Someone Tell Me If This Makes Sense

[bdc30 0]

This is a hypothetical offshoot from a post in another thread...I know we have some sick players around here who have the ability to win 3-4-5 wsop main event packages. Would it make sense for them to basically give those to another player, if that player offered say 80% equity to the staker for the seat (plus the 10k back out of any cash) ??For instance, even if they just barely eek in to the money, say a 15k cash, the staker would get the original buyin back, plus 80%, or another 4 grand. The potential though, even with a mediocre cash by that person could be huge. If Moneymaker and Jamie Gold were able to get lucky enough to win the thing, who knows, right?? 80% of ~10 mill would sure be a nice score.On the other hand, would it be worth it for the person getting the stake? Would people be willing to put in the time/effort to play for 20% of the profit? Would they take the tourney as seriously as they would if it were their own 10k at stake??If it were me, I think I'd give up 80% of the action for a stake...would the rest of you?

[ChunkyLuver69 0]

yea I would still play in it if I were only playing for 20% freeroll to me

[sinc 0]

The only way this makes any sense for the staker is if he believes the person he is staking has considerably better equity with the money than he does. Otherwise it just makes no sense, why wouldn't he just use the money for himself to enter more tournaments?

[James D 0]

For me, it wouldn't be worth giving away 80% of any prize money, even I was given the seat.Purely in terms of time and effort, if I was going to give up a week or so in Las Vegas, I'd have to be prepared to risk a little of my own money for a buy-in (unless I qualified thru sat). Otherwise, I'm sure I'd lack motivation... and if I actually did manage to cash, especially quite deep, I'd be so disappointed to have to give 80% of it away.The answer to this of course depends on your financial situation. There are many who would bite your hand off, if it was offered to them.

[James D 0]

The only way this makes any sense for the staker is if he believes the person he is staking has considerably better equity with the money than he does. Otherwise it just makes no sense, why wouldn't he just use the money for himself to enter more tournaments?

Because he meant if someone won more than 1 seat.

[bdc30 0]

Because he meant if someone won more than 1 seat.

I know we have some sick players around here who have the ability to win 3-4-5 wsop main event packages.

I thought I was clear enough on that....If you won it on stars, where you would just take the W$ and use that to enter other tourneys, etc, that would make sense to do so. Do other sites give you the same options??

[runthemover 39]

I'm not that smart, but here's my simple minded thinking on this ideaif the guy you are staking is good enough where it makes sense to stake them, why don't they have their own seat? Unless it's a last minute type of deal, this type of player would probably be hard to find. additionally, if you are the stakee why would you take this deal? you could surely find better ways to make money.it's a bad deal for the stakee and a good deal for the staker only with select players that are probably not going to take this deal

[bdc30 0]

additionally, if you are the stakee why would you take this deal?

If it were me, it wouldn't be about the money...Are there "better ways to make money"? Sure.To put it another way, if you were a scratch golfer, and someone offered you a chance to play in the Masters, even though you KNEW that you'd have to put together the absolute BEST round of your life just to not embarrass yourself, wouldn't you give it a shot??I'd give up 80% of the equity just for the experience alone. I know I'm not the best tournament player in the world, but I'd sure as shit be giving it everything I had to be in it and compete, even if I was only taking home 20%.

[runthemover 39]

If it were me, it wouldn't be about the money...Are there "better ways to make money"? Sure.To put it another way, if you were a scratch golfer, and someone offered you a chance to play in the Masters, even though you KNEW that you'd have to put together the absolute BEST round of your life just to not embarrass yourself, wouldn't you give it a shot??I'd give up 80% of the equity just for the experience alone. I know I'm not the best tournament player in the world, but I'd sure as shit be giving it everything I had to be in it and compete, even if I was only taking home 20%.

well I think it's fairly obvious a large portion of players would take this deal in a heartbeat, but like I said the person who won the extra seats is most likely not going to give up a seat to someone like this, so it will never happen unless this person is a friend or we are in bizzaro world.

[bdc30 0]

or we are in bizzaro world.

We live in a world where goldenpalace.com paid something like $25k for a fkin grilled cheese sandwich. You really think a guy with too much money (or too many wsop seats) giving it to a decent poker player for 80% of the juice is that far out of the realm of possibility?? lol

[Pixelation 0]

Yeah, personally i would give up 80% of my action to be staked, i would love to play just purely for the experience.Though yeah. Staking me would be -EV.

[Zach6668 513]

I'd just like to point out at this point, that I have a 100% cash rate in the big events I've been staked, or partially staked into. (WCOOP events).I'll be awaiting PMs with people dying to stake me.- Zach

[Zagara 0]

It seems like a better approach would be a sliding scale. Initially the split could be 80/20, but the further up the player gets, the more the stakee would get. This would give added incentive for the player to make it deep into the tournament. Psychologically it seems like a bigger incentive. Just a thought.

[Suited_Up 2]

Yeah, I'd take the stake on those terms I think.

[....Ian.... 0]

your question has the exact same implications whether winning multiple seats or not.so the question is really only would you stake someone

[psujohn 0]

It's an interesting question.The majority of the people who enter the ME - specially from sats - have a negative expectation. So selling the seat would probably be the better deal.There are people who can't afford an entry or who otherwise wouldn't play without a stake who may actually have a positive expectation. A guy who crushes the MTTs in your local B&M but can't afford the ME probably has a much higher expectation than a rich businessman who learned all he knows about poker from watching Rounders.A guy who can't afford to buy-in to the ME and who likely has only a really small expectation (20% of just cashing might be only a couple thousand) probably can't afford to fly to Vegas and stay there for a week or two.A sliding scale for staker/stakee makes sense but I'd actually weight it toward the middle. Something like 50/50 until the buyin is paid, then 80/20 on the next $x, and 20/80 on anything over that. So if the horse wins the thing he'd be rich.

[grocery_mony 8]

80% seems really high. The stakee would have to pay for his expences and fo a tournament of this length that is signifigant(unless you can find someones couch to sleep on). I am sure you could find people who would take this deal but you are probally getting what you pay for.

[seemorenuts 0]

50-50 is the type of deal humans can live with, and it maximizes the chances of both players happily honoring whatever arrangement they agreed to.Just modify the conditions so that 50-50 makes sense, e.g. get someone talented enough to play.Other numbers that approximate this are fine too, 60-40, 55-45.I used to think I'd play for 20%, let alone 0%, but I'm a better player now.

[BeaverStyle 1]

75/25 is the lowest I'd go... (at least I say this now)

[qyayqi 11]

80-20 doesn't makes sense to me. a player expecting to win shouldn't only take 20% of what he earns, and a staker would be silly to give the seat away to someone insecure enough about their play to give up 80%.this sort of arrangement is possible between people who know each other's game, and for whatever reason one of them couldn't sat/buy in. between equals, the range is between 50-50 and 60-40 (of the profit).

[milojones 0]

80% might be a little high, but at the WSOP ME, while your playing for the money (i wouldnt take this deal if it wasnt a televised hugely sindicated television event) your also playing for a lot more. going deep, , final tabling, and cashing is about much more than the money. you now have endorsements, fame,.. basically everything that jamie gold threw away. and som might say "anyone who cant afford their own stake isnt going to win" and all i ahve to say to that is MONEY800