With no makeup, if the player takes a big loss early, he has no incentive to get unstuck since he'd be playing for you 100% until he gets back in the black.

If this is an ongoing deal, he may decide to quit early and let you take the hit and start back at even the next time, or worse, he may choose to gamble in some bad spots just to try and get ahead to start earning money for himself since he'd be free rolling with no risk to himself.

You should require at least some percentage of makeup based on what he can afford to discourage gambling in bad spots. I'd say that the amount should be at least be in proportion to being as tough on him as it is on you.

If the player is in desperate need to build a roll or pay off debt, I wouldn't make the deal.

Think of it this way. If the player is running bad and really needs to make some money while you're covering his losses and the game is going to break soon, how tempting would it be for him to get it in as a 60/40 dog. At the very least it encourages bad rationalizations that can be tough enough to avoid even under normal circumstances.

Poker is a game of risk/reward. Take away the risk and it can lead to some very bad habits, especially if stuck early, even if the player hadn't intended to play that way at the start.

After posting a question in this thread last year about structuring any deal that includes no make up, I've had time to think about it and think they're usually a pretty bad idea and there's probably a better way to handle it.

I agree with Orange in that, in your deal, he's basically playing makeup free and free rolling week 4.

Before considering how to handle it, it is somewhat important as to what the player was thinking.

It's probably likely that week 4 being a free roll was an unforeseen consequence from which he happened to benefit. In that case, he should be OK with restructuring future deals to avoid this situation.

If he viewed week 4 as just an extra incentive you were aware of, which seems unlikely, then you may need to renegotiate the next time to give up a little higher percentage to get back the 100% MU. If you don't think he's worth anything extra, then perhaps there was no deal to be made in the first place and the mistake is on you but at least you still came out ahead.

If he knowingly viewed this as a hidden incentive that you didn't realize and took advantage of it, it's a bit of an angle shoot on his part and you may need to be more careful when structuring future deals with him in the future.

For those that argue that you made the deal and shouldn't hold it against that player, I'd agree as to holding up your end of the bargain but that doesn't mean that that player didn't just spend some of his own integrity in the process. I'm not saying it was a huge violation of trust or that he's a bad guy for doing it but I wouldn't treat him as a trusted friend either.

Clearly he'll put his interest ahead of your's so to allow them to gamble in spots that benefit them while hurting you is a bad idea.

Trust can be a valuable commodity that many people seem to throw away too easily these days because they feel they are being clever at no cost to themselves but I'd disagree. Especially when they're in the position of needing to be staked in the first place. When they need backing, their integrity should be guarded as much as their own bank roll because clearly one is directly related to the other.

In any case, I don't think structuring in a free roll situation is a very good practice in general for the reasons I gave in my last post. It's basically investing money that creates incentives that can work against your interest and regardless of if that player takes advantage of it or not you want your money creating incentives that align his interest with yours.

On the other hand, allowing the player to hold the stakes plus winnings for an extended period may also test the limits of your trust if you haven't dealt with the player with that kind of money before. A hot streak may mean you're now trusting the player with $10K instead of $2K or you may have better use for that money in the near term to stake another player.

I think a better method would be to settle up each week but hold his share up to $2K as a deposit against the last weeks make up to be returned after any makeup which is the same as you just keeping the deposit and he keeps the stake.

If he doesn't like the idea of you holding $2K of his money for a month, ask him how that's different from him holding your original $2K stake for a month. You're still at risk if he's a net loser but at least he's never benefiting from your losses even in an EV sense.

What a old tread and still usefull.

Im in talks to stake a player into live cash games. We would both put 50% each towards the roll. We first would put 10BI total and reevaluate if he loses it. What would be standard split for profits? And how many buy ins up would be normal time to change profit split % and what would be new split for longer term stake deal (after he has proven himself as winner in the games and generated more roll for himself aka less need for stake anymore)?

Thanks in advance, im totally new to live staking.

This is more like buying action than actually staking someone (if he's going to take the 50% loss as well). It's a hard call for the above situation and it hinges on if he can actually get a full time stake in the live games (where the backer puts up the entire bankroll/eats the losses and the two chop profits 50/50). If the player CAN get full backing otherwise, the standard starting split would be 50/50 (to start). Obviously full time backing would be much better for the player since he still would get 50% to chop and not have to put up any of the bankroll/take losses.

In this case, if he can't find a full time backer in the live game, he can just sell action like he's doing with you...so I guess the split would be 50/50. If I were the player, I would probably just sell like 25% of my action or just drop down in stakes and take 100% of myself.

Also in this instance, after he generates more winnings and becomes a profitable winner, I think he can make the decision on if he wants to still sell you action or not. It's different than if you were full backing him (you putting up 100% of the bankroll and taking the losses).

Thanks for thorough answer. So i then propose he just sells some action to me and we split profits/losses accordingly. He also has the right to sell what ever % he wants to. It should be clearly +ev for both of us, hence just wondered what would be fair deal to both of us. Thanks again!

