CantWinAFlip

The Tasmu deal seems overly complicated? Incentives are aligned (ie the stakee play his best poker even when deep in makeup) as long as he has some portion (significant given circumstances) of his own action ? Ie stakee has 20% of action in cash game, 50% is on the "stake" and backer has remaining 30% . Even deep in makeup the stakee will play to his best efforts. The only concern here is misreporting. Stakee hourly can still be higher "on deal" than "off deal". Im confused as to the significance of the backer paying bb/100 (except in cases where stakee would reject the deal as hourly lower in higher game which rarely happens as ususally bb<100 decreases slower than the proportional stake increase)? This just seems to lower his profit for backer?

Also interesting topic is the question of when should stakee and backer profit chop. Backer wants no chops as this avoids deep makeup and stakee wants more chops to lock up profits and "free roll" backer. Maybe a tiered payout structure such as 40% profits for first 10 buy ins , 50% for next 10 , 60% for next and so on aligns incentives. Thoughts on this?

Apo what you describe above as a "demi bluff" is a "merge". Tipton proves in his books why this is BS, exploitably or not. A demi bluff is a bluff where we will be chopping a lot of the time and will try to force villain off a chop or get called by worse.