Horses - are stables a good thing

[shipitgood]

2 different types of staking

1) Someone has done well got money, is really good at poker, they stake a friend(s), theres some coaching involved in the deal.

2) Large scale staking operations, they advertise on poker websites for "horses" (what a ridiculous term along with "stables". Most folk they take on they will not know/ have previous experience with.

Going back to my post above with the type of "staking" from point 1, this seems quite natural normal, and acceptable.

However with point 2, this is a real drain on the poker industry. Setting up on a commercial scale to just bleed as much money from the poker system as possible, it's just greed, how can we milk as much money from the poker industry as possible.

Overall re staking, the only benefit I can see for it as TeddyBloat mentioned above is development and improvement of ones game. I can not see how this can be healthy on a long term basis. For sure there is risk for a "backer", probably significantly less so when it's point one above there is a good relationship, you are friends prior to any staking agreement.

Overall, it must be pretty terrible for someone getting staked giving away so much of their profit every year, this is especially true for cash games.

I have no idea why anyone would ever be staked long term for cash games. If they are a winning player they are just burning money.

One thing sites could do to inhibit large scale staking operations is disable player to player transfers.

[arbboy]

seperate issues

- where would the poker industry be without staking?

- could or should it be regulated, and how?

It would be next to impossible to regulate.

In relation to point one, it would be easy to argue that it's detrimental to the poker ecosystem.

The more and more players getting "staked" is just taking more and more money out of the poker ecosystem at a quicker rate versus if staking did not exist.

Players, if there is decent coaching involved, will also be getting better at a quicker rate. Also the proliferation of staking. to some extent or another, will have sped up the evolution of online poker.

You constantly hear players talking about games getting harder, certainly over the next couple of years this trend will continue, and "staking" will be one of the reasons behind that.

 





 

Without staking a lot of games simply wouldn't run either though.  That is the flip side.

[SuuPRlim]

mikeymike seems to have left the conversation now that it's gotten sensible.

maybe he's given an ice cream van man £1000 to try sell as much ice cream as he can in a day, if he makes some money on the day, great, if not then thats the risk you take but as we all know he can definitely afford it.

[nirvana]

mikeymike seems to have left the conversation now that it's gotten sensible.

maybe he's given an ice cream van man £1000 to try sell as much ice cream as he can in a day, if he makes some money on the day, great, if not then thats the risk you take but as we all know he can definitely afford it.

He might have just been asking, in a round about devils advocate way, "am I being shafted or am I shafting myself?".

Well, it's one or the other

[Rexas]

seperate issues

- where would the poker industry be without staking?

- could or should it be regulated, and how?

It would be next to impossible to regulate.

In relation to point one, it would be easy to argue that it's detrimental to the poker ecosystem.

The more and more players getting "staked" is just taking more and more money out of the poker ecosystem at a quicker rate versus if staking did not exist.

Players, if there is decent coaching involved, will also be getting better at a quicker rate. Also the proliferation of staking. to some extent or another, will have sped up the evolution of online poker.

You constantly hear players talking about games getting harder, certainly over the next couple of years this trend will continue, and "staking" will be one of the reasons behind that.

I don't think it is a simple argument that staking is flat out bad for the poker economy. A lot of people who couldn't otherwise play at the level they do, do so because they are staked. Especially when it comes to mtt's the fields are going to be full of people who are backed in some way, whether this is a long term thing or a short term thing.

However with point 2, this is a real drain on the poker industry. Setting up on a commercial scale to just bleed as much money from the poker system as possible, it's just greed, how can we milk as much money from the poker industry as possible.

Overall re staking, the only benefit I can see for it as TeddyBloat mentioned above is development and improvement of ones game. I can not see how this can be healthy on a long term basis. For sure there is risk for a "backer", probably significantly less so when it's point one above there is a good relationship, you are friends prior to any staking agreement.

Overall, it must be pretty terrible for someone getting staked giving away so much of their profit every year, this is especially true for cash games.

I have no idea why anyone would ever be staked long term for cash games. If they are a winning player they are just burning money.

One thing sites could do to inhibit large scale staking operations is disable player to player transfers.

