Wanted to get a general idea from people about travel expenses in a live backing deal, and how others work it out.

My friend began a live backing deal 3-4 years ago, it was pretty loose agreements, the backer would put up 100% of buy ins and a split amount was agreed upon, makeup would be running, and rules kind of went along as it came up.

-the horse always paid for their hotels, and travel and never really considered it.
-overtime the horses Live tourny volume has decreased/halted because she needs to consider her own personal immediate finances first and plays online on her own money
-their deal has a sizeable makeup number that has been stagnant because no tournys are being played (overall the backer is ahead on deal)
-the horse hasn't put in any volume over last 1-2 years because it isn't immediately worth it to pay their own travel expenses, while being in so much makeup, even a decent bink could yield them a losing trip with expenses
-horse asked backer to include expenses into the deal and add it to makeup, but the backer declined.

ideas for this deal to get back in action? Are travel expenses generally included in makeup in a long term deal like this?

I don't know what's typical, but this is why they wanted to spell out such details in advance. At this point, as you've laid out, it makes no financial sense for the horse to travel to play for this backer. But unless the backer is willing to pay expenses, it's not like the backer can force the horse to travel. I suspect they are stuck at this impasse unless the horse binks something big enough on the low volume he is playing to get out of make-up, or the backer comes around to the idea of paying expenses, or they agree to full part ways.

The hard part is going to be when the player finds another backer who wants to pay both buyins and expenses. Now, if the horse plays under the new backer, the old backer will feel cheated.

Maybe they need to find a common friend who is in this world, or a neutral party they both trust, and arbitrate a new deal that covers this issue (and any others pending)?

Best wishes, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

if both parties don't want to alter the original agreement then you can't alter the original agreement (expenses were always covered by horse in the past so even if it wasn't explicitly agreed upon it was the previous arrangement. What is normal in the community is completely irrelevant (usually they're not covered from all arrangements I made but maybe some people are more generous.) I don't know why a backer would want to continue to have a horse with so much makeup on his books. Seems best for both parties to make a deal of some kind but if I was the backer I would not agree to pay for expenses without some other reason (maybe agree on a fixed volume in exchange for the expenses being covered or something else that benefits him in exchange like able to back cash games or online games he chooses til the makeups gone.)

If the backer is not willing to budge on this he probably thinks the players edge is not enough to justify paying for this... in which case there probably will never be a resolution except on the old terms.

On a side note I would be extremely upset if a player I had backed live decided to switch solely to online once they went in deep makeup. If they were playing both before the stake began I would understand (probably would have laid out some rules but they didn't in this arrangement) but if they switched after the agreement was made and when they went into makeup I would demand my makeup or the backing to extend to that domain as well.

I agree 100% with Greg's analysis. The only way out is to try and re-work a deal (this time with no "loose agreements" or rules made up along the way). As it stands, its obviously lose-lose, since the backer has virtually no chance of recouping their investment and the horse's hands are tied and their financial health at risk.

Without judging the predicament the horse has found herself in, this is a good example of why backing deals are often not nearly as good as they seem. This link has a pretty honest analysis of the pros and cons of these...

https://www.upswingpoker.com/staking...-stake-makeup/

Time to arbitrate a buy out and both parties go their separate ways.

you could do this:

The tournament entry fee is $10,000. $5,000 of the buyin is put on the original make-up deal (no expenses paid as per original deal). The horse than sells the other 50% of the tournament entry fee and charges a mark up. the horse sells the full 50%, and keeps the mark up to pay some of the expenses. (you should def disclose this when selling though, as some people not want to be apart of this deal cause the horse has a "freeroll"). the horse comes out of pocket for 0 dollars in terms of the buyin, and gets to pocket some of the mark up for expenses.

All things considered and based on the info provided in the thread, I tend to agree with the above as the best way forward.

I'm surprised a resolution to the situation hasn't already been found and agreed upon sometime ago, considering the horse has been inactive for so long and the backer is aware of why.

In regards to 'what is generally included in makeup or a deal as a whole', there is no 'one size fits all' in regards to how a deal looks and what is included. Each deal is unique and is based on the needs/requirements of those involved, which can differ greatly based on a number of factors.

Nothing really worth adding considering the answers already here but if the backer is ahead on this deal and the horse has no capital for expenses then the horse cannot be blamed for the lack of activity. I wonder if the backer and horse speak 2 different languages as I doubt that its such a difficult thing to work out unless the horse is too proud to admit to having no travel expenses capital.

This thread doesn't inspire much confidence for all the fantasists (including me)out there who dream of being a MTT globetrotter.

?

Even if the horse were to win the powerball and have all the money he needs, he still has good reasons to not travel under this deal. Why would he want to spend money on travel expenses knowing even if he has a winning trip, he will have to give all of it to the backer, and still be in make-up? The horse might have to have several winning trips before he's out of make-up, and all that time he's losing that expense money, just so he can now pay travel costs for the next trip, and hope to finally start winning money of which he gets a cut.

That's why this deal was a mistake to begin with, as are many deals. They don't cover what to do in a foreseeable situation, and now both parties are feeling screwed no matter how it gets resolved.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Agreed. I was actually going to touch on this during my previous post.

Unfortunately, this situation possibly highlights 'how not to do a deal' and perhaps a lack of experience or understanding in such matters.

Casual/loose agreements and making things up as you go along, are more often than not a recipe for disaster in some shape or form and the likely hood problems would arise at some point along the way we're extremely high.

Unfortunately, I think some costly lessons will be learn't from this situation when it doe's reach it's conclusion.

True. You are correct. Perhaps I said what I said because its because If I had the chance of a deal to play live MTTs I'd sell my soul to the devil and happily pay the travel expenses. of course its no the optimal deal though.