[playersonly69]

By the way, this works different than live poker tournament stakers.

Lets say that someone stakes you for a $3000 tournament. If you cash 10,000 from the tourney, then you would owe the backer $5,000 and you would get to keep 5000. You wouldnt just pay back the $3000 and then split the remaining $7000

[BeerDog99]

By the way, this works different than live poker tournament stakers.

Lets say that someone stakes you for a $3000 tournament. If you cash 10,000 from the tourney, then you would owe the backer $5,000 and you would get to keep 5000. You wouldnt just pay back the $3000 and then split the remaining $7000

That I disagree with but to each his own, I do not have real-world experience.

[ProPicker713]

The way I look at it I take stakes 2 different ways.

For Tourneys :
I ask my stakers for 50/50 because the stakers know somewhat what they're going to get out of staking for tourneys since there is set prizes. I think that is fair because 50% of the work for playing in the tourney is from the players ability to play well enough to make a cash. The other 50% is for the staker staking the amount.
In all and all I think 60% for the staker and 40% for the player being staked is fair. Most think that it's fair for 50/50 but I really think of it now the 2 times beer staked me I lost but he took the risk of staking me. Stakers take a risk and should deserve atleast 60% of whatever is won.

For Ring Games :
I usually do 75% for the staker + the amount that was staked and 25% for me . I find this fair because the risk again giving someone a chance to play with no set prize is really a high risk involved. So if the staker can atleast get what he staked back and a good cut enough I doubt they would mind staking. But if you try to get 50% and give your staker only 50% back without stake amount that's a complete rip off.

Just my input on staking.

[playersonly69]

Here is another example of a real live tournament WSOP stake.

Lets say that someone gives you the $10,000 to play in the main event. Well the bubble usually pays around $22,000. If someone wins that amount, then they just split that amount 50/50.


Now maybe this is different than online stakes, but I can just tell you what happens in live tournaments. Staking in live tournaments is a DEFINITE -EV proposition when you consider that only 9% of the field even makes the money and you need a real high finish to make alot of money

[ProPicker713]

Here is another example of a real live tournament WSOP stake.

Lets say that someone gives you the $10,000 to play in the main event. Well the bubble usually pays around $22,000. If someone wins that amount, then they just split that amount 50/50.


Now maybe this is different than online stakes, but I can just tell you what happens in live tournaments. Staking in live tournaments is a DEFINITE -EV proposition when you consider that only 9% of the field even makes the money and you need a real high finish to make alot of money

That's why I believe the Staker should receive at least 60%.

[playersonly69]

You are right, most staking deals are 60-70%, but you dont pay back the stake then take your cut.


But for the main event, since it requires a wait of around 7 days to even make the money, the amount is usually 50% to help the other guy cover expenses when he does make the money.


Having said that, stakes RARELY are profitable. They are usually just given out by the leader of the possee who wants his buddies in the action. The backer in those cases doesnt give a DAMN about getting back his $10,000. He wants the guy to win 1 million or more. So that is why when someone min cashes for $21,000, the backer get $10,500 and the player gets $10,500

[slikec]

I stake you 55 for getting 55 back +50% of all tourney winnings even if you fail to rollover.

Examples:
-a) you dont cash i lose 55
-b) you cash 100 poker points i get 55+22(50% of 100-55)=77 no matter if you fail to rollover you give 12 each day till is done.
-c) you are third and you get lets say 300points +200 poker points i get 55+222(50% of 500-55)= 277points.

If you agree write and i send you 55 points. If you dont use them all i expect i get 22 back.

I think rules was clear. I staked you for tourney i get 50% of winning no matter how much you rollover. Today you fail to rollover with profit so you gain nothing but if you would rollover lets say 1k i still would only get 66 that was our deal. You didnt write how good are you at poker tables so i staked you only for tourney which should be clear up there in examples.

About real money staking i did over 30 and best are for longer period. Staking 1 tourney is total gamble better lets say 100. Personally prefer staking cash at least 50k hands (he have to be really good that is that small or play only HU) but most profit made me one MTT player with whom we had deal 50:50 over 500 MTTs.

But recession also ruin profitable staking or lets say stakers must me extra extra careful. There are few that run away with less than 500$ seriously tarded shit Some took pretty solid money i do have one bigger stake where is small chance he will return what he owes.

[slikec]

You are right, most staking deals are 60-70%, but you dont pay back the stake then take your cut.


But for the main event, since it requires a wait of around 7 days to even make the money, the amount is usually 50% to help the other guy cover expenses when he does make the money.


Having said that, stakes RARELY are profitable. They are usually just given out by the leader of the possee who wants his buddies in the action. The backer in those cases doesnt give a DAMN about getting back his $10,000. He wants the guy to win 1 million or more. So that is why when someone min cashes for $21,000, the backer get $10,500 and the player gets $10,500

I never saw that kinda stake. Is always winnings-stake= profits and profits split in % that was agreed.

