A few staking questions

luckylucky

If you were to stake someone for cash games or sngs what sort of deals would be reasonable for both parties.

• What percentage split would be fair?
  
• Should it make a difference whether it's live or online play? One downside to live play is that there is no rakeback so you can't get a percentage of that. Should the percentage split take that into account or not?
  
• Should it make a difference whether the game is Hold Em, Omaha or sngs?
  
• What time frame and/or amount of hands (tourneys in the case of sngs) would be reasonable?

The above questions are ones where the staker is looking to make a profit....

Now what if you wanted to stake a friend just purely out of interest, but you weren't seeking an edge by doing so, just to have expectation about even, that is E(Gain) = 0.

This friend I would have reasonable expectation but am not 100% sure that he would be a winning player at the level I would stake him for, would something like 30% of profit + 30% rakeback sound about right for that sort of deal?

luckylucky

I think I've replied to enough questions in the past to have earned this BUMP

I realise not too many people do staking or get staked here but even if someone could post up some good links that would be helpful. And yes before some smarta$$ replies www.google.com - I've had a look and not found quite what I was looking for , not yet anyway.

Requiem4adream

Hey m8 - i think staking Live Cash games would really be dependent on where it is; i dont see it being a big money spinner if it's in Dublin, not sure about Portugal/rest of Ireland. If it's a close friend then profit isn't really your main concern, i'd still probably go with 50%-55% of any profit if you're not sure he can beat the game, your carrying a higher than normal risk due to him being a friend (assuming you wouldnt stake someone normally without being sure of ability to beat the game!!).

luckylucky

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Hey m8 - i think staking Live Cash games would really be dependent on where it is; i dont see it being a big money spinner if it's in Dublin, not sure about Portugal/rest of Ireland. If it's a close friend then profit isn't really your main concern, i'd still probably go with 50%-55% of any profit if you're not sure he can beat the game, your carrying a higher than normal risk due to him being a friend (assuming you wouldnt stake someone normally without being sure of ability to beat the game!!).

Ok the first guy is a guy I'm confident can beat the game. I've staked him before on a 60-40 deal and he did well for me. He would be playing live in London btw. I feel a bit tight in looking for more than 40% now when he did well for me before, but on the other hand there's no guarantee that he would do so again and also I seem to remember some old 2+2 threads that I can't find now that basically were saying the staker should be looking for a minimum of 50-50. So just wondering does a 50-50 split or even greater sound right? Anyway my view on this staking deal is that it's sort of a business deal, I want to have a very positive expectation but I also want it to be fair on the other guy.

The second guy is more along the lines of staking a pal for the sake of staking a pal. Don't get me wrong I think he can beat the game I would stake him for, but hand on heart I'm not 100% sure. I'm just thinking along the lines of arranging a deal so that my average expectation would be to break even assuming that is he was able to beat the game but maybe not by a big amount. Do you still think I should be looking for 50-50 in this case? I don't think my pal would go for that tbh

Requiem4adream

Personally the deal with the close friend i would keep more sort of informal, especially if the amount didnt represent a big % of your bankroll. i.e. if he does well you want your $ back and a bit of a tip/if he does badly then next time he runs good remember who his friends are

The other guy, i'd be more inclined to go 55% or 60% even. imo staking is very hit n miss as you know yourself, so 60% of profit wouldnt be unreasonable to ask for, at least short term.

luckylucky

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Personally the deal with the close friend i would keep more sort of informal, especially if the amount didnt represent a big % of your bankroll. i.e. if he does well you want your $ back and a bit of a tip/if he does badly then next time he runs good remember who his friends are

The other guy, i'd be more inclined to go 55% or 60% even. imo staking is very hit n miss as you know yourself, so 60% of profit wouldnt be unreasonable to ask for, at least short term.

cheers for the replies danny btw

Ok I think the close pal would be more comfortable with a stake rather than a loan. I'll just see what he thinks of the 30% deal, not sure whether that will have positive expectation for me or not, but sod it, it won't be a massive hit on my roll and it could make a difference to him.

The other guy would be playing for me over 6 months so I think 60% is perhaps getting too heavy a hit for him. Still the stake I'd be doing for him is bigger than I've ever done before, so maybe I should be going for 55% alright.

btw if anyone has any good threads from 2+2 or elsewhere on this that would still be helpful

Grafter

I remember looking at badbeat.com a while back and wondering why winning (cash) players would take a 50/50 deal on an ongoing basis unless they were abysmal at bankroll management.

bohsman

The majority of players are abysmal at br management.

I stake a few players in tournaments, depending on the situation, tournament size etc Ill either go 50-50 in stake and winnings or put them in 100% for 50% of winnings, Id do similar for one off cash games, havent done a long term staking deal so not sure what Id be looking for but probably 50% of winnings and rakeback or a higher % of rakeback with a lower % of winnings.

luckylucky

bohsman wrote: »

The majority of players are abysmal at br management.

Yeah the guy I'm considering staking his BR is abysmal. He's a very knowledgable player though and I have faith in his game skills. I also think he perks up his game when he gets staked.

Also staking can be beneficial to both parties. For the staker they spread the risk from just playing their own game. For the stakee it might give them a shot at a few levels from what they currently can afford, so even if they have to hand over 50% of their profit, the 50% might still be twice what they earn at their normal stakes. I agree though that really winning players should be more sensible than getting themselves into the position where they regularly need to get staked.

bohsman wrote: »

I stake a few players in tournaments, depending on the situation, tournament size etc Ill either go 50-50 in stake and winnings or put them in 100% for 50% of winnings, Id do similar for one off cash games, havent done a long term staking deal so not sure what Id be looking for but probably 50% of winnings and rakeback or a higher % of rakeback with a lower % of winnings.

I would never stake someone for an mtt or a single cash game. I've done it for mtts a few times in the past but it was a big mistake imo. There is no value in it whatsoever. I think when it comes to online mtts, certainly higher stake ones there is possibly no player with a 50% edge (I know there will be players running better than 50% but that's just the huge variance that is inherent in mtts imo). Not saying you shouldn't do it out of pure interest, but as an investment, well I wouldn't do it, no matter how good I thought the player was. For live mtts it might be different as the stacks are deeper, personally I still wouldn't do it. Anyway that's my 2 cents on it as they say.

Goodluck2me

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Personally the deal with the close friend i would keep more sort of informal, especially if the amount didnt represent a big % of your bankroll. i.e. if he does well you want your $ back and a bit of a tip/if he does badly then next time he runs good remember who his friends are .

noted

bohsman

luckylucky wrote: »

I would never stake someone for an mtt or a single cash game. I've done it for mtts a few times in the past but it was a big mistake imo. There is no value in it whatsoever. I think when it comes to online mtts, certainly higher stake ones there is possibly no player with a 50% edge (I know there will be players running better than 50% but that's just the huge variance that is inherent in mtts imo). Not saying you shouldn't do it out of pure interest, but as an investment, well I wouldn't do it, no matter how good I thought the player was. For live mtts it might be different as the stacks are deeper, personally I still wouldn't do it. Anyway that's my 2 cents on it as they say.

Id only stake people for live mtts, 2 people have won me so much money at this stage that Id stake them in whatever they wanted to play more as a favour than anything else.

There are a few really good tournament players out there that dont take shots or have terrible br skills, I can think of 5 or so players Id stake in any regular live tournament and feel that I had a good edge staking them, a bigger edge than if I played myself at least.

Requiem4adream

goodluck2me wrote: »

noted

lol. Q 10!! not even a pair against a super nit!!!!