Stake-horsing: Why it has a Bad Name

I'll start this column with a rather direct and concise statement: The practice of stake-horsing has a bad name. It does, and I don't make any attempts here to say otherwise. The question at hand is whether or not its bad name is entirely justified. My answer to that rhetorical question is a flat but resonant "no." I certainly am not trying to claim that a great number of people have not had an even greater number of bad experiences when involving themselves in the practice of "doing business" with poker players. They have. The reason for this is that far more often than not, the wrong people are being staked. It always seems to be those needing to be staked as opposed to merely wanting to be staked. To qualify for this dubious honor of neediness, all one needs is to be broke or quite close to it. There are many reasons why a player goes broke. Sure, there are all of the factors I listed in my last column on stake-horsing for an "on paper" winning player to go down to the felt (poor money management, unexpected expenses of life, medical issues, running bad, and gambling leaks, to name a few), but let's face it, the number one most common reason a player goes broke is that he doesn't have the skills to beat the game over the long haul. It truly is as simple as that.

Here is where the irony - or paradox, if you prefer - exists: If a player, particularly a winning player, is able to put up the necessary cash to play in healthy-sized games day in and day out, there is a presumption that he is doing "just fine on his own," and that he would have no need or desire to be staked. I would venture that some people would even wonder if the person being asked if he harbored any interest in being staked would somehow be insulted by the question. This is illogical, though. Does the question really imply, "You look like you could use a little help," or does it actually compliment the recipient of the query by saying, "I know you're a winner. I recognize your talent. Let me profit from your skill, and you can profit from my bankroll"? I submit that the latter is, or at least should be, the inference of anyone rational.

Besides, what is the worst that can happen? All the player can say is, "No, thanks." I highly doubt that he would be offended. In fact, I would say that it would be stupid to be offended. If the person interested in another's talents has major bank behind him, why on Earth would that person want to offend? There may come a day when the player will run poorly or simply want to play in a juicy game that is financially out of his reach. So, call the question a prequalifier, of sorts. If the player reacts negatively and does not recognize the inquiry as the compliment that it is, he is probably somebody who is not quite as sharp as had been estimated, and at least someone with whom business should not be conducted.

The other person who should not receive a stake-horsing business offer is the perennial railbird. Chances are high that his being out of action is indicative of incompetence, not bad luck. Yet, amazingly enough, these are the people who seem to get staked the most! It is, to me, one of the great mysteries of poker, that the folks least deserving and least qualified to be staked get asked the most due to their unenviable circumstances of being out of action. Conversely, I can think of several qualified players who rarely, or never, get asked, because they are always in action on their own. It makes no sense why this occurs, and yet in a weird way, it stands to reason why this paradox occurs, when one thinks about it. Why would anyone want to bet on a losing player when there is no short supply of winning players who would love a shot at either a freeroll in the limit they are playing or, better still, a chance to take on greener pastures?

The end result of this is that stake-horsing is often perceived as a losing proposition, not because it intrinsically is a mathematically unsound concept, but because so many mediocre players are squandering, albeit unintentionally, their bankers' cash. In fact, my last column stated that stake-horsing can work, is fun, and can be profitable for both parties involved, provided a qualified person is being put in the game. The solution is this: If you're in the market for a "horse" to bet on, don't be shy about making the proposition to a person known to be a winning player, and certainly stay clear of those who whine and moan about how much they "deserve" to be staked, as opposed to those who have proven their worthiness to be staked. How many times have we all heard a person claim how great a player he is, and if he just had a bankroll, he'd clean up the tables, and so on. If he really possessed the innate talent to win, he'd be doing just that - winning.