Staking Situation/Math Problem/Maybe I'm just stupid.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
wait, so you give -ev players 40% in stakes? sick

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure he's saying he's -ev in this specific tournament, not overall.

As far as the math goes what exit said is right. Basically, while he owes makeup you own more of him than otherwise.

[curtains]

Im confused why everyone got the impression that the OP is the backer?

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Im confused why everyone got the impression that the OP is the backer?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This situation just came up and I'm thinking...

[/ QUOTE ]

first sentence of his post lends that impression, although of course you are correct as always!

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think makeup is retarded, if its not in there they could easily go through half the stake, take shots / play bad and then go lol [censored] you afterwards because it doesn't matter to them. I'd say makeup is pretty mandatory in most staking deals just for the psychological factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... thats why I think makeup is retarded. I dont get what you're saying. My point is once someone gets super deep in makeup, even if they do really well in a tournament they get nothing out of it... not exactly the inspiration you want to be giving your stakee. How is makeup beneficial for the stakees psychology?
If there's no makeup... yeah sure they could go 'lol [censored] you' and play bad with the rest of your stake, but why would they do that when if they do well they actually get to keep the money they win?

[curtains]

I figured the OP was asking whether its +EV for his friend to play a tournament that's -EV, because he doesn't have to risk anything aside from a larger makeup to play in it, and could make a big score.

This was my first impression of what the question was about.

[curtains]

My personal opinion is that all backers should always give some small % of tournament profits to the players they back, even if they owe them makeup. Some amount like 10-15% would be good IMO, and maybe in return give them a little less % off the top.

I'm surprised more backers don't do this, because I imagine it can be extremely depressing to play and know you may see absolutely zero of your winnings. If you are in the hole for like 100k, you may have some unconscious desire to go for broke, and make -EV moves to somehow make a giant score so that you will actually get some money. If the backer allows you to take a small cut, like 10%, I suspect the backee would be more likely to play normally/well.

Anyway that's just my opinion. I hear from too many backed players who are so depressed because they are so deep in the hole and know they are unlikely to see a penny unless they make a giant score. I just don't see how this would produce good play/results, from a psychological standpoint

[ASPoker8]

stealthmunk, stop staking idiots

[NHFunkii]

curtains,
exactly, wtf I dont get it

[NoahSD]

I agree with curtains. Unlimited makeback seems like a really bad idea--much rather do something like stake someone over a set amount of tourneys or set $s bought in for or something.

Obviously when someone has a bunch of makeback, the staker basically just has 100% of the person.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with curtains. Unlimited makeback seems like a really bad idea--much rather do something like stake someone over a set amount of tourneys or set $s bought in for or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't that a much bigger risk for the backer, as the horse could logically lose incentive towards the end of an unproftiable deal, knowing that he'll be better off when the term expires and the makeup vanishes? Anyway, I don't think there are any perfect equations, especially when we're factoring potential psychological factors vs logistics and economic realities. Curtains' idea about the 10% guaranteed "clear" is pretty good, and I actually heard about a horse deep in makeup whose backer arranged something like this with him. Excellent idea, really.