You people are nuts, lol. In a money match, I wouldn't go higher than 20% to the player - whomever they were pretty much...
% when backing pool player
- Thread starter Bmaker12
- Start date
You people are nuts, lol. In a money match, I wouldn't go higher than 20% to the player - whomever they were pretty much...
Good post! :smile:
Ignorant post. I probably know the pool world a wee bit better than you, Grasshopper. Seen all aspects of it: league play, amateur, recreational shooter, social shooter, action players, road agent, and tournament pro.
Once again, you're wrong. I have repeatedly stated that emotionless pro tournament soldier robots are hurting pool. Not many of them in America, thank goodness.
Attachments
If the stake horse is arranging the play I'd have to agree. Otherwise, if the player has a win rate of 2 to 1 he should beg, borrow, and perhaps steal, the money required to play. He would have an enormous % advantage. You could say a player's edge is heavily dependent upon his or his stake horse's ability to match up advantageously.
Last edited:
Spoken like someone who knows what time of day it is. Well said! :smile:
Several people in this thread pointed out how in anything but a relatively lopsided match up, a 50/50 split is a horrible deal for a stake horse and he will lose money. I went into even more detail spelling it out. Yet you seem to be supporting players getting a 50% cut in those circumstances. Please explain why you seem to be so insistent that players should get 50% of the winnings in tough match ups or anything even remotely in the vicinity of being at all a close game when the stake horse is absolutely positively guaranteed to lose money that way? How can you possibly see that as fair or reasonable?
Or do you agree that in ball park close match ups the player should get far less than 50% of the winnings so that the stake horse has a chance to win money also?
Because the player is doing all the work.
Regardless of what you feel each person's contribution to the equation is (and it is very debatable and truth is they probably equally need each other and equally contribute just in different ways), but regardless of what you feel their contributions are, any arrangement that guarantees one side will lose money is not an arrangement that can be seen as fair or reasonable by any sane and reasonable person who is not being biased. An arrangement that guarantees one side will lose money is not fair, equitable, or reasonable by any standard.
Essentially what you are saying is that a stake horse has an obligation to intentionally lose money so that a player has the opportunity to make more money.
Look, in my experience of meeting and getting to know stakehorses, most times it is a person who is a pool enthusiast and wants to be a part of the action. The only way they can be part of the action is to stake the player, unless they themselves can play pool proficiently enough to win the money. They can't play pool, but they have passion for pool and money, so this is a good way to get in on the action for them. It's a high more so than a business proposition, though if the money is won, that's the icing on the cake.
You also have pool enthusiasts who want to play a champion player and is willing to take the worst of it just to get in action. They know that they will probably lose, but they don't care about money as much as they do the high of playing pool on a higher level than the weekly $10 tournament.
Then you have your bookmakers. They make their living handicapping, not just pool. They usualy fly incognito, and nobody knows they book things other than pool. They have been known to step into the pool arena, but they're usually looking for the best odds before they invest their money, because that's what they do. They're stone-cold handicappers by trade.
Now let's go to the player, the one who's stepping into the ring, having to fade the stress of winning not only for themselves but for their backer. This is real stress and is a very real factor that comes into play during an action or challenge match. Any player on the face of the earth who has self-esteem is going to want 50 percent if they're going to step up to the plate. If they have an established relationship with a bookie stakehorse, one who stakes them in every action match, they may cut a deal less than 50 percent. But most players, again, who have self-esteem aren't going to accept a 20-percent cut in any action match.
Keith has been staked, staked himself, and also has the uncanny ability to build backers commitees when all else fails. He is an action man, not a tournament soldier. I'm going to have him weigh in on this thread when he wakes up and see what he thinks about getting 20 percent in an action match if he is taked.
