Staking someone in the same game

[rory]

Hi everyone,

Does anybody have experience with staking someone who is playing in the same game with you? Does this not work? It seems like it is bad for the stakee:

If the stakee is heads up with the staker, then the stakee does not get any return on every bet going into the pot. If he bets, and is called and wins he just gets his bet back. If he loses, he loses half the bet. So a bet heads up has no positive expectation.

Could someone suggest a scheme to get around this problem? I am going to play in a higher limit home-game, and I want to bring a friend along until I am comfortable in the game, but
the friend wants to be half-staked so the limits are not so daunting.

Thank you!

[Dov]

There is no way around it.

In addition, if your friend is afraid of the limits, he probably shouldn't be staked at that limit anyway.

As a workaround, maybe you guys should each put up half of the buy in and take turns playing for half an hour each, or one orbit each, or something like that. Just make sure you don't discuss hands with each other when the other isn't in the game because that is unethical.

[parttimepokerDOTcom]

In limit i wouldn't worry about it soo much. Just don't try and steal pots off eachother and you'll be fine. NL/PL is a different situation.
This is going to sound kinda rough, but you probably shouldn't stake someone that you're going to play a NL/PL game with. You can make another offer to him that involves splitting the win for the night between you two, but allowing him to pay you with your own money is rough. If you feel he is on your skill level then a fair offer would be 20% of all wins with no risk if you guys loose.
If he's weaker but you're confident he'll be able to beat the game find a smaller number, and if he's better i wouldn't offer more than 25%. I mean he's not risking anything and he might get money off your night win even if he has dead cards.
Gl with that. I stopped staking. Ppl play differently with other people's money!

[Dov]

There is another aspect to this that I just thought of.

You are talking about colluding, essentially.

If you make any changes to your normal game b/c part of someone elses BR comes from you, then that is collusion. It is not much different than sharing a BR.

Technically, the changes should be (if you are colluding) that

1. you sit to his immediate left.
2. he bets whenever the pot gets large and you raise him with any 2
3. he reraises you and you cap it, again with any 2

all this in an effort to get heads up.

4. once you are heads up, you either check it down, or fold to a bet if you don't want to show your garbage and be accused of cheating.

I am NOT advocating that you do this. I am saying that any changes you make to your normal game b/c he is sharing your roll amount to the same thing as what I just described. (just in varying degrees of intensity)

I still think that the best solution is to share a stack.

GL (and don't cheat) /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Dov

[CaptObvious]

Hey all.

Well, I suppose that colluding may be taking it a bit too far; in my opinion. I would define colluding more as two people with their means (lets say bankroll) for this instance in order to get an inside edge, or unfair edge at a game. Their's been times when I was out playing, and my friend needed money, or to be spotted and I've lent him, or I've staked him in games. I don't think it really becomes a definitive issue until the stakes become high(er). For instance going from say a 2/4, 4/8 game up to a 15/30, game, etc.

Don't get me wrong, in no way would I suggest colluding; I'm just saying their's a difference between staking someone, and working with them to gain an unfair edge.

The stake would definitely have to be slightly more in your favor. Such as you'll stake him an (X) sum in agreeance that he owes you 25% of his winnings until he pays you off; or, after a certain time he owes you interest (or some other means) on the amount owed. I suppose it depends on how 'good' of a friend he is. Personally, I don't know if I'd charge mu friends interest, but, hey, who knows /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[Dov]

The home games I play in are generally 10-20 and up.

The poster was asking for strategy changes based on the fact that his own money is in someone else's stack.

Those changes amount to collusion. See the thread on Collusive Entaglement for a more general discussion on collusive stategies in poker. (Thanks Sredni)

Dov

[Seether]

Me and my friend for a while had a total stake in each other. We were both at nearly the exact skill level so we did it to avoid swings. We never used it really as a form of collusion (we mainly played online and arent able to sit at the table and we dont really need the edge). However, when we were at the casino we did not do any raising of the pot, however i think we both started sticking aruond for longer shot draws if one of us was the aggressor in the hand so that there was a higher chance of one of us taking down the pot but I think it was more of a subconscious change in our game that we didnt really discuss untill after we had left the casino

[Dov]

You just proved my point.

[TomCollins]

He just wins 1 bet back, but he only has to risk half a bet. Seems like he has positive expectation.

[rory]

I wasn't asking for strategy changes-- I know the strategy if I want to maximimize my EV because I am playing against my own money. I was asking if there was any way to either eliminate or minimize the impact of having half my own money in the game.

[bernie]

If he can't afford it, he shouldn't play. I'm not so sure i'd be comfortable playing in a game where 2 guys are both off the same stake. Would you be? How would you make it more comfortable for the other players? That's a prime question that should be addressed.

Sorry, but it's just not a team game.

b

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asking for strategy changes-- I know the strategy if I want to maximimize my EV because I am playing against my own money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you were.

[ QUOTE ]
I was asking if there was any way to either eliminate or minimize the impact of having half my own money in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same thing as what you said you weren't asking for.

[rory]

I was asking if there is any way to make it so that I do not have an inherent advantage in the game by playing against my own money and you responded with a strategy to abuse the fact I was playing against my own money.

[rory]

The whole discussion is moot because my friend decided to put up the whole buy-in after all. However this got me thinking about team play in games. How is this situation different than two people who have an unspoken agreement to soft play each other?

I guess my original conception of collusion is the boring raise it up and check it down kind, but there are many other more subtle forms of collusion that are very difficult to detect. I had not realized this until I started thinking about how to try to manipulate this situation so I did not have an advantage.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi everyone,

If the stakee is heads up with the staker, then the stakee does not get any return on every bet going into the pot. If he bets, and is called and wins he just gets his bet back. If he loses, he loses half the bet. So a bet heads up has no positive expectation.


[/ QUOTE ]

If he bets and gets called he wins half a bet. If he bets and loses he loses half a bet. Whether it's against a staker or anyone else just doesn't matter. You're not counting it right.

[Senseless]

parttimepokerdotcom's idea isnt too bad. if he's decent, just call the money even and make a deal with the profits.

my friend does this with me constantly, as i'm a decent enough player but i'm almost always poor (not because of poker as much as because of a love for broken cars). some nights he's bankrolled me and i've gone broke, but we work it out ahead of time and there's no hard feelings. i've also come out ahead when he's behind, and then its just my turn to buy pool and beers later.