An amateur player playing $2/$5. This player is obviously competent. They are not a professional (by choice) but they are clearly a winning player and even one of the best players at the game. Not only are they good, but they are able to play loose and social and still show a profit. I.e. they are willing to give action to inferior players.

One day a professional approaches this player and says that he needs another player in a private game. The private game is $25/$50 but is filled with fish and just being able to beat $2/$5 means they should crush this game. The professional says that he is willing to back the player in the game for 90%. I.e. the amateur puts up his stake and the professional will match it at 9x in exchange for 90% of the result. So if the amateur puts up $1000, the professional will give him $9000 and take 90% of the result.

This happens for a couple of sessions and it goes well, the amateur wins decent money and splits it with the professional 10%/%90.

The amateur then tells the professional that he wants to up his contribution and says that he will put up %50 and the professional can contribute %50 and they split the profits. The professional declines and says that he wants to continue it at %10/%90.

The amateur tells him that it us unfair because he can afford to take a greater stake and therefore wants to. The professional says that it it is his game so therefore his rules. The amateur waits until the day before the game and says if he cannot get %50 he won't play. He makes it clear that he is well liked in the game and all of the whales like his action.

Any thoughts on what would be fair? Anyone have any experience with something similar? Obviously a compromise is %25/%75 but is that the best to be found?

I think it was a little early to try and change the terms of your agreement. I also think it was way too much of a change.

The Pro invited you into a great spot and now, after you've confirmed it was a great spot at only 10% risk, you want to take away a huge chunk of the deal! I wouldn't be in a good mood either. If you were rolled for the game, then you should've negotiated that before the first session.

I've always seen it where staking was a straight line approach. But I love 'tier' systems, but when I've suggested them in forums no one has really bit into them. I think that the farther a Player makes it into a tournament the larger their share of the winnings should be. At that point the stake is 'covered' and the Player is doing most of the work.

My thoughts are that you set up some profit tiers where the Pro is front loaded 90/10 but as the profit goes up you get a larger portion .. like a bonus. This could be a session formula or a monthly formula.

There's no one stake that is the same as any other, so to speak. It can be whatever you agree to and modified 'at any time'.

I've seen Dealers pay a 'seat fee' to the host for the rights to deal a game. I've seen a wining Player 'taxed' when they cash out.

This thread may get moved to Home Games or the Staking area .. GL

To state the obvious: We're not talking about a regular staking agreement here. The professional" basically sells the seat in the game to the "amateur".

Pretty sure the amateur could have 50% (or even 100%) of his action if he compensated the pro in cash. Let's say the player averages $1000 in winnings per session. Under the staking agreement, he keeps 10% and staker gets 90%. If the amateur wanted to do a 50/50 split he could offer the pro to pay him a flat $450 for the seat per session or $900 for 100% of his action.

To me, fair is whatever both players will agree to.

If 90/10 isn't good enough for the player, then he shouldn't play.
If 50/50 isn't good enough for the staker, then he shouldn't allow the player to the game.
If (as madlex suggests) the staking is really just a pay to play, then maybe an agreement can be made there.

Is it "fair" to renegotiate the terms "after a couple of sessions"? I don't see why not, but it depends on what their agreement was. Either way, unless it was specifically discussed, I don't see how the player could be forced to continue with an arrangement he doesn't like any more.

He’s basically giving you a cut of a game I’m assuming you wouldn’t be able to play otherwise.

I think you have to decide if you want the low risk spot or not.

It’s a take it or leave it type of deal.

From the sounds of it you should just play if you’re winning more than 2-5 and not play if you’re not winning more. Easy game.

This is 100% correct. No one is forcing the player, or the staker into a deal. However, that said, it does sound like the player is too greedy in wanting to change the deal so much. After all, it was the staker that found the fish that wanted to play and set up the game.

The amateur is out-of-line here. Trying to negotiate is fine (as is continuing to negotiate after first offer fails) but refusing to play/taking the game hostage at last minute once it fails is unacceptable.

But its all ready ethically questionable for pro to stake other players in his own private games, especially if the pro also plays at the same time - some ways of handling it are better than others but its why many home games can get a bad reputation.

It wasn't so much that the amateur tried to take the game hostage at the last second as it was the amateur played more for the challenge than the money and didn't need to work for others. So leading up to the game he felt more excited to go to the casino and play in the $2/$5 than he would going to the private game and play for what we're for him essentially the same stakes where he was staked by another.

I agree that this could be a problem, but everything was above board. In fact that was likely one of the amateur's advantages. Everyone thought he was playing with scared money.