Why would him having won in past matter. What if they made a stake before he was up 50K and quit took a break came back made same deal went on 9400 down swing. I would like to see a difference in what I said and why you think he would be allowed to quit in this scenario with no makeup owed.

Just to be clear I don't think the makeup is owed regardless. The reason the staker gets half the profit is because he risks all the losses.
I just don't think they're in makeup here.

Okay you should stop posting here then seriously. You clearly have never staked anyone or been stakes in a real long term deal ( maybe you have been staked for your $100 home game) but you are just outright wrong.

There is a difference. If you have ongoing staking deal, once the stake is up on money, then the losses on that point are also 50-50. Example horse wins 10k, they cashout 5k to both, and now horse loses 10k. So the stake is +-0 total, so the horse needs to give back the 5k he won previously, it cant be that horse is now up 5k and staker is down 5k.

If you finish a stake and both agree that the staking agreement is done, and then later start a new staking deal, then its clearly a different scenario that starts from 0.

This is how staking works. The horse is now in 5k makeup with the backer down some money and the horse up 5k but has to grind his makeup back. If the horse tries to quit in makeup then the deal/contract that was agreed should stipulate a penalty/how much is owed back to the backer. If nothing is agreed then its down to the two parties to work something out. I believe the horse paying 50% of his makeup is fair considering the horse is the one who wants to end the deal when he could still play on and grind the makeup back.

No, reread OP. The horse was insta cashing out profits.

I guess since Yenomez is throwing a hissy fit it's safe to assume he's the staker? Calm down buddy it's a discussion forum.

If they agreed he could cashout any time he was in profit then it doesn't matter if the horse was insta-cashing out money or did it all at the end. The backer should really consider adding any future agreement a clause regarding quitting in makeup/ending the staking deal early and maybe limiting his horses cashing out x amount of times a month with the provision that if the horse wants to cashout more than is allowed and has a good reason why then the backer will be reasonable about it.

No, I just understand how staking works.

He can't win 50K cash out split it. Then lose 10K of backers money and say okay I'm quitting poker and won't pay you anything r lol.

well he can do that IF and only if he is genuinely quitting poker and the agreement they signed doesn't stipulate what happens if a horse wants to quit in makeup. Some horses wouldn't think that was fair and would offer to pay back a portion of the makeup, some wouldn't care. If the agreement doesn't cover the situation then that is the backers fault.

Yenomez, it sounds like you have only dealt with selling action before. That is not the same as staking. The whole point of being backed is so you can't lose any of your own money.

I have 5+ horses who I stake and I'm am staked with regular makeup deal for 2+ years. Obviously that is the point but the horse doesn't get to take advantage of the staker because they didn't stipulate something like that when the Staker let him cash out profits @ any time. Random accusations saying I'm the one buying this action or have only made selling deals are so hilarious because you can't even get your point across without trying to make me look small in some way.

Technically u could say he owes nothing. That's obviously not the case anyone who isn't complete scum would understand he does.

let's say they win 20k and the horse cashes out his 10k. then they lose 3k. so the horse is up 10k and the staker is up 7k. how is that fair? and how is this new 59%/41% deal anywhere near as equitable as the 50/50 split they made when creating the deal? why is the horse unilaterally able to alter the terms of their arrangement so that they are more favourable to themself, simply because they have been losing? the horse being able to access their profits early is a convenience and certainly not one that the staker should be punished for allowing.

The horse isn't changing the terms agreement as the horse has decided to quit poker forever. He hasn't decided he doesn't want to grind the makeup back and go solo/get another backing agreement instead.

But in my example (and in the OP) the horse is changing the agreement, unilaterally, in his favour, from a 50/50 split to a 60/40 split.

I don't think that is the case. If the horse decided he was quitting poker soon before he did his last split and then played on, the backer might be getting freerolled. If the backer is able to provide evidence than that there were signs that may have been the case then I'd suggest the horse owes the backer between 50%-100% of makeup. I'm not sure what would be fair.

If the horse was going to see out the deal but circumstances arouse where he it would be costly for him to continue (inc non-monetary costs such as stress, health issues), then that is unfortunate for both parties but the horse can quit in makeup and he doesnt owe the backer anything unless their agreement says otherwise. I personally would think a person with good morals would offer to pay back 50% of the makeup as compensation.

