Stake-horsing

"Do you know who you got here stake-horsin' for you? This here is Fast Eddie Felson … Who the hell are you - the end of the world?"

- Bill Cobbs as "Orvis" in "The Color of Money", 1986

These are poignant words that translate very well into the poker arena. First of all, as a person being staked, to some extent it is important to know who your benefactor is. Is he a person with a ridiculously long bankroll who can afford to absorb losses that you might incur without panic? Is he a person who is honorable? Is he a person who won't squirm with nervousness after the first hand you lose? Is he a person who will insist on "sweating" every hand you play and expect explanations of your thinking between hands, or be prone to proffering up his own advice on what you "should have done"? This can make playing a virtual impossibility in either case. Is he a person who won't insist that you play "soft" against him if he sits in the same game (and won't get offended if you check-raise him should you do the correct thing by playing him tough)? Actually, I've never understood the logic behind being miffed if your horse takes you down in a hand if you're his bank. He is the one opponent to whom you shouldn't mind losing (as much), because you're automatically getting a massive chunk of your money back! Is he a person who will communicate to you in clear and precise language regarding what your share is in a win, if the arrangement is one that is ongoing, and so on? While you might be saying to yourself that any staking is better than no staking, you should get these rudimentary questions answered prior to venturing to the cage to buy chips with his money.

All of that being said, let us address the meatier side of that quote and this column. In other words, who really is the person being staked? Moreover, who do you think you are that you deserve to be staked? The conventional wisdom is that a person truly worthy of being staked shouldn't need to be staked in the first place, because he should have money of his own if he's such a winning player. Actually, unless you have the ability to truly know your winning players from losing players, this isn't a bad adage to live by. However, there is money to be made by stake-horsing the exceptions.

Just as love alone does not a marriage make, poker talent alone does not a wealthy player make. The magic words here are: money management. I know of many players who have a real gift for the game who are, on paper, winning players, but either have "leaks" (pit games, sports betting, horse betting, and so on) that make the hole in the Titanic's hull look like the eye of a needle, or play in games they theoretically can beat, but won't because they're playing too high in proportion to their bankroll. Other exceptions arise from circumstances. All of us who dwell in the poker world also have to live in the real world. Many winning players who are also conservative money managers could run into bankroll issues when making a down payment for a house, purchasing a new car, incurring unexpected medical expenses, setting up an outside business venture, and so on. Of course, there are also the well-known, winning medium-limit players who don't wander up to the big games because they know their bankrolls can't sustain a loss, but very well may have the talent to beat the games. Their skill coupled with prudent money management has allowed them to stand the test of time. These exceptions should serve as potential candidates if you're a bank looking for a good horse to bet on.

There is more to it than that, though. The character of the "backee" should be well known by the backer. Honesty is the best policy here. This is certainly true in the stake-horsing racket. I've heard of many people ripping off their own backers by slipping chips off the table into their pockets. Not only is this a morally abhorrent practice that illustrates the ultimate example of biting the proverbial hand that feeds you, it is bad business. I don't care how good you think your sleight of hand is, eventually you will get caught by either your backer, other players who may find your removal of chips/bills from the table off-putting, or the eye in the sky, which is usually focused on the games large enough to require staking. If your prestidigitation were truly that skilled, your name would be Lance Burton and you'd be making more money than any poker player. If you are the one being backed, don't do it. It's wrong, shortsighted, and foolish, to boot. If you are the backer and catch your horse red-handed, let once be plenty and terminate the arrangement immediately, even if the closure of the arrangement will constitute a losing session. You're not going to end up winning with this sort of distasteful and despicable element no matter what happens in future hands. Make sure you are not betting on a losing proposition - that is, a burnout, degenerate gambler, or perennial railbird.

If you're being fully staked (as opposed to having only a "piece" of yourself taken), treat this potential gift as just that - a gift. I once read about someone so preposterously arrogant that he claimed he wouldn't play for anyone for less than 60 percent. Of course, he is also a player who has never managed to rise above the $10-$20 limit (on his own money), to the best of my knowledge. Big shock, right? Remember that the talent you may or may not have is nothing without cash. Etch that into your brain. Also, the person who is doing the backing generally doesn't need the arrangement one-tenth as much as you do. Backers usually do it because they think it is a good short-term investment, for the fun of the action of "having a horse in the field," because they know they may have the cash but not the talent to beat a large game, or because they may just be very nice people trying to philanthropically render aid to a fallen comrade. Whatever their reasons are, count your lucky stars that anyone is willing to stake you, and remember that you're not doing them some grand favor by offering them a chance to profit from your talent. To the contrary, they are doing you the favor by offering you a freeroll.

While the de facto rule of thumb seems to be that the backer and the backed will split a win 50-50 while the backer will incur 100 percent of a loss, modifications can be made to this arrangement. If the game is large enough, I know that I would happily accept a smaller percentage of the win for what is ostensibly a freeroll. For instance, if a player was playing $75-$150 regularly on his own, he should not accept 20 percent of a $150-$300 stake-horsing arrangement. This would yield a $30-$60 freeroll, of sorts. It just would not serve as time well spent given those circumstances. However, that same player might (and perhaps should) accept as low as a 10 percent arrangement if someone were to stake him in a $1,000-$2,000 game. I know that I'd take a $100-$200 freeroll over playing a $75-$150 game on my own bankroll. Whatever arrangement is made, make sure that it is clearly understood by both parties. Spell it out to each other as if you're both simpletons. It's better to appear potentially condescending and/or repetitive than to be misunderstood and have an argument later.

If this is to be an ongoing arrangement, and not just a one-time shot at an unusually large game that happened to pop up, what I am about to propose should seem both logical and fair, although it is likely to make some of those being backed less than thrilled. Keep an accurate accounting and split the profits only after the overall result is in the black. In other words, if the first session produces a $5,000 loss, the backer should receive 100 percent of the profit of subsequent sessions until that loss is recouped. Making a session-by-session arrangement wherein each game has nothing to do with its predecessors or followers seems glaringly flawed to me. Should the person being staked really receive a profit if, after two sessions, the overall result is negative? I don't think so, but that is exactly what could happen should the above scenario of the first session's $5,000 loss be followed by a $4,000 winner. In a classic 50 percent arrangement, the banker would be out $3,000 and the staked party would be up $2,000. That is utterly ridiculous, and in my opinion, a recipe for financial suicide for the backer. Quite frankly, the person being staked should have to work his way "off the book," so to speak, before netting any profit.

In summation, the practice of stake-horsing can be both profitable and fun for both parties. Some truly symbiotic mutualism occurs when the arrangement provides some raw talent a shot at bigger games while simultaneously providing a person whose moneymaking talents lie outside of the narrow poker arena a real shot at beating the tougher players that generally inhabit the high-limit tables. Choose your partner almost as carefully as you would choose your mate.