The Markup Problem
Walk into any poker room during a major tournament series and you'll hear a variation of this complaint: "He's selling at 1.4x — who's buying that?"
Markup is the single most misunderstood and most contentious number in poker staking. Get it wrong and you'll either leave money on the table (too low) or struggle to sell your action (too high).
This guide will give you the analytical framework to price your action correctly — from both sides of the deal.
What Markup Actually Means
When you sell poker action, you're not just selling a percentage of your winnings. You're selling expected value.
A player with a +20% ROI is expected to return $1.20 for every $1.00 invested over a large enough sample.
If that player sells action at 1.0x markup, the backer receives $1.20 in expected return for every $1.00 invested — a positive expectation deal.
If that player sells action at 1.2x markup, the backer pays $1.20 to receive $1.20 in expected return — exactly breakeven.
If that player sells action at 1.3x markup, the backer pays $1.30 to receive $1.20 in expected return — a negative expectation deal.
The simple rule: Markup should not exceed expected ROI. Anything above that is extracting value from the backer.
The Math in Practice
Let's build a concrete model.
A player wants backing for a $5,300 WSOP event. Their Sharkscope stats show +22% ROI over 800 tournaments at similar buy-in levels.
They decide to sell 50% of their action.
At 1.0x markup:
- Backer pays: $5,300 × 50% × 1.0 = $2,650
- Expected return: $2,650 × 1.22 = $3,233
- Backer edge: +22% on deployed capital
At 1.15x markup:
- Backer pays: $2,650 × 1.15 = $3,048
- Expected return: $3,233
- Backer edge: +6.1% on deployed capital
At 1.22x markup:
- Backer pays: $2,650 × 1.22 = $3,233
- Expected return: $3,233
- Backer edge: exactly 0%
At 1.30x markup:
- Backer pays: $2,650 × 1.30 = $3,445
- Expected return: $3,233
- Backer edge: -6.1% (negative expectation)
Why Players Charge Markup
Even a breakeven markup isn't charity. Here's what players offer that justifies a premium:
1. Skill contribution
The player's edge is the only reason the deal has positive expectation at all. Without their skill, it's a pure gamble at negative expected value (rake + structure).
2. Time and effort
Playing a multi-day tournament is work. Travel, preparation, mental energy — these aren't free.
3. Opportunity cost
A skilled player selling action could instead enter the tournament with their own roll. Markup compensates for tying up their own bankroll less.
4. Brand value
High-profile players with large social followings provide promotional value to their backers — visibility in the community, content creation, real-time updates.
What's a Fair Markup?
Here's a rough framework, based on independently verified ROI:
| Documented ROI | Reasonable Markup Range |
|---|---|
| 0–5% | 1.00–1.02x |
| 5–10% | 1.03–1.07x |
| 10–15% | 1.07–1.12x |
| 15–20% | 1.10–1.17x |
| 20–30% | 1.15–1.25x |
| 30%+ | 1.20–1.30x |
These are guidelines, not rules. A player with a small sample might reasonably charge lower to attract early backers. A player with exceptional live results and a massive following might command a small premium beyond their statistical edge.
The Discount Case
Some players sell action below what their stats justify.
When selling at a discount makes sense:
- You're new to the platform and want to build a track record
- You're playing outside your normal stakes and want to share the risk
- You're raising capital quickly for a series and value certainty over optimal price
- You're building relationships with specific high-value backers
A player discounting quality action attracts smart money fast.
Red Flags From the Backer's Side
When you're evaluating a package, watch for:
Markup with no stats
Any claim of positive ROI without independently verified numbers should be treated as zero. Unverified self-reporting is worthless.
Small sample + high markup
50 tournaments is not a meaningful sample for any format. 100 is barely anything. A player with 150 tournaments at "30% ROI" and 1.3x markup could easily be running hot, not running good.
Markup escalation without explanation
A player who consistently sold at 1.1x and suddenly lists at 1.25x for the same stakes should be able to explain why. New stats? Improved study? Or just testing what the market will bear?
No self-stake
100% action at any markup removes the player's personal downside. It's a structural misalignment.
The TourneyDonk Approach
TourneyDonk's verification pipeline connects to Sharkscope, HendonMob, and GGPoker to display independently sourced stats directly on player profiles.
When a player's claimed ROI matches their verified numbers, that's a trustworthy markup signal. When the gap between claimed and verified is large, you have your answer.
Price your action honestly. Back verified players at fair markups. That's how a healthy staking ecosystem works — and it's exactly what TourneyDonk is built to enable.