Simple soultion: Next time include something in an agreement that covers quitting in makeup.

this and this

if it's not a specified time frame then previous cuts have no relevance, arguments such as "you cashed out x, he cashed out only y" have no relevance.

if time frame is not specified (very common) generally horse can leave anytime not in make up. horse can leave if really quitting poker, and as said above if he comes back the backer has the right to take action up until the make up is accrued.

that being said often horse/backer if are on good terms will make some sort of compromise. paying anything close to 100% is just absurd, backing is supposed to have risks it is not just a glorified loan


i can see why you might think like this but it just is not how staking works. consider this, after the 20k split, why would the horse stay with this backer when he would have to repay some of the 3k loss with this current backer, but could instead get a new deal where this 'history' doesn't exist?

it is not a 'convenience' to cash out profits early (unless specified in specific deals). this is extremely common in not just mtts as rubenrtv said but in other formats too.

even paying back half would be very unfair, then the backer is effectively buying half your action at face value. (you win, he gets half, you lose he loses half)

I have a lot of experience backing and the best solution in these cases is to meet in the middle and pay back half and you should quit poker. Pretty much what cts said. You should agree a monthly repayment plan than you can afford even if this spans a couple of years

Doesn't this mean that every single time you cashed out you started a new staking deal?

I do not see how there should be any issue here. You owe nothing.

I am honestly mindblown that people actually think you owe money.

If I get staked four times for 200k hands each time. 75/25 my favour.

I win 20K the first time, 20K 2nd time, 20K 3rd time. 75% through our fourth staking deal after being down $20,000, I decide to quit poker for good.

There are people here who actually think I should owe my backer anything in this situation? I mean really? How can anyone ever think that is reasonable.



What you wrote up here is spot on. Expecting you pay is crazy to me.

Bolded is how I interpret the contract and unless he stated otherwise that's how everybody should. Each time you cashed out it was the start of a new staking deal and he was entitled to whatever profit split you guys agreed upon while assuming all the risk.

wise words mr CTS south

Makeup is not worth 100 cents on the dollar for the following reason:

Assume that a player is 10K in makeup on a 50/50 deal and their backer wants to sell the makeup to someone else, if the two parties come to terms the player would continue the backing deal under someone else while still in 10K makeup. If the new backer had bought the 10K makeup at $1:$1 he would start off 10K in the hole, when (if) the horse does end up clearing the 10K he is at +$0 as he only clears what he had to pay to buy the makeup. If the horse had started playing for him without having to buy his old makeup first, he would be +5K and the horse would be +5K as well. This means that to anyone else but the original backer makeup is only worth its amount multiplied by the cut of profits they will receive. OP mentions that he was playing on an 80/20 deal, which means the maximum his 9400€ makeup could be worth to someone else is €1880 unless they are willing to take less than fair trade and pay more for whatever reason. The maximum rate is calculated based on the assumption that it is 100% guaranteed to be cleared, if we assumed the chances the horse would clear the makeup in this case to only be 20% you would take 9400€ (makeup) * 20% (backers cut) * 20%(probability of it clearing), which in this case would be €376.

Also I would say that 12 months is a very small amount of time for makeup to be forgiven, particularly when the reason for it not being cleared is that someone has stated that they are quitting poker. I think OP's backer should have the right of first refusal to his action for at least 3 years, though the length of time doesnt really matter if he never starts playing again. Btw, staking is not a loan and makeup is not a debt, but if OP has qualms about "quitting" while in makeup, he should buyout of his staking deal for some amount up to €1880, which would make meeting in the middle 940€, but he actually owes 0€.

Well, you basically were scamming your backer the whole way with the way the deal was set up (cashing every time once you are up with 80/20 in your favor, really?) so you can continue with the flow and scum him for another 9400€.

what are you talking about? If the horse is trustworthy and a winning player then no one was being scammed here.

obviously you owe nothing.


do ppl actually think u owe money if there would be no profit cuts and u went 9400 in mu straightaway?
I assume not.

then comes the following logic:
stakee+horse both agreed to take profit cuts.
that gave the stakee more cash on hand , thats good for him as well.
He wasnt forced to take big profit cuts.He choose to do so.
you both could have just let the 53k or whatever you won in ur poker accounts and after a 9400 downswing u both could have ended the deal there if u felt games were unbeatable. ( at + 43600 )

But the stakee agreed on taking profit cuts.
This is the downside.

Another point, if u were aware or obvious that you would owe make up,
the deal would be insta terrible for both stakee+horse since you would have been forced to play lower and scared money/ less optimal moneywise.
The whole point is to get you to play max ev with a staking deal.

Do I really need to explain it?

Of course it is not a scam in a legal sense, but is it remotely ethical to offer your buddy (and the backer is almost surely a buddy of OP, since no experienced backer would agree to such terms) a deal in which a stakee would be hugely +ev even if he is a -10bb/100 loser?

Is it not scammy to bet against your buddy on a sport event that you know is already finished and you know the result of the match? What about convincing him to back you into Super-Tuesday with 4.5 mark-up? Seriously?