No ,your actually thinking logical, except for the fact that you think others do the same.




It doesn't always work like you say in practice though

You are not missing anything.

Ashington, people run into money issues. Bills don't stop coming in. Poker requires money/capital to make money.

I'm a perfect example. I was layed off both my jobs in the same week about 2 and a half years ago. I went straight to poker, which I had an extensive history with, but I had zero savings and I had to make money like right now.

It's extremely tough to make 2.5k-3k a month when you have zero to work with. I had probably 100 to my name and some months I had to work with only rewards/points. Once you make the money, you have to withdraw it for the bills, then you get to start over with your 100 or w/e and rinse and repeat. I somehow did it for over 2 years but it's a pretty sick and stressful way to live, let alone not very viable. (a downswing will happen and I don't care how good you are, when you have 100 or less to play with and need to make life expenses, one day you'll get screwed)

It finally caught up with me so I sought a partner and I now have opportunities to build my roll when I wouldn't even have a chance to play otherwise. Things happen, bills happen, downswings happen, etc. Not everyone can just grind micros from their place of free rent or whatever.

I am new to staking, but was wondering if backers would ever be interested in the following kind of deal:

I am a fairly solid 100NL player (e.g. 6bb/100 over last 100k) looking to move up to 200NL. My last attempt at moving up to 200NL failed miserably - 8 buyins under EV over 6k hands did not help - although I did not feel out of my depth and the player pool has significant overlap between 200NL and 100NL.

Do people take on deals where the backer takes on responsibility for a proportion of the losses in return for an equal proportion of the winnings. Perhaps agree to take 50% losses/wins over the first 50k hands at the new stake? This would allow me to overcome run bad at the start of the shot and play for longer at the stake. I believe I would be +EV in the game. I would be playing with my own roll and the reason I would be interested in this kind of deal is simply to reduce variance at the start of the shot, which would reduce bankroll requirements somewhat and make me more comfortable at the limit.

Sorry if this is a dumb question - new to this...

there are loooooads of different reasons why someone might get staked,

- Some Invest there bankroll and any money they make into other things
- Don't like the varience in poker
- Are in debt/have no money
- Cannot play well or consistantly take tilt shots unless overlooked by someone else
- Alot of stakes provide free training
- You don't have to keep $xx,xxx online where it may take months to get it off if you ever need it
- Some players only make enough to cover the bills so can never move up, with staking a player moves up whenever he is good enough

I'm sure there is more I have missed as well

As others have mentioned, there are many reasons for being staked. One thing other comments have not covered is: if you do not have the bankroll for the level at which you can beat the game then the player can make more money by being staked (if it allows them to move up in limits/buy-ins).

Example of player profit on 100,000 hands:
10NL: 10bb/100: $1,000 (100%, own roll)
100NL: 3bb/100: $1,500 (50% split of $3,000 total profit, staked)

Obviously, the specific circumstances vary from person to person.

Not sure I get what you mean, but the backer takes 100% of the losses, that's the risk of staking. If there is any net profit, that's split 50-50. You have to think in net terms, if at the end of the stake it ends in loss you don't have to pay anything, it's not a loan

Oh, I was thinking of just agreeing to split any losses or wins 50/50. Would help reduce variance when moving up and allow myself a better chance of getting established there.

what u r talking about is some1 buying a piece of ur action (in this case 50%) without makeup since both parties r assuming equal risk of losses

many backers would like this model since they r providing only 50% of the bankroll (it would be 100% in a standard arrangement) for the same 50% profit potential

Yeah many backers would but it's not really to the horse's benefit. You can find a better deal imo WATR

Do you think somebody would be interested in a deal where they take 50% of my losses and 25% of my wins over 50k hands at 200NL? I don't really want to go down the route of actually using someone elses money to play, since I am adequately rolled for 200NL and can just use that roll. I am just very conservative now the absolute amounts of money are actually significant to me and wish to minimise my variance when first moving up.

I am 6bb/100 before rakeback over my last 100k hands at 100NL and the player pool overlaps somewaht at 200NL. During my last shot I lost 6 buyins over 6k hands but was up 2 buyins after EV, so ran pretty poorly, I believe I would be +EV at 200NL.

I'm no expert in staking, just starting myself, but I seriously doubt it unless they're a friend and really trust your ability to play. Although if the backer is only putting up half the money I don't see why it wouldn't work, then it would be the same as regular staking with 100% of losses / 50% of profits supported by the backer

You could get into a staking/coaching deal for the 50-50 split to get more out of it. If you're afraid to use your money then you'll probably be playing scared anyway which means non-optimal, so why not use someone else's money to not care about results and get firmly grounded at 200nl, and after 100k hands or w/e the deal is you can play with your own again

maybe its been answered already but does anyone know why i cant create a thread here? lookin to stake some low-midstakes horses but cant make a new thread and am guessing it has something to do with my noob post count or something?

There is a thread on the front page as a sticky that specifically says read if you cannot post.

wow that was quite an observation fail on my part, did a search and not sure why that thread didn't come up but thank you for pointing it out

Is it alright if you apply to multiple stables for a stake or is this frowned on? (Obviously would only accept one deal, not looking for multiple stakes across different sites.) Or should one wait untill a reply from the first application?

And if this is not a problem, should it be mentioned that you applied to another stable as well so the backer isn't starting negotiations with false expectations?

Never done a stake before so just trying to make sure I'm not breaking unspoken rules.

Read this thread and used search but didn't see anything come up.

Thanks

You should probably apply to no more then three in the span of maybe a week. I specifically snap decline anyone who just carpet-bombed the staking forum with requests.

Alright, will keep that in mind, thanks.

i mean if everyone is offering stakes for games you would be happy playing and you have results that would lead you to believe they will offer you a deal, i would suggest applying to as many as possible

f that 3 in a week noise

Some of the threads are not even active anyway. I know a guy who has a thread that is pages long, about a year old, and has not picked up one person from it. IDK if he's just looking for ppl to chat with or what. Some wont answer a simple question in their thread and that's probably another good sign you'd be wasting your time by sending a detailed app.

It's hard to advise you to not apply to a few places when considering such things. Your best bet is to find one that matches what you are looking for and if the OP is bumping his own thread it's a good sign that they are looking. Almost all of the people that are actively looking for, and picking up horses, do that.

Check the positive feedback thread too. It's another way to get an idea of who you want to send a detailed app to (through their respective thread of course, don't just PM them)

-ignore- moved

Thanks for the help guys. Had noticed some of the threads aren't all that active. Didn't even think to check the positive feedback thread though.

Most people don't use positive feedback thread for stakers. I think they should, and I used to ask my horses to.

Some of the older guys might be mentioned in this thread also:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...edback-414078/

Quick question... I am a prop player on a small site. And I am looking to apply for a stake. The site wants it kept quiet that I am a prop player. So do I still need to post my username when posting for a stake, or can I tell the staker in a pm?

Still need to post screennames.