Staking deals and markup. Discussion?

[JK]

There's recently been an emergence of 70/30 staking deals appearing on the rail. It seems alot of people have an opinion on this, it'd be nice to hear all of them and discuss what people think.

For those that don't know, a 70/30 staking deal is a deal in which the player sells 100% of their action, for 70/30 split in backers favour of any winnings. This equates to approximately the same as selling at 1.4 without stakeback, 1.3 with (thanks for the numbers Action Man).

Opinions are pretty split at the moment about this. Personally, I put up a thread for such a deal because I had no other way to play such a fantastic value tournament. I wasnt planning on making a living playing poker through these types of deals, though I may well revert back to one in the future. I also tried to be as blindingly honest as I could when I put up my thread, so I could inform people exactly what they were buying into.

Whats your opinion on this?

[EvilPie]

Terrible value.

Fun punt.

[scotty77]

If people are happy to pay then what's the problem.  If yh really wanna be honest then just put the 'it works out at 1.4/1.3 in the thread.

Tbh just from reading the HH where you emptied the clip with less than 3rd pairc with 35 left makes me think ur more than worth it

One of the worse players on the circuit manages to get 1.3 becuase he's blinked couple of live donkaments...

[JK]

If people are happy to pay then what's the problem.  If yh really wanna be honest then just put the 'it works out at 1.4/1.3 in the thread.

Tbh just from reading the HH where you emptied the clip with less than 3rd pairc with 35 left makes me think ur more than worth it

One of the worse players on the circuit manages to get 1.3 becuase he's blinked couple of live donkaments...

Ilu <3

[Simon Galloway]

70/30 after stakeback on a £100 tourny, the horse is getting paid* £30 to play it.  (* +/- their skill set c.f. the field.)  It is punt territory, it may not be great value, but if the numbers are any smaller it makes little sense for the horse to play it.

70/30 after stakeback on a £5k event is a bit different.....

[pleno1]

Personally...

I see these deals as people who are massively under-rolled, generally, no roll at all. I'm happy to back friends in this agreement to as Dubai said in other thread help them get on their feet. If for example Jamie won 8k this weekend he would definitely not put a similar thread up, but if he put a staking thread up would buy a piece as if anybody else put a piece up on the forum. For people REGUARLY buying pieces with this agreement I think a makeup deal or a deal similar to Guy's MTT staking thread would be alot more suitable and fairer to everybody involved.

Would much prefer people just say exactly what it is. If you are basically selling 80% at 1.3 then say it rather than some people on the forum putting up 30/70, 20/80 etc splits. Lots of people enjoy a punt on this forum and I can't remember (except Muscles) the last person who didn't sell out a staking thread for an event 1k and under. I think that means that we have ALOT of buyers and a healthy market on the forum, however it is imperative people understand what they are investing in and the value etc. I thik if we all just say X% at 1.x (2.x if you're Dave Fkn Shallow) then it would make things alot easier and you could compare how much somebody is selling their selves compared to others.

[pleno1]

If we actually had a template that all stakees had to fill in it would probably be good for everybody.


Name

Tournament and buy in

Mark up

5% =
10% =

History/Pedigree

Vouches

Payment details

[cambridgealex]

Yeh I think lots of people just aren't aware that a 70/30 deal = buying at 1.42, so may swerve buying a piece in someone at 1.3, thinking this is better value, when it's not.

I don't mind people putting up these threads of course, but I think they should write exactly what 70/30 means, and include the 1.42 figure. That way it's totally transparent.

[TightEnd]

selling at 80-20= ?

isn't that more the norm these days?

[pleno1]

Also the first staking package I ever sold was for a tournament series in Newcastle.

Total buy ins was something like £500. And I was keeping 50% after cashes. So a 50/50 deal! I had no idea of course and was definitely a minus ev stake ldo.

[Doobs]

The 70/30 deals usually look such bad value, but for a one off tournament to do friends a favour it is fine.  

When break even players put up a staking thread asking for thousands to pay a big schedule with 42% mark up, it looks like preying on people's genorisity/naivety.  There really can't be that many players who have a long run expected roi up there at decent stakes these days.  Even if they did have an roi in the 40s, they are taking credit for that from the backer and hence leaving the buyer just buying variance at best.  A lot of these deals are -EV + buying variance.  

The likes of Dubai/ railtard asking a reasonable make up which leaves something of their edge in it for a buyer, and is a completely different thing.

[pleno1]

selling at 80-20= ?

isn't that more the norm these days?

The only thing is, is somebody going to be motivated to grind a 12bb stack when they are only going to get 20% of a cash? Like sitting there for 2 days close to the bubble you're probably going to make ICM mistakes around the bubble because you need a stack to justify any kind of hourly.

I think generally anybody who plays a tournament should have at least 35% of themselves. But of course who am I to say how motivated somebody is going to be.

[cambridgealex]

selling at 80-20= ?

isn't that more the norm these days?

The only thing is, is somebody going to be motivated to grind a 12bb stack when they are only going to get 20% of a cash? Like sitting there for 2 days close to the bubble you're probably going to make ICM mistakes around the bubble because you need a stack to justify any kind of hourly.

I think generally anybody who plays a tournament should have at least 35% of themselves. But of course who am I to say how motivated somebody is going to be.

Yeh I mean, even with 70/30s saying Joe Bloggs ROI in the £500 deepstack is 25%, that means he's going to make on average £125 everytime he plays it, and say he play's it for 6 hours on average. If he's only getting 20/30% of the profits he's making £25 or £37.50 everytime. Across 6 hours that's an hourly of £4-£6....

[JK]

selling at 80-20= ?

isn't that more the norm these days?

The only thing is, is somebody going to be motivated to grind a 12bb stack when they are only going to get 20% of a cash? Like sitting there for 2 days close to the bubble you're probably going to make ICM mistakes around the bubble because you need a stack to justify any kind of hourly.

I think generally anybody who plays a tournament should have at least 35% of themselves. But of course who am I to say how motivated somebody is going to be.

Yeh I mean, even with 70/30s saying Joe Bloggs ROI in the £500 deepstack is 25%, that means he's going to make on average £125 everytime he plays it, and say he play's it for 6 hours on average. If he's only getting 20/30% of the profits he's making £25 or £37.50 everytime. Across 6 hours that's an hourly of £4-£6....

Just need to get my ROI up to 40% and Id be able to quit my job!

[rfgqqabc]

I've never sold at any real markup before. I've never felt too comfortable with it, and I've also had the same people taking a %, and never felt like i could ask to put a markup on top, especially as I feel they may/may not have been doing me a favour. These 70/30 deals do seen somewhat unfair to the backer, but the onus on research is for the backer, and if the stakes sell, they sell, so who cares. Supply and demand yo