A Typical Percentage for Steakhorses?

JessEm

AzB Goldmember
Silver Member
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.
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.)
 
Last edited:

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In the late 80’s & early 90’s when I was dead broke I got staked lots of times(sometimes by guys I didn’t really know) I played for 50%, most of these games I was almost a lock to win, this when there was lots of easy action. The reason I was staked is I didn’t have enough to play on my own $. Wasn’t gonna fire air barrels so I’d give up 50%. But to be clear this was B player pool in a different era than today’s world.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.)
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.
 

u12armresl

One Pocket back cutter
Silver Member
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.
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.
 

u12armresl

One Pocket back cutter
Silver Member
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.)
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.
 

u12armresl

One Pocket back cutter
Silver Member
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.
OR, you can approach it as a team where each parties input is valued.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
50 and you also have a happy player.
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.

Find the guy that is going to back me, lose money with me over time, not even realize they are actually losing money on me over time, and keep coming back for more over and over because we have a "great relationship". Yup, they're happy alright, they hit the jackpot.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
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.
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.
 

u12armresl

One Pocket back cutter
Silver Member
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.
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.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
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.
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.

You back your player for $1000, and he wins. You are now up $500 because your player got the other half. You back your player again for $1000 against another guy, and he wins again. That nets you another $500 and now you are up $1000. You back your player a third time for $1000 against another guy, and this time your horse loses, costing you $1000, and now you are back to zero, even. Your guy is winning at a rate of 2 to 1, and the best you can do is break even. But you said you were always backing players in tougher games than that, so you lost money, period, and just didn't know enough to realize it. Most don't.
 
Last edited:

Korsakoff

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
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.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
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.
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.

If your horse is expected to win at about a 60% rate, and you want your horse and you to both earn about the same amount of money instead of him making $6,000 and you breaking even, which sounds more like what my definition of what reasonable would be, then the split needs to be about 83.33% to the backer and 16.67% to the player. With that split, for the six $3,000 matches your player won, the player makes $3,000.60 (6x$500.10) and the backer makes $14,999.40 (6x$2,499.90). For the 4 matches your player lost, the player loses zero dollars, and the backer loses $12,000 (4x$3,000). That nets the player $3,000.60, and the backer $2,999.80. The dollars came out off by a few cents since I rounded off the percentages to the hundredth rather than a more precise decimal place.

Seems to me that 80-85% to the backer is about the fair and reasonable range if you are disciplined and pick matches where your player is always favored to win by a good margin but isn't stone cold stealing, because that way you will both earn about the same amount. The problem is that if the player isn't any more knowledgeable about how the splits actually work than most other people in the pool world are, and you can't make them understand the math to show them, that 80-85% number is going to sound ludicrous to them and they either aren't likely to accept, or your chances of getting dumped go way up if they do. Best to find a player that actually understands the math and the fairness of the split (not likely), or just don't back any players.
 
Last edited:

maha

from way back when
Silver Member
first of all never back anyone for just one match unless its almost a total lock if you are giving up more than 25%.

the only stake horses that ever will make money are those that do long term deals where the player only gets his share after a very long period of time. and that also only works if the horse does the matching up and gets games where he is a big favorite every time.
in those deals its usually 50 50 but with makeup from the player. meaning if he gets stuck money he has to make it up before he is entitled to be on the plus side.

almost all backers are losers and back players because they want to hang with them and be part of the action which they cant be on their own.

playpool9 guy understands the math and should be listened to. but of course wont be.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
I staked many players in tournaments. I would pay all expenses and that money would come off the top of any winnings. The rest was split 50-50. I rarely staked a player in money games, unless I knew we had the best of it. I might just take a piece of their action. If the bet was 10K, I might take 2K or 2.5K of it. If we won, I would throw the player usually 20% of my winnings. I don't know what other people did. That was none of my business and I didn't ask.
 

Korsakoff

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
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.
I’m clearly talking outof my butt. Go with Jay’s response.
 
Top