Stop loss issue, vote.

You are splitting profits two ways, you have a 5k stop loss, you lose 11k.


Poll: Result of going over stop loss
(Vote): Pay everything over stop loss
(Vote): Split everything over stop loss

pay everything over stoploss no question

I'd say on the hook for anything over 5k unless there were extenuating circumstances. Such as running bad in an unusually good game with a drunk spewing fish or something and you tried to call backer but couldn't get a hold of him and you know he would want you to/be ok with you playing on because the value is so good. I think this one depends on how much trust you have with your backer and are you guys friends.

If the guy was tilted just running up extra losses obv he should pay

Also I think the relative stakes matter. If you usually play 5/10 with a 5k stop loss but chase a whale to 25/50 and lose one buyin; if your backer is averse to the risk and would be ok with it but again you just can't get a hold of him I think it would be ok.

^ if its ur normal stakes then pay back. u broke the agreement, he was only in for the amount u agreed for that sesh

And despite everything I am saying ultimately it would be up to the backer. Technically no matter what you broke the terms of your staking agreement and he can if he wants hold you liable.

On February 21 2015 04:46 PoorUser wrote: pay everything over stoploss no question

I agree with paying back, but remember all what this means, if after losing 5k he would won money, the money should be only his, not the backer - as we suggest here that after losing 5k he played with his own money.

^ you back someone because you expect them to win. They should be more likely to win 5k than lose 5k by far, so no.

On February 21 2015 12:23 MadeInPolanD wrote: I agree with paying back, but remember all what this means, if after losing 5k he would won money, the money should be only his, not the backer - as we suggest here that after losing 5k he played with his own money.

No, then he would have to prove he was over his stoploss but then he could play with filters to mess up with this, in general just brings up huge problems.

You are being backed with a stoploss, if you dont want to stop after 5k then dont take the freaking stake

just out of curiosity, what was the argument for splitting the losses? lols. why even have a stop loss in the first place then. your getting played.

Exactly. The guy was arguing that a stop loss is just a guideline or whatever... and its still a 50/50 split because he is sharing equity. And that the terms of the stop loss were not defined.... Imo they are self-defined, a stop loss has only one purpose, to save those who created it money.

sounds like u should not stop til u get ur $ then end ur deal with him

On February 21 2015 07:54 AndrewSong wrote: Show nested quote + On February 21 2015 04:46 PoorUser wrote: pay everything over stoploss no question

and probly get rid of this dude who would go over the stop loss or ever even consider arguing otherwise

I highly doubt I was the only one who thought of Neilly when reading this

Maybe I'm being too much of a contrarian but I voted split. I absolutely agree with and understand with all the reasoning for having a binding stop loss, where a player is on the hook themselves for whatever they lose after a certain amount, but what it comes down to is that "stop-loss" wasn't clearly defined that way before the agreement. Normally when you stake someone the stop-loss is simply the amount you're staking them so the issue never comes up. When you set one for yourself, obviously it is just a general guideline. As far as I can tell, a stop loss isn't actually a thing in staking agreements, so IMO it should be on the backer to clearly define the terms.

I insta voted for pay. But if penalties are not explicitly written about what happens when someone goes over the quota, then we are in a grey area here. If you invest money in someone who has poor self control and they happen to lose control and lose your money, whose fault is it? The honorable thing to do is to pay back, but there is no obligation to do so, especially given that the original agreement was so broad.

Also with regards to stop loss, what if he just ran like shit vs a huge whale while taking a stab at a higher level versus just tilting in a table full of regs, does it make a difference?

LoL at suggesting that when you mess up someone elses should pay for your mistakes.

Stop loss is clear at 5,000$. You didn't like it - you should negotiate some additional rules, otherwise its clear who broke the rules.

