Let's Make a Deal...

I have been on both sides of the staker-stakee relationship.  In recent years, I have been in the middle - negotiating between both parties to try to find the best solution.

It's not as simple as debating between 50-50 and 60-40.  If the stakee is winning, this is easy to negotiate.  The biggest issues have to do with accepting the realities of poker - mainly:  poker is a Looooong-term game, and the stakee can run bad.  Very bad.

Here are three items on my checklist when I arrange something between a staker and stakee - and I always make sure these are CLEAR BEFORE a single session is played - feel free to add items that you feel are of utmost importance...


1. Make sure the staker accepts the reputation of the stakee.
The basic phrase you are looking for the staker to say here is "I will trust this guy."   TOO MANY times I have had to listen to a staker come to me saying "What the bleep is this guy doing?  I thought he could play?"

Touch-move.  I am very black-and-white with trust.  You can't take it back.  You cannot tell a guy you trust him and then question him later just because he lost.  From day one, I need to make sure that everything about the stakee is on the table for the staker to accept or reject.  Once he accepts, he must trust the stakee.

Sometimes, the condition is "I'm not sure about you, but I'm going to give you a shot" - that's fine as long as that is on the table from the get-go, and a couple of other things are clear...

2. Make sure the expectations regarding the staking duration are crystal clear
A staker can go for a stop-loss/stop-win.  "Here is the roll, you bust that and we are done.  You double that and we are done."

"Done" means "let's re-negotiate."

I prefer roll-conditions to time/volume driven deals.  The end is very simple, and it is very easy to restart.  With a timed-deal, a stakee may go for broke if he is still down and the duration of the deal is nearing the end.  Or he may just stop playing to win and play a deliberate break-even style once he is satisfied with his wins.

If you still prefer a timed-deal, at least make sure the stakee asks for a finite number of sessions and that it is a decent volume - and don't accept any crap about "one month" or "three months" either.  We are talking number of hours or number of sessions.  Thirty sessions?  A hundred thousand hands?  Fifty tournaments?  Five hundred hours?  As long as it is quantifiable.  This can be tough for the staker, since the stakee can be losing huge and not even be halfway through the agreed duration.  Tough, but a deal is a deal - a stakee has to have a shot at reaping the benefits of the variance that is keeping him down.  You can't quit on him too soon, because another staker might benefit when the stakee finally starts running normal.

True story:  I had a guy get staked with no clear conditions to play a live grind.  He started awful and was about 50k in the hole before he turned it around and ended up being 100k up.  The stakee moved him to a bigger game, where he lost it all.  Staker gives up on the stakee.  Stakee moves to another stable and wins wins wins.  Now the previous staker is moaning and groaning to me:  "Now he starts winning?  When it is no longer my money?"

Your fault, staker.

Have a contract duration and stick to it.  It can be a roll-condition, a session-amount, a hybrid, or whatever you feel is creative and productive.  As long as you have a clear-cut end to the engagement.

I am not a fan of open-ended arrangements - the kind where a staker "rides him until he can't ride him no more" or even when a stakee "milks him till I have my own roll"

Too often this turns out to be "I can't let him go because he owes me too much"

The latter situations have been more common in my experience, and more disappointing for me as a professional.  Stakees who enter an agreement "to build my own roll" owe it to their stakers to define the duration they would like to be engaged.  Many stakees I know run well and then unceremoniously ditch their staker "so I keep all my action" - bad stakee, bad bad stakee!  Please appreciate that the staker deserves a premium for getting your careers rolling, give the staker due process and credit please!


3. Make sure you agree on how to deal with losses
Winning stakees are not a big deal.  You just split the winnings and keep going.  It is when they run bad that issues arise, so one of my main goals when mediating between staker and stakee is to make absolutely sure they have an answer to this question:

"WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT MAKE UP?"

