Hammering out a stake deal, help needed

[PartySNGer]

I'm going to Reno to play in a bunch of World Poker Challenge preliminary events. I'll probably play in about 9 events with total buyins of close to $3500. Anyway, my friend wants to stake me and he said he'd pay 1/3 of the entries for 1/3 of the profit. However, in a standard stake deal usually the investor only gets half of the profit for staking the entire bankroll. So by paying 33% of my entries should my friend only be entitled to about 16.5% of any possible profit? If a backer gets 33% of profit for investing 33% of the stake, doesn't it render the player's talent useless. The player being back should get a little extra for his talent and expertise, correct?

If not, was is a standard stake deal for MTTs, if my friend pays 33% of my entries over 9 events what % of any possible profit should he receive?

Thanks in advance.

[zoobird]

No, not necessarily. I don't know how most staking deals work, but here's what makes sense to me. If you're Phil Ivey and have a substantial +EV at the level you'll be playing, what you said makes sense. If you're roughly average or just slightly better than average for the field you'll be playing in, then what he proposed makes sense. If you're below average for the field you'll be playing against, he should get a larger cut of the potential profit than he's paying for. On the whole, the deal should be structured so that its just profitable enough for him on average that he feels like its worth doing.

[RoundTower]

Usually you accept a staking agreement because you can't afford to pay all the entries yourself, so you give up some EV to reduce your exposure to risk. So you sell the stake at less than it is worth. If you really think 33% of you playing $3500 in tourney entries is worth more like $1500, then selling it to him for $1000 seems fair.

If you can easily afford the $3500, then you have no reason to sell a % of yourself unless it is profitable to do so, i.e. the deal is +EV for you and -EV for your friend.