Is it only me or is this STAKING WEIRD
03-10-2013
, 04:19 AM
Hi i have been playing poker online for more than an year nw and i can say easily am a winning player...my most bankroll comes from 1$ 45 man non turbos through which i converted my 10$ into more than 4 digits and counting...
My Question to all u forum veterans is about STAKING..
Am new to 2+2 considering being active is a major concern here :P
Am nt approved for Market place yet so am not able to sell packages as well..
So here it is
I always wanted to rise to higher level 45 mans bt always went a little money scared...
So when i got to know abt staking i posted a few places and got pretty much good responses from everywhere...
i somehow selected one..
bt after rejecting all when they send me a contract...
this is what the contract essentially said...
i will get an initial buyin
profit split 50-50
if i lose i go in MAKE-up
every week the report has to be given
and i cannot leave when i am in make-up
and past transaction profits dont matter
NOW MY DOUBTS
I started with a small stake which is considerably very less compared to my bankroll...so what it essentially feels to is if i go in make up i am like putting effort to get the money back and until i do i cant leave..
Wheras if i make profit one week i split the profit next week i start again and if i go in makeup its essentially another grind to get back
Why i have these doubts?
SEEMS more like profit being split 50-50 but losses are totally 100% on me
SEE i can be totally wrong here..have very less idea about staking..u guys can make a laugh about me in this thread or whatever but i am here to gain knowledge and am pretty much unaltered by the trolls :P
Also if my stakers are reading this i just want to see what the world of staking is abt and i have aso told u before its more of an experiment right now for me
My Question to all u forum veterans is about STAKING..
Am new to 2+2 considering being active is a major concern here :P
Am nt approved for Market place yet so am not able to sell packages as well..
So here it is
I always wanted to rise to higher level 45 mans bt always went a little money scared...
So when i got to know abt staking i posted a few places and got pretty much good responses from everywhere...
i somehow selected one..
bt after rejecting all when they send me a contract...
this is what the contract essentially said...
i will get an initial buyin
profit split 50-50
if i lose i go in MAKE-up
every week the report has to be given
and i cannot leave when i am in make-up
and past transaction profits dont matter
NOW MY DOUBTS
I started with a small stake which is considerably very less compared to my bankroll...so what it essentially feels to is if i go in make up i am like putting effort to get the money back and until i do i cant leave..
Wheras if i make profit one week i split the profit next week i start again and if i go in makeup its essentially another grind to get back
Why i have these doubts?
SEEMS more like profit being split 50-50 but losses are totally 100% on me
SEE i can be totally wrong here..have very less idea about staking..u guys can make a laugh about me in this thread or whatever but i am here to gain knowledge and am pretty much unaltered by the trolls :P
Also if my stakers are reading this i just want to see what the world of staking is abt and i have aso told u before its more of an experiment right now for me
03-13-2013
, 06:09 AM
03-14-2013
, 04:21 AM
03-15-2013
, 02:57 PM
Not quite sure why you thought that this was the place to post this, instead of in the marketplace 
There is a MP general questions thread, where this has probably already been answered, but I'm stuck for something to do right now so I'll give it a go anyway.
1) you posted it in the wrong subforum
2) this subforum has very low traffic
3) it was less than two hours between your OP and your follow-up, so you have less patience than an ADHD toddler (fwiw, this lack of patience might become a problem if you want to play successfully at higher levels).
You're buying in with the backers money, not yours, so if you lose, it's backer's money you've lost. So, how are losses "on you"?
Staking poker players, just like actually playing poker, is about making money over the long term; it's not about quick hits. The reason you are in make-up if you start off on a losing streak is that your stake is considered to be one continuous session, even though you will actually be playing it over the course of numerous days, weeks or months.
Say for example you played ten $10 tourneys on day one, and only mincashed one, for $20. You can't possibly expect a profit split on the single min-cash when you've not made profit for the day, but actually lost $80. So you have $80 of makeup.
Say the next day you played another ten $10 tourneys, mincashed one for $20, and went deeper in another, cashing for $120. That's $40 profit for the day, but when added to your $80 loss from the previous day, you're still at a $40 loss overall, so again, you're still not in a position for a profit split because you still haven't made any money. You now have $40 of makeup
If you didn't accrue makeup in this way then you would be freerolling every time you sat down, and the backer would just be losing money all the time with all his horses. What would be the point for them? In any given tourney, you wouldn't even have any incentive at all to play as optimally as possible, because going bust in this one wouldn't make any difference to how much you received from the next time you cashed.
OK, say the third day you played the same ten $10 tourneys, and this time you won one of them for $500, and mincashsed two more for $20 each. That's $440 profit for the day, but with the $40 makeup, that makes $400 profit overall. Now you profit split (possibly, depends on individual backer and when they want to do splits); you're on a 50-50 split, so you keep your 50% of the profit, ie $200, and the backer gets 50% too, the other $200.
