Firstly the operator and club information will not be disclosed. There isn’t an official dispute yet. This thread is not designed to create tensions with the backer, yet previous attempts to explain what I deem objective have been to no avail.
- this is an open matter, where general community feedback is needed, so the matter isn’t dealt with bias.
I will also include any positive aspects with dealings of the backer too, so this thread is balanced.

*note, I have had several backing arrangements in the past with zero issues.
* I have a good understanding of how a backing deal should operate

I entered into a deal (may this year), one which I would describe as relatively casual. I can only imagine since the backer most likely established I was known in the community and trusted.

These were the terms
- Here is what I'm offering 50/50 stake with 100 percent makeup. Whatever you win from Monday thru Sunday (4 sessions minimum) gets paid on MondayÂ’

- On nights that you play we will fire a total of 600 per night. You can break it down however you feel is best for you whether it be 200+200+200 or 100 x 6 300+300 its up to you with how much you want to sit withÂ’

The minimum game I am being staked for is BIG O (5 card h/l) $1/$2($1ante).
In 8 handed play this equates to $7/$4

Rake is 7 perc! Capped at $7

- I had discussed my past playing history and had detailed that I was a big winning player in this game on a low traffic site.
- I immediately asked if there was rake back, the answer was NO.

My initial thoughts

- being capped at less than 100bb was horrible in a game where max buy in is $800usd
- zero rake back, I have never received zero rake back on any site ever.
- I would play and evaluate, assuming dynamics shift once reliability/volume profit proven.

The standard is about as expected. The $1 ante rewards loose play and promotes playing more hands. The first four weeks I was up around $3700. Playing most days and usually always there to start the game.

However, as time went on, I kept asking about my deal. I also started to question why only 90bb? As a loose exploitive style player, I was starting to see how being capped was greatly affecting my average hourly rate. There wasnÂ’t an explanation. The answer to rake back was a ‘no' again.

During July and August I started to run horrendously. And this compounded with the frustrations of my arrangement made it all worse. A few sessions I played on tilt.

I believe it was sometime 8 weeks after my contract, the club decided to change the ante to (.50c) . This reduced the game to a $4/$3 game equivalent (8 handed). Still 130bb at $600 cap.

Initially I accepted it as it's not my club.
However as time went on I realised how everything I was involved in was a conflict of interest. I did accept that yeah this is unregulated app games BUT I started to see building conflicts of interest and how relevant information was never disclosed. Even this seemingly minor ante change affected my weekly profits I would suspect between $200-$400 pre chop.

Here are what I deem as objective conflicts of interest
- the backer is either owner or co owner of club
- the change to the ante was approved by the owners and the owner/backer knows this directly diminishes my bb/100 win rate. This was implemented without my knowledge.
- 100 percent of my rb goes to the owners/backer thus I am one of the only horses in the poker community getting exceedingly less than 50% of my profits.
- the backer is clouded by rake back returns thus can not think logically about the effects of unfairly treating the horse.

Other obvious issues
- fact, I generate the most rake in the big 0 game. Up to $600 per week, possibly more some weeks.
- every player who contributes less to the club in every way is rewarded more than me. House players contribute more, but in different context. House players should be rewarded more than me of course.
- I am playing house/admin players , whose arrangements are undisclosed. Who are aware of my arrangements. Imagine what it feels like to be hero called by a house player knowing they get anywhere between 40-80 percent rake back? And you get zero. This point is only metaphorical, just for context. used my emotional context.
- the new game structure promotes tighter play and at 8 handed the most optimal way to generate max profit is an exploitive style. No money can be made playing abc ranges, especially with no rb. Many of the fish and regs are tight so it’s more profitable building dynamics than simply sharing rake contributions (in which they get back a proportion). Since I bust 30 perc or more first 50 perc of game, I have to continually deal with unrealised returns, my money is dead money, money which would normally be returned by recreationals in the same session(if I am backed normally)
- chopping only on mondays, potentially affects profits. Since I can become scared money towards the end of week if I really need the profit chop, clearly there could be ways around this, except no open discussion. (this is one of the more trivial issues ftr)

Positive addictions backer has implemented
- initially paid small amounts to me in decent profit weeks still in makeup
- offered to chop positive weeks in mu, 50% to mu other 50 perc chopped, as backer is aware of particular circumstances.
- backer extended my play to holdem and 5 card omaha

