Staking ist not interesting for someone with a big enough bank roll who is able to 'stak' himself.Staking all tough is interesting for players who frequently have to cash out and therefore do not have a big bank roll growth.It also interesting for lots of players who had there whole BR on FT and do not want (or: can) to wait for receiving their money back the normal way.It also can allow some one who has beaten a limit over a big enough sample size but allways had to cash out to play and establish on bigger limits.There are also plenty of players who play very well in tournaments but did not have *the big cash* yet. Therefore, selling shares allows them to play bigger BI (TCOOP; SCOOP, etc. pp) which actually can help their BRB. Then again, there are different kinds of stakings. For example some very experienced players to offer stakings combined with coaching over 3-12 months (or so) which can be very profitable for both parties. But, then again, experience shows that as soon as the one who receives the stakeing is beating the games on his own they are getting sick of paying someone else off, now that they have the bank roll and tend to lose focus. IMO one party is allways on the idiot end of the deal. If you are the stakee or decide you wanna to be the stakee you need to figure out the spots where you are on the better end and it can be very profitabel.

There are definitely mutually beneficial stakes.There are also stakes where the horse gets well over 50% of the share, plays lower variance games, and the backer is set for a nice deal too (even with a big bankroll, maybe the horse needs to pay for college or wants to buy a house, of course he could wait, but it can make sense for two parties and often does).You don't hear about the better stakes as often, since there's no drama surrounding them. So there is some bias in the public domain on staking. You often hear stories of inexperienced backers and poor horses and disagreements or scams or outright thefts.Also, there are certainly stakes where you do not need markup.The way I was taught to look at staking, from both perspectives, was to just get an idea of what the other party wants, look at which variables are easier to alter and which are set in stone (IE length, game type, % they want, rakeback splits, makeup or not, etc.) and make something work for both parties.It's important that you don't "rip off" the other person either, as a backer or a horse. Because all somebody has to do is ask somebody with knowledge about staking about their deal during the stake and if they are told they are being ripped off, you don't really want to see how quickly that can deteriorate in so many conditions. Not to mention the long term value of doing honest business with others builds you a reputation and staking is definitely a domain that benefits greatly from a good reputation and referrals.I don't like to generalize on this topic any more than the above though, since I've come across and experienced situations hands on that range from "terrible excuse for a human being should never have done business with them" to "if everybody acted the way this person did life would be a perfect utopia." As with most things, depends on the variables and who you're dealing with, but mutually beneficial agreements happen, and they happen plenty often (as do the opposite).One obstacle I've found in staking is that sometimes people just don't understand the variables or reasoning behind needing clear details on some topics. But if you're patient and willing to explain and articulate it in a way that is understandable to others (not just understandable in your own brain), things can become clear and comfortable and advantageous for both parties very quickly.I also look to avoid situations where people just "want a stake" but don't care about anything else (length, game type, etc.). They "just need a stake and they will be fine." That's a huge red flag to me, so unless I know the person well I'm not in the habit of staking if there are any warning signs like that.