Of course you then reset to zero profit, because you can't get your cut on the same profit twice. You're effectively starting a brand new stake now. If you did a split, but your profit was left at $360, you would once again be freerolling the next $360 worth of buyins, costing the backer money again.
As above, it's not from your own pocket — you're not putting any of your own money towards this. But if you didn't have to get back to profit, then the backers would just lose money, and it wouldn't be worth their while. Only if you want to actually end the stake and buy out of your makeup would it have to come out of your own pocket (or a new backer might buy it out for you) but if that stipulation wasn't in there then any horse who started a stake on a downswing could just cut and run and move to a new stable, leaving his backer stuck for the money. Backers are running a business, not a charity for you to take shots without any responsibility.
People have all sorts of reasons for getting backed. Some people play better without the financial stress of risking their own money, or coping with the swings; others just don't have enough money at that time for a bankroll to play stakes that they are nevertheless capable of beating, and decide that they can earn more with a profit share of high stakes than they could with 100% of their own action of lower stakes; others have other reasons. But the trust in ability comes form both backer and horse believing that the horse is good enough to beat the level he is being staked to play.
Play more, run better, win, get back into long term profit. The backer will send you an initial amount, but if you lose it all then he will top you up with more. This will be added to your makeup. Of course, there might come a point when a backer decides that a horse is no longer worth staking, and decides cut his losses and drop them — in that case the horse owes nothing (apart from however much of the backer's money is still in his account when he gets dropped) and the makeup is lost by the backer. This is the real risk that the backer is taking (other than being flat out scammed by a thief).
No, not weird at all. If a horse has got time to play poker then the backer wants that horse to play whatever game both agree the horse can earn the most money from; he doesn't want them wasting time donking around in razz cash games, or whatever else takes their fancy. Again, he's not a charity. If you can't take your game seriously, how can you expect a backer to take you seriously?
Yes, it is. Rakeback, or FPP value, can be taken into consideration by the backer as part of the profit, because it has a clearly defined value. Indeed, in some formats it comes to represent the majority of the profit from playing. Whether or not this applies to you will depend on the terms of your specific agreement; some backers allow their horses to keep FPP, although this will of course be reflected in the percentage split they will offer.
Good luck!
There is a MP general questions thread, where this has probably already been answered, but I'm stuck for something to do right now so I'll give it a go anyway.
2) this subforum has very low traffic
3) it was less than two hours between your OP and your follow-up, so you have less patience than an ADHD toddler (fwiw, this lack of patience might become a problem if you want to play successfully at higher levels).
Staking poker players, just like actually playing poker, is about making money over the long term; it's not about quick hits. The reason you are in make-up if you start off on a losing streak is that your stake is considered to be one continuous session, even though you will actually be playing it over the course of numerous days, weeks or months.
Say for example you played ten $10 tourneys on day one, and only mincashed one, for $20. You can't possibly expect a profit split on the single min-cash when you've not made profit for the day, but actually lost $80. So you have $80 of makeup.
Say the next day you played another ten $10 tourneys, mincashed one for $20, and went deeper in another, cashing for $120. That's $40 profit for the day, but when added to your $80 loss from the previous day, you're still at a $40 loss overall, so again, you're still not in a position for a profit split because you still haven't made any money. You now have $40 of makeup
If you didn't accrue makeup in this way then you would be freerolling every time you sat down, and the backer would just be losing money all the time with all his horses. What would be the point for them? In any given tourney, you wouldn't even have any incentive at all to play as optimally as possible, because going bust in this one wouldn't make any difference to how much you received from the next time you cashed.
OK, say the third day you played the same ten $10 tourneys, and this time you won one of them for $500, and mincashsed two more for $20 each. That's $440 profit for the day, but with the $40 makeup, that makes $400 profit overall. Now you profit split (possibly, depends on individual backer and when they want to do splits); you're on a 50-50 split, so you keep your 50% of the profit, ie $200, and the backer gets 50% too, the other $200.
Of course you then reset to zero profit, because you can't get your cut on the same profit twice. You're effectively starting a brand new stake now. If you did a split, but your profit was left at $360, you would once again be freerolling the next $360 worth of buyins, costing the backer money again.
As above, it's not from your own pocket — you're not putting any of your own money towards this. But if you didn't have to get back to profit, then the backers would just lose money, and it wouldn't be worth their while. Only if you want to actually end the stake and buy out of your makeup would it have to come out of your own pocket (or a new backer might buy it out for you) but if that stipulation wasn't in there then any horse who started a stake on a downswing could just cut and run and move to a new stable, leaving his backer stuck for the money. Backers are running a business, not a charity for you to take shots without any responsibility.
Quote:
my staking is considerably negligible to my BR so i was like who will want to take such backing...someone who has gone broke but trusts his abilities or something?