[hockey216]

yes playersonly, you described what's considered a fair deal. The rollover period was arbitrage for him. lets say i cash 200, and lose it all during rollover. I then owe him 116 points and have to pay back 12/day, despite profiting 0. If he's taking 50% of my winnings, i shouldn't owe him more than his original investment of 33 if i lose. If he's not taking any risk during rollover period, he shouldn't be entitled to 50% of profit during rollover period. In other words, during rollover period, he takes 0 risk, but still gets 50% of potentially infinite reward. That is arbitrage. Arbitrage is when you can make an infinite amount of money without a finite investment. His investment during rollover was 0, because even if i lost, i would be indebted to him for 66, and pay him back. However, he could still profit infinitely because no matter how much i won, he still gets half. So there's no upper bound to what he can earn, despite having 0 investment during rollover period. So, no, the deal wasn't really fair to me due to him exploiting an arbitrage opportunity in the rollover period. But that being said, i could have chosen not to accept. I accepted the deal, was a man of my word, and paid him back his 33 plus 100% of my profit for another 33. He doubled his money. i did all the work and got 0. I guess it's on me for losing 33 chips while meeting the 300 rollover. Oh well. I am a man of my word, and i paid the man back his investment plus 100% of the profit, and paid him the 66. Worked out well for him because he doubled his money. I'm not sweating it. It's only 16 points. Thank you for your interest in staking me. Despite not profiting from it, i got a couple hours of enjoyment playing poker. For the record, Silkec was paid back in full, plus a 100% profit same day. got back his 33 buyin, plus 33 points profit on top of it. Doubled his investment. Despite the deal not being fair to me, i am a man of my word, and i still paid the man back in full same day. If anyone would like to stake me in the future for tournaments or ring games, feel free to message me. Good luck to everyone. Have a nice day.

[slikec]

Omg seriously??? Ah i wont explain again is useless let me be bad guy who cares is only for few points. Unbelivable!!!

[yisman]

That is arbitrage. Arbitrage is when you can make an infinite amount of money without a finite investment.

That's not what arbitrage is. Arbitrage is taking advantage of the difference between two markets. Not applicable in this situation.

As for stakes, they are -EV in general because players tend to want a large portion of the winnings while taking 0% of the risk. Unless there are huge overlays, it is very -EV. Certainly is -EV to stake someone at the WSOP 50/50.

[hockey216]

Omg seriously??? Ah i wont explain again is useless let me be bad guy who cares is only for few points. Unbelivable!!!

its cool silec i told you its only a few points. i really dont care. i was just happy i got to have some fun playing yesterday. Gave me something to do. I was just sayin it differed from the standard 50/50 deal thats all. its cool buddy. thank you for staking me. you did me a favor. I appreciate it. No one's trying to demonize you. It worked out for you too. its cool. im happy i got to play in tourney and gladly gave you the 66 points same day. my credit is good. terms were clear. i am a man of my word. i paid you back double your investment same day. We were just discussing how our deal varied from the standard deal. But its cool. I agreed to it. i didn't have to. you were generous enough to stake me. im not mad. it was just a few points. it worked out well for both of us. you doubled your money. i had a fun time playing. life is good

[hockey216]

Thank you again silkec for staking me. worked out for both of us. you doubled your money and i had some fun playing poker. I hope everyone has a wonderful day.

[playersonly69]

I never saw that kinda stake. Is always winnings-stake= profits and profits split in % that was agreed.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but some sort of understanding needs to take place for future deals among posters. I believe that you thought this out incorrectly.


The staking isnt perfect because we have rollover points involved. There is NO GUARANTEE at all that one will be able to cash out ANY of those points.

In your case, you gave 33 points. He won 100 rollover points only. Now because they are rollover points, I dont believe that you are GUARANTEED anything here. If he loses all of the points, then you lose the 33 point stake and nothing furthur would occur. Now he won 66 points after rollover. Under most other staking terms, he would owe you 33 points plus 50% of the other 33 points that were won.


But no matter what, winning 100 or 150 poker points doesnt guarantee that a backer will get back any points. Most likely, it will happen

[Footballtime]

Easy Solution here boys.........If the person putting up the points wants 50% of anything won plus his stake back(Which is what i would want, because if i don't stake the points, there is no way you can win any points)..But Ez solution is to take a loan and pay it back for whatever the agreed terms are, that way anything you win is yours, and if you lose its also yours, but you have to pay it back to whatever terms you agreed to..........

[slikec]

Look there can be million different staking deals. Mine was simple only for tournament since he didnt write anything about how good is he with rollovers. Deal was: "I stake you 55 for getting 55 back +50% of all tourney winnings even if you fail to rollover."

I should add another sentence which i will if i decide to stake next time. And that sentence should be: If you get 100 poker points and rollover 400 everything above 100points is yours you owe me only stake +50% of tournament winnings. Stake was 33 and he won 100poker points so in this case i get 66points if he fail to rollover or if he rollover 400.

I only see point staking also rollover guys that usually make profit doing it.