blonde poker forum

I was intrigued how soo many of the bigger winners in tourneys need to be staked?

Firstly i think the main reason for staking is for playing higher buyins, or to create a starting bankroll, correct me if im wrong but thats my view at the moment However I dont understand if xxx wins so much and has sufficient bankroll why he would need it, ok alot of people will say varience.... but id like to counter argue this by saying say someone who has a big enough bankroll to take the swings or can drop down in stakes then what if he wins £10,000? if he's staked 50/50 or sold 50% then he is ruining his potential return.

The above scenario is probably rare though but i see quite a few big winners, like regularly binking 10k + yet still have to sell themselves.

On the + side of being staked, say i have 50 buy ins it enables me to play twice as many tourneys for my money etc depending on the staking agreement

I think like all poker you will get people who always look for +ev staking, but there will be equally as many losers i would assume.

Thats started it off but i would love to hear both sides from people who are staked on here? people who stake? or people who will rarely/never get involved. 

probably cos xxx spends tons of money on stuff that isn't poker and so no longer has a bankroll, doesn't stop them from being a great player who would be worth backing

I agree it doesnt stop someone being a great player because they get staked, it allows them more room to move. But also it could ruin potential binks, the bigger the bink the more your ruining potential return. #makemuchsense

If you bink results then other people will think you're good so they'll be prepared to stump up cash that you can use to cushion the pain that regression to the mean will bring you.

MTT variance is absolutely massive.  Very very few have the roll to be able to take the swings

Also there are many, many sicko poker players who can grind millions of MTTs but as soon as they have any kind of serious roll they can't keep hold of it due to having degen leaks in other areas.

[/b]

Perhaps this is very true, Ryan. Think u hit the nail on the head there!

Maybe some people need to be staked to play with no worries and to play disciplined/ Good bankroll, didnt think of that tbh

People forget that so and so may have been staked for his bink in the first place. So it's no good saying "he won £10k now he wants staking for a £500 freeze", what if he only had half of himself in the original bink? What if he was in £8k makeup? You just never really know what's going on with peoples personal finances.

Remember, EVERYBODY has less money than you think.

Some people think you need 500 buyins for MTTs. Live it's a bit less, but its still more than 100. So you need at the very least a 100k roll to play £1k freezeouts unbacked. Not many people have 100k rolls, so it's no wonder that people sell for these big comps, even though on the surface it seems like they could afford it (he won 25k here, 15k there etc).

2 good posts

I initially was thinking that if someone was staked earlier on and then won enough to cover a proper bankroll.... although thats always debateable how much is enough? Also about mark up i didnt really think of that and i know some people have other debts so that makes sense.

still adds to the variance tho, if they backer plays and stakes just varience + varience so have to make sure they are making +ev in stakes but could be even more swingy! good luck to them

you told us you had half a million so just took it as gospel.

You should do as if someone has the ability to sell at a high markup it gives them an excellent reason to get staked.

No that mark up i am aware of, but the other one he mentioned i didnt take into account where someone is staked and in £xxxx mark up with backer :P

Fred failed anyways was hoping more of a discussion :'(

I never back anyone at above 1:1.  Poker is the only industry where the borrower expects the funder to pay them a premium.

A bank may think a business is a great idea but receives interest as a premium for the risk they take that the business fails despite it being a good idea against the market.

For risk substitute MTT variance.

I'm happy to take 20% of someone's action if they can't fund the $10k entry, but I get 20% of the winnings.  The rest of the poker world doesn't think that way though and wants me to pay a premium so I end up backing very few people.  Who am I to argue - if someone can get 1.3 of whatever they want then good luck to them.

There are very few really comparable businesses, however I would be suprised if you were to tell me that a person using a 'known working' model for making money doesn't pay a premium in some way.  Surely a McD's franchise owner still pays McD a premium somewhere along the line?

The markup is because this person is 'above average' vs the field and that provides a good value investment for the cost associated with it.  Blonde is clearly 'rare' in the poker community with a lot of peices being sold at higher markups than other sites/ forums/ people would pay (myself included) however it continues to thrive and I for one am thankful.

I think there are lots of people that don't understand the dynamics of staking in poker world and with no disrespect to the OP, you do seem a little bit out of the loop with regards to staking.

You mention £10,000. It does not go far in poker world.

Person A goes and wins £10,000 from a £500 buyin, that is only ten buyins at that tournament. You still have bigger buyins, you keep going back to the £500 event and you keep on losing. You soon are left with not a lot of money out of the £10k, therefore staking reduces the variance, if you are a winning player, you can come back to staking. £10k is absolutely nothing.

In ideal poker world and it really is ideal, because not many people stick to it, you should only be buying in at 1% of buyin. Do all these people who play the UKIPT's & DTD monthlies have 50k in bank? I don't think so.

No. But a large % of them have a monthly wage and are willing to take a punt.

Pro players may consider their bankroll.

But most players won't even have a bankroll in the first place.

orly

I think you'll find the if X player wins so much and has sufficient bankroll then he wont be staked, most people who are backed are backed because they aren't rolled to play what they want - you might say "well then they should play lower" and yes, that's a reasonable argument but it's often more worthwhile for them to play higher with 50% of the action. Let's say I make 30% Roi on $100+ tourneys, but am only rolled for $25 tourneys where I have a 40% ROI. I play $25 tourneys on my own money, and make $10 a tourney, or half my action at $100 tourneys and make $30 /2 = $15 so Im risking none of my own money and making 50% more money. If there is someone out there who believe I'm capable of winning and has the capital to invest in me then we have a happy deal!

