so far i can see staking mainly takes place in higher buyin mtt and not so much in cash, im a little surprised as i thought allot of high stakes cash players would be staked, in one form or another. i would love to hear if bennydip has any story's to tell on the mater. my mate nupty (ed giddins) do you ever get staked to play in any higher buy in mtt? Posted by freechips1
lol sigh ... oh this is such a good subject .. and from what ive read here alot of whats said is fact but some fiction as well mind, and to be honest i dont keep up with all that goes on in the 'staking', or more to the point 'sponsorship' deals that happen these days ... ( This subject has already been talked about before in another thread on here somewhere)
Whenever Ive played abroad or in Europe I either won a seat or payed my own entry, however some of the home tournaments like the Gala festival or GUKPT i got sponsorship from either 1 or 2 fronts ..
One was an online poker company who has 'stable' of players, but the problem there was you HAVE to play many many hours or games a week to make 'RAKE' that, the company obviously need to make money to run a business, and as some of you know I dont want to play online like a robot or machine churning out 'Rake" to me that's not living.. In fact that's sad in my eyes ..
The other sponsor a friend who I created an Idea and we developed a sports forum about horse and dog racing, it was a good deal for both of us ..
However if someone is offered a deal that's less than 50% of winnings then its a bad deal, and also the 'staker' should be putting up all costs and nothing should be owed by or charged to the player, he in effect should be free-rolling for 50% as a sponsored player ..
That all said, the are people posting here who know more than me about sponsoring or 'staking' players not mentioning any names .... glk gg wp )
im completly clueless with things like this and the question im about to ask is slightly different to what you other guys have been postin about but any replys would be great. Ive got these 2 mates who are best friends and 1 is a fairly decent player who has made decent money from playin, the other not so good who tends to lose everytime he plays, the poorer player intends to give the other player £500 to play the cash tables on full tilt i think and if he loses it then he dont have to pay him any money back and its just a bad investment on his part (obviously he will be gutted but a risk he is willin to take) however if he is able to double it then the investor wants his £500 back and the the other £500 will be used as a bankroll where any profits made will be split 60/40 in the players favor!...as im a good mate to both these guys im just curious to what any of you guys think? is it a good idea?? or a recipe for disaster??...especially as the investor dont really have that much money lol but totally believes in his mate and see's it as a good long term investment... they both asked me what i thought to it and i honestly didnt know what to say! so just hearin a few thoughts on this from u guys would be cool. cheers - Andy
im completly clueless with things like this and the question im about to ask is slightly different to what you other guys have been postin about but any replys would be great. Ive got these 2 mates who are best friends and 1 is a fairly decent player who has made decent money from playin, the other not so good who tends to lose everytime he plays, the poorer player intends to give the other player £500 to play the cash tables on full tilt i think and if he loses it then he dont have to pay him any money back and its just a bad investment on his part (obviously he will be gutted but a risk he is willin to take) however if he is able to double it then the investor wants his £500 back and the the other £500 will be used as a bankroll where any profits made will be split 60/40 in the players favor!...as im a good mate to both these guys im just curious to what any of you guys think? is it a good idea?? or a recipe for disaster??...especially as the investor dont really have that much money lol but totally believes in his mate and see's it as a good long term investment... they both asked me what i thought to it and i honestly didnt know what to say! so just hearin a few thoughts on this from u guys would be cool. cheers - Andy Posted by Eagle26
As a personal opinion i think money and friends don't mix. Quickest way to lose a friend is owe him money. I know your post says that if it's lost then it doesn't need to be paid back but this is going to create friction if like you say, the investor doesn't really have the money to lose.
At £500 Roll what is he going to play? if he sticks to managing that roll then he is only going to be playing £20nl so even if he has a good ROI, the investor has only asked for 40% of Profit? (50 - 50 would have been a more natural split but each to his own i supose). Is 40% of profit from £20nl tables going to be enough for the investor to be happy?
Not knowing the players ability means it's difficult to comment on if he can turn enough profit or not but as a general principal i would say this sounds like a good idea for the player who i'm sure will enjoy the £500, and a bad idea for the investor who is getting done on his percentage split as he is the one taking all the risk.
If isildur completely bust durrrr a few months back and durrrr did not have the sense to move down, so he was completely broke. I couldnt see him playing 10/20p cash to rebuild Posted by OMahonyO
I've seen online that Durrr has been playing at stakes lower than he has in years and has only recently started to play some games back at the nose bleeds after killing the lower levels again. Durrrr did get staked money once Isildur bust him but this was a temp transfer because Durrr couldn't reload to the amount he required.
So although not back to 10p / 20p he did move down stakes to where he was crushing again to rebuild
im completly clueless with things like this and the question im about to ask is slightly different to what you other guys have been postin about but any replys would be great. Ive got these 2 mates who are best friends and 1 is a fairly decent player who has made decent money from playin, the other not so good who tends to lose everytime he plays, the poorer player intends to give the other player £500 to play the cash tables on full tilt i think and if he loses it then he dont have to pay him any money back and its just a bad investment on his part (obviously he will be gutted but a risk he is willin to take) however if he is able to double it then the investor wants his £500 back and the the other £500 will be used as a bankroll where any profits made will be split 60/40 in the players favor!...as im a good mate to both these guys im just curious to what any of you guys think? is it a good idea?? or a recipe for disaster??...especially as the investor dont really have that much money lol but totally believes in his mate and see's it as a good long term investment... they both asked me what i thought to it and i honestly didnt know what to say! so just hearin a few thoughts on this from u guys would be cool. cheers - Andy Posted by Eagle26
This seems to be a rather tricky relationship. Presumably the "player", if he is as good as you say, has his own bankroll that he plays. How are they going to determine when the "player" is playing for the staker and when he is playing for himself.
