"Backing" questions

[Zybomb]

One of the dealers at a few of the spots I regularly play at consistently lets me know about new (and good) games goin on in the area. Yesterday he told me a spot in ****** (the downside like a 30 minute drive plus a toll to get to) that was spreading a crazy deep stack 5-5 game . Buy in was $1000 min and $5000 max. The average buy in was $3k from what he told me.

Average PFR was $50-$60 during the normal parts but he said after 7 or 8 AM when theres a lot of extra $$$ on the table it started to become $100, $150 and $200. Said that there was roughly 30G's on the table durin the night and early morning hours and then close to $80k in the morning. Supposed to be a lot of lose players and an action table.

ANYWAY the game sounds super tempting, but the stakes are a little high for me. I knew him and some other dealers regularly "took action" on some other players so I asked if he'd be interested in taking some action from me. He immediately agreed (Im a proven winner and he knows I can beat the game long run).

How the action usually works is that it basically cuts the stakes in half for the player, so rather than being "backed" where the entire buy in is given by the backer, "taking action" would be where half the buy in was paid for by the backer and half by the backee (thus it gives the illusion of playing for half the stakes).

My question is what is a fair deal for this in terms of money split? It seems to be standard that when taking action on a player since the buy in is split the profits are as well -- but that seems kind of weird since Im the one playing and if I was to be completely backed (no investment at all on my part) wouldn't it normally work that way? (im assuming cash games would work the same as tournies)

If 50/50 isnt a good split what is? 60/40? 65/35? What if I have a losing session but return with $$$ (For instance I buy in for $3k, 1500 from me and 1500 from him and I cash out at the end of the night 2k -- thus im down 1k. Do I still split that 60/40 or jus chop evenly?)

Is it unethical (not that I really care but...) to give action on myself the first say 2 times, and then if im killing the game and become comfortable stop and go on my own after that?

[Reel Deal]

Sounds to me like this would really come down to a negotiation between you and the backer. I'd come up with some numbers (probably start with 65/35) and your rationale for those numbers and see if he'd agree. I'd also come up with some type of deal on the timing (say 4 sessions) and then reevaluate. The more specific you can be and have all deal points agreed upon in advance the better off you'll be.

[bunny]

Most staker sites I have been on, the deal is "staker $ back & 50/50 split".

In your case, I would think the 50/50 split is fair.

From what I understood, you're thinking that the deal should somehow change because YOU are the one playing the game?

This is how I look at it. If this were a company type business venture, where you were partners and both put in 50/50 and you were the one doing all the work, you'd be paid extra (as in an hourly pay) and receive half of the profits made.

But this is different, imo. Since there is money to be lost (HIS money). In the above scenario...you can't lose his money, here there is a possibility that you can. Therefore, I stand by the 50/50 as being a fair deal.

[Windbreaker]

Any backing deal should be done only if both sides are happy with the deal. As far as I'm concern, there is no standard. Go with what you feel is fair, and see what they say about it.

I think Raymer use to get backed, where he takes 30% off the top, before splitting the the money left over. This is because there is a time investment that he is required to put in that the backers do not. I believe he had legal contracts with all his backers that stated how long this would be....I think he did it in one year cycles.

The only other thing here is the dealer is finding these games for you. Im not sure if you really want to piss him off by looking too greedy.

[Talking Poker]

For this particular situation, here is what I'd do:

Sell 50% of your action and split everything right down the middle. This is how you would do it if the deal was with a friend, and I don't see why this should be any different. Sure, you're the only playing, but he's the one enabling you to play by buying half of your action. He needs to see this is a sound investment, and by not splitting the profits evenly, he may not.

So, have him give you $2k. Sit in the game with $4k. When you are done, whether you have $12k, $4k, $2k, or have gone busto, split whatever is in front of you right down the middle.

Do this two or three times, and if you are winning big and feeling comfortable with the game and the stakes, consider going out on your own. Just be clear to him up front that that is your plan.... Tell him you'll sell him 50% of your action, but will likely go out on your own after you win $x... I can't think that he wouldn't be fine with this - and you should be too.

[eejit101]

nice plan.

id push for 65/35, but TPs plan is very well thought out

[Zybomb]

No thats not it. I just thought that normally when someone completely backed someone (i.e put up their entire buy in) they received half the profits, so it just seemed weird that if I was putting up half the money instead of none, the profits are split the same way

[Wes]

I think selling half your action for 50/50 is fair. Anything over that and the staker should get more.

And no it isn't unethical to stop selling action once you feel comfortable playing the game, although some staking arrangements make it favorable for the staker by making you play x # of hands/nights before the arrangement is over.

[bunny]

Yes, but you seem to be forgetting most stakers get half the profits PLUS their ENTIRE buy-in amount. Since your staker is only putting half in this time, the buy-in amounts cancel each other out, imo and you're still left with the 50/50 split.

Remember your backer is making it possible for you to play in said game. If it's not for him, you wouldn't have the chance to make any money.

Usually, stakers receive either a higher percentage or their buy-in amount back plus the 50/50, unless you can guarantee him that you ARE a winning player, like most pros do...and in that case you can surely go about changing the terms of the deal.

Most stakers won't like it, and in your case...you might not only lose him as a staker if you change the deal on him, but he might decide to stop mentioning the new/good games around the area, to you.

What I would suggest is you playing the first game under his deal, 50/50 sounds good. If you win, then you have the upper hand in making a better deal for yourself for the next game he stakes you in (since you showed him proof, you can be a winning player). Good luck in whatever you decide to do.

[Windbreaker]

I think the 50-50 plan is usually when backers pay for the entire buy in for tourneys. I dont think its the same thing for cash games. I really have no idea what a standard deal is in theses cases. Just go with what you think is fair and make sure both parties understand the deal and agree to it before you start.

[Talking Poker]

I agree. If someone was backing me 100% for a cash game, I wouldn't expect 50% of the profits.

If they were buying half my action, though, I would.

[Reel Deal]

So anything happen with this Zy?

[Zybomb]

50/50 deal is made if I decide to exercise it , if i go to the game. As of yet I havent made the trip up there.... if I do i'll update you

(recent story I heard was late night/early morning) there was a $40 raise preflop UTG and a $400 reraise(yes the blinds are 5/5) UTG +1. This reraise received SEVEN callers. The flop comes K 2 5. UTG +1 bets $400 again . 1 Player calls. Turn 4. UTG +1 bets 1k opponent pushes for 1800 more UTG calls with KK opponent shows 36 of diamonds. Board pairs and KK ships it.)