Build a Bankroll or Get Staked?

The Meme

Partypoker ambassador and The Chip Race newsman Barry Carter is a master of both the long and short form. He is an award winning author whose books with Dara O’Kearney and Jared Tendler have received widespread acclaim. He is also the King Of Poker Twitter with his pithy observations about the poker world, perfectly distilled down to satirical cartoons or playful memes. A few months ago, he dropped yet another banger, crystallising something many players feel but rarely articulate:

One door, marked “play within your bankroll,” stands empty. The other, labelled “get staked,” has a queue stretching into the distance.

It was funny, but only in the way that poker truths usually are, by exposing an uncomfortable reality rather than exaggerating it. Staking has become the dominant entry point for serious players, particularly online. New players grind small stakes just long enough to assemble a convincing database, then submit it to a stable in the hope of being selected. Even established professionals increasingly prefer to outsource bankroll management entirely, trading a share of their profits for insulation from variance and stress.

This represents a dramatic shift from how most players of my generation entered the game. Bankroll management was once a badge of honour, a nod to the grinder code, a right of passage. Whether you started with Freerolls, in ‘the micros’ or, if you were lucky to have a little bit of seed capital, at low-stakes, navigating yourself safely to a place where your finances matched your ability was an arduous journey.

Grinding Out Of Low-Stakes Became Tougher

When I started playing in 2006, low-stakes were forgiving enough to allow progression through modest edges and sheer volume. You could win at a rate that was unimpressive in isolation but meaningful over time. The rake was lower and the opposition softer but, more importantly, there was a ready availability of games that helped a grafter multiply their edge.

Today, low-stakes is both tougher and more heavily raked. In games where edges can be more reliably realized, winning players often find themselves breaking even. That effectively forces players into formats where variance dominates outcomes. Even when edges exist, they may not be large enough to support organic bankroll growth.

This is not a failure of discipline but a structural change in the game itself and that reality leaves players in a bit of a bind. They may be demonstrably winning yet financially stagnant, unable to move up without exposing themselves to unacceptable risk. In that context, staking stops looking like a shortcut and starts looking like the only viable option.

Staking

Staking has come a long way. In the early days, backing arrangements were informal, poorly understood and often entered into with alarming naivety. Stakers and their ‘horses’ would shake hands, money would be sent and everyone crossed their fingers. Many players encountered the concept of make-up only after they were already neck-deep in it.

Today, staking is an industry. It has evolved into something much more professional and calculated. Modern stables offer capital but they also provide coaching, database analysis, structured study and peer reviews. In some cases, these resources can materially increase a player’s win rate, enough to justify the share of profits surrendered. The deal is no longer simply money for action, but infrastructure for development.

That does not mean that the cost is trivial. Giving up 30-50% of your profits still has a profound long-term consequence to your bottom line and many staked players build-up impressive resumés without building wealth. The key consideration though is whether such a deal accelerates your growth or merely rents out your talent at a discount.

Different Personalities, Different Paths

Another important part of the equation is how the player feels about playing on staked money rather than their own. Some players are naturally conservative, patient and comfortable playing below their perceived ability. These players are often well suited to grinding within a bankroll, even if the progress they make is slow and unglamorous. They value autonomy and accept delayed gratification. They pass the Marshmallow Test.

Others are constitutionally incapable of bankroll discipline. Left alone, they chase prestige games, high variance formats, and narratives that flatter the ego. For these ‘dreamers’, staking acts as an external constraint, enforcing limits that they cannot impose on themselves. Ironically, some of these players thrive while staked, only to implode once they regain independence.

I have personally seen this cycle repeat itself often enough to consider it a pattern. A player succeeds under a backer’s structure, builds a bankroll, goes solo, and promptly busts by playing games from which they were previously protected. They return to staking wiser but unchanged.

Over my time as a podcaster, this subject has come up a lot and, most recently, with Irish Open champion David Docherty, EPT Prague finalist Conor O’Driscoll and EPT Malta Super Highroller champion Alexandros Theologis. All three know both sides of this issue and, interestingly, all three had the same perspective - while it’s nice for your own bank balance to be immune to downswings, it is still mentally tough to be losing on staked money.

While different personalities might suit different paths, the reality for most winning players is that the pile of make-up still has to be worked off and it is disheartening to be so buried that winning the biggest game on your screen only makes a dent in that negative number.

FOMO And The Illusion Of Urgency

Perhaps the most corrosive force pushing players toward staking is the fear of missing out. Poker culture relentlessly showcases the biggest games, the biggest buy-ins and the biggest results. It creates the impression that if you are not participating, you are falling behind. This sense of urgency is largely illusory. Opportunities recur. Games rarely vanish overnight. In short, poker is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, a lot of players behave as though they are one missed series away from irrelevance, a belief which drives them toward staking deals that prioritise access over sustainability. They understand that playing big without a cushion will magnify their psychological and performative weaknesses but rather than play smaller, they find a backer. What looks like ambition is really impatience dressed up as confidence.

Poker players are accustomed to short term variance. They understand downswings over weeks or months. What many struggle with is planning over years. Few imagine themselves doing the same thing a decade from now and this short time horizon distorts decision making. Players prioritise immediate access over long term wealth creation and they underestimate the cumulative cost of profit sharing.

A Personal Choice

I want to stress that none of this is an argument against staking in principle. There is no universal answer to the ‘bankroll versus backed’ question. The correct choice depends on the individual’s temperament, discipline, opportunity and goals. It also depends on whether they value autonomy or stability, control or acceleration.

It would be a mistake to assume that there is a default path or to think that because something worked for others, it must work for you. Two doors. Two routes to success. Two roads diverging in a yellow wood. The fact that few are knocking on the ‘Build a Bankroll’ door speaks volumes for the current landscape for players on the way up.

The old advice of ‘never get staked’ no longer fits the modern game. In many cases, grinding up independently is simply not viable. Getting staked is not a compromise but a rational adaptation so what becomes vitally important is how they negotiate the terms of their deal. It should be done with the same care that they would apply to any major strategic decision. It must provide education, structure and either a pathway to independence or moving up.

David is a professional poker player, writer and commentator. He has written over 800 blogs and articles on poker; including news, opinion and strategy. He is the producer and host of the 3-time GPI Global Poker Award winning podcast ‘The Chip Race.’ In 2025, he was nominated for the GPI Global Poker Award for journalism. David was a brand ambassador for Unibet Poker from 2017 until 2025. He is currently a Team Pro ambassador for PokerStars.