it is technically a real thing but very rare, and there is plenty of historical data out there that shows those who have less skin in the game are at a far greater risk of default by a factor of 5-7x.

Yes, we pay a fee for the coaching, that many of us feel is fully worth the cost, maybe having "skin-in-game" makes us more likely to take action and be excited about the company, but that is for you to decide. 

They wouldn't have any skin in the game and could just walk away and leave you high and dry if things go wrong with the property.

Again, other might feel differently here.b) Skin in the game: as a conservative investor, I understand that the dirty secret of industries that the waterfall compensation is in the line with me and incentivizes sponsors to take more risk.

With this scenario we both have skin in the game: His work and my materials.

I have not reviewed BAM's fees but it's likely based on their representation of UNDER 10% "skin in the game" that most of their "investment" is taken from fees deducted from the money gamblers place with them and counted as equity in the deal; this is a common practice in the syndication industry. 

Sometimes they don’t like that because you don’t have skin in the game.As for advantages to the seller - are you going to pay them more for the property, that would be a perk that I offer in addition to making a little extra on interest for the duration of the loan.

One of my favorite authors, Nicholas Nassim Taleb, sold me on the concept of Skin in the Game and holding all pundits accountable for prior predictions, myself included. 

They have more skin in the game then you do.Make sure you get clear title.

They have more skin in the game then you do.Make sure you get clear title.