Quote:
cause if u lose the BR how do u pay back...
Quote:
then off-course the restriction for not being allowed to play anything else ..seems weird to me..
Quote:
if u want to take back the FPP rakeback then also it is easily calculateable ...
Good luck!
03-16-2013
, 07:53 AM
Quote:
Not quite sure why you thought that this was the place to post this, instead of in the marketplace
There is a MP general questions thread, where this has probably already been answered, but I'm stuck for something to do right now so I'll give it a go anyway.
1) you posted it in the wrong subforum
2) this subforum has very low traffic
3) it was less than two hours between your OP and your follow-up, so you have less patience than an ADHD toddler (fwiw, this lack of patience might become a problem if you want to play successfully at higher levels).
You're buying in with the backers money, not yours, so if you lose, it's backer's money you've lost. So, how are losses "on you"?
Staking poker players, just like actually playing poker, is about making money over the long term; it's not about quick hits. The reason you are in make-up if you start off on a losing streak is that your stake is considered to be one continuous session, even though you will actually be playing it over the course of numerous days, weeks or months.
Say for example you played ten $10 tourneys on day one, and only mincashed one, for $20. You can't possibly expect a profit split on the single min-cash when you've not made profit for the day, but actually lost $80. So you have $80 of makeup.
Say the next day you played another ten $10 tourneys, mincashed one for $20, and went deeper in another, cashing for $120. That's $40 profit for the day, but when added to your $80 loss from the previous day, you're still at a $40 loss overall, so again, you're still not in a position for a profit split because you still haven't made any money. You now have $40 of makeup
If you didn't accrue makeup in this way then you would be freerolling every time you sat down, and the backer would just be losing money all the time with all his horses. What would be the point for them? In any given tourney, you wouldn't even have any incentive at all to play as optimally as possible, because going bust in this one wouldn't make any difference to how much you received from the next time you cashed.
OK, say the third day you played the same ten $10 tourneys, and this time you won one of them for $500, and mincashsed two more for $20 each. That's $440 profit for the day, but with the $40 makeup, that makes $400 profit overall. Now you profit split (possibly, depends on individual backer and when they want to do splits); you're on a 50-50 split, so you keep your 50% of the profit, ie $200, and the backer gets 50% too, the other $200.
Of course you then reset to zero profit, because you can't get your cut on the same profit twice. You're effectively starting a brand new stake now. If you did a split, but your profit was left at $360, you would once again be freerolling the next $360 worth of buyins, costing the backer money again.
As above, it's not from your own pocket — you're not putting any of your own money towards this. But if you didn't have to get back to profit, then the backers would just lose money, and it wouldn't be worth their while. Only if you want to actually end the stake and buy out of your makeup would it have to come out of your own pocket (or a new backer might buy it out for you) but if that stipulation wasn't in there then any horse who started a stake on a downswing could just cut and run and move to a new stable, leaving his backer stuck for the money. Backers are running a business, not a charity for you to take shots without any responsibility.
People have all sorts of reasons for getting backed. Some people play better without the financial stress of risking their own money, or coping with the swings; others just don't have enough money at that time for a bankroll to play stakes that they are nevertheless capable of beating, and decide that they can earn more with a profit share of high stakes than they could with 100% of their own action of lower stakes; others have other reasons. But the trust in ability comes form both backer and horse believing that the horse is good enough to beat the level he is being staked to play.
Play more, run better, win, get back into long term profit. The backer will send you an initial amount, but if you lose it all then he will top you up with more. This will be added to your makeup. Of course, there might come a point when a backer decides that a horse is no longer worth staking, and decides cut his losses and drop them — in that case the horse owes nothing (apart from however much of the backer's money is still in his account when he gets dropped) and the makeup is lost by the backer. This is the real risk that the backer is taking (other than being flat out scammed by a thief).
No, not weird at all. If a horse has got time to play poker then the backer wants that horse to play whatever game both agree the horse can earn the most money from; he doesn't want them wasting time donking around in razz cash games, or whatever else takes their fancy. Again, he's not a charity. If you can't take your game seriously, how can you expect a backer to take you seriously?
Yes, it is. Rakeback, or FPP value, can be taken into consideration by the backer as part of the profit, because it has a clearly defined value. Indeed, in some formats it comes to represent the majority of the profit from playing. Whether or not this applies to you will depend on the terms of your specific agreement; some backers allow their horses to keep FPP, although this will of course be reflected in the percentage split they will offer.
Good luck!
There is a MP general questions thread, where this has probably already been answered, but I'm stuck for something to do right now so I'll give it a go anyway.
1) you posted it in the wrong subforum
2) this subforum has very low traffic
3) it was less than two hours between your OP and your follow-up, so you have less patience than an ADHD toddler (fwiw, this lack of patience might become a problem if you want to play successfully at higher levels).
