollar question is; how do you prevent horses from taking your money and running ot Vegas or whatever, and answer is...

exactly.
I remember on the peoples court there was a case where hero sold an office wall on ebay. villian never picked it up and was ignoring and wasting hero's time. Hero sued for the cost of the sale and $10 per day in storage fees for the product since it was still in his house.

The result was that villian had to pay hero the cost of the wall he agreed to pay for in the auction listing and pick up the wall later, but not the $10 per day fee. The rationale was that the judge can enforce the contract hero and villian agreed to, but could not create a contract that said villian pay $10 per day.

Its the same in this case. If we agree you are liable for the 2k I give you, that is the agreement. In poker there is a customized version of this because you are saying rather than just paying back 2k, you can pay me nothing if you run bad (in the agreed upon stakes) or pay me some of your winnings if you win (in the agreed upon stakes) At any rate, it is an understood agreement and I think we all acknowledge this fact that if you either do not play the agreed upon stakes, you are liable for the 2k. This paragraph is our entire agreement.

What people itt are saying is that they can create a punishment clause after the fact because stakee is clearly a scumbag. As much as I love to see scumbags punished, (i.e. Brad Booth), you cannot just make up contracts after the fact. It is simply wrong.

As someone mentioned earlier applying pressure to them is usually all you need again (i.e. Brad Booth apology video), but your best option is prevention. Pick good horses with a long track record of not scamming. It is hard to find, but realistically no matter how successful they have been in the past, there is always an underlying risk they will scam you.

I doubt anyone will agree with you on that. It's ridiculous. You can't let it be +EV for the horse to degen on HSMTTs.

Staking someone for hypers 10-30$.. he plays 100 games of 60$ stake, wins like 600$ on those only.. he's not in makeup. He tells you to **** off because he didn't play the given stakes so the profits are all his money. You have to drop him and he gets no consequences because he ended up winning. Do you really think that can ever be reasonable?

thread about something similar:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/61...fty-ft-971051/

This is actually a pretty interesting question imo. I think what a prepared backer should to do is stipulate a punishment clause in the original contract. As much as what Xereles and others say makes sense (can't just let the horse spew your money on whatever and not have them owe you if they score), Ford is right that you have no grounds to collect when you're inserting something into the contract after the fact.

So Xereles imo you just have to write the contract in the first place so that it will never be freerolling for the horse to do that.

I'm not even reading Fordhams posts.

Is people's court even real?

Don't make me call Karak, he'll probably give you a zillion examples of where interest is relevant and enforced on a clear liability theft case.

so stakee has a right to angleshoot and break the contract if he likes the punishment, but hero has no right to "angleshoot" (lol this kind of agreement is actually common practice afaik anyway) to get his EV back? i understand that you believe in court and honesty and that courts in real life protect people from getting a harsh deal, but online there is no such protection. often times you can end up staking someone from another country and if he rolls you, you can't sue him in court. even if you could, a plane ticket to his country will prob cost the same as your money loss anyway, so unless he has a rep to protect or you're willing to play loanshark you're screwed.

don't forget staking is also a gamble in itself, like poker, even among the best friends you can always find someone of questionable morals, don't think you're immune to getting rolled no matter how good your vetting process is. i staked a friend i knew for 10 years to play on a super soft euro site and got rolled for about 200 €. we solved the problem but probably only coz I knew him for such a long time and knew what was wrong; if it was someone else I didn't know as well in the same situation I would prob stay in bad terms with him and never get the money.

also it's often +EV to take a gamble, even tho you know there is a real chance that you'll never see your money again. if not, people wouldn't play on sites like merge, cake, everleaf etc. same applies to staking imo, you just have to be aware of drawing the line and that not pushing hard enough to get your money back both cuts into your EV and makes you a target for scammers

@duncelanas I agree that this stuff should be put in a contract but imo it should be enforced even w/o the contract, it is obviously an easy way to exploit the staker and leaving that loophole open does not help staking thrive

if we are accepting as a general rule that we can create punishment clauses AFTER the fact, than I think we should take it to the extreme.

Late payments equals KITN
No payments equals painful death.

Slippery Slope?

It's not a loan. If you hire someone to invest your money for you and that person goes outside the predetermined rules of how he should invest the money, for example he takes an insane amount of risk and it pays off. Then that person doesn't just owe you the "initially invested sum" just because he broke the rules.

It's not a punishment after the fact it was never his money, it's not a loan and any proceeds from that money goes directly to the owner, regardless. You can't just on some ****ing whim decide that suddenly 1.5K of 2K is a loan to play the wsop. You are the one that is completely delusional about how the ****ing world works, wake up.

oh yeah and I'm slightly tilted.

Why stop now.

I can just visualize Fordham walking into a bank hiring some mother****ers to invest his money then 3 months later Fordhams lawyer calls him up and says the bank has been breaking the rules which they had both agreed upon, which were to invest it all in treasury bonds a.k.a. 2$ HUSNG. Instead the bank invested it all in some drug developing company that just binked it huge a.k.a. the WSOP. So the lawyer tells Fordham that the bank has been taken over by the countries financial service authority and asks Fordham where he would like his initial funds + proceeds from the gamble to be transferred.

To this Fordham replies, "I only wan't my initial funds it would be wrong of me to steal from them just because they stole my money" The lawyer is in shock he just barely manages to ask if Fordham wouldn't like to sue them for negligence and whatever the ****.

".........that would be a slippery slope"

Well put.

Sounds fine. But isn't the final question: at what point is the contract breached? Theortically speaken if there has been no date (e.g. staking you from 1st Janaury to 15th February 2012) but a quantity (e.g. staking you for 2000 hu SNGs) the contract is not breached unless the horse states that he surrender the contract, right? Other than that the contract would just not be fullfilled - yet?

I agree with you Fordham, stakers can not just declare themselves judge and executioner when a horse breaks contract. Whilst i think you are correct in pointing this out, i do feel you are confusing "adding clauses" with being accountable for losses due to not honouring the contract.

The peoples court is a good example. Whilst I agree that the seller can't just pick a number out of his ass concerning storage, expecting the buyer to pay. If the seller can legitimatly show the true cost to himself for storage then i believe the buyer would be liable for those costs.

No, how and why would this be the case?

@flipya4dinna: i tought the sentence following on the one you marked would make clear what i ment. It is my understanding that when a quantity but no time window has agreed that the staker asumes that the horse would play the quantity as fast as possible. But in very little 'contracts' that I have come along where a time window given in order to play quantity X (and if it were given, my post did not refer to it).

So I see two point of views:

the emotional/asumed: contract has to be fullfilled asap
legally: if the horse plays 1500 of the 2000 sngs the contract is not fullfilled yet (contract goal = 2000 SNGs) and since it is not fullfilled yet, the contract is not breached (unless, as mentioned in the sentence you marked above, the contract is surrendered which comes equal to stating that the horse breaches the contract) but still open and running.

2 sides note:

1) I do know neither the staker nor the horse (refering to this thread)
2) I admit that it might have been better to post my post in a general topic about stakeing.

I have no idea where your getting the idea, because a contract has not yet been full filled, it is not breached.

guys, we have a second wave of brocky´s ****

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2.../#post56483018