Often times during a contract you will be expected to sacrifice when there is no following upside for you. Say a man makes a contract to pave a driveway. He collects 100% upfront. He can't simply say "oh, I'm not paving the driveway now, as there is nothing in it for me if I do". That would be a breach of contract, just as if OP refused to play because he had no prospect of being paid.

In OP's example, they have profit chopped, and there is makeup of 280 bb. He didn't say exactly what total profits were, but let's say they are 1300 bbs. This was split 650/650. and then OP lost 280. So if he stopped now the end split would be 650/270, with 650 bb for OP and 270 for his backer. Now that's hardly fair. Sure, OP already got paid, but he still has to pave the driveway.

Using an analogy with goods and tangible services like this is terrible in this spot. It's more like investing in a business. It's not guaranteed to produce a positive tangible result.

That would just make you a criminal thief. What's your point here?

1. Ask your backer what he means. I read after this one as after the next profit chopping but that's just me.

2. To the person saying horse owes 50% of makeup when horse quits, it may be standard to you, but it's not standard to everyone. Most people play on stake because they are short of money. It's possible they couldn't pay back make up If they wanted to

Every staking contract I've ever read contains that clause.
Well then they should uphold their contractual obligation and not quit while in makeup.

Can you link to or screenshot a couple of the staking contracts that you have read?

By all means, you can consult all of the people that have staking threads on 2+2 if you have some reason to doubt my words. Please be sure to let us know what you find out.

You're confused. You made a specific claim about every staking contract you have ever read. I couldn't know which ones you have read. (Without more information, I don't even know if you've read one on 2+2.)

Can you link to or screenshot a contract that you have read? That would be way easier than your proposal. I'm not even asking for every contract you have ever read, just one.

This discussion is pretty pointless. If OPs staking agreement had such a clause, he would have mentioned it or not even asked his question in the first place.

That leaves us with two conclusions: 1. OP doesn’t have a legally binding staking agreement that requires for him to pay back 50% if he quits in makeup —> which leads directly to 2. Not all staking agreements have such a clause.

Not even sure why we have a lengthy conversation about something trivial like that. No legally enforceable contract = no (legally enforceable) financial penalty for quitting in makeup.

Again. No contract can force you to keep playing and certainly not for free. If you believe a contract can make you play as the Spurs and Kahwi. And if the contract completely removes your incentive to win why would you want me playing on your money. I would just go hyper aggressive until I won as much as I wanted because I doubt you can pull it off the table. Of course the more likely outcome is your roll is gone. That or you can just accept back what currently remains. Either way after this session I am free and clear or maybe ahead.

Well, OP isn't forced to keep playing, he has a choice between continuing to play or in buying out the makeup at 50%. Often in contracts, compensation and obligations will go forth on different time tables. The fact that OP now has to work for payment he received in the past does not mean he is working for free. You might just as easily argue that after receiving the $1000 to pave the driveway, the paving guy should not have to pave the driveway "for free" and that no contract can force him to work. But both the paving guy and OP are contractually obligated to fulfill their obligations.

" I would just go hyper aggressive until I won as much as I wanted because I doubt you can pull it off the table. "

I'm not sure what you expect this statement to prove, except that you are not a good horse. Yes, at times there agency costs in staking, and a good horse is expected to minimize them, not maximize them.

I don't think theres anything wrong with the clause I have just never heard of it being used.

You're drastically misunderstanding that the backer is dropping the horse, not the horse quitting the backer

Except the backer has not quit the horse. Just because he plans to at some point in the future does not mean the horse can just preemptively quit while still in makeup with no consequences.

He dumped you
You don't owe him ****
And overall it sounds like he's up money

Yeah too bad this driveway nonsense is a horrendous analogy

Yeah nah, you dont owe anything. when i was backed online when my stake was ended i was def in makeup and didnt have to pay back anything.

The stake isn’t ended.

What are the practical and technical differences between these as said by a staker?:

• "I am ending the stake, after which you owe me makeup."
• "You owe me makeup, after which I am ending the stake."

If the contract doesn't allow for the first, then how is the second anything but semantic gymnastics to subvert the contract?

Even though the OP doesn't allege the former at all, it seems made up for the purposes of discussion, it seems obvious to me that the two are not the same.

In the former, the staker gets back what is left and the makeup can't increase, whereas in the latter the remaining stake is still at risk and the makeup amount might actually increase, and the staker can still at any time still say "the arrangement is over now, return what is left of the stake and we are even and done." Or the horse can slow down or stop playing altogether. In effect, the latter isn't saying anything causitive or actionable right now, just warning the player that if and when he clears makeup, the backer will end the arrangement.

Obviously there might be times when the backer means the same thing, but the two sentences don't convey that same meaning, to me at least.

No you’re right, I inadvertently discounted the ongoing risk to the backer due to the relatively low sum of makeup and seemingly decent ability of the OP.