Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables?

01-28-2017 , 05:48 PM
I think there is no question that the overall health of a poker room would greatly benefit if these people were not allowed in.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 05:49 PM
Hard to argue with reasoning of such depth.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 06:22 PM
I mean, then all the horses wouldn't be able to afford to be in the poker room without backers.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 07:27 PM
I think this is a really good discussion OP

Although impractical....a ban on staking online would be beneficial for poker. The high % of online MTT pros that are backed/giving away their profits to scumbags like ZIMA is absurd. This is contributing to the down fall of online via rec/pro ratio, plus all the ghosting that goes on etc is disgusting

If you can't play on your own dime, you shouldn't be able to play. As I stated this is hard to police but ideally it could discouraged


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 08:39 PM
tl;dr OP
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 08:54 PM
Since most staked pros are losing players, banning them hurts the room.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 09:00 PM
wouldn't it make more sense to ban the horses rather than the stakers?
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 09:12 PM
Should banks and venture capitalists stop lending money to new businesses too? All those debt-laden start-ups are obviously terrible for the economy. Oh wait.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 09:36 PM
I guess I don't understand. Generally online stake players are winning players, considering they have to send in HH and graphs to prove they're winning. Are you thinking that these winning players won't be at the tables if they're not staked? If that's what you're thinking then you're probably mistaken. I mean it may take a little longer for a player to build a roll but it's not keeping them from the table.

If stables were banned from staking people, which idk how you would prove if they were playing with their own money or a stables, it wouldn't take too long for a player to work and grind up a new roll of their own.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 09:59 PM
Ban all pros
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-28-2017 , 10:43 PM
What the hell difference does it make? The backer can just observe their players thru a proxy and sites like hendon mob already publish all the results anyways. I know quite a few backed players and none of them have their backer watching them play 24/7.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertCat
Since most staked pros are losing players, banning them hurts the room.
This is only because they can't beat the rake though.

This is obviously a case by case question that doesn't deserve a blanket answer. It may be +EV for MGM to ban Chad, but in smaller markets this arrangement acts like a de facto prop system, which is probably a good thing.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 02:57 AM
The cards play.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 03:28 AM
It would be more beneficial if they only allowed those with the majority of their 2p2 posts in nvg to play.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 03:31 AM
why even play poker, let just give casino our money
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 05:08 AM
I'm sure it would completely stop staking as it's totally impossible for a backer to transfer funds to a horse to deposit into their online poker account via any other method.

Bad thread is bad.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 10:57 AM
This is tangentially related, but could somebody please explain to me the merits of staking players for cash games? Tournaments I can understand. You're looking for a big potential payoff, and also increasing your chances if you're playing in the tournament and/or have multiple horses.

But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for cash. A huge part of being a good player is proper BRM. If a player isn't properly rolled for a game, how does a backer figure it's a good idea to stake a particular player, and more importantly, why? If you've got so much money that winning/losing at whatever stake doesn't matter, then staking isn't all that beneficial to you. And if you're a winning player at whatever stake, then staking is like a form of..live multitabling? If you're doing that, why not take a shot yourself at a higher staking?
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardball47
This is tangentially related, but could somebody please explain to me the merits of staking players for cash games? Tournaments I can understand. You're looking for a big potential payoff, and also increasing your chances if you're playing in the tournament and/or have multiple horses.

But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for cash. A huge part of being a good player is proper BRM. If a player isn't properly rolled for a game, how does a backer figure it's a good idea to stake a particular player, and more importantly, why? If you've got so much money that winning/losing at whatever stake doesn't matter, then staking isn't all that beneficial to you. And if you're a winning player at whatever stake, then staking is like a form of..live multitabling? If you're doing that, why not take a shot yourself at a higher staking?
Lol. If you can trust the horse, staking for cash games is much much bbetter
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gostatego
Lol. If you can trust the horse, staking for cash games is much much bbetter
Thank you very kindly for this detailed response and exhaustively thorough analysis. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardball47
This is tangentially related, but could somebody please explain to me the merits of staking players for cash games? Tournaments I can understand. You're looking for a big potential payoff, and also increasing your chances if you're playing in the tournament and/or have multiple horses.

But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for cash. A huge part of being a good player is proper BRM. If a player isn't properly rolled for a game, how does a backer figure it's a good idea to stake a particular player, and more importantly, why? If you've got so much money that winning/losing at whatever stake doesn't matter, then staking isn't all that beneficial to you. And if you're a winning player at whatever stake, then staking is like a form of..live multitabling? If you're doing that, why not take a shot yourself at a higher staking?
It baffles me someone with 12k posts is still able to produce this kind of nonsense. I guess it's NVG so there is always a chance it is a troll, which would actually be more comforting.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardball47
This is tangentially related, but could somebody please explain to me the merits of staking players for cash games? Tournaments I can understand. You're looking for a big potential payoff, and also increasing your chances if you're playing in the tournament and/or have multiple horses.

But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for cash. A huge part of being a good player is proper BRM. If a player isn't properly rolled for a game, how does a backer figure it's a good idea to stake a particular player, and more importantly, why? If you've got so much money that winning/losing at whatever stake doesn't matter, then staking isn't all that beneficial to you. And if you're a winning player at whatever stake, then staking is like a form of..live multitabling? If you're doing that, why not take a shot yourself at a higher staking?
You can't always play higher, my room games only go higher than 40-80 intermittently, and then only rarely higher then 100-200.

Usually you decide to stake when you come across a player who seems sharp, and ready for mid/high stakes but for some reason just doesn't have the bankroll yet. So you stake them and it doesn't work out because they don't have a bankroll because they have leaks. Real world experiences give e examples such as

1) Their game wasn't as solid as it needs to be, so you coach them. When you do they look at you and nod, then take your money and go back to playing the way they always play.

2) They play fine but tilt like a mother****er, and play long sessions when one of the worst players in the game.

3) They play TAG when you are sweating them, but super LAG when you are gone. You didn't realize that gambling it up at higher stakes is a kind of high for them and it's their dream to be doing it with your money.

4) They are super tough at holdem, but years of that makes it boring, so they play other games they have little edge at but convince you it's ok because the dummies are playing theee games so how hard can it be?

5) They never had a bankroll because they were poor game selectors, now with your money they have zero game selection and play short handed with anyone.

6) They are in makeup and need cash so they don't tell you about a winning session so they can go out partying with other regs.

7) Or they just flat out lie to you, their leak was always they cared more about grifting than putting in long hours playing.

8) Or they just go nuts, and decide the deal wasn't fair for some crazy reason and take the bankroll you staked them with.

Chad Powers supposedly makes it work, that makes him very special because many smart people have failed at live staking. It sounds like Chad seems to have to work very hard at it, which may be his secret.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 12:35 PM
Wanted to be in on the discussion but couldn't make it through the epic novel that is the OP
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertCat
You can't always play higher, my room games only go higher than 40-80 intermittently, and then only rarely higher then 100-200.

Usually you decide to stake when you come across a player who seems sharp, and ready for mid/high stakes but for some reason just doesn't have the bankroll yet. So you stake them and it doesn't work out because they don't have a bankroll because they have leaks. Real world experiences give e examples such as

1) Their game wasn't as solid as it needs to be, so you coach them. When you do they look at you and nod, then take your money and go back to playing the way they always play.

2) They play fine but tilt like a mother****er, and play long sessions when one of the worst players in the game.

3) They play TAG when you are sweating them, but super LAG when you are gone. You didn't realize that gambling it up at higher stakes is a kind of high for them and it's their dream to be doing it with your money.

4) They are super tough at holdem, but years of that makes it boring, so they play other games they have little edge at but convince you it's ok because the dummies are playing theee games so how hard can it be?

5) They never had a bankroll because they were poor game selectors, now with your money they have zero game selection and play short handed with anyone.

6) They are in makeup and need cash so they don't tell you about a winning session so they can go out partying with other regs.

7) Or they just flat out lie to you, their leak was always they cared more about grifting than putting in long hours playing.

8) Or they just go nuts, and decide the deal wasn't fair for some crazy reason and take the bankroll you staked them with.

Chad Powers supposedly makes it work, that makes him very special because many smart people have failed at live staking. It sounds like Chad seems to have to work very hard at it, which may be his secret.
Thank you very kindly for this detailed response and exhaustively thorough analysis. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.

I still don't see how it's +EV enough for the backer to take a risk with a player, unless they personally know them. When I say +EV enough I mean high enough +EV for the backer that he himself doesn't need to shot-take, for example. If you're capable enough, as a player, to be making money at the game, why should you risk part of your roll when you're not the one making the poker decisions? Are the returns for the backer really worth it?

If the backer isn't as skilled and wants to risk his money on a horse in a game he (the backer) thinks he's -EV at but thinks the player might be +EV, then that's a different story. It becomes similar to market speculating on options.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 05:31 PM
You make it sound like a backer staking people and playing him/herself are mutually exclusive. The two really aren't related.
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote
01-29-2017 , 05:37 PM
Why do people invest money in the stock market instead of just working themselves?
Beneficial for the health of a poker room if they ban people known to run staking stables? Quote

      
m