Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogman3
Why do you talk so much about something you clearly don't know much about?
Most stakers provide a bankroll for the player. The player plays purely with the stakers funds. They get given an amount to play a session/day and then get reloads the next day and so on - whatever the structure is
Horses always go into makeup because the nature of tourneys is you are going to lose until you hit that decent score, since prize distribution is very top heavy, in general.
Ideally, the staker would say "you play for me for a year and then at the end we see how much profit you made and then we split it"
In reality, horses usually get their split as soon as they are in profit. This leads to the horse basically always being in makeup... and at some point the horse will find he has a sustained bad run and ends up deeper in makeup
$80k for $100-$200 abi is not even unusually high - it depends on avg field size but it def can happen to an otherwise winning player
"Why do you talk so much..."
That's a question I've asked myself. Why bother posting about staking at 2+2, where it's apparent that those who post don't know and those who know don't post?
To help others? Just for fun? Yes, partly. Another reason is that I'm looking for a staker. When I raise the subject with a likely candidate, he immediately assumes that I'm asking for money to play poker. That's frustrating for me and not an unreasonable assumption, because that's exactly what many losing players are doing. No, I explain, I have a winning record. I'm offering a share of my future profits.
When I first researched staking, I was thoroughly misled by the available resources, including this forum. Possibly, my potential stakers are similarly misinformed. It would be nice if there was a credible resource. It's taken me some time to figure out the correct principles. I don't think that I'm the first person to do so. Maybe knowledge is proprietary? But then, financial markets have been trading risk for hundreds of years.
There is a problem with fuzzy terminology. For example, "staking" is the transfer of risk and reward, not the transfer of capital. A "stake" is not a sum of money, it is a share in a player's results. The transfer of capital is a loan. If a player is asking you for a loan, dressed up as a staking deal, he's either confused or a scammer. Protected from loss by a staking deal, a player needs no capital. If you're thinking of staking a player who's unable to scrape together a buy-in on his own dime, maybe you should think again.
As I've explained in a previous post, "makeup" is a dubious euphemism for "loss". And the introduction of an unnecessary settlement period (e.g. monthly) is the trick by which losing players pay themselves from non-existent profit.
You say:
"In reality, horses usually get their split as soon as they are in profit. This leads to the horse basically always being in makeup... and at some point the horse will find he has a sustained bad run and ends up deeper in makeup." You describe this problem quite well, but don't seem to acknowledge that it is a problem! You seem to justify it as common practice. I find it hard to believe that stakers can be so foolish.
You describe a player as a "horse", implying that a player benefits from the training, management and shelter of a stable. But a winning player is a skilled, hardened professional who knows his way home. A winning player recruits a staker, not the other way around. The player is in the driving seat. Or should I say, the saddle? My guess is that stables are run by coaches as an elaborate way to overpay themselves. If you're an investor putting money into a stable while a coach takes money out, you may be the victim of a scam. Or not, you decide. But don't do your research at 2+2.