Staking Players

[UpTheMariners]

ive noticed a few sites poping up which deal in staking players, anyone used these sites? if you staked someone 100% for a tournament what kind of return would you expect? (50% profit?)

[Ironside]

i;ve seen alot of people staking people into $3 + 30 comps the guys play the rebuys for extra value but run the clock down each hand to slow the game down to get to the freezeout stage

killing some games in the process

[DaveShoelace]

50% is pretty standard, much like live games. I think I heard someone made a top 3 finish at the Sunday Million in the last two or three weeks and was staked by one of these staking sites (And duly paid up).

The element of trust is really the issue, when you stake someone for a live game you have ways of contacting them thereafter, but they literally could dissapear off the face of the planet online. Every report I've heard suggests that they are pretty trustworthy.

Its certainly the future though, obviously we already have the online trader websites. I also know of a website that sponsors players regularly for the Sunday Million/live tournaments in return for signing up to poker rooms through them (Wont bother posting the link, PM me for details.)

Have they ever toyed with a staking sub forum on blonde?

[TightEnd]

Never toyed with it

Should we?

[totalise]

for a one off deal, 50% to the player is far too much, a fairer split would be something like 75% to the staker, and 25% to the horse. In a long-term deal, 50% is about standard.

The problem with 1 off deals is that all the times your horse doesn't cash, you are liable for the loss, whereas in longterm deals, the horse has to "make-up" the losses before taking a piece of the winnings.

[DaveShoelace]

Never toyed with it

Should we?

It would be interesting. The benefit with blonde is I think a certain amount of trust is gauranteed, such is the community spirit. Obviously you wouldnt want to stake someone who joined yesterday and has one post.

I reckon a lot of the crew already confirmed for waterford wouldnt mind selling shares to those that aint?

[Karabiner]

One problem with selling shares for something like Waterford might be the price.

When you include my travel expenses, car parking for four days, hotel etc. the €500 tourney entry is more like €1000.

Now I doubt that anyone would want to purchase a 20% share of the €500 for €200

[M3boy]

One problem with selling shares for something like Waterford might be the price.

When you include my travel expenses, car parking for four days, hotel etc. the €500 tourney entry is more like €1000.

Now I doubt that anyone would want to purchase a 20% share of the €500 for €200

No but you may get 4 people buying a 5% share for €50

I wouldnt mind selling 20% of myself on that basis.

What the hell Ralph, I will start a new topic on this very subject, see how it goes

[Graham C]

for a one off deal, 50% to the player is far too much, a fairer split would be something like 75% to the staker, and 25% to the horse. In a long-term deal, 50% is about standard.

Why would anyone agree to play in a tourney where if they cash, they are only going to get 25% of the winnings?  Sounds like a crazy idea to me.  If it were capped so should the person go on to win a big one they still get a nice chunk of it (over 50%) then I would think it's a good idea, but I would never play for only 25 % of any winnings.

[byronkincaid]

for a one off deal, 50% to the player is far too much, a fairer split would be something like 75% to the staker, and 25% to the horse. In a long-term deal, 50% is about standard.

Why would anyone agree to play in a tourney where if they cash, they are only going to get 25% of the winnings?  Sounds like a crazy idea to me.  If it were capped so should the person go on to win a big one they still get a nice chunk of it (over 50%) then I would think it's a good idea, but I would never play for only 25 % of any winnings.

man that's a real shame I was gonna stake you for the 25K bellagio WPT.

[RED-DOG]

for a one off deal, 50% to the player is far too much, a fairer split would be something like 75% to the staker, and 25% to the horse. In a long-term deal, 50% is about standard.

Why would anyone agree to play in a tourney where if they cash, they are only going to get 25% of the winnings?  Sounds like a crazy idea to me.  If it were capped so should the person go on to win a big one they still get a nice chunk of it (over 50%) then I would think it's a good idea, but I would never play for only 25 % of any winnings.

If someone wanted to stake me into any tournament with a buy in of £1000 or over and pay my expenses, I would gladly play for 25%.

I suspect that I don't play my absolute A game when I play a big buy in tourney because subconsciously I always know that I have too much of my bankroll at risk, it would be great to play a few without having to worry about the money.

That being said, I'm very happy to plod along with £100 £300/ £500 "Good structure" events, with the odd biggie thrown in if I win a seat or if I am running particularly good.

[Graham C]

Ah if all expenses are paid then I guess it's different, I thought only the buy in would be paid.    I still would want to play for more than 25% of myself though I think.   It's only ever going to be an attractive offer for tournaments way way out of my buy in range though.  I'd never settle for 25% of the Sunday Million for example, but if it was a major event (EPT, WSOP, WPT etc) with all expenses paid, I'd be more open to it.

So for that reason, I am able to accept the offer byron

[totalise]

for a one off deal, 50% to the player is far too much, a fairer split would be something like 75% to the staker, and 25% to the horse. In a long-term deal, 50% is about standard.

Why would anyone agree to play in a tourney where if they cash, they are only going to get 25% of the winnings?  Sounds like a crazy idea to me.  If it were capped so should the person go on to win a big one they still get a nice chunk of it (over 50%) then I would think it's a good idea, but I would never play for only 25 % of any winnings.

well the first reason is that they most liekly cant aford the buyin, so they should be happy.. the second one is that they get a nice freeroll and dont have to worry about losing. Im pretty sure that if a poker player can get a 50% backing deal, tourney to tourney, with no make-up, its better for them then if they had the roll to bankroll themselves.

The best way to see it from the backers side is to assume that you have a 100 player tourney, and you back someone that is 0EV.. if they go 50/50 on a long term deal, (100 tournies) and the player finishes in each spot from 1--100, then the buyins will exactly match the returns, so with makeup, they both break even, but if the backer gives 50% of all the winnings, and absorbs all the losses, then if the player finishes in positions 1--100 in a 100 tournament trial, the backer will lose out as he absorbs all the losses, and the poker player, despite being 0EV, will make money from the deal... so it stands to reason that you cant give someone 50% on a tourney to tourney basis.

[booder]

the Colonel is willing to be staked in the sunday biggies on stars / tilt  for a 25% return.

[Nakor]

for a one off deal, 50% to the player is far too much, a fairer split would be something like 75% to the staker, and 25% to the horse. In a long-term deal, 50% is about standard.

Why would anyone agree to play in a tourney where if they cash, they are only going to get 25% of the winnings?  Sounds like a crazy idea to me.  If it were capped so should the person go on to win a big one they still get a nice chunk of it (over 50%) then I would think it's a good idea, but I would never play for only 25 % of any winnings.

Graham believe you are about to play the GUKPT having to split your potential winnings with your Blonde team ?
Can you forsee any situation in the upcoming event that this might alter your decision making, taking this into account?