My friend wants to take 20% of his own action, splitting profits 60% him 40% me for live 2/5nl. We're having trouble figuring out how makeup will work.

The scenario were struggling with is if Day 1 he loses $1,000, so I'm down $800 he's down $200 and then Day 2 he makes $1,000 how is this $1,000 profit split up?

If he makes $500 how does the makeup work? Does it all get paid back to me or is it divided somehow? Thanks.

Don't make a staking deal with your buddy is the easiest and smartest way to solve this.

Do you want him to continue being your friend? Then tell him to play 1/2 on his own money instead

This is why I don't post here anymore!!!

Why would you take 80% of losses but only get 40% of profits? He would have to be really really good for me to agree to that deal.

Also, dont try to calculate day to day. Do it month to month and this probelm will be greatly minimized

Most ridiculous thing I've heard of! You're risking 80% of the bankroll for 40% of the profits. Chad Power @ MGM National Harbor has a stable of players that he taught. He bankrolls them 100% & Chad takes 65% to start. As they prove themselves, their take increases to ~60% until they go indy.

Anyways, if he loses 1K the 1st day, I think your cut of profits when he wins 1K should be at least 2x what you normally get until he makes up your loss.

Basically this.

2. You get $400..he gets $100 and there is still $500 in makeup.

Simple math imo.

so the stake is going to be broken 60/40 on your 80% investment (he gets 60%) correct?

I have staked pals and I personally think this is weighted heavily in his favor and wouldnt do it AND I advise against it

However, if I were to do it (I am assuming that he has a fantastic track record of never tilting along with a kick ass win rate but his house just got struck by lightning, his car got stolen, and his dear sweet grandma needs experimental surgery thus depleting his roll)

I would want a 400 hour commitment out of him minimum (prefer 500). There would be no bank breaking until that time is complete.

I thought standard cash game staking for a good player is 50/50 with stakeback (If 100% staked), in this scenario he wanted to take on some of the action so we adjusted the numbers accordingly?

Priority of claims can be whatever you want, but here's how I would do it. Your makeup has the highest priority, his makeup is second and profits are last. Therefore, if he loses $1000 on day one, you pay him $800. On day two, the first $800 goes to you and the next $200 goes to him. If he only won $500, all $500 would go to you, leaving him $300 in makeup to you and $200 to himself.

As mentioned by others, this isn't a good deal for you. Staking deals work best when they aren't between friends. Eventually with friends, they have to chose between their friendship and the money. It ends with someone being bitter about it.

Serious question - why would a good winning player ever need to be staked at low stakes poker? Thanks.

This.

If you do stake this guy, then I have a feeling that you will regret it. GL.

Life outside of poker happens. Sometimes it's unavoidable.

The simplest math is this

1) Day 1 he loses $1000
2) Day 2 he wins $1000.

You are both even. He doesnt need to be paid every day. Nobody gets paid every day. If he doesnt even have enough money to make it to "payday" which would normally be every 2 weeks with any normal job, then I would never trust him with a stake like this. Trying to calculate day by day profits and makeup is absurd.

Typically, poker players don't have an adequate bankroll. If you are playing 1/2, the bankroll for a pro would be around $4000. That bounces to $10,000 for 2/5. If you are playing as a pro at 1/2, you're most likely consuming almost everything you're earning. You're not able to build up your bankroll. Staking allows you to enter the bigger game and ride the variance train. You'll be making a little bit more money at first after paying off the staker, but eventually will get to the point where you can beat the game sufficiently to no longer need the staker.

Admittedly, that's probably less than 5% of the time when staking occurs. Most of the time, the stakee loses/spends the stake because they are losing at the table or at life.

Wouldn't do it, the posters above summarized why the math is off with what's being proposed. I've always been old school and never play stakes above my bankroll, i.e. the money I set aside poker. Then again I'm not a professional player and have always had a job.

Just out of curiosity what 2/5 game is this Mohegan or the woods?

Mostly MGM now but it varies.

Staking deal has gone great so far btw.

If you are staking somebody YOU set the terms, Make your offer, if he doesn't accept who cares, agree on something you are comfortable with

Ask cate hall

Because not all poor people are ******ed?

Just because someone doesn't have $10k+ to their name, doesn't mean they don't have the intelligence to beat 2/5 NL live.

There are plenty of broke uni students that could crush 5/10 NL live but simply aren't rolled for it. It happens all the time.