My personal position is as I said earlier: we'll generally play for the lion's share of the door money, accompanied by a modest guarantee. The guarantee is useful, it ensures that the organisers actually do a bit of legwork, postering, press, mailouts etc. Believe me, I have encountered places that don't!
    What does irritate me, and this has happened often, is that a venue organiser will plead hard luck and low audiences, and talk us into accepting a low fixed fee. Then, we fund they make a profit, and tell us, without any shame, that they are going to use that profit to subsidise another performer they intend to pay a higher fee to. That is not the market operating, that is robbing the generous poor to help the greedy rich. Which is why I tend to go for the door split option generally, I don't like being pick-pocketed. And believe me, it is even more irritating if the performer who is going to get the higher fee in fact has a day-job as well, because I don't.
   I am more than happy if a venue uses a bit of profit to subsidise an up and coming artist to get a reasonable fee. I am more than happy if they use a bit of profit to help an interesting overseas act to make a tour economic.But I don't like people making a profit on our performance(ie paying us less than we are worth) in order to subsidise a higher fee for someone else(ie paying them more than they are worth) so that the other act ends up with more than we do. That is just cock-eyed, and yet a lot of people are prepared to do it.
   But I absolutely don't think professionals are worth more than semi-professionals, or any nonsense like that. Basically, performing comes down to bums on seats, and that's how it is. Unless of course, your cousin works for the Arts Council or is a philanthropophic millionaire, when different considerations apply, and the gravy train starts to chug out of the station.