There are people on this forum who run stables, are you saying that Pleno and Picken back people for no other reason than because they are greedy? I don't think this is fair at all. They offer things in return, such as coaching and degree of financial security. Furthermore, most larger stables require their players to already be winners before they join, so already we're talking about a very small % of the overall community. They are giving people opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have and risking their own time and money in order to make it work, if this is your argument then basically everyone that owns is business only does so because of greed, and while I'm sure some do, this is an unreasonable blanket statement imo.

How can you not see that it is beneficial long term? I get to play stakes that are higher than I would otherwise be able to. Even if, in the short term, this means taking a small cut in profit that I see, in the long term I get access to coaching that I wouldn't otherwise be able to, a support network where I can discuss hands and learn from better players than myself, and I get to test myself by playing higher and against better players than I otherwise would. Yes, I have to give something back, but it seems like I get a lot for my money. If I'm a losing player, I don't even have to give it all back. So no, I don't think it's bad having to give profit away, because in return I get lower variance, more opportunities, and if I'm a winner practically guaranteed longevity in a game where a lot of people go broke.

As an example, I'd fucking love to be staked by Pleno for cash games. Even if it was at a similar level to what I already play, I get coaching from one of the best players in the world, and I get to be involved in chats and sessions with other players who are way, way better than me. I would get pushed and motivated to learn and grind, and in the long term I would benefit massively from this. Yes, it might mean I lose out on a little money in the short term, but in the long term for me this would be hugely +ev. If I do well, I might also get the chance to play a fair bit higher than I currently do, and when you put all of this together, from the horse's point of view I don't think there is a reasonable downside.

[nirvana]

There are people on this forum who run stables, are you saying that Pleno and Picken back people for no other reason than because they are greedy?

I am happy, in the nicest, non trolling way to say the only reason they do it is greed - pretty pointless enterprise otherwise. Greed can have broad definitions but think it's fair to assume the main reason is to make money..ergo, can call it something else euphemistically but it's OK to call it greed..ask Gecko.

The rest of your points can be let through though :-)

[pleno1]

2 different types of staking

1) Someone has done well got money, is really good at poker, they stake a friend(s), theres some coaching involved in the deal.

2) Large scale staking operations, they advertise on poker websites for "horses" (what a ridiculous term along with "stables". Most folk they take on they will not know/ have previous experience with.

Going back to my post above with the type of "staking" from point 1, this seems quite natural normal, and acceptable.

However with point 2, this is a real drain on the poker industry. Setting up on a commercial scale to just bleed as much money from the poker system as possible, it's just greed, how can we milk as much money from the poker industry as possible.

Overall re staking, the only benefit I can see for it as TeddyBloat mentioned above is development and improvement of ones game. I can not see how this can be healthy on a long term basis. For sure there is risk for a "backer", probably significantly less so when it's point one above there is a good relationship, you are friends prior to any staking agreement.

Overall, it must be pretty terrible for someone getting staked giving away so much of their profit every year, this is especially true for cash games.

I have no idea why anyone would ever be staked long term for cash games. If they are a winning player they are just burning money.

One thing sites could do to inhibit large scale staking operations is disable player to player transfers.

This isn't necessarily true, as I said before there are very few successful staking operations. If it was just print print print there would be dozens of companies. Fact is many have lost hundreds of thousands or even millions in some cases thus actually helping the poker economy.

[The Camel]

When I started in poker. If player a put player b in a tournament.

It was 50:50 no make up.

[Simon Galloway]

When I started in poker. If player a put player b in a tournament.

It was 50:50 no make up.

I remember   I guess that's a combination of 1) people not thinking about it too much and 2) actually might still have been reasonable split back then when telephone number roi's were possible.

[Kev B]

Enjoying the insight to staking etc in this thread. As a rec player for about 10 years I've always had a maximum buy in level. This has increased over the years from a £100 tourney buy in, to £300 of my own money. If say I want to play a £440 GPS and haven't won a seat, then I will sell the extra £110 to mates as a bit of fun for them, and keeping me within my own buy in rules. I am a bit different to most in the poker world in that I don't gamble, and never have, in any shape or form outside of poker.

I have a few questions.

 Firstly having set up and run a few small businesses over the last 30+ years, some from small funds, others from bank loans. All, whether successful or not were based on my own ability and knowledge of the field I am working in. So why do poker players not do the same thing? If you think you are good enough and have the ability then why not back yourself with borrowed finances (assuming you are able to). In a new business starting up, growth comes from success and reinvestment.

