Staking?

[stooks99]

I was talking online with a friend of mine about random things and he asked if I was going to play in the Sunday Million today.  I have played in it once, with a cash for around $600, and I really want to play it again.  I have had very little time to play this year, and when I have, it hasn't went wonderfully.

Anyway, we got to talking about buying or selling pieces of players in big tournaments.  Has anyone had any experience with this?  I'm aware of chipmeup, but I've never used it.  I've also seen that a lot of forums have a marketplace for people to sell mtt packages or general pieces of their action.  I wonder if that might take off here.

[luckystraights]

This is very common on 2p2, regs in the regs thread do this everyone Sunday or close to it for the majors, I've done it a few times, but am not familiar with it enough to offer any advise other than:

Trust, for the most part online communities are annoymous or at least geographically distanced, only deal with people who have proven themselves to be trust worthy. I would also take greater precautions for the bigger events where its going to be more tempting for someone to walk on you.

If you ask or search around on 2p2 you can probably find a lot of information on avoiding scams, but HPT seems to be "closer" then 2p2, so some of that may be OTT.

I wouldn't enter into any arrangement thinking "he / she won't scam me". If someone not paying up will leave you devistated finacially or emotioanlly I'd advise not to begin this, many many people have scammed / not payed up under these circumstances in the past, often to the supprose of communities and those involved.

[Flaming Frog Poker]

You are a total sucker if you stake someone on a one time basis.  You have 100% of the risk of loss and probably only 50% of the profit if the person cashes.  The only way I would ever consider it would be a long term deal with 100% makeup before any of the profit gets distributed.

[stooks99]

Makes sense.  I would consider selling off part of my action as a package, I think.  For example, if I was going to play $300 worth of specifically planned out mtts on a saturday, then I might sell off half of it in $10 shares. Obviously, it would always have to involved trustworthy people.  It's an interesting concept, but there are probably a lot of details that I'm totally ignorant to.

[Martini]

I don't get it. If someone is EV+ at something then why get staked and dilute your winnings? Seems like EV- players would be the ones more interested in getting staked. If someone wants to get staked because the buy in is too high then why not just play in lower buy in tourneys? It's not like higher buy in tourneys are going to be easier to beat (in general) than lower buy in tourneys. And how well do you think you're going to play when someone has part of your action. It seems like someone being staked can easily play too loose because it's not all their money at stake or too tight for the same reason. Then there is the whole issue of conflict of interest when players are in tourneys with people that they are backing.

[holdemholmes]

I don't get it. If someone is EV+ at something then why get staked and dilute your winnings? Seems like EV- players would be the ones more interested in getting staked. If someone wants to get staked because the buy in is too high then why not just play in lower buy in tourneys? It's not like higher buy in tourneys are going to be easier to beat (in general) than lower buy in tourneys. And how well do you think you're going to play when someone has part of your action. It seems like someone being staked can easily play too loose because it's not all their money at stake or too tight for the same reason. Then there is the whole issue of conflict of interest when players are in tourneys with people that they are backing.

This. I've had people stake me live and online before for fairly small buy-ins, and I feel like I've never played my game when being staked. Most of the time I played too tight since I didn't want to 'gamble too much' with someone else's money. I feel like I'm much better off by playing buy-ins im comfortable with and working my way up.

[luckystraights]

If I understand the OP, this isn't really staking its selling action, or perhaps even swapping action.

You'd pick people to swap or sell action with who you judge to be equally or better then you in these fields. From what I understand you aim to be BE or slightly -ev on the deal, because the real incentive is to reduce variance, and there is probably a gambling / fun component has well.

Its common for people on 2p2 to swap 2% through 10% of peoples action or to sell %'s often without a markup, but the better players or those playing very high payouts such as the WSOP ME will often charge a small markup. However it seems to be understood that thoese bying a % are actually doing you a favour by limiiting your variance, there is ussually little gain in it for people buying a %. For eg, if I buy 5% of your action, I'm unlikely to win much especially in a large field event, but your instantly saving $10 every time you don't cash or barley cash which for most people will be the most common result.

