Quote:
Originally Posted by Exothermic
Wasn't Cate Hall the woman who claimed to be making $500k a year? Why in the world would you need to be staked? Somebody has money management issue, or a gambling/drug addict issue.
seems that you sort of answered your own question, in addition to some of the other information adduced in the thread.
That being said, playing poker can be a lot less stress than exists in some firms where someone is making mid-six figures. I don't know what size firm she was at or what sort of law they focused on, but the grind extracts a mental toll if it was BigLaw. Granted, she is/was still a kid (anyone under 40 is a kid to me), but being young does not exempt one from the mental stressors...which can contribute to the rates of drug abuse seen in the profession (I know of some who STILL cannot practice in certain federal courts here in Texas because of drug use in the late 80's and early 90's).
Further, there are some who simply cannot handle windfall income. Again, don't know her situation, but know many who had large sums drop in their laps and did not do well with it due to immaturity. When the money is rolling in, you get to where you believe it is never going to stop..until it DOES stop.
I can easily see why some are drawn to staking agreements. Many years ago, when I was in my early 20's, I did very well in bowling at both the professional and amateur levels. I briefly had a staking/sponsorship deal but quickly grew to hate it. On the one hand, it was nice to know my expenses were covered, but on the other, it added an additional level of pressure that didn't previously exist. I quickly returned to just paying my own way even though it meant ~$2K-$3K in expenses each week between travel and entries. Some of those same lessons are why I pay my own way in poker...
Staking deals and even just buying percentages of someone for tournaments is an investment just the same as the markets, whether stocks, ETF's or other commodities. Sometimes the investment pays off and sometimes, despite due diligence, the funds are circling the bowl. As much as everyone WANTS to make money, sometimes you just have to chalk your loss up and move on. It happens. And yes, start-ups, by analogy, would be in the same category...venture capitalists fund businesses every day that hemorrhage funds, with the start-up going under. Very rare is the instance that the VC entity is going to be able to recoup anything if the persons in the start-up go on to something profitable...the contracts are just not set up that way. A horse is no different than a start-up...good concepts but not always something that scaled with proven results.