Seems like more often than not lawyers use their knowledge to make things seem more complicated than they are and cloud the judgment of all parties to bring out a (not the) legally correct decision that profits them. Doing what is right and doing what you can argue is legally valid are not always the same.

I think if it was not specified what they're gonna do if he wins the freeroll entry (it probably should have been) they should give the stakee the option to pay his stakers their share of the face value of the tourney. I say this because just keeping up the percentage is asking him to sell off part of a new tourney at par. Obviously he doesn't just get to keep the whole freeroll for himself.

Just one thing to add... Let this be a lesson to you that some people who seemed 100% solid beforehand will suddenly get all flaky when real money is involved. Don't stake this guy anymore. I only mention this because you don't seem to be getting the picture.

This is a bit harsh, but probably pretty good advice. If the situation hadn't been discussed in advance and everyone involved was sincerely unsure how to handle it that would be one thing. As it is, it sounds like you knew exactly what you were buying when you agreed on the price you'd pay for it and now the horse is trying to give you significantly less than that.

The idea that you could have agreed in advance that the freeroll was part of the action you were paying for but not be entitled to it if it turns out that isn't "standard" is pretty silly. Would you be ok with it if you paid face value for his action and then after he cashed he told you that it had come to his attention that 1.2 markup was "standard" so he was only going to pay you 5/6ths of the agreed upon percentage? How is it any different?

ya big +1 to this.
sounds incredibly shady.

it reminds me of something i heard not that long ago, where someone won some big MTT then tried to hold the money and re-negotiate his deal for a bigger % under the pretenses that "he won so much more then expected" people can become super douchebags when real $ comes into the picture.

There are so many people who either haven't read the relevant info or seem to have never been staked. 1) It's the most fair to split the freeroll the way the tournament profits were split. You agreed in advance to do this anyway, which also coincides with the most fair option. Relevant: If you stake somebody for cash games and he gets SNE, the rakeback and bonuses are 100% part of the staking profits even if hasn't been discussed in advance.

Now you come to the board and find out that your staking agreement was the best one anyway but you keep hoping that somebody will tell you that the stakee doesn't have to pay out part of his profits to the staker (the freeroll part). You're the one who got staked and are trying to find a way to not share the freeroll imo. It's obvious because of how you repeat that the stakee is the greatest person in the world and that your backers did nothing to deserve the win other than to cheer for you for the rail. Just pay up instead of starting your "young career" by trying to angleshoot your backers.

Bad read. I had a piece, I'm not nearly as young as the horse, and we are all good friends. I was confident I deserved the same piece of the free roll/he just got caught up in a big moment. I started this thread to have something objective to show him. Also, if the consensus came back that he got a ****ty deal (I'm not an expert backer), I would have compromised somehow in the name of friendship/life being too short.

I do appreciate all the feedback though.