On February 21 2015 14:06 FrinkX wrote: sounds like u should not stop til u get ur $ then end ur deal with him

honestly the ppl i work with we split if that happens but if im working with someone thats only in it for the business and not someone im friends with then it gets paid back in full. (talkin bout live shots here i dont normally play higher than 2/5/5 live) instahit pay everything as well.

after reading this i agree whole heatedly to Frinkx tbh his points hit home well.

lol, the word inherently should answer this poll for itself. stop loss implies that you stop when losses reach that point.

what if you are down 4k for the day and you have a stack with 2k. lose an all in so you are now down 6k

On February 22 2015 12:13 julep wrote: what if you are down 4k for the day and you have a stack with 2k. lose an all in so you are now down 6k

clear point of over extending your bankroll/stake. Evidence of a moron and i would cut them off for good

is it safe to assume that someone who wants to be staked for such small amounts of money is likely not very good at poker? and what happened is evidence of that person also being a degen with poor self control?

if so, the person being backed should just pay nothing and run away with whatever money the backer gave him to play with. it's reasonable to assume he isn't going to be able to find too many people other than op foolish enough to back him, so preserving reputation has little value at this point.

if it makes op feel better, I also backed a couple of people that in hindsight were absolutely idiotic decisions and I may as well have lit the money on fire. live and learn.

I'm curious as to the context. I mean I don't know what game you guys are imagining, but losing 5k at say 5/10 and then deciding to play on isn't a total lack of self control or anything its just a normal bad day.

most of it was lost at 2/4

On February 22 2015 15:45 NMcNasty wrote: I'm curious as to the context. I mean I don't know what game you guys are imagining, but losing 5k at say 5/10 and then deciding to play on isn't a total lack of self control or anything its just a normal bad day.

wtf

Let's talk about pineapples and gravy while we're at it.

On February 22 2015 22:52 DaEm0niCuS wrote: most of it was lost at 2/4

Most... so some was even higher than that or lower?

However, in general I think the agreement is clear. If you lose more than 5k you're at that point losing on your own dime. I don't know why they'd expect you to cover loses beyond that, doesn't make sense and you didn't ever explicitly agree to doing so.

I do question why an agreement for 2/4 would only be 5K though. Seems like a very small prone to variance swingy amount. Unless you're targetting a specific whale on a deep table or something.

On February 23 2015 01:19 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On February 22 2015 22:52 DaEm0niCuS wrote: most of it was lost at 2/4 Most... so some was even higher than that or lower? However, in general I think the agreement is clear. If you lose more than 5k you're at that point losing on your own dime. I don't know why they'd expect you to cover loses beyond that, doesn't make sense and you didn't ever explicitly agree to doing so. I do question why an agreement for 2/4 would only be 5K though. Seems like a very small prone to variance swingy amount. Unless you're targetting a specific whale on a deep table or something.

-12.5 buyin is extremely generous. 5buyin stoploss is pretty standard for midstakes backing

Andrew I guess ya learn something new every day! I guess it makes sense if it's like a one day profit-sharing agreement. I think my brain has been warped by PLO to think 12.5 buy-ins is the equivalent hold'em swing of like... 3 haha.

On February 23 2015 02:49 AndrewSong wrote: Show nested quote + On February 23 2015 01:19 Bejamin1 wrote:   On February 22 2015 22:52 DaEm0niCuS wrote: most of it was lost at 2/4 Most... so some was even higher than that or lower? However, in general I think the agreement is clear. If you lose more than 5k you're at that point losing on your own dime. I don't know why they'd expect you to cover loses beyond that, doesn't make sense and you didn't ever explicitly agree to doing so. I do question why an agreement for 2/4 would only be 5K though. Seems like a very small prone to variance swingy amount. Unless you're targetting a specific whale on a deep table or something. -12.5 buyin is extremely generous. 5buyin stoploss is pretty standard for midstakes backing

I don't understand this? You could easily swing 30 BI while playing really well.

If you swing 30 bi while playing really well, you're in the wrong games or you're not actually playing that well.

On February 23 2015 14:11 DaEm0niCuS wrote: If you swing 30 bi while playing really well, you're in the wrong games or you're not actually playing that well.

I mainly play zoom and huge downswings are frequent to almost everyone, perhaps normal tables or live poker are much different than that?

Yeah, I agree with Daemon. Although I've never had a large database of zoom - but if you lose 30 buyins at nlhe 6max, you're probably playing semi-tilted and not even realising it.

I'm surprised at the amount of ppl that play zoom only. Although you sometimes see people who spew 2-3 buyins in a hand for no reason at all. Perhaps I should add a couple zoom tables into the usual mix.

