Do you really need poker staking?

Dara O'Kearney shares why joining a stable and being a horse is usually a bad idea for a lot of poker players.

One of the most common things all experienced players get asked, time and time again, is for staking. Everyone wants to be staked these days, nobody seems to want to grind the stakes their current bankroll can afford.

If you are looking for staking, I would exercise a lot of caution before you apply for it.

First of all, most stables have a formal application process. Typically they want extensive hand samples and proof that you’re a winning player over a reasonable sample. If you can't provide that, it will usually make staking a moot point.

Most deals start out 50/50 and then become more favourable to the player at a certain point. When I backed people, 10k profit total triggered 60/40, and 50k 70/30.

A bad deal for (most) good players 

Pretty much every backer will tell you what you can play. This is usually a good thing as they’ll have more data and be better at game selection. Some stables have rakeback deals with certain sites and will prioritise those: if that’s the case you should try to get a share of the rakeback.

If you are a winning player with some discipline, staking sounds terrible. You are giving someone else half your profits to play against usually tougher fields in bigger games. If you are going to do it, it should at least include coaching from top crushers in the stable.

If, however, you struggle to game select or manage your finances, staking might be for you.

Some players thrive in staking, some sink. Mentally it can be demotivating to be grinding when you’re buried in makeup. Conversely some players need the discipline imposed by a stable. We did a ​whole segment on this at the start of the latest Chip Race​ and I give my thoughts at length there.

And before you ask, no, I no longer stake people.

You can get Dara's free book on effective poker study by joining his mailing list.