[tagtastic]

[ QUOTE ]
why would u want to stake a winning player, wouldn't they already have a ton of money to play with. this thread is confusing. unless u think someone who beats low stakes is suddenly ready for med stakes i don't get this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.. I can understand staking for big MTTs. The fields are incredibly soft, most decent players are +EV, but the variance is insane. Therefore, staking a large number of players results in reduction in variance for both parties.

In cash games I kinda think this is a really bad idea. The games are much harder, and NL cash is about as low variance as poker gets (even tho it can still be pretty sick sometimes). The vast majority of the players who need a stake would have to have a serious flaw as a player, be it poor play, poor tilt control or poor bankroll management. I'd imagine an actual solid, winning player who doesn't have a roll for whatever legit reason is very rare, and of those many would rather rebuild than accept a stake - I know I would.

But jfish and Pasterbator are pretty smart guys, maybe they're thinking about this a little differently. GL to all involved.