[Jambine]

I don't get it. If someone is EV+ at something then why get staked and dilute your winnings?.......

And there you have it.  Thats why casinos don't have shills anymore.  If you win enough to justify someone staking you, why would you want to split your winnings?

[stooks99]

There are probably more interesting scenarios, but it seems pretty easy to imagine someone who's a winning poker player and sucks at managing money otherwise.  More specifically, someone who is a winning MTT player, but punts off his dough in cash games.  I've never done it, but it doesn't seem like an absurd idea.  EDIT:  I don't mean I've never punted my money in a cash game, because I have.  I mean, I've never staked someone or been staked in that spot.

The topic came up because I was talking to a friend about how 2011 is kicking my behind pretty badly.  I withdrew a huge chunk of my stars account to take to some live games, and now I find myself unable to deposit (bleah).  I have enough money to work my way back up, but to be honest, I can see the idea of getting back into bigger games by being staked instead of waiting.

[holdemholmes]

I have enough money to work my way back up, but to be honest, I can see the idea of getting back into bigger games by being staked instead of waiting.

I think that's the only way to be staked and be successful...limit it to a level that your comfortable at.

[Martini]

I'm still stumped. So let's say that you did punt off a bunch of dough on cash game and you're back to the tourneys to grind out some money. You have a choice between being staked 50% in a $500 tourney or stake yourself 100% in a $250 tourney. Both will cost you $250 as a player. Why borrow money to play in a tougher tourney?

[Flaming Frog Poker]

I don't get it. If someone is EV+ at something then why get staked and dilute your winnings?.......

And there you have it.  Thats why casinos don't have shills anymore.  If you win enough to justify someone staking you, why would you want to split your winnings?

Many casino's do use shills (usually dealers).  Their job is just to prop up short handed games until they fill up and can stand on their own.  Every casino would much prefer 2 - 5 handed tables over 1 - 10 handed table simply because of the vast increase in rake.

I propped for many years online and some of the smaller rooms still employ props.

[hayjamawas]

what is a shill?  im confused 

[luckystraights]

I'm still stumped. So let's say that you did punt off a bunch of dough on cash game and you're back to the tourneys to grind out some money. You have a choice between being staked 50% in a $500 tourney or stake yourself 100% in a $250 tourney. Both will cost you $250 as a player. Why borrow money to play in a tougher tourney?

what if you can only play $10 tourney's, but u wanted to play the 5 million game on Sunday, which IIRC was a $215 entry.

Do what works for you, just don't get hussled.

[Martini]

I'm still stumped. So let's say that you did punt off a bunch of dough on cash game and you're back to the tourneys to grind out some money. You have a choice between being staked 50% in a $500 tourney or stake yourself 100% in a $250 tourney. Both will cost you $250 as a player. Why borrow money to play in a tougher tourney?

what if you can only play $10 tourney's, but u wanted to play the 5 million game on Sunday, which IIRC was a $215 entry.

Do what works for you, just don't get hussled.

Well if a player can't beat $10 tourneys I would assume that entering a $215 buy in event is EV- for the player and any potential backers. I indeed do what works for me, which is to avoid staking. I'm just trying to understand more about why people do get involved in staking.

[luckystraights]

I'm still stumped. So let's say that you did punt off a bunch of dough on cash game and you're back to the tourneys to grind out some money. You have a choice between being staked 50% in a $500 tourney or stake yourself 100% in a $250 tourney. Both will cost you $250 as a player. Why borrow money to play in a tougher tourney?

what if you can only play $10 tourney's, but u wanted to play the 5 million game on Sunday, which IIRC was a $215 entry.

Do what works for you, just don't get hussled.

Well if a player can't beat $10 tourneys I would assume that entering a $215 buy in event is EV- for the player and any potential backers. I indeed do what works for me, which is to avoid staking. I'm just trying to understand more about why people do get involved in staking.