LOL u guys are delusional if you think 5 even 10 buyin swings aren't completely standard in online shorthanded games; maybe if you are a full ring nit it isn't.

I still can get behind a 5 buyin stop loss if it helps you chill for a second and play better later. Really no point to a stoploss beyond that though.

how long do you have to stop after hitting the stoploss?

I think there is grey area here but In the OPs case its pretty clear he went a little overboard if he blew through a 5k stoploss at 2/4 (was it deep ante, or just reg 6m) all the way up to almost 30 buyins. Despite my first sentence that is a ton for that game and he was almost surely spewing.

On February 23 2015 14:11 DaEm0niCuS wrote: If you swing 30 bi while playing really well, you're in the wrong games or you're not actually playing that well.

not live - unless there are extreme circumstances

Like a huge fish coming into the game buying in uber deep and straddling 2-5x the BB a lot

I mean the main problem is that the backer/investor specifically told the stakee that he has a 5k stop loss and the stakee basically ignored this agreement and also it seems failed to communicate to the investor that he was continuing to play while already at the agreed stop loss.

He should've called and said something like, "look man, I'm stuck right at the stoploss but this game is just really soft and I'm going to keep playing - do you want 50% more of the rest of my action or are you done?"

So yeah, this seems like a guy that I would not trust enough to follow an agreement nor communicate well enough to invest in

If you care about your bottom line as a backer, it's important to understand anyone you back is coming with a problem. Constant monitoring will solve most of these if skill isn't one of them. Five buyin stop loss or even a stricter rule in the start is necessary to implement because it promotes closer communication with room for you to help. If you are allowing 10+ buyin stoploss for 400NL+, that's a recipe for disaster especially in games with such small skill gap. I can assure you someone who needs backing will not be a crusher to start.

On February 23 2015 21:09 AndrewSong wrote: If you care about your bottom line as a backer, it's important to understand anyone you back is coming with a problem. Constant monitoring will solve most of these if skill isn't one of them. Five buyin stop loss or even a stricter rule in the start is necessary to implement because it promotes closer communication with room for you to help. If you are allowing 10+ buyin stoploss for 400NL+, that's a recipe for disaster especially in games with such small skill gap. I can assure you someone who needs backing will not be a crusher to start.

All the above makes sense, but I think its just more reason its on the backer to make the staking arrangements explicitly clear. I mean a 2k loss at 400NL (online) is 100% bound to happen.

On February 23 2015 22:37 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On February 23 2015 21:09 AndrewSong wrote: If you care about your bottom line as a backer, it's important to understand anyone you back is coming with a problem. Constant monitoring will solve most of these if skill isn't one of them. Five buyin stop loss or even a stricter rule in the start is necessary to implement because it promotes closer communication with room for you to help. If you are allowing 10+ buyin stoploss for 400NL+, that's a recipe for disaster especially in games with such small skill gap. I can assure you someone who needs backing will not be a crusher to start. All the above makes sense, but I think its just more reason its on the backer to make the staking arrangements explicitly clear. I mean a 2k loss at 400NL (online) is 100% bound to happen.

and I assumed the OP was talking about a live stake

online this is a little bit different and trickier but what I posted earlier still holds true I think

if it's one time live staking, title says it all. stop loss = STOP

why is this thread so fucking long seriously, when somebody breaks the term of the stake he should pay

On February 24 2015 00:07 AndrewSong wrote: if it's one time live staking, title says it all. stop loss = STOP

Agreed, I just didn't think it was since its 2/4 (not 2/5) and at least an 11k stake.

On February 24 2015 04:03 Baalim wrote: why is this thread so fucking long seriously, when somebody breaks the term of the stake he should pay

On February 24 2015 00:07 AndrewSong wrote: if it's one time live staking, title says it all. stop loss = STOP

If it is a one time live stake this is obvious. Backer has little chance of getting unstuck in one session but a dam good chance to lose more.

If the stakee is on a long term deal and goes into makeup blowing the stop loss is not as bad because at least the stakee wil be on the hook for the money afterwards

Can't say everyone getting stakes has problems because while true for most even players like LivB take incredibly favorable stakes to grind stress free at the top.