With the WCOOP coming up, theres a lot of big online tournaments. At what point do people reckon its not a bad idea to seek backing to play in tournaments that you feel you have an edge over the field but your bankroll may not warrant it. eg. I know some people who are good limit players both tournament and cash, tho paying $1000 for the Limit event is a bit pricey, but if you look at the field there are a lot of no-limit players who are just playing for the fun and therefore there is value. Is there a magic number, eg when you are risking more than 2%(or 1%) of your bankroll u should be seeking backing?

rk

These types of tournaments dont run too often so risking 1% 2 % of your a few times a year in a tournament you feel you are +EV in is perfectly fine.

with your results, you should have no problem finding a backer
but backing for just one event might not be very likely that you will find someone

im not looking for any staking, in anything particular i do get staked in a site i help run for about 10% of my action. But i was wondering whether there was a formula or way to evaluate when it made sense to get staked and when it didnt. eg. andy mcleod is selling some of his action in the 25k heads up. When is it profitable for both the backer and the backee ?