It’s been a while since I have spoken to him, but the guy I inherited our game from was/is a very low level semi-pro/pro with a backer and I vaguely remembered it being something like a basic no risk 80/20 split arrangement.
Cash Game Being Staked In Cash Games
- Thread starter Anthony Martino
- Start date
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I wonder if I should get staked for David's game tomorrow. Hmmmm,
Legend5555
Flush
With any split, you obviously just need to think about what your hourly ends up being. At 80/20, you need to make at least 5x the hourly you currently do to make the split worth it.
Anthony Martino
4 of a Kind
I wouldn't be agreeing to 80/20 in these games. I mean, if I was playing 200/400 PLO and was 100% backed, ok, now we're talking lol. But this is more like 5/10/25 or 25/50 kinda stuff I believe
Legend5555
Flush
That's the thing. As a pro, you just need to be concerned about you $/hr.
If it was me, as a rec, I'd take the best no make up deal I could negotiate.
Most of what I know here (not much!) comes from reading about the Kate Hall staking dispute... So take this with a grain of salt.
But: I thought the typical arrangement was that if the staker quits *you*, they lose the makeup. Otherwise, they would be entering into a totally risk-free arrangement.
In the Hall dispute (if I recall it correctly), she dropped out, then either thought the decision was mutual or just did not want to be responsible for the makeup.
The main lesson I took from it was that whatever the terms agreed to, you really must have a clear arrangement, written down, with no grey areas.
Anyway: I hate credit of any kind, even 0% for the first whatever. It weighs on my mind and clouds my decision-making. So I only buy what I can pay for in cash. Bankers will tell you this make you a sucker; but I never want to in effect work for the bank. I likewise do not lend money to friends, because it often leads to spoiled friendships. (Maybe it’s a New England Yankee thing.)
Staking of course is a different form of credit than, say, a home equity loan. But I still don’t like it. Seems likely to lead to bad decisions, disputes, poor play, or at least some bad feeling with a friend.
If you are winning at your stakes, just keep winning until you can play higher on your own. Take a few shots to see how it feels when you have some extra cash. It will be more satisfying if you grind your way up.
But: I thought the typical arrangement was that if the staker quits *you*, they lose the makeup. Otherwise, they would be entering into a totally risk-free arrangement.
In the Hall dispute (if I recall it correctly), she dropped out, then either thought the decision was mutual or just did not want to be responsible for the makeup.
The main lesson I took from it was that whatever the terms agreed to, you really must have a clear arrangement, written down, with no grey areas.
Anyway: I hate credit of any kind, even 0% for the first whatever. It weighs on my mind and clouds my decision-making. So I only buy what I can pay for in cash. Bankers will tell you this make you a sucker; but I never want to in effect work for the bank. I likewise do not lend money to friends, because it often leads to spoiled friendships. (Maybe it’s a New England Yankee thing.)
Staking of course is a different form of credit than, say, a home equity loan. But I still don’t like it. Seems likely to lead to bad decisions, disputes, poor play, or at least some bad feeling with a friend.
If you are winning at your stakes, just keep winning until you can play higher on your own. Take a few shots to see how it feels when you have some extra cash. It will be more satisfying if you grind your way up.
Anthony Martino
4 of a Kind
I'm a former Masshole, so I'm with ya on not lending money. This is slightly different as the guy approached me to put me into games, rather than me seeking him out. And he's the key I need to get into the juicy, private games, as he knows the hosts and I don't.
One kid I know plays in those games and was up like 18K in profit. Then he got talked into playing some OFC with one of the deep-pocketed gamblers, who went on a tear, entering fantasy land something like 5 times, and he lost all his money to the guy lol.
I've heard these guys do $500 flips sometimes too. I've done flips up to $150, but haven't gone higher yet.
grebe
3 of a Kind
Stakes with makeup seem insane to me....playing in makeup seems like it would be a death trap. The whole point of staking is to play higher with reduced personal risk, but now you have to dig yourself out of a hole? No thanks.
grebe
3 of a Kind
Also, I dont know shit about staking but am intrigued in this and other aspects of the world of poker. Best of luck, I am following.
Anthony Martino
4 of a Kind
I mean, if you're 100% staked I get the makeup part. The backer is taking 100% of the financial/bankroll risk and you as the player are only out your time if you lose.
As a backer, it wouldn't be fair if my player loses 3 buyins this week, then win 4 buyins next week and expects to just split it 50/50 when the backer has 7 buyins into this whole thing.
Legend5555
Flush
I think in this exact instance, you may just want to take what you can so you can get known in the private game circle. The stakes as you have said really seem to be essentially one level up depending on straddling tendencies. Seems more like a game you should be taking shots at on your own dime if you are comfortable doing so.
Being PLO, I'm sure this is a more daunting than it would be in NLHE. I'm not even sure what BR management is in PLO, but it's got to be at least 50%-100% more buy ins than NLHE I'd imagine.
Being PLO, I'm sure this is a more daunting than it would be in NLHE. I'm not even sure what BR management is in PLO, but it's got to be at least 50%-100% more buy ins than NLHE I'd imagine.
