Just have a question.. how does live backing work? I would assume you would need the backer and horse in the same city for easy transfer of funds, but what happens if they aren't in the same city? How do cashouts work, is it the same as online (resetting the account, etc)? Do many people offer live staking?

Transfers can be done many ways, it's really a non issue. The main issue by far is trust in live staking. This is especially true if your backer does not live locally and you'll be playing sessions on your own.

Overall there's a decent amount of live staking going on. I'd say 90%+ that is done for cash games where the backer and horse are in different locations is done through friends only though. There's a lot of staking going on at live events where both the backer and the horse are attending at the same time. For example, the WSOP.

I don't think much is being done via 2+2, beyond friends (in cash games, but there is a decent amount being done for live events). Someone will step up at some point I imagine. There's obv a huge market for it and whomever is willing to take the risk but chooses the right people and has a good plan, will be rewarded handily. Live is super profitable and soft.

There's some things that can be done to help the accounting issue, which is the main problem with staking live cash games where both live in different places. You can ask for receipts from the cage and there's some other things like photo's etc, but so far I don't think anyone has been willing to take the risk to fill the huge void. Until then it would probably be a good idea to take out a loan, as if you live in a place that has a decent amount of live action, I think it's worth doing that rather than just not playing at all or trying to grind small sites that are left. I'm only speaking of players that were playing for a living but don't have access to a roll ATM and are looking for a solution to continue their professional play.

Live games can be so good that edges are magnitudes larger for a good player and where there's larger edges there's less variance, so a short term loan is a very real option for the kind of player I just mentioned.

Thanks Nofx, that's what I was looking for.

Bumping in hopes of a response.

Standard cut for just a WSOP package for me would be around 85/15 to 80/20 no M/U (this is between 1.7 and 1.25 markup) and I doubt you would get a makeup cut unless you found a backer to back you full time, in which case there are many other factors.

Heres a %cut / markup conversion:

Has anyone tried to have an arbitrator listed in their staking agreement? This would be a person, say even on the forums here, who could be a neutral party to resolve a dispute by giving their opinion on it.

not all skins can do player to player transfers to all other skins.

Indeed, you can only make transfers to people on the same skin, thats the same for every skin

What if you are staking a player and they hit a Royal Flush promo or BBJ?

If your deal includes 50/50 split of winnings/rakeback/bonuses ... are these things covered under bonuses?

Thanks,
C.

yes

Ty sir!

C.

Hypothetically:


There's a stake that includes MTT's, MTSNG's, and STT's. The stake ends. There's a small amount of makeup (let's say $140). The backer asks this player to only play STT's as he/she makes up this small amount. The backer's logic is that it's pointless to play high variance games and risk $200+ downswings when this player can easily win back the $140 in STT's with low variance in a short period of time.

1) Is it okay for the backer to restrict this horse to only play STT's even though the original stake included MTT's?

Next, this horse expressed displeasure at being limited to STT's given that he/she preferred MTT's which were included in the original stake. The backer tried to explain that it seemed ridiculous to accept a massive level of variance for such a small amount of payback when 140$ is easily and completely attainable with STT's. However for his/her own reasons this horse is refusing to play STT's. The horse gives the backer an ultimatum: either eat the make-up (letting him go) or allow him to play MTT's because that's the only thing he/she wants to play.

2) How should the backer handle this?

If its only a small amount of makeup that you don't mind losing and the player is just being a pain then tell him if you he is forcing you to drop him then you will have to leave negative feedback about his inflexibility and the fact he won't play the games you want him to play.

If your more worried about making the money back then obv just keep staking him till he is out of makeup.

I think asking him to play STT's only for a short period of time is completely reasonable.

Sorry for the stupid question in advance. I cant find it anywhere. As a new 2p2 member, when am I able to PM other members?

thx

********
You could have read your welcoming 2+2 message.
Also... Helpful Beginner FAQs
and 2+2 FAQs

RW

Hey guys, first timer to this forum.

