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