Name: Marcin Milde
PokerStars: marcin123

Marcin accumulated $24k makeup and decided to get a job and figure things out. We agreed upon a $500/mo repayment plan. The first date came and went and he informed us that he is considering quitting forever and cannot repay this. This is a breach of our agreement that says he will continue playing 200 games a month until makeup is cleared.

Contrary to what many in the community think, this is not acceptable. This puts players in a position to freeroll backers where they get 50% of the upside and if things go poorly they can just quit. We would never invest in a player if they could quit at any point. This is why we have agreements that both parties read over, agree upon, and sign before any funds are ever sent and any games are played.

Marcin owes us $24,043.79

Can some of you in the staking community comment on this?

I would agree it is unacceptable for a player to walk away from makeup.
If the staker wants to end the relationship and give up the right to collect on that makeup, it is his money being lost and his right to make that decision.
When a player leaves owing makeup, especially after signing a contract stating "x amount of games would be played until makeup is cleared", it really isn't any different than binking a MTT and disappearing without paying the staker his share.

Sure

Might as well just change the name from pocarr to loanshark then. Wheres the risk on the stakers end that they say justifies their 50% cut? Its been industry standard for the past 10+ years that when a horse quits poker makeup is forgiven. There is no stipulation in the contract that says if a horse leaves poker he owes the full makeup. Without this in black and white a horse has every reason to think industry standard practises are in effect.

Can't have it both ways you want every "contract" to be a no lose situation for you but cant stipulate it in writing as your contracts become servitude so you just leave a important provision out and claim its on pocarrs side for a change.

Been looking for a precident all over the internet where a horse leaves poker and owes any makeup but unsuprisingly i havent found a single one.

@upayfordinner

If your going to offer a opinion at least give some reasoning and more than 1 word with a quote.

I agree with upay4dinner

lol pocarr. if hes quitting for good then it's gg. if he comes back he owes you that MU.

pocarrs a bloody joke tho lets be honest and lol at RTinnion ofc you agree you own a stake in pocarr lol obv if hes quit poker you have 0 right to you money and its not the same as binking a mtt and rolling its no where near . how ever if he starts playing again he still has a contract with you p.s god help him poor guys who need to go to pocarr for staking poor guys

was trying to give an unbiased opinion

Agree about the industry standard. Was I wrong this entire time? I thought a horse could quit poker entirely (Not just one format, not just online, etc) and they wouldn't have to repay MU. Loans should being converted into a debt, but not the money lost at the tables.

And if the horse did return, he'd be under contract with that previous group and/or owe them the MU.

+1

Agree with the above, effectively if makeup was owed if you decided to quit poker entirely the deal should be in the 20/80 - 25/75 in horses favour effectively. When the deal is 50/50 with makeup there are going to be risks involved thats why the percentile cuts are of that magnitude.

For the majority i normally agree with Pocarrs practices in poker but sometimes they push the boundaries which i can understand from a business standpoint, but gl putting a thief site up for this one and expect a slander lawsuit to follow.

completely different imo. Guessing your a pocarr horse?? Some solid virtue signalling there mate should earn you some wicked brownie points with the bosses

And yet you want the reverse freeroll - 50% of the profit with no risk of losing. That's way too much upside without risk.

I'm sorry, but there's a reason for the community consensus. Your expectations are far out of line.

It is not quite a reverse freeroll, as a very, very small percentage of players who end up on this thread pay back anything. The quitting poker entirely thing has been debated quite a bit among backers, and some feel that still belongs here (including me) while others think it does not belong. Both sides have valid points.

Regarding the makeup owed, we generally follow the pay 50% rule (which basically makes the overall deal equal in earnings) when a player insists he is quitting poker. Realistically, a tiny fraction of those who agree ever pay anything. If a contract says full makeup is owed then that is what the contract says, and people should read and understand any contract they are signing.

Marcin signed a legally binding contract--offer, acceptance, signatures.

In said agreement, Marcin agreed to play 200 games per month while in makeup. If the agreement was breached he would owe 100% of makeup and SBR.

Why would he owe less?

The main argument I have heard is "industry standard". We intentionally do not follow what has been common and it has served us well (not even mentioning that a legal contract supersedes "industry standard" anyway).