Legend5555
Flush
I'm sure this is stuff you would need to get hashed out. Like maybe make up doesn't start until $X of loss. Or the backer can renegotiate or quit after $X loss.
But as a one time shot, I wouldn't want to deal with make up. Why should the backer have essentially zero risk? If the worst they can do is break even, it doesn't seem like much of a risk/reward investment. Again, this all assumes good faith in the part of the player to pay back any make up.
Can you imagine if tournament pieces included make up?
That’s a good point. Maybe if you were looking at it as just gaining entrée for a limited time, see what you think... But I’d want a clear ceiling on how much the stakes would extend over the life of the arrangement, and a clear limit to your liability. And a really clear exit plan if you either don’t like it, or get to a point where you can go it alone.
Still prefer grinding it up.
Anthony Martino
4 of a Kind
I can't understand this guy, why doesn't he just speak 'Murican?! Also, what's with those bare sterilized walls and the camera view of his nostrils? Serial Killer confirmed!
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Is he okay with taking risk on you, or is he just looking to be the money man?
If he's comfortable with the risk, I think it's better to look at it as selling action rather than staking. If your backer wants to buy x% if your action, he gets x% of what you walk away from the table with, whether that amount is $0, or below the amount you started with or a profit. No makeup.
If he wants to be the money man, the percentage has to be in your favor because you are taking *all* the risk and all he is doing is providing is the bankroll, which he will get all of it back.
Agreed all this need to be reduced to writing, just so there aren't issues down the road.
If he's comfortable with the risk, I think it's better to look at it as selling action rather than staking. If your backer wants to buy x% if your action, he gets x% of what you walk away from the table with, whether that amount is $0, or below the amount you started with or a profit. No makeup.
If he wants to be the money man, the percentage has to be in your favor because you are taking *all* the risk and all he is doing is providing is the bankroll, which he will get all of it back.
Agreed all this need to be reduced to writing, just so there aren't issues down the road.
Anthony Martino
4 of a Kind
I think he just wants to go halfsies in each session with me? I'll know more once he's set the money aside and gotten in touch to put me into the games instead of himself playing.
So I guess a 50/50 split of whatever I have left each session without makeup would make the most sense.
grebe
3 of a Kind
It sounds like getting your foot in the door to these games could open you up to a lot of possibilities long term. Giving up a little win rate at the beginning could reap some great rewards long term. I would definitely keep an open mind to be able to network in this secluded world.
A few thoughts unrelated to the stake issue. First, I play in many of those “juicy” private (some times in the casino) or home games in my area (what most would consider hi stakes). Seats are hard to get, so if ur are not action u would not be invited back - especially if u hit and ran (in our games if u need to leave early u need to announce it beforehand, and may lose ur seat in favor of someone that can stay the entire time). Nitty pros typically do not get seats. Also, bangers are a huge part of the game. If u think a $500 banger is big, u ain’t seen nothing yet. In those games, if u don’t do the bangers u would not be invited back. Point is, if ur juicy games are like the ones I play in, unless ur willing to purely gamble, ur not gonna last long. Not sure how the staking relationship will work in that scenario (given no skill in bangers).
Second, assuming u do get a seat with some consistency, playing in the bigger games is likely going to affect your play in the smaller games. My guess is u will start gambling more and have less patience in the smaller game (thereby becoming less effective). My advice - stay away from the light!! keep grinding in your games. Apparently you can beat those games with some consistency. Stick with it. Just my thoughts.
Second, assuming u do get a seat with some consistency, playing in the bigger games is likely going to affect your play in the smaller games. My guess is u will start gambling more and have less patience in the smaller game (thereby becoming less effective). My advice - stay away from the light!! keep grinding in your games. Apparently you can beat those games with some consistency. Stick with it. Just my thoughts.
Exactly this. I’d rather take get a line of credit loan to play in a higher stakes game. Paying a small % interest loan is better than 50% of the profit and still have to pay back losses. That is stupid.
Anthony Martino
4 of a Kind
Some valid input. I would need to adjust my style and gamble level somewhat to ensure I keep getting invited back. I am a talker at the table, so that does make me appear a bit more active even if I'm not in hands. That being said, I would likely "when in Rome" it, with some twists. If there's lots of straddling going on, I'd try to get my straddles in when I have a positional advantage and try to be the first straddler so I'm paying the lowest amount to straddle rather than being stuck doing the higher restraddles.
As far as the flips go, I do them regularly at the Monday Luckys game, but usually those are $50-100 a pop, I've gone as high as $150. And yes, a $500 flip to me would be a lot, but provided my backer is joining me in the risk it's a $250 flip and there's usually 4 grand up for grabs he said (and I actually run pretty good at flips lol)
I do agree that playing higher stakes games has opened me up more in the lower stakes ones. Since I played so much 2/5/10, sitting in a 1/2 with $500 in front of me and facing a raise to $15 or $20 seems like nothing, it numbs you to the lower stakes a bit.
