I share action with another poker player. Until recently, we were both staked, but we did well enough to start playing on our own money, which we've been doing for a few months. In that time we've built up enough of a bankroll that we're considering staking other players.

One player we're looking at is a friend of ours who plays in some of the same games. He's currently staked by our former staker. (We originally introduced them.) We believe in his game and would be willing to offer him a better split than he's getting now. Our former staker feels this would be "poaching" and constitute a betrayal of our previous staking agreement. We don't see anything wrong with offering him a better deal.

Who's right? Would it be unethical for us to try to stake this player?

Business is business.

Just don't be surprised if your future "stable" gets poached in return. Which might mean lower returns for your investments, for both you and your former staker.

There are an awful lot of people with shared money at your card room.

Up to three is an awful lot? Maybe, but I think you'll find that's pretty typical of live poker.

1. It's four if you count the original staker.

2. Three is a lot.

3. I primarily play live.

4. I can virtually guarantee that none of the best players in my game share bankrolls. There's a married couple but they're both bad so whatever.

5. Ultimately it depends on the size of the player pool. A team of 3 in a pool of several thousand probably doesn't matter (as is it unlikely you play against one another unless you collude, which is an ethical offense in itself). On the other end of the spectrum, a team of 3 is clearly unethical in a player pool of 4. Most pools are several dozen to several hundred, so ask yourself how often you end up in hands against your bankroll sharers and decide how ethical it is.

Where do you play?

Suggest to your previous staker that your bud will play under him for the next month or 2 months and then joins you after that (effectively giving him notice, so he could find other horse(s) in the meanwhile). If you plan to use backing in the future, you will want guys like your previous backer to be happy with your previous relationship and give you positive references if needed.
When you think whether something is ethical or not, Golden Rule is a good one to remember too.

@callipygian We do not collude, but that's a whole other issue and I'd like to keep this thread focused on the original question.

To others, thanks for your responses. I'm a believer in the Golden Rule as well. If I was my former staker, I wouldn't want people luring away my horses, but if I was my friend, I would want to be offered a better deal, so I think you can use it to argue both ways in this case

Make sure your horse doesn't accept two 60/40 deals and freeroll you. Good luck.

Staking deals by nature are always going to be short term. The horse is going to either win enough after a while to chaff at giving up so much profit and want out. Or the horse is going to lose so much the staker will refuse to give them more money. This is why staking deals need to be written, with as many details figured out as possible.

Therefore, it depends on the nature of the agreement. If the agreement expires as both sides agreed it could, then there is no reason to feel bad by anyone. The horse can sign up with whomever that gives them the best deal. However, if the horse is in make up or not yet fulfilled the terms of the agreement, it would be unethical in my mind to offer them a deal to allow them to renege on their other deal. Besides that, if the horse reneges on someone's deal, you can be positive they will renege on your deal if it is to their advantage. That's how people lose money on staking.

And I know you said you didn't want to discuss it, but if you're at the same table and sharing a bankroll by today's standards, you're going to be suspected of cheating at a minimum. Even if you aren't "colluding," players have been banned from poker rooms by management by making public they are sharing a bankroll. Each person you approach is another person who will eventually tell someone who will complain. A couple of complaints and the room will decide it is better to ban you and everyone around you.

Nice post. Should be stickied. Never seen it expressed so simply.

How much did you make in 2 months to go from needing to be staked to having enough extra bankroll sitting around to be able to stack other players?

Make sure you don't stake the other guy, piss off your original staker, go on a downswing and need to ask him to stake you again.

Seems like a mess situation I would probably avoid it. Maybe have him try to play with his own money for a month or so and then he can start being staked by you instead if he still needs it. That way it doesn't seem like he is bailing on the other guy to be staked by you as much.

OP:

Lets say, by some off chance of events, that you go broke and would like the opportunity to be staked again. It can happen.

Are there other sources for you, aside from your former backer, that would agree to staking you?

There's an old saying: never bite the hand that feeds you.

And although I agree that business is business, the poker community is a tough bunch but a loyal bunch. And it's best to have (certain) players on your side if you know what I mean. So, I'm not so sure that I would jump at the chance to stake this guy if I were you.

You shouldn't encourage the guy to break any agreement he has with his existing staker. That would be unethical. But if this guy doesn't have any agreement that limits when he can drop the staker and go to another one then there's nothing wrong with what you are doing.

A deal should be a deal. Karma's a bitch and Murphy's Law hasn't survived for as long as it has for no reason. Sounds like everyone involved is running good and ya'll just might be chirping a little bit. Poker has a way of curing the chirp.

@Rush: Sure, I could find another backer, but I agree that it's a bad idea to piss off your friends/allies.

@Thunder and HR: His staking deal does not have a fixed duration, so offering him a new deal would not be breaking any agreement.

In any case, we had a bit of discussion, our original staker ended up giving our friend a better deal, and I think everyone is cool with the situation. Thanks for the input all.

In the end as long as all are satisfied and there are no hard feelings is what matters most.