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

[Confused1]

You could always play small events on your own money, right? If you aren't backed into the small events, you keep the money, I would assume.

If I had someeone buying me into big events, I'd throw them a bone and grind off the make-up, even if the only thing I could possibly get from it is to make my backer happy (which I would certainly want for both future backing and from a sense that I owed them something).

[NHFunkii]

this is why makeup is dumb, I still can't understand why people insist on it

[auc hincloss]

[ QUOTE ]
Working off your make-up is as good as earning cash, if this arrangement is for the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

for you to say you wouldn't play your best and rather gambool it up or it wasn't worth your time if you weren't participating in the cash profits of that smaller tourney would be a firing offense if i were your backer.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way makeup is usually enforced, is one of the reasons staking arrangements will typically fail. (I am speaking in total, on average, there are many many exceptions).

The whole point of a contract like this, is to keep everyone's incentives perfectly aligned. What I suggested in an earlier thread is to have some sort of sliding scale. The deeper underwater you are, the smaller % of your winnings you get, but always a reasonable share (10-20% maybe). The backer may make more in the short run with a full makeup, but having a fully motivated player will always work out best in the long run.

FWIW, I see everyone's point about just playing your way out of a make-up. But, you are just ignoring human nature. People should treat 30k less debt = 30k in cash, but they don't. It doesn't happen in basically any of the average person's financial dealings.

[/ QUOTE ]

what they all said.

[Zetack]

In one of your posts you say that the backer is amenable to working something out, but you just can't decide what's fair.

Fine, here's your modified backing structure. (Sit down with your backer and agree on what size tourneys the modified structure applies to.) In these smaller buy in tourneys, when you cash, subtract the amount of the buy in (this goes to the backer). You keep 22.5% of the amount over the buy-in and the rest goes to make-up. If you don't cash the amount of the buy-in is added to your make-up amount.

In larger buy-in tourneys, proceed as before, all winnings go to to make up until you're in the black again.

Boom - problem solved. Move on.

--Zetack

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
this is why makeup is dumb, I still can't understand why people insist on it

[/ QUOTE ]


Because it's fair and easy to keep track of?

The problems OP has sucks, but lots of people can look past that.

[Punker]

First: I understand what you mean about being demoralized playing for "nothing". I also agree with those people who say it makes you a bad stakee - don't take that wrong; being a bad stakee is not the same as being a bad person. A good stakee wants to make as much money for the team of himself and the backer as he can; this means using your time in +EV situations. You clearly believe you are +EV in the $300 or whatever tourneys, so a good stakee should play them for the team. What you sound like is a good gamble - a player you can take a shot with on an event by event basis, but not someone I'd want to have a makeup agreement with. If I was your backer, I'd be asking what happens if your makeup gets to be 100K, and you get to the point where "these 10K events are too demoralizing to play because unless I finish in the top 2, I will get nothing" ?

Second: I'm not sure why you are so defensive in your responses. You came and asked what people thought, but anyone who suggests you don't get to do what you want (ie, get backed for big tourneys, play the small ones on your own dime), you argue with. You're really coming across as someone who wants to be told its ok to do what you want to do.

Finally: it's 100% between you and your backer. Whatever the two of you agree is what is "kosher". If he's ok with it, and you're ok with it, do it (whatever "it" is).

[Matt24]

[ QUOTE ]
this is why makeup is dumb, I still can't understand why people insist on it

[/ QUOTE ]

whats the alternative?

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is why makeup is dumb, I still can't understand why people insist on it

[/ QUOTE ]

whats the alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]

Build up your roll online and play with your own money ?

Edit : OK I realise this wasn't what you were asking. But IMO backing someone/being backed, neither of them are all they're cracked up to be, especially between friends as you'll lose more than money if you fall out.

[Soulman]

lol at people not letting this thread die: "I ALSO think you're a bad backer, what's the problem etc". Oh hi, welcome to last week!

[WarDekar]

FWIW if anyone cares we came to an arrangement I think we're both happy with:

I will pay 50% of the buy-ins for these tournaments, essentially buying back 50% of myself. I get 50% of cashes, plus the rest goes towards make-up/original staking agreement.

FWIW he said he was fine with me playing on my own dime, so this wasn't an issue of me wanting to hear that I can play it on my own dime. He told me I could, but I didn't want to cut him out completely, which was the issue all along as I think I'd feel bad if I got the good end of variance and he got the bad end.


I think the alternative to make-up would be for instance the backee gets 10% of all cashes straight up. That 10% gets added to the make-up figure, so say I cash in a $1k tournament for $21k and I have $35k in make-up currently.

The 21k less the 1k buy-in is 20k profit, which would normally all be applied to the make-up so it'd be $15k. In my example, the backee would get $2k cash, and make-up would be $17k.

This keeps the backee happy because they can see returns even when in make-up, but at the same time it's kind of just like a "loan." When you're not in make-up, you get standard cut, 40%, 50% whatever it is. The % would need to be a little less than the standard make-up deal would be, but I think it's a decent compromise.


And I'm not saying that this needs to be done between myself and my backer, I'm not sure what exactly we will do to restructure the long-term deal, but since I have other income and still play online I don't really need to see immediate cash I don't mind make-up.