The thing is...if someone offered ANYONE those terms.....ANYONE would make out like a bandit. That "anyone" person being staked can do at worst break even...for no money down, not one dollar.

I'd call that a fantastic deal, personally.

There's a whole forum here for people who offer staking agreements where that "anyone" person can do at worst break even. That's how staking works and some people have made millions by staking other players.

High but reasonable imo, especially if you can't find better, and stake horse can help you improve your game w coaching.

* post assumes long-term deal.

To clear up a few things:

1) This is a "one off stake". Whatever happens that session is independent of all other stakes/results. Profits are split 80/20 in backer's favour, since he takes the entire risk. No makeup if I lose.

2) I generally play tight when I'm being staked. I don't intentionally LAG it up and make insanely high variance plays. The backer is my friend and I want him to win too. I estimate my win rate would converge to $20-$30/hr over the long run at $1/$3.

3) My average session is 3-4 hours long if I'm winning, but I'll quit my session immediately if I bust my buyin.

4) The backer cannot afford to stake 3k+ for a "proper bankroll", even though I agree that this would be more efficient for both of us.

5) I'm a 23 year old uni student that pays rent and only works part-time at a fast food job. It's not that I'm a losing poker player; it's just that my income equals my living expenses (at least until I graduate and get a full-time job), so I'm unable to save money and unable to build up a bankroll. That's why I'm being staked for $1/$3 live. I believe that I'd be a winning player at $5/$10 live too, but I obviously can't afford the variance.

Assuming all of this, you are playing poker (no risk) for $4-$6 per hour. 20% of your stated long term win rate.

Is this an ongoing deal where he gives you $300 each session? IMO you are getting ripped off if you are really a $20-$30/hr winner.

Nah that would be my hourly win rate if I had to pay makeup. Like if he stakes me 3 sessions, I lose, then on the 4th session I make $900 profit and the entire thing goes to him. In that scenario, I'd be working for $4-$6/hr. But the reality is that each session is treated on its own, so if he stakes me twice, I bust $300 the first session and make $300 profit the second session, then I still get to keep my $60 share, despite breaking even over those 2 sessions. So because of that, I'm actually earning a lot more than $10/hr. I just want to make sure I'm not earning more than what my real win rate should be.

What happens if you win $300 the first session and then bust the 2nd time?

If you get $60 the first time and he loses the whole $300 the 2nd time and you are settling up each time, then theres no way in hell I would stake you under that arrangement.

Great deal for you, probably not a good deal for backer, but I don't think it's at all unethical as long as the backer understands the reasons why it may not be a good deal (no make-up).

Lol'd. No offense, but this is egotistical given how much you've played the game.

From OP #3 above ... You don't quit your session if you bust, you're busted. Therefore you HAVE to leave the table. Also, why do you only play 3-4 hours? Can you play more than one session per weekend/period of stake?

As I stated early .. a stake if 'fair' to everyone as long as they agree to it before it starts.

What do a lot of employees (good or bad) do? They ask for a raise after a period of time. If you are providing positive results to this arrangement 'long term' then you should feel comfortable asking for a larger piece of the pie ... or perhaps a longer time frame in which to use the cash.

I've posted before both for poker and business ... there can be different profit sharing percentages when the profits get larger. Let's say in a tournament setting that you agree to a 80-20 split until the stake get 500% return and then you have a 60-40 split after that in favor of the stake. This 'rewards' the player for running extra deep ... something that the stake presumably can't do themselves.

So in my back yard we have the MSPT $1100 BI events, under this arrangement OP would have had to finish at least 25th (out of 1000) or better at one of the recent events to 'break' into the 2nd tier of the stake payout with a $7K+ winnings. In a tournament setting you also have to worry about taxes, which can be handled via 1099 to the stake or by the player keeping a larger share to cover the impending taxes. I believe the issue really kicks in at $10K over the BI for winnings.

Can you do this for a cash game? Sure, there would of course be factors both for and against the player here as well as the stake. Would the player play differently or make less EV moves trying to get the stack into the 2nd tier? Perhaps, but it is what you agree to and then you move on (hopefully) with undamaged relations. GL

Good post. Minor clarification: in most if not all US jurisdictions, $5k is the minimum cash at which the casino reports income and withholds tax as required.

if there is no makeup its for significantly more then 20% of your stated longg term win rate unless he never has a losing session ever. This deal is really good for the person getting staked IMO but I've done arrangements with friends that have better terms more as a way to help them out once or twice a year then make money. I would cross book your staker as long as the sessions were 1buyin and less then 10hrs because the downside is so high it requires a very very low variance style to be profitable for the staker.

