Cash Game Staking players (1 Viewer)

[Mojo1312]

What are your thoughts on staking players at a home game?

Staking occurs quite frequently at our home game. One player will pay the buy-in of another in return for half of that players winnings. There have been times where a "staked player" or the "backer" will negotiate a split to settle the stake after a large pot has been won.

 

[DrStrange]

I see a host of potential problems - collusion, soft play, outright cheating etcetera. Add on top that your games are highly social, allowing the guy with the staked interest to basically assist in the play the hand when someone in his/her "stable" is in the hand. I have a hard time figuring the benefit for anyone staking a winning player to sit in a game with them - even if the direct effect is not -EV, the effect on the weakest players can't help but be negative.

In the end, it is your game and as host you can do what you want. You know the players and the stakes. I think it is a huge problem waiting to happen.

Maybe if you have some sad-sack guy you all like getting a minor stake so he can play with his buddies. . . . Maybe.

Basically, I think this is a bad idea. Perhaps a rare exception, but even then better just to make it a gift.

DrStrange

 

[Mojo1312]

I am a regular, not the host. I also fail to see how this fits into a home game. Strikes me as exploitation.

 

[manamongkids]

Staking in a 1 table cash game, where the horse and financier are playing at the same table - no thanks. If they are not playing together, it makes no difference to me.

We have players ask for loans for a week, but the host never gets involved in those and they have no impact on play - I've witnessed a player take out a loan from another player and get felted by the person who gave them the loan in a massive hand recently.

The next week, the player who lost their money, showed up with the $ owed to the loaner and brought additional money to play with as well.

Usually happens when a person only brings 1-2 buyins because they cant get enough cash out of an ATM

 

[bergs]

What MAK describes is a player giving another player a loan. MAK goes busto but only brought money for 2 buyins and asks me to borrow money for a third buyin. I give him cash, he buys chips with that cash, and we go right back to trying to take each other's money with all of the skill, cunning, and guile we can muster. He owes me money for the third buyin and will either pay me at the end of the night or at a later date. That's between the lender and the borrower. The point is that the lender and borrower are each playing for themselves.

The staking deal is different - it's giving another player in the game money with the understanding that they are playing for both of you. That's not cool in any home game situation that I can fathom.

 

[FDLmold]

Loan yes, staking and at the same table, no.

 

[Rhodeman77]

As @DrStrange, @bergs, and @FDLmold all said, no way am I playing or allowing it to happen in my game if the staking player is at the same table as the staked player.

Loaning money is standard and happens all the time. I have had games where almost all of the money in play was mine or money I loaned to players. But it was just that, a loan. They always paid me back either with their winnings that night or at a later date if they lost.

 

[RainmanTrail]

What are your thoughts on staking players at a home game?

Staking occurs quite frequently at our home game. One player will pay the buy-in of another in return for half of that players winnings. There have been times where a "staked player" or the "backer" will negotiate a split to settle the stake after a large pot has been won.

Totally depends on the situation. Are you guys playing for $5? $20? or $5,000+? Big difference. If it's micro stakes where people are just learning and your friends and backing their friends with their pizza delivery tip money, then it shouldn't matter much IMO. If you're playing in a more serious setting where winning and losing means something to each player in the game, then the host has an obligation to keep collusion out of it. That said, you can have backing deals that are fair as long as they're transparent. But the other players should know about any arrangements between players in order to avoid collusion. In tourneys, it's very common for players to trade pieces of each other.

 

[CHP TD]

There have been times where a "staked player" or the "backer" will negotiate a split to settle the stake after a large pot has been won.


Eww isn't this "going south" in a cash game.

i don't think that's right. but not my rules.

 

[Rhodeman77]

There have been times where a "staked player" or the "backer" will negotiate a split to settle the stake after a large pot has been won.


Eww isn't this "going south" in a cash game.

i don't think that's right. but not my rules.

