looking to stake people part 3

[Pasterbator]

[ QUOTE ]
Over/under on how much they are going to lose in the process?

[/ QUOTE ]

over under set at 100k. obv.

[Pasterbator]

[ QUOTE ]
jfish/pasterbator,

how many people are you planning on staking?

[/ QUOTE ]

no exact number, but we will keep adding people as funds open up, so if you aren't picked at the start THERE IS STILL HOPE!

[EPiPeN11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Over/under on how much they are going to lose in the process?

[/ QUOTE ]

over under set at 100k. obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

def will lose more than 100k especially between 4 people. Staking is so dumb, especially since you are only winning half of the person's actual winning's and losing 100 percent if they lose.

Taking piece's of people's action is 100x a better move. 50/50 in both regardes, instead of 50/100.

[Pasterbator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Over/under on how much they are going to lose in the process?

[/ QUOTE ]

over under set at 100k. obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

def will lose more than 100k especially between 4 people. Staking is so dumb, especially since you are only winning half of the person's actual winning's and losing 100 percent if they lose.

Taking piece's of people's action is 100x a better move. 50/50 in both regardes, instead of 50/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like you have thought this through a whole bunch.

[EPiPeN11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Over/under on how much they are going to lose in the process?

[/ QUOTE ]

over under set at 100k. obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

def will lose more than 100k especially between 4 people. Staking is so dumb, especially since you are only winning half of the person's actual winning's and losing 100 percent if they lose.

Taking piece's of people's action is 100x a better move. 50/50 in both regardes, instead of 50/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like you have thought this through a whole bunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, it's just very obvious.

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Over/under on how much they are going to lose in the process?

[/ QUOTE ]

over under set at 100k. obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

def will lose more than 100k especially between 4 people. Staking is so dumb, especially since you are only winning half of the person's actual winning's and losing 100 percent if they lose.

Taking piece's of people's action is 100x a better move. 50/50 in both regardes, instead of 50/100.

[/ QUOTE ]



yeah def obv

[Effen]

Barely played in the summer as my job made me better $ than poker did so I obv did that 60+ hours a week. I played mainly FR because I'm relatively new to poker still and it's simpler, though I played any level if I saw one I could beat or with mega fish (way underrolled 400nl+ shots are obvious here). I know how to barely win; I need apparently some coaching or theory or something to get over that hump.
Also add on over $2,000 from 5400 fpp sats, those were gold.

[knowledgeORbust]

Hi.

I started this thread in BBV but Gild said he had to lock it. There's pics and life-poker-story stuff in there.
Are the pics even viewable? If not, i'll repost em.

veryvery interested.

[MusashiStyle]

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.

[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.