Just a quick math calculation to exemplify the situation if you got all in 4 times 60% each time he would actually lose money. Lets say you start with $200. You would end up with 1600 (he wins 1400*.8=$1120) 13% of the time and lose 200 87% of the time. EV is 1120*.13=145.6 .87*200=174 145.6-174=$-28.4. So he loses $28.4 on average for a session where you are a heavily winning player.

Yeah, this is about the stupidest staking deal Ive ever heard of. Staking one buy in at a time I mean. Its stupid on so many different levels on both the part of the player AND the staker.

Before Stars was illegal in Australia, I played 200k hands at 2nlz, 5nlz and 10nlz and I was a winning player. And I've watched plenty of $5/$10 and $10/$20 LATB on YouTube and the play there looks pretty fishy. I also find lots of leaks in Andrew Neeme's game, despite the fact that he's a winning player at 5/10. So I don't think it's arrogant at all for me to say that I'd be a winning player at 5/10. The games aren't even tough at those stakes, like I saw someone limp-call $40 pre with Q4s on the BTN. I'd say that 5/10 live is comparable to 5nl on Stars.

I'm not sure you can call one buy-in a "stake"... Seems more like a homie hookup to me

Have to agree with this lol. It also leaves the door open for OP to play much looser because they only get %20 of what they win, and if they lose, have lost nothing.

I'd almost rather give the majority of the profits up in the hopes it would inspire better play.

In all seriousness if your backer is offering you a deal like this without makeup he is obviously doing it to be nice or too stupid to realize how bad it is for him. The fact that even after this you feel entitled to more and are caught up in your "skills" makes me feel sorry for the staker.

If you don't like the terms end them. If you can't go on your own and need a deal find the best one you can. Whatever's fair is irrelevant. Honestly if you believe in your "skills" so much a deal which carries makeup is more beneficial to both parties. You seem to say one thing and live your life another way (if you beat online why were the stakes you played so low for so long. Why don't you have $$ to go on your own after being staked if your so much better then everyone in the games you play). Just FYI a deal with makeup for 1-2/1-3 has payouts to the horse of 50-80% depending on expected winrate and hours and usually a lot more flexibility for stakes and playing time for he horse.

I never said anywhere that I want more. In fact, I was pretty much saying the exact opposite to this: I was trying to make sure that I'm not ripping off the backer.

The only reason I brought up my skills at all was because I got accused of being egotistical, so I was giving some evidence as to my win rates to prove that I'm not all just talk.

No, you were mentioning your skills when you put down on your resume (wafer thin, mind you) that you can beat the 5/10 game.

Regardless, I do not like the backer's side because there's nothing that you can lose if you lose. You're free-rolling. I think it's better to have a share in yourself.

I also don't think watching Neeme at Live At the Bike works on your resume.

I can beat 5/10 live though. It's not arrogant for me to speak the truth. It's not like I'm saying I could beat 5000nl online with 2 weeks of practice... I actually made a very realistic statement.

And watching poker strategy videos does count towards your resume because certain players who don't understand the concepts will get quickly bored and move on to watch the WSOP instead. Like you'll never see people in the comments of a JNandez PLO video that are talking about 1/2 live NL at the casino. Certain videos just attract certain players and I feel that the players who are regularly critiquing LATB hands (in a non trolly manner) tend to be decent players themselves.

Why is it a requirement that I have "something to lose" anyway? Extreme example: if OtB_RedBaron asked for someone to stake him to play a $10 MTT for 99% profit, do you really think that this is unfair on the staker, since the stakee has "nothing to lose"?

Sorry for the late reply. Overall you seem to know what you're talking about. But, you want to over promise and under perform as the saying goes. I'd much rather here about someone's results on 2/5 than here them talk about how they believe they can beat 5/10. Also, I am never declining a free roll, but I am never giving one either. It incentivizes gambling for its own stake. I can try to get a big stack or go home with a free roll like that. So it's not in the stakers interest. A free roll like this creates a conflict in interest.