I think he means if the stakes player wins a $1k pot that he would negotiate a lower % that the staking player would get. Usually it is over 50% of the profit so he could ask for it to be reduced to 40% or even less.

That would all be done after the game is done between the players I assume. I don't think they would be shoving chips across the table in the middle of the game.

 

[upNdown]

No no no.
I don't ever want to find myself in a pot with the staker and the stakee

 

[woog30]

I had a situation where an individual had lost a couple of buyins, got a loan from another player. The player who received the loan then won a few pots and then wanted to repay the loan out of his stack and continue to play. As the host I took the stance that this should not happen, as those chips were in play and couldn't be taken off the table.

 

[Jambine]

What are your thoughts on staking players at a home game?

Don't

 

[bergs]

I had a situation where an individual had lost a couple of buyins, got a loan from another player. The player who received the loan then won a few pots and then wanted to repay the loan out of his stack and continue to play. As the host I took the stance that this should not happen, as those chips were in play and couldn't be taken off the table.

Correct - this has to get settled up after the night is over.

 

[phaze12]

I had a situation where an individual had lost a couple of buyins, got a loan from another player. The player who received the loan then won a few pots and then wanted to repay the loan out of his stack and continue to play. As the host I took the stance that this should not happen, as those chips were in play and couldn't be taken off the table.

I don't have a problem with this if the money stays on the table. Depending on stack depth.

 

[Rhodeman77]

If the money borrowed is that much the player is worried about losing it before he can pay it back he should just quite playing right then. Cash out, pay back the loan and go home.

Other players will realize he is scared money and run over him.

 

[Kain8]

I don't have a problem with this if the money stays on the table. Depending on stack depth.

Less scrupulous players could easily take advantage of that if they have a big stack and someone busts out. They could offer to loan them whatever amount out of their stack, knowing that they have that money locked up one way or another and can't lose it in a big hand.

 

[Poker Zombie]

We have a lot of couples that play in our home game. Most (but no all) of the time, the couples buy in together. Essentially, there is a stake being paid.

I track player performances and whether or not these couples win more when they are at the same table (possible collusion). Every player has a Partner Opposition Score. If you (or your partner win whenever you sit together, your Score goes up. The bigger the score, the bigger a POS you are, and the likelier you are to collude.

The onus is on me, as a host to make sure that if there is possible collusion, that I bring it up (some might not know that soft-playing is wrong), and to do what I can to make sure those players do not start at the same table.

Funny, but sadly true story...

We had a couple that had a large POS rating. They would sometimes complain that they rarely or never got to sit at the same table. Over time their score began to drop. @Mrs Poker Zombie was hesitant to let them sit together, because they were sill viewed as a collusion risk - even though the numbers indicated otherwise. The number continued to drop, and I felt secure is saying they were no longer colluding.

Last month the female half showed up alone. The guy had move out and they were filing for divorce.



Zombie records know all...

 

[72o]

Yeah I've run into this as well...couples playing together. I don't allow it because of the soft play possibility, but I am a hypocrite as my wife plays sometimes. But I know that we don't hold back against each other because well I trust myself and people have seen us go at each other.

Even though my wife and I have a joint account where all expenses are shared, money brought to the poker table and any winnings are NOT shared. However, I don't know other peoples' situation and I really don't want to know so that option is off the table.

 

[BGinGA]

There are currently four couples who regularly play in our tournaments (we have had as many as six in the past). Of those eight players, only one (a male) has ever been considered a threat to soft-play their mate. I keep a close eye on it when they are at a table together, and early-on, issued a private warning to him about altering his betting and play style when heads-up against her in a hand. They buy in separately, so that aspect of it is pretty much irrelevant.

The other six people all take great joy in knocking out their partners. In fact, it's the most cut-throat thing in our otherwise very social tournament club.

 

[phaze12]

. They could offer to loan them whatever amount out of their stack

This is not what I am saying. If a LOAN is made. I do not mind the loan being paid back by sliding chippies across the table.

Not giving chips out of their stack.