As stated previously, I'm at 80/20.
So I think I want to clear up the "four backer" scenario.
For simplicity let's say you and 3 others put in $5K each to raise $20K,
Anthony, Bill, Calvin, Dwight.
(Also, for simplicity, we can set aside expenses for now. Though I agree that should be negotiable.)
You cash out $30K (net $10K)
You get your 20% ($2K right off the top) for being the horse and all backers including yourself divide the 80% proportionally? So it's $4K to Anthony, $2K to Bill, $2K to Calvin, $2K to Dwight plus everyone's initial investment.
So basically the rub is Bill, Calvin, and Dwight are each putting up 25% of the money, but only getting 20% of the profit to represent the time and value of the horse.
I get it looks gaudy that Anthony gets twice as much as the other investors with this arithmetic, but that doesn't mean the other investors are giving up half their profit for the price of the horse, just 20%.
To introduce a more likely scenario, let's say 15 investors in for $1000 each and Anthony is still at $5000. Each investor gets 1/20 * $8000 (or about $400 plus the $1000 they put in) instead of 1/20*$10000 (or about $500 profit) in a no-markup deal.
So assuming I am right about everything above, I do have some feedback (forgive this for being from the sidelines, but I think a few things are missing in the discussion.)
Just to give you my rather limited staking experience, I don't do it too often anymore, and most of it was a long time ago. I have been on both sides of 50/50 staking deals with makeup and 100% investment from the backer. (Kinish's "standard deal" offer to Mike McDermott.) I have also done no-markup deals in short term situations to avoid make-up. (Usually a tournament or a one time shot at a bigger game to keep my risk about the same.) The question is how low does the horse's share go with a no-makeup concession, and for this being in the grand scheme of poker a very short-term deal. Unlike me, Anthony probably deserves more than zero, and also worth considering, he is willing to own a significant piece of himself + willingness to self-fund the travel expense. Ultimately the market will decide if that's worth 20% and obviously some people are in for that, and some are not. Now and days, I only play in games I can fund myself. I will stake a friend short term now and then, mixed success for sure.
Two points in fairness to the skeptics,
First, I don't think enough has been said about a "no makeup deal" being a fairly risky concession from the backers. I get that the one-time nature of this proposition makes this necessary, but that should potentially justify a deviation from what should be the "standard" price.
Also, in fairness to the skeptics, a lot has been said about the "time and skill" of the horse, but for a single session over as little as 6-8 hours, time and skill are actually less valuable to the backers than they would be in a longer term deal with makeup over 100 hours for example.
All that said, in Anthony's favor, I think eating the travel expenses and sharing the losses evenly are decent compensations for doing a no makeup deal.
To make it simple if the deal is 80/20 on profit and equity shared losses, for every $1000 profit a 5% investor stands to gain $40 and for each $1000 lost a 5% investor stands to lose $50. I think that's the simplest way to look at whether or not it's a good deal. If it were a 90/10 split, then a 5% investor gets $45 for each $1000 profit instead of 40. So that's what both sides are probably arguing for, $5 difference per $1000 in profit per 5% share in the stake. It can add up quick if investors are seeing possibility of $10K or $20K of profit, so I am not trying to trivialize it, but I am trying to quantify it accurately.
I won't say anymore because I personally won't get involved for this kind of money (and I don't blame Anthony one bit for wanting to put a $500 minimum on this, otherwise the list would get quite lengthy to raise $15K), I have a chip add-on and potentially a 3d printer to think about. (Oh and wife and kiddos too.) But I thought maybe a cooler look at things both sides should consider and boiling it down to what it means per thousand in each direction would be helpful.