Hello. I would like to receive feedback in a situation where I have doubts about the best way to solve. At this point you can not play online poker in Portugal. Let's assume that a player is funded to play mostly online and live only occasionally. During this stop the backer informs the player that can not afford to play live and think its a bad strategy to play live, or less profitable than playing online.

1. The player is in makeup
2. The player shows willingness to play live, but respond to him that there are no financial and strategic position to do so
3. The player places the possibility to get a new deal during this time, the backer says he can do it, but it has an interest in continuing with the agreement when the online poker comes back, something that nobody knows very well exactly how and when it will return, and the expected estimate is around 3/6 months to get back online and this was the period in which the player had to be stopped without income.

My question is as follows:

What is the legitimacy to break the agreement?

If the player arrange a new agreement in this period if the new backer "require" take the action online when the live poker is back, on what conditions would have to make the transition? Would have to pay something to the previous backer?

If player want to end the agreement even without a new investor will have to pay something to the backer?

Thank you for your time and for opinions.

Best regards

Artur Silva

(*not shure if this is the correct section if not pls redirect.)

Hello. I would like to receive feedback in a situation where I have doubts about the best way to solve. At this point you can not play online poker in Portugal. Let's assume that a player is funded to play mostly online and live only occasionally. During this stop the backer informs the player that can not afford to play live and think its a bad strategy to play live, or less profitable than playing online.

1. The player is in makeup
2. The player shows willingness to play live, but respond to him that there are no financial and strategic position to do so
3. The player places the possibility to get a new deal during this time, the backer says he can do it, but it has an interest in continuing with the agreement when the online poker comes back, something that nobody knows very well exactly how and when it will return, and the expected estimate is around 3/6 months to get back online and this was the period in which the player had to be stopped without income.
4. player doesnt have the possibility to stay put in this period and the other solution is to get a diferent job that could mean an end to the poker playing

My question is as follows:

What is the legitimacy to break the agreement?

If the player arrange a new agreement in this period if the new backer "require" take the online action when its back, on what conditions would have to make the transition? Would have to pay something to the previous backer?

If player want to end the agreement even without a new investor will have to pay something to the backer?

Thank you for your time and for opinions.

Best regards

Artur Silva

Pay the original backer back in full to make him whole and then do whatever you want afterward.

Pay the man his money and back yourself.

If you want to quit poker altogether then you dont pay anything back. Force majeure. Portugal has stopped online poker. Nothing you or the backer can do about that.
Not sure about the other questions. But if he isnt willing to make a backing deal for live play to continue backing you then then I cant see why you would be paying back the old backer once the new backer takes you on?

if he can't back you live how are you supposed to earn?

i remember zima saying rule no1 of backing don't run out of money

if he can't afford to back you for live as no online the deal is finished imo, sucks that no online but not ur fault

he puts you in action for live or the deal is thro

You said that the deal is that you can play live "only occasionally." So, not playing at this even clearly fits into that definition. There are no grounds for breaking the deal based on failing to uphold the agreement.

IMO it should always be the case that makeup becomes debt if the player chooses to end the arrangement when the backer is still backing. That's the point of makeup- you pay the guy back when you make money. If you choose to leave, that option is no longer available to the backer, so you owe.

The thing is i am availlable to work live. and in the past i have played for my backer live. for example i played last 2 epts barcelona along with some other local games. the questions is: its not anyones fault that we cant play online. but i cant afford to stay and do nothing untill the situation gets solved. so either way i play live or get a job and when it comes and if it comes back online im not shure if i will be ablle to get back to playing. in those scenarios whow should everyone act?

i dunno where my post went but anyway, zima who runs a massive staking stable says rule number 1 of staking don't run out of money

he can't back you for live so you have to leave and find a backer for live or pay your own buy ins.

you don't owe any money from ur live scores but if online becomes available, then revisit ur previous arrangement, he puts you back in action online, ur previous deal continues?

I think it is like that not shure. if i get online again he has got the action back. during this period im supposed to do nothing, get a job or get a new deal for live poker.

I would simply discuss with the backer and determine what % of the original deal is meant for live vs online. For example, let's say you are in 10K makeup, and your original deal was meant to be 80% online, 20% live.

I would propose that given that your backer is declining to carry on the live portion appropriately, you are released from that portion (2K makeup) and may look for a new backer without penalty.

The online portion (and associated 8K makeup) would remain the property of the staker and sit in limbo until horse can play online again, after which the deal returns for the online portion only. Horse cannot arrange any deal for potential online future play without resolving this first. If online never comes back, the staker eats the cost.

Essentially, break your stake into two different stakes: a live stake and an online stake, and the resolutions become much more clear.