What are fair staking arrangements for an unknown player?

[Daredevil]

I mentioned on the radio show last night that I will be in Vegas this summer, and while I can't sell "pieces" of myself for the WSOP (since I'm not planning on playing any events), I would be open to people(s) staking me into one.

This got me thinking, for a one time stake, what would be a fair? I pretty much only play live cash (mostly 1/2, sometimes 2/5) so though I could tell you I'm a winning player, it wouldn't matter since I have no way of proving it.

So basically I'm some random player no one has ever seen play, and has no results to show. Given that fact, I have come up with what I would think is fair. I'd love to hear what you guys/gals think. Below are the buy-in levels, and percentages (first number would be mine, second would be yours) for a potential stake for a WSOP even this summer:

565-777: 75/25
1,000-1,500: 50/50
2,500-5,000: 40/60
10,000: 25/75

What do you think?

[simpdog]

Is your first name John?

[chinamaniac]

I mentioned on the radio show last night that I will be in Vegas this summer, and while I can't sell "pieces" of myself for the WSOP (since I'm not planning on playing any events), I would be open to people(s) staking me into one.

This got me thinking, for a one time stake, what would be a fair? I pretty much only play live cash (mostly 1/2, sometimes 2/5) so though I could tell you I'm a winning player, it wouldn't matter since I have no way of proving it.

So basically I'm some random player no one has ever seen play, and has no results to show. Given that fact, I have come up with what I would think is fair. I'd love to hear what you guys/gals think. Below are the buy-in levels, and percentages (first number would be mine, second would be yours) for a potential stake for a WSOP even this summer:

565-777: 75/25
1,000-1,500: 50/50
2,500-5,000: 40/60
10,000: 25/75

What do you think?

If I were backing an unknown player anything higher than 20% to the player doesn't make any sense to me

75 for anyone is way too high, even 40 or 50 is way to high IMO

but I would guess most deals between pro stakers and players without any makeup run around 20 % or some cases lower unless there is makeup or stakeback and then maybe on a long term deal you see the player getting up to 50 % because there is at least the makeup the backer can collect to offset run bad

[Daredevil]

Is your first name John?

No, it's Suan.

Suan Japulveda.

[Daredevil]

I mentioned on the radio show last night that I will be in Vegas this summer, and while I can't sell "pieces" of myself for the WSOP (since I'm not planning on playing any events), I would be open to people(s) staking me into one.

This got me thinking, for a one time stake, what would be a fair? I pretty much only play live cash (mostly 1/2, sometimes 2/5) so though I could tell you I'm a winning player, it wouldn't matter since I have no way of proving it.

So basically I'm some random player no one has ever seen play, and has no results to show. Given that fact, I have come up with what I would think is fair. I'd love to hear what you guys/gals think. Below are the buy-in levels, and percentages (first number would be mine, second would be yours) for a potential stake for a WSOP even this summer:

565-777: 75/25
1,000-1,500: 50/50
2,500-5,000: 40/60
10,000: 25/75

What do you think?

If I were backing an unknown player anything higher than 20% to the player doesn't make any sense to me

75 for anyone is way too high, even 40 or 50 is way to high IMO

but I would guess most deals between pro stakers and players without any makeup run around 20 % or some cases lower unless there is makeup or stakeback and then maybe on a long term deal you see the player getting up to 50 % because there is at least the makeup the backer can collect to offset run bad

Interesting, also do you not adjust for buy-in amount? I mean, I'd take 20% of myself for a 10k but for 565 I can't see how anyone would play for 20% of themselves.

[chinamaniac]

If I were backing an unknown player anything higher than 20% to the player doesn't make any sense to me

75 for anyone is way too high, even 40 or 50 is way to high IMO

but I would guess most deals between pro stakers and players without any makeup run around 20 % or some cases lower unless there is makeup or stakeback and then maybe on a long term deal you see the player getting up to 50 % because there is at least the makeup the backer can collect to offset run bad

Interesting, also do you not adjust for buy-in amount? I mean, I'd take 20% of myself for a 10k but for 565 I can't see how anyone would play for 20% of themselves.