How you answer this question will influence how you split the winnings.  You cannot even begin to talk about profit-share until this is crystal clear - after all, 50% OF ZERO IS ZERO.  What about 50% of negative 100k?!?

If a stakee doesn't want to deal with make up, I make sure the staker understands.  This is a motivation issue, and it is not just about the stakee being a selfish prick.  It's about security in a very insecure environment - and the security is mostly provided by the staker, because the talent and execution is provided by the stakee.

Let me play out this scenario, a monthly payout arrangement, and you tell me if it is common:

period one:  Stakee wins 100k, takes home 50k after the split.  Good job, good month.
period two:  Stakee loses 70k.  Is he supposed to give back the 50k he is already paid out?  Of course not.  does he take anything home?  Nada.  Dry month.
period three:  Stakee wins 55k.  This is where it starts to get tricky.  Still 15k down from the last profit-share point, so most of the time, the stakee will be awarded nothing.  Another dry month.
period four:  Stakee just about breaks even, winning 12k.  Still 3k under. Another dry month.  THREE MONTHS he has played his heart out and received nothing for his time.  Is this fair?
period five:  Stakee is up to 40k profit halfway thru and is excited for a payday, then the other half gets coolered and ends the period even.  Still 3k under, so yet another dry month.
period six:  Stakee's game is severely affected by four months of zero income.  Combined with a bit of run-bad, he ends the period losing another 30k.  Dry again.
period seven... The stakee just either disappears or the hole gets deeper.  With no light at the end of the tunnel, it just doesn't make sense for the stakee to continue.  There is no great incentive.  For six months he has wagered all his time.  Meanwhile, the staker has been going about business as usual because the money being played is invested anyway.  So even though the staker is just about even, it's not like he wasted six months of his life.

So what is fair?

No make-up, but 70-30 favoring the staker?  Make-up, but staker takes care of all basic needs (lodging, food)?  Make-up, with smaller payouts for winning periods while the make-up exists?  70-30 favoring the stakee but with black-and-white make-up?  Stop-loss with 50% make-up payable upon closure?

That last one may seem more like a loan that a staking deal, but a deal is a result of a dynamic process of negotiation between two rational creative human beings, so this is still a staking deal in my book.

I'd like to continue, but this is the part where everyone's input needs to be considered first - there are many creative ways to do this, and there are many thresholds for what is fair in the short, mid, and long term.  This has to do with other factors as well - the depth of the relationship between staker and stakee - history, intentions, conditions to provide basic needs, etc...


So what do you guys do about make up?

Player versus Pro

The consumate Pro had been playing all night. It was 8am, and the table had broken. He and another guy - a fairly decent loose aggressive regular - had stretched the action three-handed for as long as they could, until the fish had to call it a day.

As I prepared to rack up the chips, the Pro sat back - as he often did, taking his time to unwind. This is when the Player walked into the room.

The Player hovered around the table, eyeing the Pro and his chips. He stood there for a bit, as if contemplating a move, so the Pro just smiled at him.

"Want to play heads up?" the Player finally asked.  His english was very good by Korean standards.

The Pro was tired, but he said "Sure." He immediately sensed something that would give him an edge: ANXIETY.  The Player was itching to play.

"I'm still thinking about it, actually," said the Player.

"Okay," said the Pro, "I'll just be here for a while anyway." Anxious, and yet uncertain. Very nice.

The Player stood there a minute, then finally confirmed the Pro's read with a barrage of playing conditions. Some were normal, but one stood out just for the absurdity of the Player feeling the need to say it:

"You can't get up and leave after doubling up okay?"

The Pro had listened intently and quietly agreed to all the previous conditions, so I glanced at him to see his reaction to this last one - because it was now clear that the Player had no idea who he was talking to. If he had known anything about the Pro and his reputation, the last condition would not even be close to an issue.

The Pro quietly nodded, "Of course."

The Player wasn't done. He pivoted from setting conditions and began an earnest interview of the pro - how long have you been playing? What game? Many other slightly personal questions. 