I'm speaking with someone about starting a staking deal for micro-low buyin MTTs (he'd be staking me). This is my first time working with a backer, so I have some questions regarding what is standard for the following:

% Split - 50-50, with makeup, or does it usually slightly favor the backer?

Rakeback/FPPs - I would assume it's standard for the rakeback to be included, that seems logical to me. If thats the case, how does it work on Stars with FPPs?

I'll probably have more questions but thats all I can think of right now

Unless there is something in the contract which you have not yet disclosed, the stake is over. There is no makeup. The backer eats the $140 loss.

This does not mean that the two individuals could not mutually agree that the stake will continue, under the same terms, from the point at which they are currently.

The individuals could also agree that they will enter into a new agreement which covers only STTs. It is possible that the backer receiving 100% of the first $140 in profit could also be negotiated. However, the horse is under no obligation to to so and is free to seek staking from other backers which do not require such terms. No, definitely not. The stake is over. The backer retains no rights to repayment, either in cash or in free work from the horse.

For the backer to retain the right during the stake to arbitrarily direct the horse's actions moves this closer to an employment than a partnership. That is, almost certainly, something that the backer wants to avoid. It is possible for the contract to predefine conditions under which changes in the mix of games played will occur. It is also possible for the parties to mutually agree to a change in the mix of games played.

Another poster suggested providing negative feedback about the horse due to his inflexibility and unwillingness to play the games the backer wants the horse to play. One person retaining the right to direct the actions of another is one of the tests that is used to determine if a relationship is employment. This is not the relationship which is desired in most staking agreements. For this to be a right which the backer retains would require a very carefully constructed contract. Providing negative feedback about the horse in this situation is not reasonable. In my opinion, it is the backer who does not understand the relationship formed in a normal staking agreement.

This does not mean that a change in the mix of games could not be predefined in the staking agreement, or that the parties could not mutually agree to a change in the mix of games. The backer should live up to the agreement into which he/she entered. The fact the stake ended in a situation which neither party desired, that they were down overall, does not grant the backer the right to demand free work from the horse.

Frankly, it sounds like the backer is treating this situation much more like a loan, or employment, than a stake. The backer probably needs to take some time to gain an understanding of the differences between a loan, employment, contract work, and a partnership.

$140 is a small amount for any stake that includes MTTs, MTSNGs, and STTs, particularly combined with the expressed understanding that $200 is not an unexpected amount of variance from the MTTs. It is not clear to me why the backer is all that concerned about this amount of money. The horse is either someone who is +EV in the games which are being played, or not. The backer appears to believe the horse is +EV, at least in STTs, at this buy-in level. The backer should either continue the stake, under the same terms, or accept the loss.

Hey I am looking to stake my friends for online tournaments long term, anyone can help me out with the % and how its done, thanks

Just another question I wanted to add: what do people do as a standard for book-keeping between the horse and the backer? As the horse, should I provide daily summaries of volume, buy-ins an prizes? Weekly? Monthly?

What format is this usually done in...HEM database? Random Excel spreadsheets?

Also, would it be reasonable for the horse to ask the backer to provide them with a copy of HEM/PT, assuming the horse didn't have it?

Fair enough to not get answers to my questions, managed to answer most of them by actually reading this thread :P.

One question I wasn't able to find posts about:

If I'm about to start a 3-month staking deal, with the possibility of extending after 3 months if both parties are happy, what is the standard for splitting profits? Can I take my % of profits at any time during the stake, or are profits divided only at the end of the stake?

As you clearly determined, in this, and other forums, it is not uncommon for people to ignore questions which have been answered repeatedly, particularly when those answers are contained in the thread where the repetitive questions have been previously asked and answered multiple times. It is appreciated that you realized this yourself and did read the thread. There are multiple contributing considerations as to when settlements are performed. To a large extent, it is something that depends significantly on the level of trust between the backer and the horse. It appears common that settlements are performed at the same time as reports provided by the horse to the backer. The frequency of such routine reports and settlements should be determined within the contract establishing the stake. In addition, at least a few criteria for the horse to contact the backer with an exceptional report should also be in the contract (e.g. funds dropped below X buy-ins, took down a large tournament for Y times the funding level, desire to move up/down/take shot, etc.). Such a list should not be considered to be the only reasons for the horse to contact the backer, but should make contact mandatory. Keep in mind that good communication is a fundamental that builds good relationships.