Summary

Any competent player or investor would understand these simple facts
- giving an elite player the ability to always stay in the game is an objectively positive investment decision.
- restricting the player who knowingly understands their own profits are diminished , potentially affecting their performance.
- the backer, backs other players, works full time and owns/co owns the club, therefore my concerns are of lesser concern.
- other players who make minimal contributions to the club, other regs are getting up to 40 perc rb and admin/house are likely getting between 40-100 perc rb.
- backer facilitated a game change that actually increased other regs profitability. And finished mine!
- if on my own cash I have been offered a fair rake back amount. Why isnÂ’t what I would be offered solo, not what is included in the backing arrangement?
- the sessions where other players willingly finsihsed the game head up, I am 10-15/10-15 in profit HU. and my profit is currently mainly made 6 handed or less. as short handed, the ranges are less devined, and varience is lower.
- five card high low is the highest raked game and rake back is obviously imperative at 7 perc rake

Questions for feedback

Is there a clear conflict of interest? Therefore potentially affecting all aspects of my deal?

Are my profits greatly diminished by capping my investment nightly at 130bb?

Should my rb be generally determined by how much rake I generate compared to my output?

Is it not clear that by allowing me to receive at minimum (what the highest rake back player receives) , and allowing me uncapped with buy-ins, both going to allow the game to go on longer on average (increasing clubs average nightly rb) and increasing my average nightly profits?

And the rake that I should already be receiving, would likely be covered by simply allowing me to put in more volume. Usually backers are concerned with output, here output is of low priority, it would appear.
Therefore paying me my fair share of rake back and allowing me to play maximum volume wouldn't affect the clubs returns and my backer gains more weekly profit from me.

What are clear solutions? And what are plausible additoional solutions?

* please note I am in x amount of Make up and this thread is not designed as a 'get out' card. I need to be in these games and as many others as possible. Long term the backer is an asset to me. However, like anything lines need to be drawn.

Yes you and your backer have different objectives given that the backer by your description is also the house. But why do you seem to feel that is against you? The house will always try to maximize their profit over your profit but in this case the house has less incentive to turn the game into a pure rakefest as opposed to a game where good enough players can win.

Yes both your profits and losses are effected by capping how much you can buy at one time. Given your current position(being in makeup) your backer correctly cares more about limiting the potential loss.

You agreed to the deal with no rakeback. How do you think it benefits your backer do give you any? If that was a deal breaker you should have said no to begin with rather than believe your backer would willingly modify the deal against their interest.

Since you are currently losing no it is neither true or obvious that giving you more money is +ev for your backer. Despite your belief if you go on a losing streak or get hit by a car tomorrow they NEVER get repaid your makeup.

Your "fair" share of rakeback is the share you agreed to when you made the deal. Unless they used force to make you accept the deal; and being unwilling to give you any deal unless you agreed to these terms is not force, you willing accepted that you felt the deal was at least fair to you as they willingly accepted this deal is at least fair to them.

Clear solution is to get out of makeup and renegotiate/end the deal. They have no incentive to renegotiate to make the deal more favorable to you at their expense.

Look at your "My Initial Thoughts". If your first two were deal breakers don't make the deal. Look at the third point and realize you are in makeup not currently a winning player.

Your focus appears to be on what I accepted and not what is in the interest of the horses profit.
Whilst I agree with the sentiments of ‘what I accepted’, you have also ignored (for example) how a change that occurred to the game structure directly effected my average profit rate. And this implementation was not orchestrated to benefit me, just the fish.

The entire point of having a laying history to get staked is to prove beyond reasonable doubt your skill level. I have a sample of 100s of thousand of hands with consistent win rates.
Even the data from my sample clearly illustrates it’s extremely neg ev to restrict the number of times me playing short handed. Wouldn’t a backer who has a direct vested interest in maximising my profit analyse the data? Ie see that 12/12 give or take, times I finish the game off I clean up?

I would also argue the cap has nothing to do with reducing my losses but everything to do with helping start the game, and controlling short term losses in a way the focus is not on maximising horses returns but to maximise passive income.

He claims being down over five months is varience. Yes some of it is, the other is a set up which opposes where max skill level can be applied. Do you think pros are playing Omaha high five card 8 handed, unless there are massive whales?

