buying a piece - settle an argument

[dark_horse]

i have been in a dispute with a friend who contends that a typical tournament staking agreement goes like this - when you buy a piece of someone in a tournament, you only get 50% of what you put in. for example - if you buy 10% of someone's $1000 buyin and they win, you are paid 5% of the winnings, just as if you paid 100% of their buyin, you'd get 50% back, half gets a quarter, and so on.

i understand that agreements vary, but i'm trying to establish what the standard one is. is it when you buy a smallish percentage, you get 100% of your investment back, whereas if you buy a larger percentage (25% and up) you only get half back? how is this normally done? thanks.

[MaverickUSC]

Standard is when you buy a piece you get the full piece unless otherwise stated/agreed.

Devo

[dark_horse]

so what happens if you buy 100%? i guess that's not normal, but your stakehorse isn't going to play for free. and if he's not playing for free, why should he give you 100% of your piece if you buy a smaller percentage? get where i'm going with this?

[MaverickUSC]

Yep. If you're putting up >50% you're staking, not buying a piece. Totally different. I wrote an article a couple of months back on pokerpages.com titled "Adventures in Backing" that goes over all of the staking/getting staked stuff, but when somebody sells a piece the standard is full value of the piece.

[Exitonly]

plenty of players sell peices marked up some % (0-40%ish), it depends on the player. (i.e 10% of 10k buyin for $1250 would be 25% markup)