Playing for yourself vs getting staked

[pleno1]

I've previously been staked successfully, been staked unsuccessfully, staked successfully and staked unsuccessfully however I'm in a lot if doubt about how I want to go forward as a staker and as a stakee..

From a stakees pov, let's consider I go professional and decide to play full time, I would want to play around 70pc cash and 30% MTTs. Is it better for me to get a backer, play a big 4k Sunday schedule and 4k worth of bis throughout the week where I would be profitable but could potentially be in makeup, or play around 3k of MTTs throughout the week and keep all of the action myself?

What's the pros and cons of both arrangements?

[Longy]

From a stakee's pov. I think a lot of it depends on person by person basis and what you are getting staked for.

I must admit I don't really understand people being staked for micros, if you are good enough you will be able to grind your way up in time. Whereas being staked for big stuff that is either outside of peoples rolls as a contolled shot take or as way of reducing mindboggling variance.

Also there is the psychological aspects and how being staked affects your mindset. Is being in tonnes of makeup going to destroy your game? Do you play different when it is not your own money?

Fwiw I have never being staked for anything and like having 100% of whatever I earn and only having myself to answer to.

I think in your spot getting staked for mtts seems to make sense, while keeping your cash action to yourself if you can get such a deal.

[jgcblack]

It's an issue i wondered about before accepting your offer pleno... and I'm still not too sure about.

As a stakee in a little makeup, at the moment it doesn't affect me at all, I'm more disappointed that I'm losing for my backer in the sense that he obviously had a reason for backing me and so far - not producing.

However when it comes to tourny variance, it does sound like a potential minefield with even people like Martins Adenya being superb tournament players... but in his case I heard he needed to come top3 in EPT London last year to even clear makeup.. WTF!

There are some legendary backers and stakees on here so hopefully they will come and help out with their experiences, why it was successful or unsuccessful and tips for both sides.

Enter Keys to totally tear me a new one...

[SuuPRlim]

if i were you I'd get backed for tourneys and play cash on your own.

[Bully87]

As someone in a similar situation to John Black grinding SSNL there are more cons for the staker as they are obviously instilling trust and funds into the unknown.
But if you have the resources and time like Pleno/Badbeat/BRS to invest in a horse to eventually make you some serious dough then fair play. Takes balls to back someone no matter how much it is for.

I personally am very thankful and has probably saved me a heck of a lot of money attempting to spin up/worrying about life roll and the coaching is obviously helping too.

[TommyD]

I'm pretty damn old school and have a certain allergy towards that level of staking.  I can see the point of staking and that it can be very successful for both parties.  As I never touch it I confess I don't know the full ins and outs of make up (I know what it is obviously but I don't understand usual/common amounts of make up to be in and to what regularity to expect to be in it etc).  It worries me a little if someone deep in make up will ever be playing their best game, I fear they will become a little desensitised to money and the amount of debt, feeling what's another X amount when I'm already Y in the hole.  But as I said, I know little about it.

Personally I quite like the 'all action for myself' route.  When I lose a big cash session or go on a MTT downswing I only have myself to answer to and I'm not worried about giving myself bad news.  When I win, I keep the lot (less girlfriend tax).  I like keeping the lot.

Personally Pleeno I think people in general play their better game with their own action.  The cons of this are of course your volume of tourneys will be lower (I take it the stake would be for volume of decent buy in tourneys rather than for the buy in prices themselves) and your profit progress would be slower.  As far as what would be mathematically more profitable, I guess that's all down to the numbers of your deal.

[UpTheMariners]

your probably better off becoming a master of one game rather than trying to be good at both disciplines 

[Simon Galloway]

The vast majority of staking applications come from players requesting a stake into games in which they can never be profitable. The levels of delusion range from mild through to nutjobs. They are either looking for a stake into games too high that they can't afford to put themselves in, or are just flat out losing players and sick of losing their own money.