Last edited:
hey there JAM,
your rationale is in contradiction to basic probability theory, at least as far as gambling is concerned, and not withstanding that, all athletes always do all the work, whether it be a small time pool player or a huge NFL slave...errrrr.....star, who rakes in a fraction of what the league and owner makes off his back
back to odds, a horse always takes other risks associated with backing a player, these skew the odds even further against him, we know what they are and I need not elaborate, let's say the player takes some risks too and presume all those factors cancel out, so we're back to basic probability again, I mention this though because in a real high stakes game these odds need to be gauged
personally if I can gauge a match at 50/50, I'd offer 25% for the player. I need a seriously increased return over what I can get gambling elsewhere, all real gamblers amateur and hardcore alike (not pool groupies and gambling degenarates) know this
pool players often wonder why they can't get staked more than 20-30%, sorry but 30 minutes of learning some basic match and you'll have your answer
having said all that, placing aside personal pride, playing risk free (as a player being staked) is beyond a victory, it's nearly money in the bank guaranteed 100% risk free rare both in gambling, and life....
your rationale is in contradiction to basic probability theory, at least as far as gambling is concerned, and not withstanding that, all athletes always do all the work, whether it be a small time pool player or a huge NFL slave...errrrr.....star, who rakes in a fraction of what the league and owner makes off his back
back to odds, a horse always takes other risks associated with backing a player, these skew the odds even further against him, we know what they are and I need not elaborate, let's say the player takes some risks too and presume all those factors cancel out, so we're back to basic probability again, I mention this though because in a real high stakes game these odds need to be gauged
personally if I can gauge a match at 50/50, I'd offer 25% for the player. I need a seriously increased return over what I can get gambling elsewhere, all real gamblers amateur and hardcore alike (not pool groupies and gambling degenarates) know this
pool players often wonder why they can't get staked more than 20-30%, sorry but 30 minutes of learning some basic match and you'll have your answer
having said all that, placing aside personal pride, playing risk free (as a player being staked) is beyond a victory, it's nearly money in the bank guaranteed 100% risk free rare both in gambling, and life....
Last edited:
I would say depends on how much are they playing for. I think if its a random bet 50/50. But if it there is a regular relationship that should be discussed in great detail in advance. And the percentage should fluxuate depending on how high the bet, and skill level of opponent. Risk factor... I also think the players previous matches should have a play in deciding cut.. If I ever get good enough to have backer i would play off his generosity. No cut just whatever he feels i deserve. if i was a backer i would pay player based on how much i sweat..
Thank goodness, people with your logic are in the minority. Just like a mighty pool champion, it takes guts for a stakehorse to step up to the plate. When you have two people willing to gamble, you're in for a genuine action match.
Today, people are looking to steal or to lock. That's not the pool action I'm familiar with, nor do I care to be familiar with.
So while people are adding up the numbers, weighing in the percentages, sitting in a corner debating on whether to jump into deep end without a life preserver, I'm going to be in the middle of the action pit enjoying pool being played at the highest level with like-minded folks. We're in it to win it each and every time.
here's a hypothetical....... if the pool world was not such a microcosm of society,
let's say all private matches were known to the general public, and the public could go online and stake a player on a 50/50 match and receive a 75% return
players....would be MILLIONAIRES:wink:
let's say all private matches were known to the general public, and the public could go online and stake a player on a 50/50 match and receive a 75% return
players....would be MILLIONAIRES:wink:
sorry but people with YOUR logic are in the minority, I'll digress, you're inserting personal feelings into matters that are factual i.e. basic odds and probability
again, your misunderstanding of these basic math concepts are essentially the reason players do not get staked, see my post above
off to work I go
cheers
But let's not forget that your logic is only this ---> HERE
I'm not in the minority. I've seen action up front and close many times. Fortunate to understand the mechanics of action thoroughly, more so than the majority of the number-crunchers on this thread.
Or let's say casinos could open up shop and allow gamblers a place to get action as long as they take the worst of it... they too would be millionaires. Oh wait... that is the case..
Most Stakehorses are not in it for the long term profit imo. Most enjoy the action, entertainment, and ability to help out one of their friends.
Last edited:
Ken, you seem to always think pool players are broke dogs. They're not all broke dogs. Some of them have a great deal of pride and get by. It's not the life of the rich and famous, but they're hanging in there. It's getting old seeing people thumb their nose at them as if they're scum of the earth.
It's expensive to shoot pool competitively on the tournament trail. Those that do choose that route in life as tournament soldiers, they take the worst of it in every venue they step foot in, but they keep coming back.
Most stakehorses are just as passionate about pool as the player. It's a good marriage for action.
Last edited: