If you stake someone in mtts or sngs can you make it a rule that the stakee is not aloud to quit while in makeup? Or is that just a risk you run?

I am new to staking, read already a few guides about staking, and hope someone can help me out with these questions.

1.) Is there a formula, with which you can transfer MU to Cut or vice versa ( e.g. MU 1,25 = 80/20 cut)?

2.) I see on CMU some very high MUs (135% + is the rule there). When can you pay a big MU? lets say the Mu is 150%, and the player has ROI on these MTTs of 60 and will play 15 MTTs. Would you invest?

3.) When does it make sense to lower the cut in order to get makeup? If for example is offering 80/20, and 60/40 with MU (20 MTTs), i take it without makeup. When its 70/30, and 60/40 with make up, i take it with. Is that correct? Also, does the player pay the new buyins for the makeup or does the backer have to reinvest this amount?

Can mods give some guidelines on outing a horse who turned out to be a scammer? No real names, but 2+2/poker SNs fine?

I think the standard is real name, aliases are ok. Home address and Phone numbers not ok.

aight, thx

There is no rule, but the one u agree on. MU terms should be determined at the start.

Whats standard regarding fpps/rakeback for horses playing mtts? Lets say $40 abi not including sunday 20% roi lots of volume. Is this just part of the stake bankroll and split the same as profits/used towards mu?

depends what the agreement was

Right, but the agreement has to be drawn up at some point...

Well, the point is there is no 'standard'. I know a bunch of people who get FPPs and a bunch that don't.

Thanks, got a follow up question then.

Is it unreasonable to make it a term that the horse is not aloud to leave while in any form of makeup.

Dear staking subforum regs, please help me, a SSPLO poster, understand the sense of staking or its use for the poker ecosystem. I know you won't like this, but I think if it's +EV for backers, it should be -EV for someone else - likely for players, as all losses can be easily dumped by rooms onto their defenceless shoulders. Please check my sanity, correct me wherever I err.

My thoughts are a response to the recent discussion in SSPLO BBV (click the link in the quote to trace it back if necessary).

I'm sure no one would object . I for one can't understand this business even upon reading Chapter 25 of 'The Mathematics of Poker' discussing it.

From a selfish viewpoint, I'm glad that staking exists because it shifts liquidity to the midstakes, spoiling fish-reg ratios there and making them better at the micros , but poker rooms aren't glad because at the micros deposit-to-rake conversion is better, they prefer the same regs to play more tables lower (well, not too many, but they def-ly prefer a reg to 9-table PLO50 with hotkeys than to 4-table PLO400 lazily). It's not accidental that Stars' and 888's success is based mostly on the boost in their microlimit traffic; Party also removed the nosebleeds for a reason.

I don't think that e.g. the ban of P2P transfers on Merge was a random unreasonable move. It should work better than implicit bans of winning players that occur on iPoker from time to time because it's more honest formally and hits specifically stakees and backers that tossed all the same funds back and forward inside stables instead of genuine deposits out of players' life savings that can be spewed on non-poker things like strippers when staked.

Imho most people in the first and second worlds are properly rolled, they just ache to play too high stakes too early. I've already been bashed for this opinion, but it was in the context of the nosebleeds, where games run poorly and fish is sporadic. It's different at the micros where lots of fishy tables are yet available every day.

A reg with a family usually has a real job or an ability to get it, thus life expenses don't eat into his roll that much. A roll of a reg with neither a family nor a job is eaten by expenses, but he's totally free to cut them by finding a roommate or even a grindhouse, becoming a teetotal vegetarian, etc. (I feel pity for many regs who have fallen into the trap of alcoholism slaughtering their winrate). I don't believe that regs of either type can't save up or win $5-10K within a year of straightedge life.

Some OT ramblings on the remainder of the quoted post:

I deem only ill relatives and other emergency cases as good excuses. A stake applicant who has played a lot but spewed his roll 'in sin' instead of naturally moving up likely has poor work ethic and it's more +EV for him to enhance it than to share profits with a backer, while it's -EV for a backer to stake such a player, as mentioned in the brilliant second post of this thread.

I agree that financial reliability is key, and it correlates with the post and acquaintance count, as witnessed by the official P2P trading thread. Thanks for this paragraph! I'll use it next time when calling down a well-known Scottish affiliate company that practise 'fast track staking' basing on 10K hands (they have unorthodox views on poker in general, e.g. embrace educating fish, whereas I think rooms should look for compromise improvements that please both fish and multitablers, like showing the player's best five-card hand).

hello,

sorry if this has been answered, I can't find info about it. I have a short question, I've played on my own for 5 years but I'm looking to start selling some of my online action.

My question is about rebuys:

1) how do you count buy-in amount needed? I was thinking about going 5xbi for normal speed, 10xbi for 2x-turbo and 15xbi 3x-turbo. I actually think this question is rather clear, just wanted to check if my thinking is correctly
2) now when it gets interesting, what if I spend less/more on a given rebuy? How do I deal this with investors? less seems easy, I can just deduct what I saved and return % of the investor, but what if I have to spend more than I planned? Is it just my loss?

