Loan in staking deal help please
Staking deal works like you have balance of money and makeup in your panel.
For example 750 balance of money you have on hand of theirs.
and 1000 makeup what you need to win back to get to chopping profit.
Player decides to take 300 loan in this situation.
Players balance goes from 750 to 450. (player can request topup for playing now with 750 again, 300 is taken as loan)
Now player needs to grind out 1k makeup, after players get out of makeup and player wins 600$ with 50/50 deal, he gets 0 due to 50% going to staker and 50% going to repay loan.
In this example it seems like player pays 50% interest at end? I am confused here.
For example if 300$ loan was added to makeup he would need only clean 1.3k (makeup + loan) but in example given player need to clean 1.6k (makeup + 600 profit (300+300))
My understanding seem to be that balance would need +300 when loan is repaid for it to not be 50% interest loan.
9 Replies
Explain the terms of this "loan", who it comes from, and their relationship between them, you and the backer. Your post makes zero sense.
Sorry I will try to simplify it, staker is who loans money.
Loan from staker is given -
Instead of it being added to Makeup, it given by reducing balance of $ you have for playing from staker. (Making your playing balance lower then it actually are feeing 300$ to do whatever you want with them aka given to you as loan)
Plan is repay loan when getting in profit - let say we profit 600$, now it 300$ and 300$.
Question is more accounting issue - does loan now goes back into balance and playing balance increases by 300$ after loan is repaid?
ChatGPT basically says that balance goes back up when repaid.
Well it sounds to me like the $300 loan is a completely separate transaction to your current backing/makeup situation and as such shouldn't affect the terms of that in the slightest
Seems correct.
I think the easiest way to do it is to add the loan amount to makeup when it is taken from the bankroll.
At the point you take the loan, backer is down $300 and you are up $300.
When you win the $1600, $1000 covers makeup. $600 is profit. Backer receives this $600 - $300 covers the 'loan loss', putting him even; $300 is his share of profit.
You already have your $300 share from the loan. You are now square with 0 makeup.
Basically main question is - does player need to have total winnings of 1.3k or 1.6k from this point on to cover makeup 1k + 300 loan.
Seems correct.I think the easiest way to do it is to add the loan amount to makeup when it is taken from the bankroll.At the point you take the loan, backer is down $300 and you are up $300.When you win the $1600, $1000 covers makeup. $600 is profit. Backer receives this $600 - $300 covers the 'loan loss', putting him even; $300 is his share of profit.You already have your $300
Well it sounds to me like the $300 loan is a completely separate transaction to your current backing/makeup situation and as such shouldn't affect the terms of that in the slightest
In this SteelBreeze example player needs to win 1.6k to repay 1k makeup + 300 loan to get to square with 0 makeup. (1.6k winnings to pay off 1.3k effective outstanding balance)
However if it was simple standard loan of 300$ what added straight to makeup staker would need to send you 300$ to your bank account not effecting our playing balance at all and then you would repay 1.3k total as you grind our your bigger makeup now. (1.3k winnings to pay off effective 1.3k outstanding balance)
But in our example our balance is reduced making it effectively 300$ harder for player to clean makeup to 0, let say to be at 0 we need 1.5k $ balance at hand, but now we would have only 1.2k balance in same situation because they took money out of balance to give us loan even if we won same amount of money in both cases. (Where the difference comes from)
So in my mind after player paid off loan of 300$ (we win 1.6k and give it all to staker) staker would need to return now 300$ to balance making our winnings same in both cases allowing there to be another chop of 150$/150$. (1.3k repayment + 300$ profit split instead of all 1.6k to staker as in SteelBreeze example)
$1.6k.
If you win $1300 at this point, you would have $300 net profit, which you and backer planned to split, $150 each. However, at this point, if you send the $1300 to backer, he is only even - recovering the makeup amount and the loan amount, while you are up $300 (the loan).
If you win $1600 at this point - you would have $600 net profit, which you and backer planned to split, $300 each. If you send $1600 to backer, he is up $300 - recovering the makeup amount, the loan amount, plus $300 profit. You are also up $300 (the loan). This is correct.
But why it would be 1.3k if it was just added straight to makeup and send loan to bank account? Then we would need just pay 1k orginal makeup +300 loan added to makeup.
Now somehow we are 1.6k
Also to make 600$ profit after loan was taken given as reduction of playing balance, it would take us longer to make it to +600 balance due to our balance started lower now then if our balance was not reduced due to loan.
For example to simplify it, if player decided to take payday loan and pay back loan to staker before profit. What would happen now?
There really 2 options :
1) balance goes back +300
2) makeup goes down -300
It not like if we paid back 300$ before profit it would just wanish with no accounting changing as accounting of -300 balance did change when we took loan.
If player gets to 0$ point and says staker "here take 300$ back" I don't need it anymore for example, something would need be added or reduced in accounting.
the error is borrowing from the stake balance. it wont add up unless you redefine the stake after the loan to reflect the backers withdrawal to lend to you.
1k stake. lose 250. backer withdraws 300 and lends it. now its a $700 stake with $450 remaining balance, and you owe 300 separately.
you need to build $450 balance to $700 to be even, and profit exceeding $700 may be split per previous negotiation agreements.
plus, you need to pay back the $300 loan.