Whilst the house does not want a rake fest, this does not mean the house doesn’t know how to apply long term strategies to sustain a game. Games are sustained by two methods. Incentivising players comparatively to other clubs, advertising, finding players which are good for action that are consistently in the game.

Quote from a very established pro

“yes clear conflict of interest. the backer is trying to do two things here. 1) run a club with the greediest rake i have ever seen on an app. 7%, 3.5bb cap is egregious and it's doubly worse in hi/lo. 2) run a stable. this is ultimately to serve the objective of 1, rather than ran as a priority or in parity.

yes it affects the deal. for me as a backer and a horse, having incentives aligned was always a priority. all rakeback to the stake etc.

as ****ed up as it is, i think you would be making more $ if you took 45/55 or even 40/60 and received generous rakeback (40% at least by the sounds of it). run some calculations of various scenarios. remember that hi/lo rake should be capped at 2bb at most.

what is fair is subjective. it's ultimately a free market with two consenting participants. if you can find a better deal you should take one if permitted/an arrangement can be agreed

question 2 regarding capping nightly investment at 130bb is related to 1 and the backer's conflict of interest/attempts to do 2 things. he wants the game to run and wants to rake the max while losing the least at backing.

as far as he can see it, he is giving you a shot that you might otherwise not have. obviously as long time pros we can see how it's absurd and a troublesome conflict of interest

question 3 again relates back to the previous 2. should you incentivise a player to start games and keep them going? absolutely. if you're grinding tough lineups, the threshold for which you will be profitable is determined by your rakeback. if you're getting 80% rakeback you can probably battle any lineup in the club. 0% and you will need at least a whale and a fish full ring. and even that isn't going to lead to a big winrate. my advice here is to NOT PLAY in shitty games from now on. you can tell the backer why and what your threshold would need to be for you to sit back in

4) in my backing arrangements i am of course allowed to fire max at soft lineups. unfortunately the backer cares more for the state of the club, one where he wins regardless, than he does for the stable. where any one horse getting buried could lead to an overall loss

my solution would be to cede some ground on the profit split. his language is profit and his profit comes from the club. if you could get 40/60 profit with 40% rakeback, he would only be giving 20% of the rakeback (0% until you are clear of course). set a profit goal to move back up to 45% and eventually 50%, while maintaining good rakeback. this will allow incentives to be aligned somewhat in the right direction, allow you to benefit from starting and continuing a very rake intensive game and down the line, directly allow you to prove your worth as both a grinder (rake to club) and winner (profit to stake)

Yes my focus is on that you agreed to the deal and seem now to have buyers remorse and wish a different deal that is better for you but clearly worse for them in their opinion as if they thought it was better for them they would willingly change it. Why would any intelligent backer trade a guaranteed income(a portion of rakeback) for a potential income(greater share of your profits) when based on your history in this game they would lose money by doing so. BTW they did NOT change the game to benefit the fish; they changed it so the house gets a bigger share long term of the fishes losses. You seem to understand you want a bigger share so why do you find it surprising they want the same. And in case you haven't figured it out YOU are a fish to them; not in the game of poker but in the game of making deals. They gave you what should have been deal breakers that you even acknowledged you saw but made the deal anyway. You have even let them unilaterally change the deal in their favor by changing the game and not IMMEDIATELY objecting that was not the game you agreed to play so the whole deal needed to be renegotiated.

yeah i get you, I got some compromise with amount of buy (allowed) in once I clear a bit more MU, so ill take it. When i get in the green ill look to play with another backerr or my own cash and get rb then... life goes on.. appreciate ur input

What are you making per hour? If below minimum wage as I expect you need to do something. You are required to play 4 sessions a week but is there a specified amount of time per session? If not play 4 half hour sessions a week and when they ask why tell them you have figured out that this deal is not good for you so while you will honor it and play until out of makeup you don't intend to go beyond the requirements to benefit them but not you. In a harsher variation play total OMC/nut peddler so you don't help pump the rake and make it clear when asked why you are doing it. You need to honor the deal but you don't need to be a patsy for them

Most likely they’re investing with you to keep the games going and the rake adding up.

Given the structure they probably want you to just break even or be a slight winner or loser.

They don’t even want you to beat the games because then the recs will be knocked out and unable to rake.

OP if you’re a winning player then why are you taking this terrible deal at a high rake site? That rake is going to make the games somewhat unbeatable.

If you drop the backer and play with your own cash it’s very likely you could get rb.