I agree. Again, my friend didn't say anything about makeup. I think he just wants to do a 50/50 session bankroll and remaining bankroll split
CrazyEddie
Flush
"Hey, man, let me stake you. Standard deal, you know. Fifty percent of your winnings. If you lose, it's on me."
You gonna argue with Knish?
You gonna argue with Knish?
Legend5555
Flush
Off topic but....
A buddy of mine that lives in Athens, GA and works for UGA may have an in to the dean's game. A real Mike McD situation in the making.
CrazyEddie
Flush
Oh, I'd like to, but I can't. I don't play cards.
CrazyEddie
Flush
One way to look at Knish's deal is that he's offering to pay a 2.0 markup, if you construe it as a short-term arrangement rather than long-term. He buys half of Mike's action, so gets paid half of whatever Mike earns, if anything. He pays a 2.0 markup, so instead of paying even money for the half he's buying, he pays 100% of Mike's "buy-in" i.e. he funds the whole bankroll. If Mike loses the whole bankroll and gets paid nothing, then Knish is out the whole thing and Mike has nothing to pay back.
In tournament terms, a 2.0 markup is pretty big. But Mike's good, right? He's worth it.
@Anthony Martino - It sounds like your buddy is suggesting a similar deal, not a long-term staking arrangement. I'm guessing he hasn't done this a lot before, so I'm guessing he's thinking something like "we split the money going in, we split the money coming out". It sounds kinda reasonable at first, but if you think about it, it's not that great. It would be the equivalent of you giving him a 1.0 markup. The only compensation you're getting in exchange for your skills is an invitation to a juicy game and a bankroll boost to let you play in it. Maybe that's enough. I dunno. It's your call.
You could talk to him about a better deal. Maybe you could swing one as good as Knish's, where you're getting a 2.0 markup and no risk, even if it's only over half the bankroll and he's only purchasing 25% of your action. But I bet that's not what he has in mind. Maybe if you frame it as "You put up the whole bankroll and we split the winnings 50/50" he might agree to it. Even if he doesn't, once you're in that framing you could probably work out a reasonable split of the money in and a split of the money out that leaves you both satisfied and is easy to understand.
Either way, if it were me I'd be very leery of entering a long-term arrangement with a potentially indefinite makeup period. I bet that's not what he has in mind either. Whatever you propose back to him, he's probably going to be left puzzled at the complications you're suggesting to what he probably expects was supposed to be a simple proposition. Be prepared to explain things, carefully, multiple times. Or just take the simple deal and make it really clear how it's going to work.
In tournament terms, a 2.0 markup is pretty big. But Mike's good, right? He's worth it.
@Anthony Martino - It sounds like your buddy is suggesting a similar deal, not a long-term staking arrangement. I'm guessing he hasn't done this a lot before, so I'm guessing he's thinking something like "we split the money going in, we split the money coming out". It sounds kinda reasonable at first, but if you think about it, it's not that great. It would be the equivalent of you giving him a 1.0 markup. The only compensation you're getting in exchange for your skills is an invitation to a juicy game and a bankroll boost to let you play in it. Maybe that's enough. I dunno. It's your call.
You could talk to him about a better deal. Maybe you could swing one as good as Knish's, where you're getting a 2.0 markup and no risk, even if it's only over half the bankroll and he's only purchasing 25% of your action. But I bet that's not what he has in mind. Maybe if you frame it as "You put up the whole bankroll and we split the winnings 50/50" he might agree to it. Even if he doesn't, once you're in that framing you could probably work out a reasonable split of the money in and a split of the money out that leaves you both satisfied and is easy to understand.
Either way, if it were me I'd be very leery of entering a long-term arrangement with a potentially indefinite makeup period. I bet that's not what he has in mind either. Whatever you propose back to him, he's probably going to be left puzzled at the complications you're suggesting to what he probably expects was supposed to be a simple proposition. Be prepared to explain things, carefully, multiple times. Or just take the simple deal and make it really clear how it's going to work.
Last edited:
Legend5555
Flush
No one understood proper piece and staking arrangements back in the day. I got a 2.0 markup on 50% of my buyin to a Venetian 1k in 2007. We thought it was totally normal. I was better than the competition back then for sure, but not 2.0 mark up good.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Is he putting up the entire bankroll (and the losses are entirely on him)? If so, maybe a higher split in his favor since you have no risk.
Or are you putting up part of the money? If you are putting up half the stake, you should get more of the percentage (like 60/40) since he is essentially making money off your labor -- for something he couldn't do himself.
Makeup is another discussion apart from the above split agreement.
I know you don't have answers to the above (yet), but something to think about before you have the conversation with your buddy.
Anthony Martino
4 of a Kind
I think he is thinking we both put up half the money, then we split what is left at end of session with no makeup
So he gets me into the juicy games, and risks his half with no makeup
Just guessing at the moment
No good! Avoid this deal. To me it sounds as though he wants to use you to make up for his lack.
You won’t play or make the same decisions you would normally make on your own and you’ll have someone questioning you if you hit a rough patch. Totally not worth it. If your a profitable player on your own, stay that way and stay in the stakes that keep you that way.
Just my 2 cents.
