Terpdad, you have a new career as a stand up comic. Good oneIf they can't spell stake properly, they can probably be taken advantage of.
Terpdad, you have a new career as a stand up comic. Good oneIf they can't spell stake properly, they can probably be taken advantage of.
A tournament is a completely different animal. The payout isn't 1:1 like a typical cash game.I'm not broke. Staked that way for almost 20 years.
Even put a post on here if there was a person who was looking to travel to tournaments with that arrangement, I'd be interested in talking with them. 0 replies.
Travis it's Linder30% to the player, correct?
50-50 is most common, but a smart backer will keep an overall cumulative running tally, and require the player to make up for any losses that backer incurs when the player earns a future score.Just wondering what the cut is typically for steakhorses. Not necessarily PRO-level steak horses, which I'm sure can command top dollar. Let's say "very good" players, in the mid-to-upper-600's and up. What's the range?
EDIT: In terms of a cash game. (Not tournaments.)
Will you take a check Berta? CASH!!!!!Burt Gordon said 75% to the horse - 25% to Fast Eddie![]()
No, that's not it. There were no sucker match ups. The player was a well known player around the Midwest and the games were on the up. Sorry that doesn't match up with what you were thinking or hoping for me, but it was a great relationship.Maybe you are the lucky guy that always found all the sucker match ups to stake where over the course of your staking career you averaged 2-1 odds or better, but chances are more likely that you are the guy who has lost money and doesn't realize it because you never kept accurate track and remember the wins more than the losses etc.
We would play say a Texas Express tournament, and if we were in the final day then the focus was on the tournament and the calcutta. Afterwards though, yes we'd matchup or someone would say, can't play today, but I'll be through Indy in a few weeks and we can play then.A tournament is a completely different animal. The payout isn't 1:1 like a typical cash game.
(Will edit the OP to specify that which I was referring.
However, I'm leaving "stake" spelled as-is. It's friggen Friday.)
OR, you can approach it as a team where each parties input is valued.50-50 is most common, but a smart backer will keep an overall cumulative running tally, and require the player to make up for any losses that backer incurs when the player earns a future score.
The player should not be able to dictate the terms, the backer should, as they are taking all the $ risk.
Of course they are. They are ecstatic! They don't have to worry so much about finding the sucker match ups because they found the sucker stake horse.50 and you also have a happy player.
If you were staking 50/50 and they were not at least 2 to 1 favorite on the odds with sucker match ups on average, then you are way behind in money and don't even have a clue. And you wouldn't be in the minority on not realizing it so don't feel too bad, it's typical.No, that's not it. There were no sucker match ups. The player was a well known player around the Midwest and the games were on the up. Sorry that doesn't match up with what you were thinking or hoping for me, but it was a great relationship.
Not really sure why you want to act the way you are acting about something you really know nothing about. I'm sorry you didn't have the same results and weren't able to travel around to tournaments and enjoy things like we did. Guess there is always someone who regardless of the outcome of something, will try to diminish others to make themselves feel superior.If you were staking 50/50 and they were not at least 2 to 1 favorite on the odds with sucker match ups on average, then you are way behind in money and don't even have a clue. And you wouldn't be in the minority on not realizing it so don't feel too bad, it's typical.
Sorry you still don't get it, but as great as you might think you were as a stake horse, you are not some exception to the laws of basic math as you hold yourself out to be. If you were backing matches 50/50 that truly were never sucker matchups where your player was at least 2 to 1 favorite, which is exactly what you claimed, then you lost money. Run the numbers yourself and see. Here, I will do them for you.Not really sure why you want to act the way you are acting about something you really know nothing about. I'm sorry you didn't have the same results and weren't able to travel around to tournaments and enjoy things like we did. Guess there is always someone who regardless of the outcome of something, will try to diminish others to make themselves feel superior.
Depends on how you define "reasonable" ratio. Also depends on the rate at which your player is guaranteed to win over time. If you feel your player is guaranteed to win 60% of the time, you might could call it "reasonable" if your horse winning lots of money and you breaking exactly even is how you happen to define "reasonable".If you’re assuming all the risk, I don't care who you’re backing. Stakehorse 67% Player 33% is the only reasonable ratio over time.
I’m clearly talking outof my butt. Go with Jay’s response.Depends on how you define "reasonable" ratio. Also depends on the rate at which your player is guaranteed to win over time. If you feel your player is guaranteed to win 60% of the time, you might could call it "reasonable" if your horse winning lots of money and you breaking exactly even is how you happen to define "reasonable".
At a two thirds to the backer and one third to the player split arrangement, you break exactly even if he wins 60% of the time. You lose money if he wins any less than 60% of the match ups. So if he wins 60% of the time and you actually want to win a little money, then you actually need a much better split than that, because it isn't exactly fair for him to be making lots of money out of your arrangement but you just breaking even. And if he wins at anything less than a 60% rate, you need a better split than two thirds just to break even instead of losing money.
Here is how the math of your example actually plays out so you can get a visual. Lets say you back a horse in ten matches for $3000 each at the two thrids/one third split arrangement you mentioned as "the only reasonable ratio". Your horse wins at a rate of 60%. So for those six wins, your horse made $6,000 (6x$1000), and you made $12,000 (6x$2000). For the four matches your horse lost, your horse lose zero dollars, and you lost $12,000 (4x$3,000). Your horse is up a total of $6,000, and you are dead even. Doesn't sound like a reasonable split arrangement ratio to me, at least by my definition of reasonable. And if he even didn't manage to win 60%, which might have been an unrealistic expectation anyway as it is a pretty good win ratio, then your horse is still up a lot of dollars, but now you are actually in the hole taking a big loss.