backers cut

cuesmith said:
Having spent a good many years as a backer, I can say IT DEPENDS! It depends on how high the bet is, how good of a game you think you have and how much you trust the

player you're backing. When Gary and I went on the road, we counted my bank roll when we left town and again when we returned. We then split whatever we were up 50/50

after taking the expenses off the top...
Click to expand...

See, this is an interesting arrangement because in this case the player (Gary) IS taking a risk along with you and therefore a 50/50 split seems more reasonable (plus as you said, he was your best friend). Sounds like the partnership was pretty successful. :wink:

In the typical scenario where the player has no risk, 60/40 in the backer's favor is probably more reasonable. I'm not saying that the player doesn't deserve 50% for his contribution, just that if it doesn't pencil out for the backers no game will be made. Assuming both players are being backed on a 50/50 arrangement, then both backers must perceive the match-up to be 2 to 1 in their favor for the game to be made. If the return for the backers is better it becomes easier to make a game.
 
mlalum said:
50-50 is not the least bit fair or does it make sense unless it's a mortal lock cinch. Money is and always will be king. 50-50 is pool player propaganda.
Click to expand...

i don't agree here at all. Some backers are just as ruthless and most try to make the players out to be. They catch some chimp at a tournament and negotiate some game and then catch some player who is down and out and just trying to get home and try and give him some Pultry % and wanting him to play his ass off for little or nothing, It happens and happens often.
Being a backer is a choice and not some obligation. Everyone has a chioce and decision to make.
Nothing is more brutal than playing your ass off, winning $2000 and some fat ass trying to give you say 3-$400 for playing. people like this are begging to be dumped and eventually will be.
 
i don't see why 60-40 is a problem...if you lose, your not losing anything, the backer is...he should get a little more investment on his moolah
 
Backers cut

mlalum said:
50-50 is not the least bit fair or does it make sense unless it's a mortal lock cinch. Money is and always will be king. 50-50 is pool player propaganda.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is, the farther you get away from 50/50 with the guy you are backing the easier it will be for him to dump you. If anyone thinks giving a player 12% is a great idea let us know how that works out for you.
 
mlalum said:
50-50 is not the least bit fair or does it make sense unless it's a mortal lock cinch. Money is and always will be king. 50-50 is pool player propaganda.
Click to expand...

Finally, someone who actually understands a little math. If you're offering your hourse 50%, then he better be GUARANTEED to beat his opponent AT LEAST 2 out of 3 times. You're risking 2 to win 1 . . . Not many match-ups are that lop-sided, which is why 50-50 is usually a very bad bet for the backer. Those who say otherwise either don't understand the math, or are the players being backed.

If you're backing players, you're not really doing it as an investment, you're doing it more for entertainment value.
 
Last edited:
Mr Hoppe said:
Finally, someone who actually understands a little math. If you're offering your hourse 50%, then he better be GUARANTEED to beat his opponent AT LEAST 2 out of 3 times. You're risking 2 to win 1 . . . Not many match-ups are that lop-sided, which is why 50-50 is usually a very bad bet for the backer. Those who say otherwise either don't understand the math, or are the players being backed.

If you're backing players, you're not really doing it as an investment, you're doing it more for entertainment value.
Click to expand...

You are so right. Only top, top player's should get 50 - 50.
 
If I could get someone to fly me, pay meals, room etc, I would give them 100%! It would be great to have a free vacation playing pool. Rather than cut, I would like to know how people even get backers.
 
Mr Hoppe said:
Finally, someone who actually understands a little math. If you're offering your hourse 50%, then he better be GUARANTEED to beat his opponent AT LEAST 2 out of 3 times. You're risking 2 to win 1 . . . Not many match-ups are that lop-sided, which is why 50-50 is usually a very bad bet for the backer. Those who say otherwise either don't understand the math, or are the players being backed.

If you're backing players, you're not really doing it as an investment, you're doing it more for entertainment value.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. I wouldn't back anyone for anything less than 70/30. Even at 60/40 for $1000 a set, if we win two and lose one, I'm up $200 and the player is up $800. If we win one and lose two, I'm down $1400 and the player is up $400. Giving up 50/50 makes it even worse. I think 80/20 is the most fair scenario, as it is a freeroll for the player, but 70/30 is acceptable.
 
brandoncook26 said:
You're absolutely correct. I wouldn't back anyone for anything less than 70/30. Even at 60/40 for $1000 a set, if we win two and lose one, I'm up $200 and the player is up $800. If we win one and lose two, I'm down $1400 and the player is up $400. Giving up 50/50 makes it even worse. I think 80/20 is the most fair scenario, as it is a freeroll for the player, but 70/30 is acceptable.
Click to expand...

When I first started on here in 06, I thought 60/40 meant that someone covered 60% of the bet. 1000 bet, I got 400 and backer 600. If someone wanted to bet on my matches and throw me a bean, great! Sign me up!
 
Jason Robichaud said:
When I first started on here in 06, I thought 60/40 meant that someone covered 60% of the bet. 1000 bet, I got 400 and backer 600. If someone wanted to bet on my matches and throw me a bean, great! Sign me up!
Click to expand...

Like I explained in post #12, every situation is different and has to be handled accordingly.
 
brandoncook26 said:
You're absolutely correct. I wouldn't back anyone for anything less than 70/30. Even at 60/40 for $1000 a set, if we win two and lose one, I'm up $200 and the player is up $800. If we win one and lose two, I'm down $1400 and the player is up $400. Giving up 50/50 makes it even worse. I think 80/20 is the most fair scenario, as it is a freeroll for the player, but 70/30 is acceptable.
Click to expand...

I would think the percentage would apply to the whole session, not set by set. So in your example, the net over three sets is +$1,000 and so 60/40 would pay $600 to the backer and $400 to the player...

But that's just a guess.

Cory
 
Cory in DC said:
I would think the percentage would apply to the whole session, not set by set. So in your example, the net over three sets is +$1,000 and so 60/40 would pay $600 to the backer and $400 to the player...

But that's just a guess.

Cory
Click to expand...

But this could be three different players at different times. It was just a simple example and could get more complicated depending on the situation. As Sherm said, it all depends. If you can find a player to get in tight with that you can trust, the split can be more even.
 
Cory in DC said:
I would think the percentage would apply to the whole session, not set by set. So in your example, the net over three sets is +$1,000 and so 60/40 would pay $600 to the backer and $400 to the player...

But that's just a guess.

Cory
Click to expand...

Usually the backer eats 100% of the loss, which is why Brandon calculated it that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top