STAKING??

Hello all, I wasn't quite sure where to post this. Since it is poker related I chose here, but if I'm wrong please move accordingly Mods.

Onto the question, but first a little background info. so you guys can fully understand my positioning. I have recently been asked to be staked in my cash games Online. Normally I would say no, because there was no need to. But I have recently withdrawn over 80% of my total BR for investment purposes and other financial cushioning objectives. I am/was/is a NL200 6-max regular on various sites. With what I left myself to continue, I am on the outer brinks of BR cushioning, but I have total confidence and experience continuing to play @ NL200, but if for some reason I hit a bad stretch of cards at this current time then obviously that would cripple me and I would have to downgrade to NL100.

Phew that was long. Now onto the scenario. An extremely trustworthy friend has asked if he could contribute $2000 to my BR and get a % of me until an agreed bulk amount. What would the "numbers" be for this situation. I am at a complete loss. I have run several figures but nothing comes out +EV for me, and feel after a 2 month winning session that he would actually be getting the much better deal, then again I don't wanna be greedy! HELP

would playing 100NL and getting a bit more BR for yourself be bad though? It seems like for the effort you'd put in with a $2k loan, you could make what your "cushion" needs to be in less than 1/2 the time...playing 1 level down for maybe 3 weeks vs. giving someone a piece of you for a couple months seems better....

You should stalk people, you could go to jail, and besides it's creepy.

Have the deal goal orientated. See below:

Say after two months of playing these would be the goals:

$2000 up to:

$4000 - 30%
$5000 - 40%
$6000 - 50%

Originally Posted by Pythonic

Have the deal goal orientated. See below:

Say after two months of playing these would be the goals:

$2000 up to:

$4000 - 30%
$5000 - 40%
$6000 - 50%

Umm...what? This makes no sense to me...You're saying that the more money he makes playing, the less he should keep? Or vice versa?


To the original question, I have two thoughts: first off, if you are marginally staked for the game you're going to play, then no agreement is going to be +EV for you. You're already theoretically making as much as you will theoretically make after the stake.

The argument is that you don't want to have to move down to NL$100 if you hit a bad stretch...So you're wanting to give up part of the current profit to prevent the risk of lower EV. Clearly you have to give up much less than 50%, or else you're no better off than just moving down to begin with. You could split the difference and go 75/25. That should be profitable for both. The other option is to do it strictly as a function of how much his investment is of your BR: Say you have 25 buyins for 5k. His 2k is 28.5% of what you'll be playing on, so he gets 28.5% of the profit.

Both of those numbers are a little high compared to what I think of as a traditional agreement. Most stake agreements I've heard of (mostly from tournament play) give the backer 50% - 70% off the end profit, with them taking 100% of the risk. Let's apply that to the above...he's putting up 28.5% of the risk (if you have 5k...more if you have under 5k...less if you have over), so he gets somewhere between 0.7(28.5%) = 20% and 0.5(28.5%) = 15% of the profit. That sounds fair to everyone.

Whenever either of you wants out, he gets:
* If you're down: [his amount]/[total starting BR] * [total ending BR]
* If you're up: [his amount] + ([his cut of 50% or 70%] * [his amount]/[total starting BR] * [total ending BR]

That was really long, and I talked about a bunch of different schemes... Let me know if you want a better example of what I mean with any of them. I think the one at the end is the best.

more money he makes the bigger% he gets, cmon now.....

$4000 - 30%= $1200
$5000 - 40% = $2000
$6000 - 50% = $3000


yea that's fair If he's a loanshark.

Stakers always get the bigger%, they are the only ones taking the risk.

Originally Posted by Pythonic

Stakers always get the bigger%, they are the only ones taking the risk.

If you read the above, you'd know that the original question specifically stated he was rolled for $200NL - just wanted the $2k as a cushion/insurance. Depending on who you ask, a proper $200NL roll ranges from 5k to 8k, so the extra 2k is definitely not the majority of the risk...

Originally Posted by Pythonic

Stakers always get the bigger%, they are the only ones taking the risk.

I don't think so. I'm not busting my ass to make someone else rich. Stakers are in it for an investment. The risk is in who they stake not the money itself. If you can't afford to lose it you don't invest it. I would never take a stake where I do all the work and the money makes all the profits. Especially when the stake is just a cushion to an already established roll.

Hey, thanks for all the replies.

But i have felt it is not necessary yet, and feel that it would be more harmful at this time to be staked when i'm trying to grind up the correct cushioned BR for my current level. If for some reason i do hit that bad stretch of cards where it would force me to move down to NL100, then i would highly consider taking that offer, because then it would be more beneficial for me to do so. Also i am playing live to quick boosts to the BR, the local casino cash games are so Soft! *tactic: hit-n-run* -why? i'm there to win and walk out up, not sit there and get greedy because i see so many fish and go busto (they do get lucky at all the bad times too). I'd say a month of pure grinding the local casino and 2-tabling online i should be cushioned once again!

*P.S- I haven't 2-tabled in ages, I must say it is boring and slow but the reads i get on my opponents are unreal. I mean i had some info. and reads 6-tabling but for the most part i was on auto-pilot.

Originally Posted by seoul_child1

*tactic: hit-n-run* -why? i'm there to win and walk out up, not sit there and get greedy

So silly...

When you walk in the next time, it's EXACTLY the same as the last time you left, except maybe you've lost any advantage you had as a big stack.

i agree that its silly, but for a different reason - im not of the "1 big session" theory - I think when your feeling well and playing good you should put more time in - when your running like crap you should go earlier -

hit n run the fish though? yuck - if the game is that easy, you should WANT to be there...yeah, you may take some bad beats but if your getting in with the best of it your going to do well overall -
maybe the hit n run tactic is a sign that your uncomfortable with the levels you play at? not judging, just throwing it out as a possibility - If your a good player at a certain level, there isn't any reason to hit n run an easy game....the hit n run is for the big games that you dont' have BR for

Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

i agree that its silly, but for a different reason -- blah blah blah

No, actually, that's my reason almost exactly.