staking and rakeback

[RayPowers 0]

I was just talking with custom about this, and am curious about other people's opinion on rakeback with staking.So, if I am staking you to play 30/60 on your account, who should get the rakeback? Me? You? Some Split?Does it change if I am staking you to play on MY account?Does it change depending on who set up the rakeback?I'd like opinions from people on what is "right" to them, and on what they may have experienced first hand..Ray

[No_Neck 0]

rakeback is profit and should be split.......IMO

[yeffy 0]

I think it should be determined as part of the staking agreement. You could argue it is equity and should be split, but either party also has an argument for sole benefits. Horse "I'm doing the work I should get it" staker "my risk, my money".If a staking partnership was entered into without an agreement being made first I think it should be split.

[powerpoker 0]

rakeback is profit and should be split.......IMO

agreed

[econ_tim 0]

i think the player has a claim on the rakeback since it's a return to work hours more than it is to money, but ultimately the total returns will be split based on the bargaining power of both parties

[No_Neck 0]

i think the player has a claim on the rakeback since it's a return to work hours more than it is to money, but ultimately the total returns will be split based on the bargaining power of both parties

If I was putting up the money there is no way I would want to give a person any reason to stay at the table longer than they think they should.

[mrdannyg 274]

econ[/b]_tim]i think the player has a claim on the rakeback since it's a return to work hours more than it is to money, but ultimately the total returns will be split based on the bargaining power of both parties

as per usual, the economic explanation is the vague and correct one

[econ_tim 0]

i think the player has a claim on the rakeback since it's a return to work hours more than it is to money, but ultimately the total returns will be split based on the bargaining power of both parties

If I was putting up the money there is no way I would want to give a person any reason to stay at the table longer than they think they should.

the question of staking arrangements is an interesting contract theory problem. unfortunately, i have only an introductory undertanding of contract theory.still, there are clear moral hazard and adverse selection problems.

[schnoodle_C 0]

Rakeback is just a reduction of the rake. It should be added back into the win/loss equation and then calculations of who gets what should be taken from the post rakeback adjustment to the win/loss record of the player. Just splitting doesn't cut it.As an example. If the agreement is that the investor gets his/her money back plus 50% of the profit if there is any and the player is lossing over the given period and still losing after taking rakeback into account, then the investor should get all the rakeback.

[CodyHartman 0]

rakeback is profit and should be split.......IMO

I concur with this opinion.

[7upncider 0]

i would take all with one option.. first i would make arrangements thatanything over certain amount would be split. this amount would be agreed on first.. cause if i'm staking someone i want my money first.then less just say i gave him 5000.. me personally would want to set a minimal limit of less just say 1000 that way it minimizes my losses if he goes on a losing streak.then anything over the 1000 we would split 60-40 or even 70-30. just remember this might sound unfair but it is my money.

[doublemeup 0]

You wanna stake me?

[rog 0]

Rakeback should be split. Otherwise, the player could play in a 0 EV game indefinitely, turn a profit, and never repay his backer. How fair is that? If the rakeback isn't split, then rake shouldn't be either.