Staking Questions????

[BJJIII]

I have a question about getting staked:

Seems to me that getting staked constitutes being loaned money and the lender gets a portion of your action. Or you could get staked for a certain amount of money and when you reach a certain threshold in your bankroll you pay the lender back their loan.(do you pay the original stake plus interest or just the stake?)

What constitutes a good staking agreement?

Some examples:
A. 60% of your action.
B. Being loaned $300 and having to pay back $500 total.
C. Having a certain time period to pay back a loan.

What are the drawbacks?

Should I get staked if I don’t have to but I don’t want to load money up on the sites, and I just want to play at a higher limit?

Also, what happens if you lose the initial stake? Are you still required to pay it back?

Thanks!!

[Landlord79]

Bump^^^ This question has some relevance and I'd like to hear some opinions on it.

60% of your profits seems very high for example 1 and
66% interest seems a little high for example 2

[King Spew]

[ QUOTE ]

What constitutes a good staking agreement?


[/ QUOTE ]

A deal that boths sides agree on. It can be 100% or 0% and both sides are happy with the deal...

But if Hero (lender) doen't have to be paid if villain (lendee) goes BUSTO..... then the higher the rake IMHO.

[thunderbolt]

are you asking for a STAKE ???? I have a few extra K i will send you. You must be a good player however my question is do you run GOOT?

[BJJIII]

[ QUOTE ]
are you asking for a STAKE ???? I have a few extra K i will send you. You must be a good player however my question is do you run GOOT?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I already have a stake offer, and no I dont run GOOT!!!

[DakotaKid]

I've thought about this situation before.

The standard I've seen is staker gives stakee money to play. If busto, staker is out and stakee doesn't owe anything. Any winnings are split ammicably.

To me this is a recipe for disaster without some stipulation of time period and stakes to be played.

It's easy to see someone play waaaayyyy over their head with someone else's money and things get sour. Also, I could see losing a few sessions, then stakee backing out just before going on a heater with their own/someone else's money.

The best thing I could come up with for short term situations is split wins and losses together at some rate. This effectively negates the staker from taking the brunt of short term variance.

[CaptainCAM]

speaking as an economist, i would recommend an agreement that has components of the following.

the borrower puts in as much money as h/she has or is willing to blow on poker. both players come to an agreement about the level on which the borrower will play depending partially on how much money the lender has. the lender's money plus the borrower's money goes into the account. if the acct goes busto, both lose.

the borrower should get at least the portion of the profits that was earned with his own money. (i.e. if borrower's money is 10% of the total then should be getting at least 10% of profits). Presumably, this amount will be equal to the earnings had the borrower used his own money and played at his own stakes (but this depends on how much more or less confident in your play the lender is. I would recommend that the borrower get at least double the proportion of winnings (i.e. if borrower has 10% of money in acct, they should be getting at least 20% of profits). but i think thats the minimum. in my opinion, the actual proportion should be even higher.

also, both parties should agree on a point at which to end the deal. in my opinion that should be either when the acct is busto or when a certain profit goal is reached. At that point if both parties agree the deal should be continued.

[Mr_Donktastic]

There are a million ways in which this can be done...but typically the stakee is playing on the stakers money and if busto owes nothing. In return the staker gets a percentage of winnings.

If the staker gets a percentage I think 60% is fair. There should be some agreement about what stakes are to be played, when payments are made (after $xxx of profit for example) and when the arrangement will end (after stakee accumulates $xxx of their own).

Just make sure you work it all out beforehand.

[D.L.M.]

What i want to know is why youd stake someone who has no money, that must have been irresposible somehow to lose their roll, or they arent as good as they thought. no offense sir Ill be happy to see you at the tables.