There is a difference between being a fish in a $215 tourney and having a roll to play them. When games are really good, i.e the 5 million Guranteed on Sunday why not take a shot, and making it eassier by selling 20% or w/e.

people will fall in 2 camps.

Recreational players who will want to limit there expenses and still play a big game for the thrill chance of a big score.

Players who play for a living or part time pro's or maybe cash pro's inexpereinced in MTT's playing because the field in the tourney is very good, but realize the massive varriance in MTT's will seek to reduce varriance and initial expense by selling action.

[Jambine]

I don't get it. If someone is EV+ at something then why get staked and dilute your winnings?.......

And there you have it.  Thats why casinos don't have shills anymore.  If you win enough to justify someone staking you, why would you want to split your winnings?

Many casino's do use shills (usually dealers).  Their job is just to prop up short handed games until they fill up and can stand on their own.  Every casino would much prefer 2 - 5 handed tables over 1 - 10 handed table simply because of the vast increase in rake.

I propped for many years online and some of the smaller rooms still employ props.

Those are props (not shills).  Props use their own money to play.  A shill is using house money to play

[stooks99]

I'm still stumped. So let's say that you did punt off a bunch of dough on cash game and you're back to the tourneys to grind out some money. You have a choice between being staked 50% in a $500 tourney or stake yourself 100% in a $250 tourney. Both will cost you $250 as a player. Why borrow money to play in a tougher tourney?

what if you can only play $10 tourney's, but u wanted to play the 5 million game on Sunday, which IIRC was a $215 entry.

Do what works for you, just don't get hussled.

Well if a player can't beat $10 tourneys I would assume that entering a $215 buy in event is EV- for the player and any potential backers. I indeed do what works for me, which is to avoid staking. I'm just trying to understand more about why people do get involved in staking.

There is a difference between being a fish in a $215 tourney and having a roll to play them. When games are really good, i.e the 5 million Guranteed on Sunday why not take a shot, and making it eassier by selling 20% or w/e.

people will fall in 2 camps.

Recreational players who will want to limit there expenses and still play a big game for the thrill chance of a big score.

Players who play for a living or part time pro's or maybe cash pro's inexpereinced in MTT's playing because the field in the tourney is very good, but realize the massive varriance in MTT's will seek to reduce varriance and initial expense by selling action.

For once, I agree with Lucky.  Situations like she described are the ones I am talking about.  Say, for example, a guy has a $1,000 BR that he uses to play $33 mtts and under, but suddenly finds himself with $300 for whatever reason, I can see him wanting to get staked in the $33 instead of playing micros to rebuild.  

Like anything else, it's about personal preference and responsibility.  

[NotFadeAway]

I agree with stooks and lucky.  I don't really have anything to add though since they explained the points very well.

[Martini]

@stooks99
I see what you're saying. But let's say the player wants to get staked for half of the $33 buy-in. Why not just play in a $16 buy-in instead? It would cost them the same but would be a presumably softer game. Or if they only want to sell off a small percentage like 10% then it seems like the overhead involved in finding a backer and tax implications if they cashed big would outweigh the benefit of slightly lower variance.

[stooks99]

@stooks99
I see what you're saying. But let's say the player wants to get staked for half of the $33 buy-in. Why not just play in a $16 buy-in instead? It would cost them the same but would be a presumably softer game. Or if they only want to sell off a small percentage like 10% then it seems like the overhead involved in finding a backer and tax implications if they cashed big would outweigh the benefit of slightly lower variance.

Well, just assuming he tried to follow at least a little BR requirements, then maybe he doesn't want to multi-table $16 games with only $300.  Again, I can see why someone wouldn't want to be staked or wouldn't want to stake, but I think it's also reasonable to assume that it can be beneficial to some people in some spots.

[luckystraights]

stakes are also not always a 50/50 split, tho that seems to be common.

Pre RSA day's if you killed MTT's but your roll got hacked and you could only reload a fraction of what you need, you would probably find backers easily, less so now if you get hacked because you didn't use RSA.