CARDRUNNERS

What's Your Edge

verneer's Poker Blog

February 03, 2010

First, I wanted to finish up my thoughts on trusting others online. When I started thinking about who I personally would trust, the first two people that came to mind for me were Taylor and Lee Jones. Their reputation is integral for both of them to continue doing their jobs, and money seems secondary to them. Those were easy though. What about a harder choice? I still think the general themes of caring about your reputation and not being broke are key. If I was making a deal with someone that really needed the money, I would be a bit nervous.

It's hard to tell just how much someone is strapped for cash though. For example - I read about TJ Cloutier pawning one of his WSOP bracelets. This is a man who is very famous and given all his wins, would seem to have money. So - you never know someone's financial situation if you don't know them well.

At this time, I have a piece of action from two players. I feel 100% confident about both of them but for very different reasons. They are both winning players but I think this shouldn't be the primary factor in whether you have a piece of someone.

1. They both have a very good work ethic and both have great tilt control. They consistently put in the hands and when they do, they play their A-game most of the time.
2. Neither wants to make a lot of money quickly. Both tend to play 1 limit of 1 game - they don't jump around at all.
3. Both are winners at the limit they play.
4. Both are my friends and we talk on a very regular basis about hands they've played.
5. Both are active in their communities (CR and 2+2).

Given all that, by the end of the year, both will definitely be in the green. It's just a matter of looking at it in the long term. This is like investing in a company like Coca Cola - you know what they make, you understand why they are profitable, and you expect to make money from it long term. This is how Warren Buffet operates.

On the other hand, investing in something that you don't seem to know a lot about, but it seems like a sure way to make a lot of money, is usually a bad idea from my experience. I've definitely done that before, but usually have been blinded by my own desire to make a quick buck. Staking randoms or semi-randoms definitely has that appeal, but from my experience, will be a losing proposition. I've yet to hear a good reason for why someone would need to be staked in the first place when it comes to cash games. In both of the situations I've listed above, I have a piece of the player so they could move up in stakes quicker - it's not an all out stake.

So ... why would a winning player be broke? This always seems suspicious to me and should be a major red flag to anyone.

Entry Tags:

Feb 3, 10 09:59:15

Totally agree. You can pretty much not trust anyone except for those who have a lot to lose by tarnishing their reputation. Or, if its beneficial for both parties (enabling one player to move up quicker while also making the staker some cash). It is too sticky to stake a family member or a close friend--certainly from my experience.

cincy_swag

Feb 3, 10 10:27:51

Anyone associated with CR as well as Lee were the first people that came to my mind when reading your last blog.

SlevinKalevra

Feb 3, 10 11:36:46

It definately should be a red flag when a broke poker player needs a stake. I myself an am unemployed broke mofo who has been living off of meager poker winnings. Recently I was staked because I needed to pay medical bills with the last of my poker money. But I take my reputation very very very seriously and would feel horrible if I ended up losing their money. Since the stake I play one game and stick to it though. Staking a random broke player I do though feel is a bad situation, I'm just an exception I hope.

hackbandit

Feb 3, 10 12:32:01

i don't think the warren buffet analogy holds - staking a poker player does not provide the kind of predictable earnings and that he loves

if they are such good poker players why do they need a stake?

yeah the TJ thing is a bit sad. Last year i was playing cash at the rio and overheard him at the table behind me trying to sell off his action in some WSOP event with no takers

ken aces

Feb 4, 10 22:58:23

why do they need you to stake them then?

Any winning player, who also has rakeback, should have their own bankroll. The fact that they don't is a red flag. And that red flag should completely nullify the positive reasons you posted.

Am I wrong?

If they're not in a hurry, why are you staking them?

Totals

Feb 5, 10 14:09:33

that's the obvious point why staking people in cash games is bizarre, whereas taking a piece of them makes perfect sense (the amount of extra money you have to risk by moving up 1 limit being double the one before is pretty ridiculous from a business standpoint). Having said that... if Isilidur was a friend of ures and seemed trustworthy, and you had the cash etc... would you stake him if he agreed to only play 10-20 or lower HU NLH? He could easily not be rolled for these games, but definitely be a winner there.

markchantler