Quote:
Originally Posted by Collin Moshman
Suppose that regardless of what's in the contract, the horse can claim he's quitting poker and automatically get out of further obligation. I think this is problematic for a few reasons.
Both Moshman and Jak made some excellent points on either side. While I do agree with Collin that a horse can simply claim to quit poker and it can be difficult to verify if they actually quit, I don't think that's reason enough to require them to pay back a stake.
Remember, a stake is supposed to offer the horse an opportunity to play in games he otherwise couldn't afford and the backer gets a significant cut of the winnings due to the inherent risk of the horse not making money in the games. If that inherent risk is removed, I'm not sure why a horse would ever agree to such terms when they'd be surely better served with a high interest, short term loan -- at least the loan shark wouldn't charge them for 50% of their winnings.
I suppose someone could argue 'Well, the horse DID agree to it. They signed a contract stating x' but if that x is unconscionable, it's not enforceable. As far as I know, the industry has always allowed the horse to quit poker while in MU and not be responsible for it. But loans during the course of the agreement should be fair game and if the horse returns, he needs to clear the remaining MU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Collin Moshman
While it probably wouldn't be common, a player legitimately intending to quit could freeroll on a final stake. (Take profits while it's going well, and then truthfully say they're quitting at the first big downswing.)
Sure, that's possible -- if they quit poker altogether. But under Pocarr's current arrangement, aren't they the ones freerolling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Collin Moshman
To clarify, I'm not saying that stakers should always demand full makeup from players who quit. I would always try my best to come to an amicable compromise with a player who talked their situation over with me. But players shouldn't believe they can say three words, “I quit poker,” and automatically be clear of any further obligation.
I haven't fully thought this through, but it seems the most equitable thing to do is find the midpoint that makes the deal equally profitable for both the staker and backer, something like half of the remaining MU but of course that should be written into the contract.