Hello my name is burt boutin i am looking for cash game stake.I live in las vegas i have played all limits in no limit and pot limit omaha.I Am willing to do a 50-50 stake split up daily or weekly or monthly.i am a 2 time bacelet winner 2001 plh 2007 plo i also have 2nd wpt.i have played for over 20 years in las vegas.please call 1 702 373 2098.

Hello my name is burt boutin i live las vegas and looking for a 50 50 split daily weekly or monthly.i am a 2 time world series winnner.2001 pot limit holdem and 2007 pot limit omaha and 2nd wpt main event.have over 2.3 million in winnings.have played all limits thanks. Burt boutin 702 373-2098

Very good idea posting your phone number.

I am sure you will get a lot of legitimate, very serious calls.

So lets say I'm HU cash player, mostly nl50 to nl100 only on Pokerstars and this is my graph since beginning of 2014


Here is the results tab


Most of my action is bumhunting, but I do play some regs if I feel they are tilted or I have edge in general.

Let's assume I'm legit, I have great track record, there are people in the community who would vouch for me. What would be the reasonable deal to ask from staker --- that's safe for staker and doesn't insult stakee? Thanks!

Does anyone have a cash games backing contract they're willing to share that they use with their horses?

I am a professional of 7 years. Right now I play NL 100 200 and omaha on full flush, im a regular and my nickname is LOLIWIN, I live in Houston and i am looking for a live stake to drive to Louisiana which is about less than 2 hours away. There is a series at the casino this week and i would like to be staked in the 500 and 1000 tournament and possibly the cash games. I regularly play the high roller tournaments on FF and I played the high roller on merge for a long time. My cash game results have varied over the years but I usually play 5-10 live and win 3-10 buyins per session. I am cash poor right now as everyone knows payouts are taking a liong time on fullflush and the max withdrawl for WU and MG is only 600 and 680 respectively.
You are pretty much assured to make money on your investment I am looking for a stake for the week and possibly longer if you like the return you are getting. I would usually never take a stake becaues i want 100% of myself, but im in a pickle and coould use the help.
Best,
Loliwin on equity

Post #1



. . .

Hey guys I was wondering if you could assist me with a query. I am in the process of organising being backed by a friend of mine to play tournaments on a specific site. We are drawing up an informal agreement/contract on email that we can both agree to (just to have a record of things). I am usually a cash game player on another site but he has made a lot of money in those games and is sure I will be a winning player. He is new to backing and I have never been staked.

The question concerns makeup. My potential backer has a fear that I may end up deep in makeup and decide to quit playing. (we both know each other well and view this as both unlikely to happen and undesirable, but it worries him nonetheless). Is it always the case that the backer ends up basically losing 100% of that makeup money if the stakee decides to quit while in makeup?

That would make the most sense to me and would be what most other explanations of staking would suggest. But my potential backer has suggested for example, if I have played no hands for the duration of a year and am in make up, I have to pay back 25% of my makeup (or something to that effect). Does this sound reasonable?

Has anyone else experienced these kind of stipulations with regard to ending a stake while in makeup? Is there a standard that I'm missing?

Thanks for any advice.

Excellent post, I've read it all.

I'm about to accept a deal of staking to play on online poker (on some chinnese poker page with weak games) that involves coach. Like 4 hours of coach every weak. I ended without enough bankroll due some bad off poker investment (buying BTC on the worst time).

I'm a Pokerstars reg who play NL50 and NL100 since many years, in my last 400k hands I have a winrate of 7bb/100.

The deal that my I've been proposed is:

I have to put 30% of the Bankroll
The winning are splitted 50%/50%
We start with a 40 buy ins BR on NL100 but we would take shots to higher stakes every time I get the winrate on the previous stake and get enough money to put my 30% on the next stake.
Each 20k hands, I can take out $1000 of my winnings to pay the bills.
And... it is for 18 months.

That sounds good??

Thank you for your answers.

No, terrible deal. If you put up 30% of the bankroll then you should get 65% of the profits.

Horse owes 50% of the makeup if they decide to quit while in makeup.

it depends, i dont think this is the standard

By all means, if you have a better proposal we're all ears.

Hi guys,

Potentially entering a staking deal for a cash game with a friend. We plan for the deal to run from now until the end of August. We will pay out monthly, splitting profits 55% to 45% (horse's favour) and with make up. I'd like to make sure we have everything right before starting. Example results below, does this all look right?

Starting bankroll = $2,000.

May +$300.
Horse gets $165, backer $135 (55:45)
Bankroll is reset to $2,000.

June -$250.
No payout as down $250, backer sends horse $250 to reset bankroll to $2,000. Horse is now $250 in make up.

July +$400.
Horse gets 55% of $150 ($400-$250) = $82.5
Backer gets 45% of $150 plus $250 = $67.5 + $250 = $317.50.
Bankroll is reset to $2,000.

August -$500. This is where it's confusing as it's the last month of the deal. Should the horse have to pay back the full $500? Or is it split 55:45? or the backer absorbs it all?

Thanks!

I think it is customary backer absorbs this loss, but can always be negotiated.