Of the applications that have merit, some people are looking to take a stake to instil the discipline that they can't find solo.  Others are winning players with leaks/bad habits elsewhere (not usually volunteered on the application, but there if you look/ask) and others have had IRL mishaps and don't want to start lower than they are used to.  Some are wanting to move up with coach+stake.  The occasional applicant simply doesn't know anyone that plays poker to talk to and are seeking access into a poker community.  An amazing percentage (to me) actually win nicely at a particular format, but persist in playing games they don't win at.  They can be good stakes if you can agree a fair format for them to scratch their particular itch.  They can be great stakes if you can help them realise for themselves that they are doing it the hard way ~ it doesn't really work by telling them they are bad at something, you just have to help them see it for themselves (hopefully a lot quicker than they would have otherwise realised unaided)

For backers, the majority that I have spoken to simply overstake.  If you never have a bad stakee, you are too nitty.  But if you are too liberal with it, it eats into the bottom line too much.  The biggest mistake (imo) I see is backers just blindly throwing money at the wall to see how much sticks.  They don't do sufficient diligence at the start (or throughout) the stake.  Staking is a people business perhaps even more than it is a poker business.  I have turned down stake requests from clearly winning poker players.  I have given stakes to much less able players, simply because they have a much more credible game plan.  Should I back a winning player that wants to play sky high all the time, but doesn't have a pot to piss in, (so will continually be nipping) - or a small winner in small games who has a regular job (and therefore doesn't need the income) but typically sends a return miles north of what any regular investment could achieve? 

Once a backer has enough players to describe as a "stable" - there is actually room to have both types of player within it.  How much of each type is down to personal preference (or random luck if the backer isn't thinking about it) and their particular appetite for risk.

[zerofive]

 

[jgcblack]

Imo lets get the big boys ITT..... Skolsuper and mondeoman anywhere???

[Simon Galloway]

nice rub

[mondatoo]

nice rub

 

[skolsuper]

The vast majority of staking applications come from players requesting a stake into games in which they can never be profitable. The levels of delusion range from mild through to nutjobs. They are either looking for a stake into games too high that they can't afford to put themselves in, or are just flat out losing players and sick of losing their own money.

Of the applications that have merit, some people are looking to take a stake to instil the discipline that they can't find solo.  Others are winning players with leaks/bad habits elsewhere (not usually volunteered on the application, but there if you look/ask) and others have had IRL mishaps and don't want to start lower than they are used to.  Some are wanting to move up with coach+stake.  The occasional applicant simply doesn't know anyone that plays poker to talk to and are seeking access into a poker community.  An amazing percentage (to me) actually win nicely at a particular format, but persist in playing games they don't win at.  They can be good stakes if you can agree a fair format for them to scratch their particular itch.  They can be great stakes if you can help them realise for themselves that they are doing it the hard way ~ it doesn't really work by telling them they are bad at something, you just have to help them see it for themselves (hopefully a lot quicker than they would have otherwise realised unaided)

For backers, the majority that I have spoken to simply overstake.  If you never have a bad stakee, you are too nitty.  But if you are too liberal with it, it eats into the bottom line too much.  The biggest mistake (imo) I see is backers just blindly throwing money at the wall to see how much sticks.  They don't do sufficient diligence at the start (or throughout) the stake.  Staking is a people business perhaps even more than it is a poker business.  I have turned down stake requests from clearly winning poker players.  I have given stakes to much less able players, simply because they have a much more credible game plan.  Should I back a winning player that wants to play sky high all the time, but doesn't have a pot to piss in, (so will continually be nipping) - or a small winner in small games who has a regular job (and therefore doesn't need the income) but typically sends a return miles north of what any regular investment could achieve? 

Once a backer has enough players to describe as a "stable" - there is actually room to have both types of player within it.  How much of each type is down to personal preference (or random luck if the backer isn't thinking about it) and their particular appetite for risk.

Could not have put it any better than this.

[SuuPRlim]

Simon Galloway ladies and gentleman, A+

It's by no means un-feasible for poker players to have proven winning records in a game they are situationally unable to bankroll themselves in.

It's also very common nowadays for people to just start getting into poker, have a little success at lower levels then think, I wanna play high, lets just get backed (that's defo not Pleno fwiw)

[jgcblack]

nice rub

just had my fingers rapped by these boys recently.... thought it might get a smile.
no offence ofc.