Hey guys, I am sorry for posting it in this forum, but apparently I can’t post in the Staking Forum yet. I am thinking about doing a staking deal for Vegas with a good friend, but we are having a disagreement about what is fair and not. In order to make it as objective as possible I’m not writing if I am Staker or Stakee.

The proposed deal by Staker:
Staker pays travel expenses and accommodation for Stakee, which will amount to a bit more than 3K USD. Stakee will get 10K USD to play for in Vegas, mostly 10-20 NLHE. Staker gets 67-33 for cash games and 80-20 for Tourneys. Stakee can only play 3 tours (buy ins: 500, 1K and 1K). The deal is terminated after Vegas.

Disagreement: Stakee doesn't think 80-20 is for tours – it should be 70-30.

Arguments from Staker:
- Stakee has already cost him 45K in past unsuccessful staking ventures (online cash games). That’s a huge amount of money, and it’s only natural that Stakee is now getting a worse deal until he has proven himself worthy.
- The deal entails an aggressive BR strategy (because of limited time in Vegas) which favors Stakee as Staker is taking all the risk.
- Past unsuccessful staking ventures with Stakee were with much more conservative BRM. While Stakee’s losses can partly be attributed to bad variance, he should still have been able to beat the game. In other words, this does raise some doubts about Stakee’s abilities lately.
- Staker starts out with more than minus 3K - almost 1/3 of the entire investment - due to coverage of Stakee’s travel expenses and should therefore expect a higher percentage as compensation.
- Tournaments are a high variance game which will probably take its toll on an already very small BR. This combined with the fact that Staker is taking all the risk means that Staker needs to be compensated with a better deal.
- Stakee risks nothing, gets a free vacation and a new chance to build a BR, and should therefore be very happy with this deal.


Objections by Stakee:
- 80-20 is not generally accepted in the poker community as a fair deal. 50-50 is the norm with make-up, 70-30 without.
- Stakee is a good poker player, and is widely acknowledged as such by other pros, who has won several tourneys both online and live (including some +100K wins).
- Stakee has consistently beaten the games over the years (25-50 NLHE). He has never had a losing year. Current need for staking is due to disregard for BRM plus excessive expenditure.
- Stakee has already compromised by accepting a relatively poor deal for cash-games for which the norm is 50-50.
- While it’s true that past staking ventures with Staker have been unsuccessful, it has been due to negative variance. Therefore this should not affect the deal to the extent proposed by Staker.
- Stakee could in all likelihood get a better deal somewhere else (but prefers to do a deal with Staker to avoid getting “exposed”).


If you think Staker is right, write A. If you think Stakee is right, write B. Thanks!

B

A and if B doesnt like it and apparently is so good he can go look elsewhere for a stake plain and simple

Backer shouldn't have posted this thread and never backed Player again if he doesn't think this deal is very considering prior losses

If staker and stakee are friends then you should just work something out. From the way it's written, it seems as though its more of a business relationship, in which case the stakee is correct. If you truly think he lost before just because of bad variance, then it's not really normal to alter the deal. If he thinks he can get a better one though, he should just go out and find a better staking deal.

A... although staker wrote the post so it might be biased.

I can only wonder which you are

The Staker is always right.

exposed for what? being busto?

Let me just say that both of us have approved everything that was posted in OP to avoid any bias.

FUrake - yes, Stakee prefers to avoid that kind of publicity.

why isn't stakee in 45K makeup?

imo it should either be 50/50 with makeup and he starts out -45K in the hole or he should stfu and be grateful you wiped away the 45K deficit and are letting him start at 0 again.

and this is coming from someone who has been the stakee but never a staker, so my bias if i had one (which i don't) would be for the stakee.

Odds are it was done w/ no make-up and a better cut in the stakers favor. If Make-up wasn't agreed upon you can't just claim he owes make-up it would be ridiculous. Of course the staker can make a deal that he'll only stake the stakee if he agrees to make-up be added on after the fact but I highly doubt the stakee would agree to those terms.

well my point was the stakee was bitching about the deal not being 50/50 and no deal is ever 50/50 without makeup therefore if the previous deal wasn't the same as he's being offered now (and if it was why would he be bitching) then it most likely included make up.

i was assuming he was playing under make up and then the horse dropped him which would let him out of makeup and then they decided to start a new stake.

otherwise if the last deal also had no make up the terms should have been similar to what he's offering now.

I don't think he even mentioned the terms on the online cash game stake. So I guess would need more information on that, but I assume stakee currently owes him no make-up or he would have very little room to negotiate and the staker wouldn't have this problem.

A

A, the thing you really should be thinking about is, this guy has not turned away from you. There must be a reason he has not gone to anyone else, chances are he's burned all of the other bridges.