You're buying in with the backers money, not yours, so if you lose, it's backer's money you've lost. So, how are losses "on you"?
Staking poker players, just like actually playing poker, is about making money over the long term; it's not about quick hits. The reason you are in make-up if you start off on a losing streak is that your stake is considered to be one continuous session, even though you will actually be playing it over the course of numerous days, weeks or months.
Say for example you played ten $10 tourneys on day one, and only mincashed one, for $20. You can't possibly expect a profit split on the single min-cash when you've not made profit for the day, but actually lost $80. So you have $80 of makeup.
Say the next day you played another ten $10 tourneys, mincashed one for $20, and went deeper in another, cashing for $120. That's $40 profit for the day, but when added to your $80 loss from the previous day, you're still at a $40 loss overall, so again, you're still not in a position for a profit split because you still haven't made any money. You now have $40 of makeup
If you didn't accrue makeup in this way then you would be freerolling every time you sat down, and the backer would just be losing money all the time with all his horses. What would be the point for them? In any given tourney, you wouldn't even have any incentive at all to play as optimally as possible, because going bust in this one wouldn't make any difference to how much you received from the next time you cashed.
OK, say the third day you played the same ten $10 tourneys, and this time you won one of them for $500, and mincashsed two more for $20 each. That's $440 profit for the day, but with the $40 makeup, that makes $400 profit overall. Now you profit split (possibly, depends on individual backer and when they want to do splits); you're on a 50-50 split, so you keep your 50% of the profit, ie $200, and the backer gets 50% too, the other $200.
Of course you then reset to zero profit, because you can't get your cut on the same profit twice. You're effectively starting a brand new stake now. If you did a split, but your profit was left at $360, you would once again be freerolling the next $360 worth of buyins, costing the backer money again.
As above, it's not from your own pocket — you're not putting any of your own money towards this. But if you didn't have to get back to profit, then the backers would just lose money, and it wouldn't be worth their while. Only if you want to actually end the stake and buy out of your makeup would it have to come out of your own pocket (or a new backer might buy it out for you) but if that stipulation wasn't in there then any horse who started a stake on a downswing could just cut and run and move to a new stable, leaving his backer stuck for the money. Backers are running a business, not a charity for you to take shots without any responsibility.
People have all sorts of reasons for getting backed. Some people play better without the financial stress of risking their own money, or coping with the swings; others just don't have enough money at that time for a bankroll to play stakes that they are nevertheless capable of beating, and decide that they can earn more with a profit share of high stakes than they could with 100% of their own action of lower stakes; others have other reasons. But the trust in ability comes form both backer and horse believing that the horse is good enough to beat the level he is being staked to play.
Play more, run better, win, get back into long term profit. The backer will send you an initial amount, but if you lose it all then he will top you up with more. This will be added to your makeup. Of course, there might come a point when a backer decides that a horse is no longer worth staking, and decides cut his losses and drop them — in that case the horse owes nothing (apart from however much of the backer's money is still in his account when he gets dropped) and the makeup is lost by the backer. This is the real risk that the backer is taking (other than being flat out scammed by a thief).
No, not weird at all. If a horse has got time to play poker then the backer wants that horse to play whatever game both agree the horse can earn the most money from; he doesn't want them wasting time donking around in razz cash games, or whatever else takes their fancy. Again, he's not a charity. If you can't take your game seriously, how can you expect a backer to take you seriously?
Yes, it is. Rakeback, or FPP value, can be taken into consideration by the backer as part of the profit, because it has a clearly defined value. Indeed, in some formats it comes to represent the majority of the profit from playing. Whether or not this applies to you will depend on the terms of your specific agreement; some backers allow their horses to keep FPP, although this will of course be reflected in the percentage split they will offer.
Good luck!
03-17-2013
, 02:12 AM
Thanks man for the well explained doubts,,,
I had ended my Stake mutually even before reading this but this sure gave me a lot of insight into the world of backing and all....
My stakers were very cooperative and all and it was my lack of knowledge of what i wanted for myself that caused the confusion and even wasted their time...
I would like to thank them for trusting in me as a poker player to be their horse and i hope our roads meet again some day... THANKS GUYS
I had ended my Stake mutually even before reading this but this sure gave me a lot of insight into the world of backing and all....
My stakers were very cooperative and all and it was my lack of knowledge of what i wanted for myself that caused the confusion and even wasted their time...
I would like to thank them for trusting in me as a poker player to be their horse and i hope our roads meet again some day... THANKS GUYS
03-19-2013
, 05:41 AM
03-21-2013
, 03:20 AM
my plan was playing higer value SNG's with half the buyin shared...
ya that is the reason i left the stake very soon cause it didn't seem worth grinding small Sng's when i was playing multi digits PLO pots on the side...
i left the staked but am still grateful to my STAKERS for trusting me with their money