Is it just that poker players want to play too high above their own bankroll will allow and are too impatient to build up a suitable roll themselves?

From Pleno1 post:

Also any clever staking company will only allow their horses to play games with 15%+ roi playing stakes they are beating thus having regular income and lower variance meaning they are basically giving them a wage every month anyway.

Are there actually staking companies? Given poker is gambling therefore not subject to income tax or for the gambler to claim expenses, how can companies exist?

[AlunB]

seperate issues

- where would the poker industry be without staking?

- could or should it be regulated, and how?

It would be next to impossible to regulate.

Why? I'm sure it would only take a couple of lines added to the Gambling Act. Unlikely, sure, but I'm struggling to see why it would be next to impossible.

[Oxford_HRV]

we all know Tesco won't approve your loan request to go on a mad spinup

Thread

[mikeymike]

No i haven't disappeared - neither am i trolling

Backers and horses - what i am saying is that if a horse spends his whole day every day playing poker - you as a backer are employing that person - so they should get a living wage -

ask any builder - plumber - electrician - why they take on an apprentice who will for quite a while only be any good for humping things - they pay them a decent wage  show them all they know and then when the apprentice has qualified they may stay for a short while before they decide to go on there own - the builder - plumber cant say hey i have shelled out ex - in most cases he just remembers that was him/her years ago

If a backer stakes at say 50/50 it actually pays the backer to keep his horses in make up for the following reason -

Lets say as a backer you have backed a horse and are in the hole for 15k - suddenly the horse binks a 40k win - you take 20k your 50 percent which is profit - the horse takes 5k and the 15k  goes to pay the make up and it all starts over-again - the horse isnt really getting a good deal - for the hours he has put in its pretty poor pay

perhaps it would be better for backers if they paid their horses enough to live on but only gave them say 10 percent of there winnings - and no make up - very few people work well under pressure and if you know that your in the hole for 15k you will always be chasing and up making bad decisions

I would be interested to know how many horses (full time) in a stable are making 50k profit +++ a year

Its interesting that some of the worlds most successful poker players have backed horses and then realised for what ever reason its not worth it

If you want to back people that's fine - but most poker players are gamblers and when people whinge because they have invested ex and lose it - just remember that's why its called gambling

Interestingly when my horses run its for fun - i never back them - shame as i have had 2 3rds and a 1st this month

Good hunting

[pleno1]

In high variance games this exists. Spin n go stables pay their horses based on their ev not on their actual results because the variance is so high.

In Mtts you should simply make a lot of profit if you're playing the correct games with the correct approach. People lose because of game selection, whether that's a guy playing the big109 with 15$ Abi or the storm with a 0.50 abit. It goes all the way Upto live tournaments.

[Magic817]

No i haven't disappeared - neither am i trolling

Backers and horses - what i am saying is that if a horse spends his whole day every day playing poker - you as a backer are employing that person - so they should get a living wage -

ask any builder - plumber - electrician - why they take on an apprentice who will for quite a while only be any good for humping things - they pay them a decent wage  show them all they know and then when the apprentice has qualified they may stay for a short while before they decide to go on there own - the builder - plumber cant say hey i have shelled out ex - in most cases he just remembers that was him/her years ago

If a backer stakes at say 50/50 it actually pays the backer to keep his horses in make up for the following reason -

Lets say as a backer you have backed a horse and are in the hole for 15k - suddenly the horse binks a 40k win - you take 20k your 50 percent which is profit - the horse takes 5k and the 15k  goes to pay the make up and it all starts over-again - the horse isnt really getting a good deal - for the hours he has put in its pretty poor pay

perhaps it would be better for backers if they paid their horses enough to live on but only gave them say 10 percent of there winnings - and no make up - very few people work well under pressure and if you know that your in the hole for 15k you will always be chasing and up making bad decisions

I would be interested to know how many horses (full time) in a stable are making 50k profit +++ a year

Its interesting that some of the worlds most successful poker players have backed horses and then realised for what ever reason its not worth it

If you want to back people that's fine - but most poker players are gamblers and when people whinge because they have invested ex and lose it - just remember that's why its called gambling

Interestingly when my horses run its for fun - i never back them - shame as i have had 2 3rds and a 1st this month

Good hunting

Your maths is wrong, $15k goes to reduce make up to 0. Then $25k is split so the horse gets $12.5k