When we first started backing, coaching was general not part of staking agreements.

This month we are giving $0.01/gm played to charity and $0.01/gm played to our highest volume guys.

We have given cash bonuses to players for extending their contracts with us.

We have a stock purchase plan within Pocarr where our highest players can get equity in our company.

I highlight the above items to illustrate that we (and most companies that stay at the top of their industry) do not follow "industry standards" and are often looking to improve in every facet. We've introduced things that no other stable does (or did) because we think it's best for our company. This has kept us ahead of the game.

Likewise there are other items we were at the forefront of. Signed contracts with offer, acceptance, signature. Requiring 100% of makeup+SBR to be repaid if the agreement wasn't met. To be able to offer high level coaching, competitions with cash prizes, cash signing bonuses--we decided that certain things needed to be put into place.

Being able to rack up makeup and have that become obsolete by quitting is ridiculous. I don't understand why that has become "industry standard" but it's not okay and something we intentionally planned for with our contracts.

We didn't care that coaching was not a standard, we wanted to offer it and felt it would improve our company. We don't care that giving money to charity is not needed/standard, we're doing it to give *something* back. We don't care that cash signing bonuses are not standard, we did it because we thought it was best for our company. And we do not care if it's currently industry standard that if you quit poker makeup evaporates--that's not part of our model.

We have many players with full-time jobs; 200 games is very doable. Further, we're flexible and when a guy has given us reason to lower that number, we have agreed. In other instances we have accepted long repayment plans.

In Marcin's case, he did not try to make 200 games work, he did not try to explain the situation and lower it to 150. He agreed to a repayment plan and then did not follow it. He stated that he owes us nothing if he quits poker. That's not acceptable, a breach of our agreement, and yes a post in 2p2 negative feedback and a website were built--as agreed upon before we ever sent him a penny.

regardless of wether marcin owes or doesnt owe (i think he doesnt but whatever) its somewhat ridiculous to "out" him in a community (industry) that follows certain guidelines (standards). if you have a binding contract with him, sue him. however his name doesn't belong in this thread unless he starts playing poker again wether it be online, live, under a different sn, on a different site etc.

Daviid pls

Why does it matter what anyone thinks if its legally binding then. You will have a cast iron case to retrieve the full sum in the courts. If your going to bandy about claims of the legality of your contracts it might be a idea to be in the right. Feel free to show a precident in any country in the world of this happening.

I do actually think horses quitting poker while in makeup deserve to be in this thread but they don't owe makeup. I have read your contracts and while you cant list every small thing that could happen a provision should be stated if a horse quits poker he owes the full amount of makeup if you want to go against what has been industry standard forever. Not like a horse quitting poker is a obscure Possibility thats never happened before is it.

If a case like this ever did see the inside of a court you may well face a counterclaim for half of the profits chopped before the agreement ended.

We give u money to gamble if u win we get half if you lose and decide you don't want to gamble anymore you owe us the full amount. Can sure see that holding up whether its signed by both parties or not.

the situation is very simple..
For example if you contract a loan and you cannot pay you will then be forced by a court of law to retain an amount of money from your salary until you will pay the full amount+plus interest.If you quit your job,then you cannot pay anymore and everything will be blocked until you will get another job.
Otherwise you cannot obligate the other to sell what he/she has on his/her name just to pay what you think you are owed

But i may be wrong..i dont know how poker is regulated

Btw: How can you explain a poker contract in a court of law?the same as loan?

and the award for the worst post in the past 24hrs goes too...
seriously?
this is almost as bad as when Stacy matuson tried to claim in that kassouf thread that she didn't have a working relationship with jack eiffel.

But this seems be a gray area... with logic both for and against the situation about someone quitting poker while in MU
I agree people should know about him.
but i think U shove I call hit it on the head

I think making him play 200 games is dangerous, he can just rofl and punt off higher and higher mu. Forcing him to continue playing is pretty dangerous I think.

It definitely does suck that he walks away from the MU and agree he should be itt to stop others staking him.

alot of people in marcibs shoes would just max lose for 2-3 months till dropped rather than pay back 25k.

It's a very sucky situation for the backer, but I guess that's part of the risk. We've always allowed people (3 times actually) to walk away but maybe that was naive of us.

This is NOT a loan.