Maybe adjust a bit for lower buyin but not much. I know a lot of backers who have run simulations etc.. on this stuff and the number that roughly came up was about 20 % freeroll for a horse is about right with no stakeback or makeup. They just play and get 20 % of whatever is cashed or something in that neighborhood.

While I understand your point on wanting more for a low buyin like a $565 that is great and all but if you look at the backers side they are tossing up the $565 etc... and on average you are going to not cash 90 % of the time. But there is always room for negotiation I guess.

[simpdog]

Interesting, also do you not adjust for buy-in amount? I mean, I'd take 20% of myself for a 10k but for 565 I can't see how anyone would play for 20% of themselves.

Maybe adjust a bit for lower buyin but not much. I know a lot of backers who have run simulations etc.. on this stuff and the number that roughly came up was about 20 % freeroll for a horse is about right with no stakeback or makeup. They just play and get 20 % of whatever is cashed or something in that neighborhood.

While I understand your point on wanting more for a low buyin like a $565 that is great and all but if you look at the backers side they are tossing up the $565 etc... and on average you are going to not cash 90 % of the time. But there is always room for negotiation I guess.

Bolded part is the most important.

I'd always play a $565 on my own dime since other than a final table 20% might not amount to much.

But like I said bolded part is the most important. If you can get 30,40 or 50% from someone then do it.

[Daredevil]

Maybe adjust a bit for lower buyin but not much. I know a lot of backers who have run simulations etc.. on this stuff and the number that roughly came up was about 20 % freeroll for a horse is about right with no stakeback or makeup. They just play and get 20 % of whatever is cashed or something in that neighborhood.

While I understand your point on wanting more for a low buyin like a $565 that is great and all but if you look at the backers side they are tossing up the $565 etc... and on average you are going to not cash 90 % of the time. But there is always room for negotiation I guess.

I guess the other issue too is traveling for a tournament. Not sure how this is handled by professional backers.

I'm only planning on being in Vegas for 5 days at the end of June/early July. So for an event like the 565 (which is on a weekend, and not while I'm going to be there anyway) it would cost me close to that amount just to come down to Vegas.

[BeerAndPoker]

Looking forward to the parking garage videos

[jacosta24]

If a player is good enough to be staked, why stake him? They obv don't have the $$$ for a reason.

[Daredevil]

If a player is good enough to be staked, why stake him? They obv don't have the $$$ for a reason.

I just don't know where to start with this....

[PLOL]

Your post doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by 75/25. Do you mean they put up 100% of your buy-in and they only get 25% back? If so, LOL. That's not profitable for the backer, even if the stakee is Phil Ivey. If you mean you put up 75% and you get 75% back, then essentially what you're talking about it a 0/100 split. That is to say, your backer gets 100% of the percentage that they put up back (aka, no mark-up). If you're doing no markup then that's a fair deal, and you setting it up as 50/50 or 40/60 or 20/80 is irrelevant as it's actually a 0/100 split regardless. It's not a better or worse deal to do 20/80 or 50/50, the EV is the same. If you have a 1% edge, then your backer has a 1% edge over the amount that they stake you for (and btw, this edge is derived directly from you giving up equity.)

[YUUP]

If a player is good enough to be staked, why stake him? They obv don't have the $$$ for a reason.

I had your back till this post J

I've started backing people on 2+2 and doing ok but their profits are traceable.

Who would want to back a random cash player?

We've been there before.......

[Daredevil]

Your post doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by 75/25. Do you mean they put up 100% of your buy-in and they only get 25% back? If so, LOL. That's not profitable for the backer, even if the stakee is Phil Ivey. If you mean you put up 75% and you get 75% back, then essentially what you're talking about it a 0/100 split. That is to say, your backer gets 100% of the percentage that they put up back (aka, no mark-up). If you're doing no markup then that's a fair deal, and you setting it up as 50/50 or 40/60 or 20/80 is irrelevant as it's actually a 0/100 split regardless. It's not a better or worse deal to do 20/80 or 50/50, the EV is the same. If you have a 1% edge, then your backer has a 1% edge over the amount that they stake you for (and btw, this edge is derived directly from you giving up equity.)