Do you play professionally?  For full tilt or poker stars?  Who pays you?

And finally, "Are you winning or losing?"

I studied the Pro as he responded to each question almost immediately - even though I knew some of the answers were not exactly true. He was already playing heads up poker, giving the Player the answers that he thought would best serve his strategy.

I was especially curious about the last question, to which the Pro replied "I'm stuck about 150k."

"Okay," said the Player, "Let's play for 150k. Wait here while I get some chips."


As he left, I clarified the rules with the pro, setup the table, and briefed the dealer:

They are going to play 100-200 no limit Holdem. Dealer button is the small blind, and can straddle to 500. Starting stacks are 50k, and they will play freeze out to 150k - meaning the match is over as soon as one of them loses 150k.

I had so many questions for the Pro regarding his choice of responses. I asked quickly, while the Player was away. The Pro summed it up for me: I think I look tired and haggard, so I just made sure I completed the image of the desperate guy who can't go home without another shot at winning back his losses.

The Pro went on to enlighten me - against a different type of character, he might want to say he was winning, and create a persona of a guy who could afford to lose. That image was not a fit for this Player though.

The Player shortly returned, and the match began - or should I say the match CONTINUED, since the Pro had already been playing since the first minute the Player walked in the room. The dealer shuffled... And then the wrench walked into the machine.

A Drunk who knew both the Pro and the Player well walked in and went straight to the table with a huge proud announcement for his Korean friend:

"Wow, you gonna play heads up with Philippines' number one!"

The table fell quiet. The drunk realized what he had said and done and tried to undo it: "My friend here is Korean number one, so this is a good match."

Good try, but it didn't look like it worked, as the Player stayed silent. Finally, the Pro said "You still want to play?"

He had to ask three times before the Player made it clear. The match is on. The dealer pitched the cards, and the Drunk staggered off to the baccarat tables saying "Philippines number one, and Korea number one. Good game!"

The Pro smiled but barely spoke. Meanwhile the Payer was bubbling with excitement, coming up with some more match conditions as they dealt first few hands.

"Do you want to run it twice when we are all in pre flop or on flop? Because I don't want to do that."

"If we lose a stack, say 50k, another guy can buy in for more than 50k as long as he doesn't cover the winner, okay?"

"No double straddle."

...and a couple of other rules that I thought did not matter so much.

"Losing player can quit anytime he wants, okay? Even if the loss is not 150k yet, okay? I mean if I'm losing, why should I keep playing,right?"

In my head I responded: "...because you said the match was 150k freeze out, that's why." But the Pro just quietly agreed.

Wanna talk the talk?  Walk the walk.

The contrast was marvelous to behold. Steady but friendly quiet on one side, and on the other, the Player constantly shifting in his seat and chattering like he was on TV. His hands flicked around reacting to the results of each hand. When he was strong he bet with a straight release with his right hand. When he was bluffing, the bet was fired to the left, sailing over his left arm which was nailed to the table.

He commented constantly on the results of every other hand.

"So funny!" he chuckled to himself shaking his head after the Pro snapped off his big river bluff. "So funny..."

"You never 3bet me, why is that?" he says while scooping a small pot he took down with a pre flop re-raise.

"I'll just post 700 on the button since I'm always gonna raise anyway..."

"So sick," he remarks after calling and mucking at showdown, "second time you rivered my Kings today."

"You don't play heads up much,do you?" he again interviewed the Pro. I stretched my neck to hear what the response would be.

"No, not really," said the Pro.

"What do you like to play? 5-handed? 8-handed?"

The answer came easily to the Pro, "8-handed."

It did not take long before the Player was 40k down. He signaled the chip runner and plunked down 30k to add to his depleted stack. He was now playing 80k.