There are people who are staked for different reasons to being underolled - i've been involved in two staking deals myself the first one was purely because I had lost all my money so needed staking to play, and the second was because I was an opportunity to play in games way outside my bankroll and in return I had to offer up my action in the smaller games I was rolled for as well as a compromise - loads of reasons why people with enough money to play on their own would be staked.


I know $10k is a lot of money, but for reg high/mid stakes MTT players its pretty much dust. I know plenty of MTT guys who outlay $20-$25k per week, so if over the course of a month you see them cash for $90k in a month in medium sized scores then the chances are they've just about broken even for the month - throw a WCOOP or SCOOP or something in there and anything under $100k cashes is almost certainly a losing month.


Whereas this is true, it's also kind of irrelevant. This isn't the way of thinking because it effectively sounds as if you plan to lose - if you're only objective is to get maximun play for your money then playing lower is the only effective solution.

I have staked 2 people long term and the reasons I have done it is because they haven't had the money to play, and because they have proven winning track records in the games I'm backing them for. Now, you're going to ask me why they dont have money if they are winners, and they each have their own reasons which I was happy was not that they are losing poker players, or massive tilt monkeys and that's really all i need to know on the topic.


This is where the two conflicting points come across, you say borrowe or funder and someone else will say Invester and Investee (if that's a word) like a hedge fund manager takes a cut of his clients profits. This point is actually the line with these staking agreements where the division is strongest imo.

Staking really works for some people but there are a lot of bad arrangments around. I personally don't like being staked or staking much, I sell plenty of action but I prefer to keep control of my own play more, this is direct opposite for some people (and great players) I know who really thrive under the security of being backed.

As an occasional staker on the live boards, I thought I would put my figures as an example.

I have staked:

11 people;
In 29 events;
£1548 cost;
£380 returns
ROI -75.4%

It is safe to say I am running under ev, but 29 events is not enough to prove anything. Some of the stakes were at 1.4 when the person was only worth 1.0 and others were at 1.4 when clearly worth more. Makes the updates on twitter and poker sites more interesting to read though.

"This is where the two conflicting points come across, you say borrower or funder and someone else will say Invester and Investee (if that's a word) like a hedge fund manager takes a cut of his clients profits"

Yes that is a fair point.  If you think about it like the hedge fund model then the concept of a markup seems reasonable.  However, I would then argue over the value of a given player.  Nearly everyone will consider them above average against the field, which logically cannot be the case, and at the end of the day it is theoretically possible for all hedge fund to make money (against the banks (or taxpayer as seems to be the way now)) whereas poker players are competing for a finite pool before we even consider the impact of rake.

"Makes the updates on twitter and poker sites more interesting to read though."

Well quite - moving the investment analysis to one side, having somebody's action is a relatively cheap way to have a sweat, and one which can have significant upside.  There are less enjoyable ways to use your disposable income if you can't get to play the event yourself, and this I suspect is why occasional stakers buy at 1.4 etc  - it is not that they think 1.4 is a particulary wise investment.

Yes all professional hedge fund managers are expected to make money. So are all profession poker players. However , I would be happy to try to manage a hedge fund for you if you would like to see the results.

You're absolutely correct imo. So I guess the way an "optimal" staking deal is formed is the ability of the player to price himself properly (where he and the investors can make money) and the ability of the buyer to spot a good deal - which sounds simple lol but I would bet happens in less than 1/4 of staking arrangements.

I recall making a thread about this a while ago. I think the basic mistake is some people decide they're 150% ROI against the field and decide to give a 1.5 markup. This is not a good deal for the investor but a great one for the player.

"Yes all professional hedge fund managers are expected to make money. So are all profession poker players. However , I would be happy to try to manage a hedge fund for you if you would like to see the results."

I don't understand this post.   If you are alluding that all professional poker players make money, I would suggest that for every good solid pro, there are 5 players who are simply on the right side of variance for the time being and who call themselves a "professional" merely because they can't get a job in the another industry and have the bankroll to survive for now.

You don't tend to get people who are able to set themselves up as hedge fund managers without extensive experience and proven track records.  This tends to happen in poker when someone who has had a good year decides they are a 1.5 investment.

But like I said - if they can sell at 1.5 then good luck to them.  Let the market speak and all that.

When looking to stake (one off basis) I stick my finger in the air to determine the theo longterm ROI I would forecast for the player. Sometimes this figure has a large depth of evidence, other times the confidence interval is much broader so I take a number towards the lower end.

I then take the square root of said number, and this is what I will pay.

Now, the first paragraph is entirely sensible, where the second para is basically nonsense(!), but I use it as a rule of thumb for ensuring I am convinced I am taking what is essentially a +EV shot.

Sorry the £10k was an example if someone wins this regularly like few times a week then i would consider them a big winner, this is why i was questioning why they would need backing. Obviously in poker its not alot of money and i was aware of that just didnt really think of a proper figure.

+ Person who initially pointed it out as pleno said its 20 buy ins @ £500 but still i agree that figure was low.

I was trying to get into the other side of varience: Say i am running really bad/playing bad at the moment and on a 50 buy in downswing at my level and i also am staking someone, although there is a chance i may get out of the hole, but also there is the potential to run bad in staking or make a bad stake here and there and then you are losing even more. Suppose this is a very non degen way of looking at it :)

Suppose the short answer of the whole thing is as long as you think xxx is good value for money whether thats 1.1-1.4, if you look at it long term you just need to be making good decisions?

Main reason i posted this as i read the stake threads all the time and find them very interesting