Weekly appears to be a common reporting/settlement time-frame for an extended stake. It is not unreasonable for reports to be required more frequently at the beginning of a stake and then settle on a less frequent schedule as the parties become more comfortable with the relationship.

When the reporting and settlement(s) should occur definitely should be in the initial agreement as that timing can significantly impact the actual overall profit of each partner should the stake end in makeup. Leaving the actual times up to arbitrary determination by the horse is generally not a good idea. The ability to arbitrarily define the times for settlement allows for the possibility of picking those times, perhaps even retroactively, such that advantage is gained by one partner. Given that the horse is the one with the more intimate knowledge of the actual state of the partnership funds it is easier for them to perform such manipulation. Even if the horse does not intentionally manipulate this, it possible for the perception of intentional manipulation to form. In general, it is a good idea to reduce the possibility of such negative interpretations. Thus, a predefined schedule of reporting and settlement is a good idea even in a relationship between friends.

To address a couple of your previous questions: It is certainly something that could be negotiated. Given the advantages which a HUD can provide to the profitability of the stake it is not unreasonable for the use of one to be mandated in the contract. If the backer has a preference of one verses the other is it not unreasonable for them to provide the funds for purchase of the license. If there is no preference mandated by the backer I would expect the horse to first use the trial periods of PT and HEM to get a feel for the one they desired then for the partnership to pay for the license. Given that the assignment of the license to the horse would survive the partnership I would think it reasonable for the horse to fund 50%, or more, of the purchase price out of winnings, or assign that percentage of the purchase price to additional makeup when the license is purchased.

Please note that the above is my personal opinion about a hypothetical situation. The actual terms of the relationship should be negotiated between the parties involved. An established backer probably has a set of standard terms which they generally use.

If the horse is an established player it would be expected that they already have a license for at least one of those programs. Thus, it would be one of the things that the horse brings to the partnership in addition to the computer(s), internet connection, skill, playing time, rakeback status, VIP status (e.g. black card, supernova), etc.

From a contract point of view, unless specifically addressed in the staking agreement, rakeback and FPPs are a product of the partnership and would be split as per the division of profit defined in the contract.*

In general, FPPs, or similar items, are generally converted to cash or tournament entries with the proceeds being divided as normal. You might ask how to convert such to cash. A search for threads on the best way to convert points to cash for your particular room and stakes would be a good way to determine how to do so.

All terms of the contract are subject to negotiation prior to the formation of the partnership. If either party has issues with which they are concerned they should make sure that the concern is raised prior to the formation of the partnership. While it is certainly possible, even probable, for there to be unforeseen issues arise during the stake, intentionally not discussing a known and anticipated issue could be considered bad faith.



*NOTE: Intentional failure to explicitly disclose a relationship outside the partnership which will result in additional profit to one partner due to actions taken under the partnership may subject one to liability and may be illegal, or criminal, in some jurisdictions. Examples of such would include horses which do not disclose a rakeback agreement, or backers which require the horse to obtain and/or play on an account on a network/room with which they have an agreement to gain undisclosed benefit from the formation, and/or play on, such account. At a minimum, in my opinion, such is dishonest and demonstrates that the individual is willing to intentionally manipulate the situation to their benefit at the expense of the partnership. Anyone who would do so is certainly an individual with which I would avoid doing business without an exceptionally clear contract.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Very long, definitely did read. Thanks a lot; very good post imo.

I bet this has been asked a hundred times, but I promise I searched the thread with no results.

I cannot start a new thread under the Staking forums, what do I have to do?

Read the blue sentence of this topic LINK.

Regards,
Howie Diddot.

are there any sample staking contracts available somewhere or is someone willing to share privately? thank you

+1