Staking/Make-up question: What to do with lower prize-pools?

[BrandiFan]

Fair enough. My standard is around 50 buyins depending on the tournament, but that assumes you don't have income from outside poker.
[/nitty jerkiness]

[bobneptune]

And you say that I don't have any motivation if I don't get cash in my pocket, that isn't the issue either. The issue is I wanted to be staked for large buy-ins, and now we aren't sure what to do with live play small buy-ins because I honestly feel that it would be a little unfair for me to play on my own since I would feel bad if I got a big score and he wasn't a part of it.

>>>BN

wtf ???

am i dreaming, or did you not write this yesterday :

"The issue is, I'd basically have to get 1st or 2nd for me to get out of make-up, so I have little to no incentive to play because these are such small buy-ins and fields compared to the $10ks."

and i believe you also wrote :

"I obviously want to be staked for $10ks and higher buy-ins, but I would like to play these smaller prize-pool live tournaments as well. Unfortunately it's not really in either of our best interests for me to play in these with so little to play for, I mean it'd just be way too demoralizing to get 5th or something and not even get anything out of it."

>>>BN

you know, if you are going to do a 180 on your supposed position and concerns, it's usually a good idea to make sure you erase all the previous evidence.


>>>>>WAR


If anyone cares, we've discussed it some and are definitely going to clear up the terms which is a good idea, and FWIW "Nitty Jerk Bob" my backer actually said he was FINE with me playing these under my own roll, I was just hoping we could work out something that was as FAIR as possible for BOTH of us. EXCUSE ME if I'm a bad stakee.


>>>>BN

i'm quite sure the poor guy doesn't want any part of staking you in small tournies when you say you won't have any incentive to do well in them without an immeadiate big cash participation.

anyway.... good luck in your future endeavors.

[PsYcOsNiPeR]

first

[kleath]

You've got a terrible mindset if you can't play 100% just because you wont get actual cash, you have makeup it makes absolutely zero difference to your bottom line if you end up getting 11th in a WPT or getting 2nd in a $500 event, you still have to pay that make up at some point and your mindset about it probably makes you a terrible investment.

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got a terrible mindset if you can't play 100% just because you wont get actual cash, you have makeup it makes absolutely zero difference to your bottom line if you end up getting 11th in a WPT or getting 2nd in a $500 event, you still have to pay that make up at some point and your mindset about it probably makes you a terrible investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got a terrible mindset if you can't play 100% just because you wont get actual cash, you have makeup it makes absolutely zero difference to your bottom line if you end up getting 11th in a WPT or getting 2nd in a $500 event, you still have to pay that make up at some point and your mindset about it probably makes you a terrible investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you didn't read the entire thread, it's more of an issue of me being rolled for these tournaments and not having a clear deal ahead of time for what tournaments I'm backed in. Maybe that makes me a bad investment, but I play poker for money and I'm concerned with my bottom line, playing for a % of a $300 tournament does feel like a waste of time to me. If that makes me a bad investment, I don't really care, you'd think backers would want their horses to be concerned with the bottom line. [/thread]

[Stumpy]

WarDekar,

It seems like it'd be worth playing these lower limit events just to get more used to the differences between live and online. Look at them as practice events.

If you're good friends with this guy, then personally I'd be really concerned about getting even as soon as possible. On the other hand, if you're close friends, I don't see why you guys can't just talk this out, particularly if he's knowledgeable about poker. I don't see why you can't pay 1/2 or 1/4 the entry fees and get 1/2 or 1/4 the profits if that's what you want to do. That way he's not going to feel like he missed out if you cash.

In short, I'd be doing anything reasonable to make the guy happy, so he'd keep putting me in 10k events. The possible returns from those are pretty amazing, and probably worth a little suffering in $300 tournies.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've got a terrible mindset if you can't play 100% just because you wont get actual cash, you have makeup it makes absolutely zero difference to your bottom line if you end up getting 11th in a WPT or getting 2nd in a $500 event, you still have to pay that make up at some point and your mindset about it probably makes you a terrible investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you didn't read the entire thread, it's more of an issue of me being rolled for these tournaments and not having a clear deal ahead of time for what tournaments I'm backed in. Maybe that makes me a bad investment, but I play poker for money and I'm concerned with my bottom line, playing for a % of a $300 tournament does feel like a waste of time to me. If that makes me a bad investment, I don't really care, you'd think backers would want their horses to be concerned with the bottom line. [/thread]

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the thread, maybe you should read it back to yourself? Your bottom line is not affected AT ALL if you have to win the money back at some point anyways, how can you not see this? If you feel like $300 tournaments arent worth your time why are you asking 2p2, dont play them, You however phrased this as a backing question, and it makes no difference at all, you have to pay the makeup back at some point, 15k is the same coming from a WPT event as it is a $500 prelim.

[Yoshi63]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not see that it would be incredibly demoralizing to play in a tournament knowing you see no cash unless you win? Do you not see how this will affect my play?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had paid for the 15k in tournaments yourself (instead of being backed), you would now be down 15k. Winning 10k would still leave you in the negatives, but would you find this as demoralizing? It's still a 10k boost, just like it would be a 10k boost if you're simply erasing backing debt. I think this is how most of the ppl in this thread are saying you should view the situation.

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you not see that it would be incredibly demoralizing to play in a tournament knowing you see no cash unless you win? Do you not see how this will affect my play?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had paid for the 15k in tournaments yourself (instead of being backed), you would now be down 15k. Winning 10k would still leave you in the negatives, but would you find this as demoralizing? It's still a 10k boost, just like it would be a 10k boost if you're simply erasing backing debt. I think this is how most of the ppl in this thread are saying you should view the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that, and when I said it was demoralizing, etc. I was more saying that it was demoralizing because the prize pools are so small and I feel rolled for these games so to be playing for only a portion of my own action really would be demoralizing.

Part of the reason I used the words I did originally was because I was hoping we could get into a discussion on better ways to have staking agreements, for instance where the stakee gets a certain % up-front on cashes, but that amount also adds to make-up so for instance you don't make any extra in the long-run but you do get money up-front on wins (it's just "paid back" over time to where you end up getting the same % in the end).

This would solve a lot of issues that there is with staking arrangements I think, and I definitely think there has to be a better way than what most people are doing right now.