Horse Loses Backers Money, Wins Later with His Own

[TomBrooklyn]

Say a successful money player makes it known he has more money than time and he is looking for some recognized successful players who are having bankroll trouble to invest in. He says he remembers what it's like to need a bankroll, and his vig will be a stiff 50% of the winnings, but the good news is that you don't pay if you don't win, so it's a freeroll. He also specifies that the horse may end the arrangement anytime by returning the stake. The parties involved seem to only anticipate winning. The issue that all the money might be lost does not seem to be specifically addressed.

A certain player takes him up on it for a thousand dollars. This is a good player with a winning track record, however, he hits a bad streak and loses all the money in four days. He tells the backer that he lost all the money. The backer shrugs it off and says simply: "That's pool".

The player takes a week off, then starts playing on his own money and doing well. A month later the backer finds out the player has made a considerable sum of money. He asks for his cut.

The player says "Whoa, I thought the arrangement ended when I lost all the money." By way of explaining how he was able to start playing a week later, he says he has his own money, but he plays scared with it and that's why he liked the backing arrangement and took it up.

Should the backer get a cut? Does the player owe anything?

[nAz]

"The parties involved seem to only anticipate winning. The issue that all the money might be lost does not seem to be specifically addressed."
I think once the original stake was lost the "partnership" was over with, any money the player made with his own should be kept by him.

"He also specifies that the horse may end the arrangement anytime by returning the stake"
I would return half of the money I won while on my own or maybe half of the original sum that was lost, it would seem the fair thing to do... then again im not a scumbag.

[One]

The player doesn't owe anything because it was his own money.

BUT the player could have easily hustled with the backer's money and won them back later, if that is the case he should owe the backer 50%.