The pro grinded on, but it was hard for the untrained observer to see if he was lucky or good. He gave up many small pots getting caught betting the river with air. Then the Player would repeatedly pay off the Pro's mid-pair with Ace-high. Almost every river was a check and call for the Player, and the Pro made sure he caught some bluffs...about two in ten times.

The player signalled for another 50k. He was playing 130k now.

The match grinded on, the Player would win a big pot and show the bluff, then three or four hands later the chips travelled back across the table after another check-call, or bet-fold line from the Player.

I must be absolutely clear at this point: the Player was not bad at all. He was just simply and subtly outclassed.

"100k!" the Player signaled to the chip runner. I shot a glance at the Pro to see his reaction. The Player was now playing 230k - well over the freeze out limit.

The Pro said nothing. Just stacked his chips and placed the blinds for the next hand.

Four hours gone by. The Player was now playing 324,900. You know that's "last money" because of the odd chip ("butal" in Tagalog).  They played on, and the grind continued downwards for the Player.

"That money, I just won that in about five hands anyway, in another casino... and now I give it to you."

In a raised pot, the flop came 567 rainbow.  The Pro led out, and the Player shoved his last 45,000 into the middle.

The Pro called, tabling two sevens for top set.  The Player tabled 78, for top pair with an open-ender.  The river was a 4, and the match would continue.

Another big pot, this time popped preflop by the Pro and repopped by the Player to about 5k total.  The Flop came J59 rainbow.  The Player bet 20k and the Pro flatted in position.  The turn was a 6 and it went check-check.  The river was another Jack.  Player checks.  Pro thinks for a while...and bets 40,000.

A minute goes by.  Two minutes.  The Player starts squirming in his seat.  The chatter begins, but he gets no response from the Pro, just sat quietly and patiently waiting for the action.

Another minute goes by.  The Player stands up from his seat and leans over the table to inspect the Pro's chip stacks.  He stretches out an arm to count them out, but he doesn't touch the stack.  The Player sits back down - "so sick"- and flashes his hole cards to the observers behind him.

Two more minutes.  The Player cuts out 40k from his stack - two stacks of 1k chips - and pushes them towards the betting line, but he stops short of the line.  He stands again and fans out the pot in the middle, touching the pot to count the chips with his eyes.

He mutters and recounts the action from the beginning of the hand, pointing at each card on the board to highlight his recap:  "You bet, I raised, I bet, you called, you check...now you bet...?  So sick!"

He shows his hole cards to the observers again.  He then places them face down on the felt and pushes them towards the dealer...but doesn't let go.  Instead his hand pulls the cards right back in front of him.  He watches the Pro for any reaction.

A minute.  The the Player turns his hand face up:  Two Kings.  He doesn't say anything, just turns his hand up.

He continues the drama by doing yet another recap of the action, with matching pointing at the board cards.  He studies the Pro, and finally turns his hand over again.  Still no action.

He squirms some more, and eventually his hand grazes the top of his chip stacks near the betting line.  About seven of them fall into the middle, near the pot.  The Player says nothing, but looks at the Pro.  The Pro finally looks up at me, then the Dealer - "Is that a call?"

I was about to rule it as a call, but the Player spoke anyway - "Okay, I call!"

The Pro turns his hand up Ten-Eight-offsuit.  Ten-high.  The Player looks at the cards and the board over and over, not believing his Kings are good.  He finally realizes he made the right call and scoops up the pot with a big smile.

"You play good," he says to the Pro while he stacks the chips.

"You're better," the Pro smiles back.

Pro vs Player = Magic vs Tricks

The Pro - "Philippines' number one" - is pretty unanimously regarded as such by all his peers.  Not just because he is probably the winningest player in the country, but moreso because of the complete package he brings to the industry - not just on the table.  Tall, handsome, quiet, polite, well-mannered, simply dressed, very agreeable, and with virtually no vice or gamble in him.


The match would go another two hours, and the Player would end with a stack of 190k.  Like I said, he wasn't anywhere near being an awful poker Player, he just wasn't a Pro.