Staking other players to play

[motomikeh]

If somebody who has more money than is willing to stake you for a tournament or cash game is there a general percentage of your profit that the loaner will make?

[Elandriel]

50%?

[motomikeh]

50% seems reasonable if the player isn't risking any of his own money. I've heard that it can be much lower provided that the player is known to be a good player in which case staking him would be a solid investment. Most people who invest would be happy with a 10% return, as in the stock market for example. I'm just trying to figure out what is the norm or if there is some kind of standard.

[TBZ]

I stake friends on a regular basis at my cardroom. General deal is this.

Cash Games are basically a loan. If I give you $100 and you re-pay me that day. No interest. If I don’t get repaid that day you owe me $120 within a week or next payday, whichever comes first.

Tournaments. I’ll stake good players 100% of the by in. If they bust out, they owe me nothing. If they cash, it’s 50% of the payout.

[motomikeh]

How you stake players for tournaments makes sense. But for cash games i'm talking about the player who cannot afford the occasional losses associated with that limit. Maybe what I should of said was just outright bankrolling a player for an extended period of time. Sure this is done on a regular basis. There must be a norm.

[Abbaddabba]

50% is absurd unless you're talking about over a massive number of hands, and the guy is a proven winner.

But proven winners seldom need to be staked...
even if almost every [censored] players happen to believe that they're good.

[motomikeh]

If %50 percent is absurd what is reasonable? I am talking about players that are known winners. There must be some kind of standard. Thats what i'm trying to find out.

[Abbaddabba]

If he's a known winner at the game he wants to be staked at, he probably wouldnt need be staked. Poker is a game about winning money. If someone who is good at poker has no money, something is wrong. They're either irresponsible enough that they arent trustworthy, or sucks enough that they arent worth staking.

The percent of the winnings should depend entirely on what their expected gains are.
If you pay them 50% of their actual winnings and charge them 0% of their actual losses, you're a moron.

If you estimate that he's a 1BB/hour winner live, then pay him that much and keep the rest regardless of his performance. If you think his ROI in a tournament is X%, pay him that and keep the rest. That's not the only way to structure the deal, but it's at least benefitting both parties unlike the lopsided 50% deal.



But if you really want to carry through with this kind of a deal, you can stake me.