If the player is a steady winner then he presumably has a roll that is far in excess of £500 and he is effectively donating money to the staker by giving him 40% of all his future winnings. Have they agreed when this arrangement will terminate?
Even if they have decided that the shared roll will be used on FullTilt and that the "player" will only use his own roll on different sites this strikes me as a precarious relationship. At some stage, I imagine, the "player" will wish to play more with his own roll where he gains 100% profit. Does the staker have any expectation of how often the "player" will be playing on his behalf?
Also, if the £500 is really a significant amount of money to the staker it occurs to me that this will put a strain on both of your friends.
I wish them good luck but I fear for them. I would imagine that staking (like playing for yourself) is best done with money that the staker can afford to lose.
i once heard a great phrase for poker, if you cant aford to take it in the garden and burn it dont play poker with it. this is going to be a massive strain on your freinds relationship, i think its a big NO NO.
I don't understand how being staked is a bad thing. The way I view being staked it is a win win. You are not borrowing money, you do not agree to pay anything back if you lose the stake. Most players being staked will be on type of 50/50 on their profits but if they lose the money then that's it. NO DEBT. If i was rich and staked someone and they lost that money that I had given them, I would not epect to get anything back from that player. The player who stakes the other is the one with something to lose.
I don't understand how being staked is a bad thing. The way I view being staked it is a win win. You are not borrowing money, you do not agree to pay anything back if you lose the stake. Most players being staked will be on type of 50/50 on their profits but if they lose the money then that's it. NO DEBT. If i was rich and staked someone and they lost that money that I had given them, I would not epect to get anything back from that player. The player who stakes the other is the one with something to lose. Posted by salazar
Depends how your staked, I think you may find that a lot if not most staking deals have a "Make Up" which means you do have to cover the stake before you can make anything from the deal.
In Response to Re: staking : Depends how your staked, I think you may find that a lot if not most staking deals have a "Make Up" which means you do have to cover the stake before you can make anything from the deal. Posted by ACESOVER8s
That to me is not true staking, You may aswell try and borrow the money to enter if that is the case. What is the point of being staked if you not only have to give half of your profits away if you win but pay the stake back if you lose? The idea should be to stake a talented player as a risk/reward. The staker has to put what would be a small risk (buy-in to a tourney) in the hope that the talented player does very well and he gets a big reward.
Comments
lol sigh ... oh this is such a good subject .. and from what ive read here alot of whats said is fact but some fiction as well mind, and to be honest i dont keep up with all that goes on in the 'staking', or more to the point 'sponsorship' deals that happen these days ...
( This subject has already been talked about before in another thread on here somewhere)
Whenever Ive played abroad or in Europe I either won a seat or payed my own entry, however some of the home tournaments like the Gala festival or GUKPT i got sponsorship from either 1 or 2 fronts ..
One was an online poker company who has 'stable' of players, but the problem there was you HAVE to play many many hours or games a week to make 'RAKE' that, the company obviously need to make money to run a business, and as some of you know I dont want to play online like a robot or machine churning out 'Rake" to me that's not living.. In fact that's sad in my eyes ..
The other sponsor a friend who I created an Idea and we developed a sports forum about horse and dog racing, it was a good deal for both of us ..
However if someone is offered a deal that's less than 50% of winnings then its a bad deal, and also the 'staker' should be putting up all costs and nothing should be owed by or charged to the player, he in effect should be free-rolling for 50% as a sponsored player ..
That all said, the are people posting here who know more than me about sponsoring or 'staking' players not mentioning any names .... glk gg wp
come on spill the beans, haha only messin. thanks benny
they both asked me what i thought to it and i honestly didnt know what to say! so just hearin a few thoughts on this from u guys would be cool. cheers - Andy
I couldnt see him playing 10/20p cash to rebuild
At £500 Roll what is he going to play? if he sticks to managing that roll then he is only going to be playing £20nl so even if he has a good ROI, the investor has only asked for 40% of Profit? (50 - 50 would have been a more natural split but each to his own i supose). Is 40% of profit from £20nl tables going to be enough for the investor to be happy?
Not knowing the players ability means it's difficult to comment on if he can turn enough profit or not but as a general principal i would say this sounds like a good idea for the player who i'm sure will enjoy the £500, and a bad idea for the investor who is getting done on his percentage split as he is the one taking all the risk.
So although not back to 10p / 20p he did move down stakes to where he was crushing again to rebuild
i once heard a great phrase for poker, if you cant aford to take it in the garden and burn it dont play poker with it. this is going to be a massive strain on your freinds relationship, i think its a big NO NO.
Most players being staked will be on type of 50/50 on their profits but if they lose the money then that's it. NO DEBT. If i was rich and staked someone and they lost that money that I had given them, I would not epect to get anything back from that player. The player who stakes the other is the one with something to lose.
The idea should be to stake a talented player as a risk/reward. The staker has to put what would be a small risk (buy-in to a tourney) in the hope that the talented player does very well and he gets a big reward.