BBV Please to be helping solve this staking arguement free 10$

[blankoblanco]

[ QUOTE ]
Stalker C is looking at you RIGHT NOW

[/ QUOTE ]

potd

[TruFeelings521]

#2 is more fair to B as he doesn't have to put up and money up front. IMO though the difference between the two is the opposite for each choice....

#1 favors A a bit
#2 favors B a bit

[apefish]

I think there are many "fair" arrangements with each having different benefits for the varying parties.
For example...

A) the horse works off his makeup with A and then is autofolded in the new stable. in the meantime staker A continues original staking and A+B can still do business on others.

or

B) new stable is formed immediately with original makeup still pending: priorities are 1) makeup to new stable owners, 2) profit share to new stable owners, 3) makeup to original owner A, 4) horse. (this requires potentially some reworking of percentages until the original makeup is done)

the horse won't like this one because he's going to get an immediate lesser percent, but it's probably better than him being cut off. You could also lower his percentage to go to the original makeup once new stable gets their cut until he is out of stable A's makeup.

[dieFTPdie]

Ok here's a couple of scenarios i can think of.

Scenario 1

Lets say the horse plays 100 buy in MTTS primarily(im just assuming this).
Staker B plays 1/2 of the buy in(50) along with staker A's 50.
Horse cashes for 1800 in the first MTT they both jointly stake.
Now,we have to have a cutoff as to when staker A get his make up back (or at least a big % of his make up)and when they share profits.Lets say the cut off is 1000.
This means for any cash greater than equal to 1000 the following is done.

So in this case,
Staker A get his 1000 back in make up first.the rest 800 profit is split in 2 and 400 goes to the backers(200 each i assume) and the horse gets 200.

And the next time the horse cashes,the 400 and the subsequent dollars in make up is paid back first and after that only the profits are split.

Now what happens if the horse cashes for less than 1000??

Then its just a 50-50 split between the stakers and the horse and the make up of 1400 is carried over till the horse makes a cash greater than 1000.

Scenario 2

Lets say staker B comes in to the picture and assumes responsibilty for 50% of the the buy ins.
The horse now doesnt cash for the next 10 MTTS.
So now make up owed is

Staker A = 1400 + 500 = 1900
Staker B = 500

The only difference is the threshold for when the stakers get their make up back is increased from 1000 to 1500 and remains at 1500 irrespective of how much the horse gets further stuck in make up.

So now when the horse cashes for less than 1.5k,profits are split-50% to A and B and 50% to the horse.

Once the horse makes a cash over 1.5k,lets say he cashes for 1800 in the next MTT..he gives 1.5k in make up back first to staker A and 300 in make up to staker B.

Now the new make up numbers are

Staker A-400
Staker B-200

Now everytime the horse makes a cash lesser than 600 the make up......hmmm now i am lost.

I have no idea what to make of this but its a bit complicated and is a function of when actually the horse cashes.

[ok2aa]

staker B pays 700.

if the horse is stuck in the end of the deal between 0-1400, staker A pays B 50% of the amount the horse is stuck, if the horse is stuck more than 1400, staker B gets his 700 back.

[Eskaborr]

This is for cash games, not MTT, shoulda been more clear I am sorry

[TruFeelings521]

I think all of my explanation still applies. In fact it further pushes the fact imo that Staker B should buy 1/2 of the makeup to make it as fair as possible.

[apefish]

I think in the long run most solutions that will be acceptable to all involved tend to merge in similarity. It's just a matter of degree and the length of the deal.

[TruFeelings521]

[ QUOTE ]
I think in the long run most solutions that will be acceptable to all involved tend to merge in similarity. It's just a matter of degree and the length of the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. If the horse is a winning player it won't matter in the long run.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
I think all of my explanation still applies. In fact it further pushes the fact imo that Staker B should buy 1/2 of the makeup to make it as fair as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would he pay money for a winning player who is at zero makeup?
It seems the money should come off as they go rather than up front, unless there simply is no other way to make it work.
Again, I really think most solutions turn out similarly over a long enough arrangement if the horse is a winner.


edit: heh I think trufeelings and I are in basic agreement here.