Quote:
Originally Posted by woohoo12
I never said he cannot, but it does say that he cannot play for his money before asking me. He didn't have any money above stake funds in his account as he has cashed them out as soon as he had enough fpps, and has not made a deposit while playing for me.
Have you received an audit to confirm this? If he should have say $300 of stake funds and that's all he had in there and then registered a $3 spin...he's playing off stake, floating your funds, whatever you want to call it.
So he's playing off stake/floating your funds
Did not ask to play an off stake game which is outlined in your agreement
Is getting loans from you to pay his bills
Like someone above me said, on paper clearly he's in the wrong and should be giving you all of this money. In reality, if you ask for all of it, you're never going to hear from him again imo (unless he's more reasonable than I'm picturing in my head). I would tell him he can keep $1k, he needs to send you the rest and you're going to part ways (or keep him if you want if you think he's a good backee and you want to work with him). But he needs to show good faith, send back a bunch of money and proceed from there.
If he were to agree to that, I would be inclined to keep him and then tighten up our agreement. Outline what happens if the agreement is broken, state nothing is to be played off-stake in any format on any site while loans are being given.
If he does not agree to that, then you're going to be forced to cut him and post in negative feedback and just try to do the little you can to provide pressure.
---------------------------------
I think for those unfamiliar with staking it will seem a bit off that when someone plays a $3 game off stake and binks $9k, the staker should get the entire amount.
A few thoughts come to mind:
The backee is given let's say $300 of our cash to play specific tournaments. He then is taking our cash and doing something else with it.
If the backee had bricked the $3 tournament, what would have happened? Either the backer would have paid for it because he never would have found out...or the backee would deposit for it.
It's easy to think, well if he's going to deposit for the $3 tournament then he should keep the winnings. Well what if it was a $1k? Surely if that's the case, everyone on earth, even Dan Colman should be backed and simply "borrow" funds. That way he has more liquidity and never has to immediately risk his own money. His money can be invested in a business or the market while he uses the backers funds and simply repays when he feels like it.
The backer is in an awful position. If the backee loses, he has to just sit and hope that he gets repaid. If the backee wins, he gets nothing. It's just a ridiculous position to be in. It's basically a 0% interest loan with no recourse if it doesn't work out.....CRAZY! Some might call this a freeroll.
This is why no backer on earth (that i know of) allows floating, no matter how small the amount.
One last reason this can't be allowed is this specific backer even stated he would not stake him for spins, let alone while asking for loans. So he's now having his funds used for a game he does not want to invest in. Another human being is investing his money in a way he doesn't want it invested. There's no way to view that as okay. Just because he won, doesn't mean everything is okay and we just split the money. That gives too much incentive to float in the future when backers handle it like that.