getting staked

dark_horse · #1 07-21-2005, 02:07 PM

i was recently offered to be staked to play bigger online games. any posts here or elsewhere that explains what's fair and common practice in the world of being backed? for example, what percentage of your winnings is normally given to the backer, what if you lose, etc.

thanks.

kiffl · #2 07-21-2005, 04:13 PM

Usually it is split 50/50.

Alex/Mugaaz · #3 07-22-2005, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Usually it is split 50/50.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not usual, that's extremely good. I don't get the whole staking thing except for MTT, but whatever floats your boat.

youtalkfunny · #4 07-22-2005, 05:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Usually it is split 50/50.

[/ QUOTE ]

Double Down · #5 07-22-2005, 06:21 AM

I just recently started getting staked by a guy. We are splitting winnings 50/50. I am allowed to take my cut after each session. I feel kind of bad. Don't backers realize how crappy this is? Think about it. You have to win twice as much as you lose just for them to BREAK EVEN. Right? Let's say session 1 I win $1,000, session 2 I win $1,000 and session 3 I lose $1,000. In total, I personally now have A grand but my backer is completely even (500+500-1000). Don't backers realize this?

Stu Pidasso · #6 07-22-2005, 06:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i was recently offered to be staked to play bigger online games. any posts here or elsewhere that explains what's fair and common practice in the world of being backed? for example, what percentage of your winnings is normally given to the backer, what if you lose, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

The person who is staking you should get 20-30% of the profits. If you lose well thats just too bad for the staker. If you're any good at all, the staker is going to get a great return on his/her money.

stu pidasso

sekrah · #7 07-22-2005, 08:04 AM

The person STAKING should get 30% ?!?

LOL.. If I staked someone I would DEMAND 75%, or I wouldn't stake.

The staker is the one taking all the risk and you think they should only see 30% of the gains?

erby · #8 07-22-2005, 10:25 AM

The staker is taking a risk for sure, but if you're being staked I'd assume you're pretty good. And if you're pretty good, I'd assume you're going to win money for the staker. And if the staker is getting money for absolutely no skill at all, wouldn't 30% be a good return?

sekrah · #9 07-22-2005, 11:45 AM

Who are the people who need to be staked?? Guys like Ellix Powers? Would you stake this guy?

Most of the good poker players don't need to be staked, they are already well established and making a living at what they do.

If you are going to stake somebody, it'll be an up and comer who hasn't proven himself yet (obviously, since he's broke and needs money to play). That involves a great deal of risk when the skill level is still unknown.

I would demand well over 70% profit from an unknown "contender".

Now, if it's a known professional who needs some dough to get his feet back on track, then yes, 20-30% is reasonable.. You know he's good for it and you'll get your money.

Stu Pidasso · #10 07-22-2005, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would demand well over 70% profit from an unknown "contender".

[/ QUOTE ]

The player is bringing two resources to the table, time and skill. The staker is only providing one resource, money. What makes giving up 70% unacceptable to a player is the fact that Time=Money. Heres an example

Player is staked for 30-60 game
Player expects to generate 1 BB an hour.
Players 30% cut works out to $18 an hour.
After factoring in cost of self employment(i.e. taxes,insurance, retirement, etc) players $18 an hour is comparable real job wage around $9 - $12 an hour.
Player would be better off dealing poker instead of playing it.

In most situations, a player who would give up 70% is to dumb to be staked. That being said, if someone were willing to stake me for a $1000-$2000 limit game, I'd be willing to give up 70% even though I have to be the one putting in all the hours grinding it out.

Stu