Re: Staking Agreement
 

[ QUOTE ]
stunnersuh, don't know much about staking agreements so I can't address your original question.

Others in this thread do have a point, though. If you're actually a solid winner in these games and have a full bankroll then you're just donating time or money to your friend. There's no reason not to do this, but it might be more fruitful for both of you if you add his money to your roll and move up to NL200.

[/ QUOTE ]

evryone else is correct but if you insist, what he said sounds like a good idea.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

It's possible OP donked off his BR playing blackjack or practiced horrible bankroll management and went broke, he just refuses to admit it here. If this is the case, he probably learned his lesson, and this stake is a way for him to get back on his feet. The other scenario is that he's not nearly as good at poker as he thinks and he wants someone else to fund his habit. Lol at being a solid winner at $100NL and then voluntarily playing essentially $25NL for months.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

[ QUOTE ]
50/50 split, 3 mo, no makeup.


[/ QUOTE ]


As the staker I would never do this.

You don't have to be a charity to "help"- but every edge you push trying to get the better end of the deal makes you less of a friend trying to help.

An argument could be made that the best thing a friend could do is simply say no to risking a buddy's money.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

There's nothing to hide here. I've been playing online since 2003, it's nothing more than a case of him wanting to get a piece of my action and we can make some money together. If you guys want to come up with your own theories that's fine, was just merely asking for a few honest suggestions. Not trying to start a war with anybody.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

The part I didn't post was "allow him to buy whatever part of the action he wants for an equal share of the loss".

I was seriously replying to the suggested 50-50 with no stakeback by the other poster. I think it's bad for your buddy.

I'm not trying to say buddies should never do this- just that I've seen quite a few friendly relationships strained thru staking.

Best of luck with it.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

my suggestion: you play, and just give him any bonuses from FPPs etc.

it's all going to be arbitrary, because as posters in here have stated, on what you have written, this is essentially some weirdly concocted way for you to give money to your friend.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

theres no fair arrangement to be had for someone whose earn rate exceeds what both the staker and stakee stand to make/hour combined.


do you have any friends who are successful in the real world? ask them to take the day off work to deliver newspapers with you, and see how you can equitably compensate them. it's absurd. just like this would be if you didnt suck at poker.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

lol

OP, just tell us the truth already.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

I guess the real reason everyone is so skeptical is that the "stake" that a solid NL 100 winner could possibly find attractive isn't a NL 50 bankroll; its a NL 400 or above bankroll. In other words, if the only thing that was holding you back from winning at NL 1000 was the roll, then staking might sound mutually beneficial. But a typical staking arrangement goes 50-50, with the staker accepting all losses, for some time period. So if you move down from NL 100 to NL 50, and get staked, you earn about 25% of your current earnings, assuming your winrate stays the same. It is highly doubtful that your winrate is so much higher at NL 50 than 100 as to absorb this huge loss. If you look at it the other way, you can see why staking makes sense for a player who doesn't have the roll to compete at a level that he has the talent to play at. If you could beat NL 1000 for 3 ptbb per, but are currently playing NL 100 and beating it at 7 ptbb per, that friend with 30,000 and you might both make money. But under your scenario, somebody loses for sure. Either you (because you didn't need the cash) or him (because you can't really beat NL 100), so he's staking a dead horse.

If you are a winner at NL 100, a better staking model would be to attempt to move up and let him buy a piece of the action and risk. The problem is that you would only be breaking even at NL200 IF you kept the same winrate (doubtful) and there is more money at stake. Thus all the hate by other posters.

Re: Staking Agreement
 

Not sure why there is so much hate to a simple post.

The OP may have genuinely thought this was a good way to get a friend off to a winning start thereby allowing the friend to play with "won" money.

I agree that it is a stupid way to do it and many posters have explained why. But why so much aggression?

OP - listen to the advice given because it is valid and surely you can see why. The way some posters have put it though leaves a little to be desired.