I thought I made it clear in the first post but yes, you're right, they would pay 100% of my buy-in and take 25% of my winnings.

Part of that is as I said, I don't live in Vegas, and would be covering my own travel expenses.

Also I'm not saying these numbers are gospel. They were just my first thoughts as to what is fair. But that's why I wanted feedback. In the past I have only ever done one-shots where the backer paid 100% of my buy-in and we split whatever I made 50/50.

[PLOL]

Also I'm not saying these numbers are gospel. They were just my first thoughts as to what is fair. But that's why I wanted feedback. In the past I have only ever done one-shots where the backer paid 100% of my buy-in and we split whatever I made 50/50.

50/50 is a horrible split if they're putting up 100% of your buy-in, unless there's make-up. You need a 200% ROI just for your backer to break even. 20/80 is more fair/standard for this type of thing, as it's basically 1.25 mark-up. 50/50 or 40/60 is standard if you're doing a long-term stake with make-up.

[BeerAndPoker]

Play some satellites imo.

[Daredevil]

Also I'm not saying these numbers are gospel. They were just my first thoughts as to what is fair. But that's why I wanted feedback. In the past I have only ever done one-shots where the backer paid 100% of my buy-in and we split whatever I made 50/50.

50/50 is a horrible split if they're putting up 100% of your buy-in, unless there's make-up. You need a 200% ROI just for your backer to break even. 20/80 is more fair/standard for this type of thing, as it's basically 1.25 mark-up. 50/50 or 40/60 is standard if you're doing a long-term stake with make-up.

Obviously if someone wanted to back me for multiple events I would think something like 40/60 with makeup is fair.

I think it's a bit different if you're only playing one event. And I don't see how you need 200% ROI to be profitable to your backer. Wouldn't you just need 101% ?

[chinamaniac]

If a player is good enough to be staked, why stake him? They obv don't have the $$$ for a reason.

While it sounds that simple it really can be more complex than that.

I have lost maybe 10 months (and that's a stretch as I would guess it is closer to 6 or 7 ) out of the past 80 and I have sold action to play higher at times. I have had a depleted bankroll at times due to variance and taking shots in higher games and taking time off and then losing while being rusty when i came back and it has a couple of times forced me to get backing and play lower and build up a bit. And every time I have been staked in cash I have made my backers money.

As far as MTTS go the majority of the MTT world is staked both live and online.

Every situation is different and to your point a lot of times a player is looking for a staking deal they may be doing it because they are not good or they are looking to scam

[chinamaniac]

50/50 is a horrible split if they're putting up 100% of your buy-in, unless there's make-up. You need a 200% ROI just for your backer to break even. 20/80 is more fair/standard for this type of thing, as it's basically 1.25 mark-up. 50/50 or 40/60 is standard if you're doing a long-term stake with make-up.

Obviously if someone wanted to back me for multiple events I would think something like 40/60 with makeup is fair.

I think it's a bit different if you're only playing one event. And I don't see how you need 200% ROI to be profitable to your backer. Wouldn't you just need 101% ?

Even one event it don't really matter. If you are putting up 0 how do you expect the backer to profit when you cash 10 % of the time and he is only taking 25 % of the profit. I know a lot of guys who run staking stables and I don't think they would give more than 20 % even for a tiny event but like it has been mentioned a few times, if you can get more then get more

[jacosta24]

The reason I'm against staking is bc I built my bankroll from zero. I had to grind my ass off to move up the stakes, but It helped me learn how to manage my bankroll. Anyone can win at poker, that's why so many ppl love the game (including me) but money management is one of not the most important part of the game. Ask Druff.