BBV Please to be helping solve this staking arguement free 10$

[TruFeelings521]

Staker B buys 50% of makeup (700)

or

Staker A gets the first 1400 of any cash before a split ensues for Staker B.

Easy.

[Eskaborr]

[ QUOTE ]
Staker B buys 50% of makeup

or

Staker A gets the first 1400 of any cash before a split ensues for Staker B.

Easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But for your 2nd response, he would be risking 50% of said stake for nothing, doesnt sound too good imo?

[dieFTPdie]

Ok here's a couple of scenarios i can think of.

Scenario 1

Lets say the horse plays 100 buy in MTTS primarily(im just assuming this).
Staker B plays 1/2 of the buy in(50) along with staker A's 50.
Horse cashes for 1800 in the first MTT they both jointly stake.
Now,we have to have a cutoff as to when staker A get his make up back (or at least a big % of his make up)and when they share profits.Lets say the cut off is 1000.
This means for any cash greater than equal to 1000 the following is done.

So in this case,
Staker A get his 1000 back in make up first.the rest 800 profit is split in 2 and 400 goes to the backers(200 each i assume) and the horse gets 200.

And the next time the horse cashes,the 400 and the subsequent dollars in make up is paid back first and after that only the profits are split.

Now what happens if the horse cashes for less than 1000??

Then its just a 50-50 split between the stakers and the horse and the make up of 1400 is carried over till the horse makes a cash greater than 1000.

Scenario 2

Lets say staker B comes in to the picture and assumes responsibilty for 50% of the the buy ins.
The horse now doesnt cash for the next 10 MTTS.
So now make up owed is

Staker A = 1400 + 500 = 1900
Staker B = 500

The only difference is the threshold for when the stakers get their make up back is increased from 1000 to 1500 and remains at 1500 irrespective of how much the horse gets further stuck in make up.

So now when the horse cashes for less than 1.5k,profits are split-50% to A and B and 50% to the horse.

Once the horse makes a cash over 1.5k,lets say he cashes for 1800 in the next MTT..he gives 1.5k in make up back first to staker A and 300 in make up to staker B.

Now the new make up numbers are

Staker A-400
Staker B-200

Now everytime the horse makes a cash lesser than 600 the make up......hmmm now i am lost.

I have no idea what to make of this but its a bit complicated and is a function of when actually the horse cashes.

[Eskaborr]

This is for cash games, not MTT, shoulda been more clear I am sorry

[TruFeelings521]

I think all of my explanation still applies. In fact it further pushes the fact imo that Staker B should buy 1/2 of the makeup to make it as fair as possible.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
I think all of my explanation still applies. In fact it further pushes the fact imo that Staker B should buy 1/2 of the makeup to make it as fair as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would he pay money for a winning player who is at zero makeup?
It seems the money should come off as they go rather than up front, unless there simply is no other way to make it work.
Again, I really think most solutions turn out similarly over a long enough arrangement if the horse is a winner.


edit: heh I think trufeelings and I are in basic agreement here.

[TruFeelings521]

If there is no makeup than there would be no payment and up to Player A if he even wants to split the shares.

And again, like you are saying over the long run neither staker should care because they will get positive eventually.

If staker B doesn't wanna pay the makeup up front and still wants in on the deal then the 1400 makeup should be the priority before B makes any money. However, he obviously can avoid this by paying 1/2 of it up front.

[apefish]

I think in the long run most solutions that will be acceptable to all involved tend to merge in similarity. It's just a matter of degree and the length of the deal.

[TruFeelings521]

[ QUOTE ]
I think in the long run most solutions that will be acceptable to all involved tend to merge in similarity. It's just a matter of degree and the length of the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. If the horse is a winning player it won't matter in the long run.

[BowToYourSensei]

you are younghov