I'm sure I'll have more questions to come once I start seriously preparing for this, but for now that's all I got.

I didn't bother reading your whole post, but think about insurance. Would you buy insurance for your house? Most people do, and companies will vie for your business because they make money off your policy.

So why do most people buy this product? Risk avoidance. This is the same reason that staking can be in the best interest for both the player and the staker.

1) Seems good
2) Don't spend more than you said you'd spend. It's your loss. Send back extra rebuys after the tournaments.

Hi there, recently sold 30% of action for a $300 live tournament. The deal was never written, and we failed to discuss what would happen in case I took 1st place (1st place granted, apart from the cash, a seat for a $2.5k tournament but far away from where I live). Then I ran good enough to take down the $300 tourney, so the guy that bought the 30% says he's entitled to either $750 (30% of the $2.5k) or having the 30% of my action on the $2.5k tourney. Then I kept thinking on it, feeling like something wasn't adding up. Finally, I feel that he's kinda freerolling me, since it didn't cost him anything more (apart from the starting 90usd) to have the 30% of me on the $2.5k tourney, but the funny thing is that for me to have the 70% of me I had to spend $1k (flight+hotel+accommodation). So this led me to ask him for either 30% of the $1k (so he could maintain his 30% on me) or lowering his % to 18% (i feel he should be entitled to the 30% of $1.5k=$2.5k -$1k, which is $450 which again is the 18% of 2500). But now that I've asked for that, he has refused, saying that the travel expenses I've incurred to play the $2.5k tourney have nothing to do with him.
I know we should've talked this before even playing the $300 tourney, but we didn't. So, do you guys think I have the right to fight for this, or do I have to just agree with him and the blame is on me for not discussing this beforehand.
Lastly, I definitely want to stay in good terms with him cuz I don't wanna close the doors for future business and also he could point me as a scammer if I don't do as he says and he's kinda known and famous on the poker world.

Any comments??

tough spot....he seems like he is being unreasonable for sure. was the 2.5k seat deducted from the prizepool or added? I would never allow him to have a total freeroll if travel expenses were that high. Completely unfair to you imo.

He absolutely has 30% of the following tournament if you are unwilling to pay him out the extra $750. Traveling expenses are always on the horse to pay. He maybe should be more accommodating because you've both just had a nice win, but from his perspective he helped you out by giving you cash to play poker and now you are trying to angle him for more money.

The 2.5k seat was added.
The tournament is going on today, so probly i'm gonna give him the 30% of any prize i win, but i'll let him know that i feel this wasn't 100% fair to me.

cheers

I sold several WSOPc packages where I didn't mention what would happen if I won a seat to the $1m national championship and once I realized this in the middle of a series where I had accumulated several points I decided that I would give each investor whatever percentage of the national championship that they purchased if I happened to win a seat. Of course there would have been no added travel expenses because I would be at the New Orleans Circuit stop no matter what. Luckily the first time I put in my package that national championship seat was solely mine, I won casino champion and got a seat (good timing). Anyway, to say that he is angling because he is trying to get the backer to be reasonable is a bit harsh.

imo it basically works like this: If investors have x% in your action that wins you something, they deserve x% in what you win. If someone buys action in one tournament of a series in which you win an extra prize due to multiple good finishes that isn't the same as someone buying action in all of the tournaments that end with you winning a seat.

I understand situations come up, but it is up to the player to explicitly say some prizes are not being bought and not fair for the investor to have to guess what they are actually getting.

He absolutely has 30% of the ticket as well. However it's up to you if you play it or not. You can never go and he will get 0$ of the tournament as you didn't cash.

You can sell the ticket when he will get 30% of the price you manage to get for it.

You can buy the 30% back when the everything is on you or you can go there pay your own flight/accommodation and so on and give him 30% of the winnings.

Reading your text makes me consider the best option to be selling the ticket to a third party and sharing the profit of the sell 70/30

hi
ok my friend is going to stake me for low stakes 18mans.
we know and trust each other very well, no risk of scamming.
i guess i can be happy with a 80-20 deal in my favour. 2 questions

1) make-up: do i have to compensate a loss to 100% in order to claim a profit? or can i cut the make-up with 80-20 in his favour until i am at 0,- ?

2) for example my EV is 2000$ for playing 1 full month. with 20% cut i must ship 400$.
Can i suggest i ship maximum 400$ for the month?; which means if i have an upswing and win 3000$ he only gets 400$.
does that sound reasonable? Because 400$ is not a tiny sum.
There isn't much risk anyway for him because if i am losing, i owe him make-up and have to play until i am in the winning zone.

sry, i am new to staking
regards and ty

I can't really understand what you are asking but it all sounds really wrong.

i really dont understand what is too complicated for you?!!
anyway i am sure someone else does understand this