Staking Question

[schundler]

Simple question. The Standard staking deal for mtts is for the backer to put up the buyin, and get 50% of the player in the mtt.

$109 mtt
backer puts up 109. Player moneys for 172. = backer receives 86. etc


Say you're broke. You have an offer to be staked in mtts, but instead of the backer putting up the buyin, getting 50% of player and eating his losses, the player pays the backer 50% back of the buyin if he busts in that tournament.

Can this situation still be +ev for the player, if he is +ev in the given tournament over a long sample?

[schundler]

and the girl i changed my avatar to is kyla cole


EDIT: and yeah I could figure this out logically if I wasn't lazy

EDIT 2: ok I did figure this out logically and it definitely can still be +EV. so new question: do you still accept this offer?

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple question. The Standard staking deal for mtts is for the backer to put up the buyin, and get 50% of the player in the mtt.

$109 mtt
backer puts up 109. Player moneys for 172. = backer receives 86. etc


Say you're broke. You have an offer to be staked in mtts, but instead of the backer putting up the buyin, getting 50% of player and eating his losses, the player pays the backer 50% back of the buyin if he busts in that tournament.

Can this situation still be +ev for the player, if he is +ev in the given tournament over a long sample?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, essentially what this is doing is just cutting the stakes that you're playing at in half. If you assume that higher buyin means better players, then you're cutting yourself short by doing this obviously. I konw it's not always the case, but for the most part you'd be better off playing smaller tourneys where you could just not be staked.

[Doylestown]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple question. The Standard staking deal for mtts is for the backer to put up the buyin, and get 50% of the player in the mtt.

$109 mtt
backer puts up 109. Player moneys for 172. = backer receives 86. etc



[/ QUOTE ]

In most deals the backer will get the first $109 and the profits will be split.

Carry on......

[kaunman24]

I wouldnt want to take that offer...I would do the standard(give back the buy-in, split the profit). I def agree that moving down in buy-ins is probably better EV anyway. Having to pay part of what you lose is more like a partnership and not really being staked. IMO, i would rather be on the line personally for the losses(and wins) instead of involving a partner.

[Adelson]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, essentially what this is doing is just cutting the stakes that you're playing at in half. If you assume that higher buyin means better players, then you're cutting yourself short by doing this obviously. I konw it's not always the case, but for the most part you'd be better off playing smaller tourneys where you could just not be staked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Essentially, you're playing a $109 mtt as if it were a $54.50 for you (since you pay 50% of the entry and get 50% of the return). And considering the players at the 109s are better than those at the 55s, it's more +EV to play 55s (or smaller tournaments) on your own money.

And if you don't have a bankroll, it makes more sense to have a backer stake you fully and you earn a % of the profit after makeup.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, essentially what this is doing is just cutting the stakes that you're playing at in half. If you assume that higher buyin means better players, then you're cutting yourself short by doing this obviously. I konw it's not always the case, but for the most part you'd be better off playing smaller tourneys where you could just not be staked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Essentially, you're playing a $109 mtt as if it were a $54.50 for you (since you pay 50% of the entry and get 50% of the return). And considering the players at the 109s are better than those at the 55s, it's more +EV to play 55s (or smaller tournaments) on your own money.

And if you don't have a bankroll, it makes more sense to have a backer stake you fully and you earn a % of the profit after makeup.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also don't forget that you are putting in all the time and effort, while the "backer" puts in none. So, you each take the same risk, get the same profit, but you do all the work. Bad deal, through and through.