In a straight up match there are four people involved:
2x backers and 2x players
(even if one other or both players are backing themselves, for the sake of the argument that is seperate to actually wielding the cue)
Only the losing backer loses.
% when backing pool player
- Thread starter Bmaker12
- Start date
In a straight up match there are four people involved:
2x backers and 2x players
(even if one other or both players are backing themselves, for the sake of the argument that is seperate to actually wielding the cue)
Only the losing backer loses.
I agree. And the ultimate goal that is fairest for all parties should probably be that the backer and player each profit close to an equal amount of money into their pockets over time so that it isn't a lopsided relationship. The problem is that because of the losses that the backer has to take all by themselves, the split that accomplishes an equal share of profit over time is not usually anywhere close to a 50/50 split of the winnings. Because of the losses he incurs by himself, the backer usually has to get a far greater split of the winnings to pocket anywhere near what the player does (and to keep from actually losing money for that matter).
If the player wins 62.5% (nearly 2 out of 3) of the sets/sessions/trips (whichever the case) he is staked in, then 80/20 will have the player and backer earning and pocketing the same amount of money.
My post that you were responding to was solely in regards to the stock market and was in response to some factually incorrect things that CJ said about the stock market. We got off topic a bit. In pool matches you are correct of course, the only person that loses anything is the losing backer.
Being someone that backs players, I already knew this.
(I didn't mean to come across patronising to you as I know we are in agreement on this)
For the cheap seats joining this debate late, I refer people back to my post 88:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4727424&postcount=88
(Again, I do not mean you..)
It is rare indeed to be backing a player in a straight up match where your "horse" is better than a 62.5% chance - for all the reasons within that post 88.
I didn't take it that way and knew we basically agreed. I only posted to give the exact win percentage where both the player and backer pocket the same amount of money over time at that split. Of course when your player is favored to win by a little less than 62.5% of the time, his fair cut would be less than 20, and vice versa. As you pointed out, 80/20 is right in the ball park (slightly generous to the player actually) for most realistic match ups if you don't want a lopsided arrangement where one or the other of the backer or player is taking advantage of the other.
As I have said, it is my experience, it is rare that players match up for money when they are anything but around evenly matched (give or take 10/20%) because in order for the match to take place BOTH players must feel they can win the match - so unless (as a backer/player team) you are incredibly lucky and discover you have come across an endless supply of "marks" who have either wildly overestimated their own ability or just plain stupid, the odds must reflect accordingly.
Either they are genuinely evenly matched or weight must be given to get the match on.
It is that simple.
Yes, in the good old days when the color of money was on the cinema, video tapes were a new thing, before the internet the maybe players and their backers could roam the USA going from pool hall to pool hall hustling the local "top sticks" for their hard earned food and rent money - I'm sure a top player as in some of those named herein COULD get 50/50.
But today?
No chance...
Will 80/20 split make more matches happen?
You know I have been reading these posts and trying to keep my mouth shut and possibly learn something.
The 20% number that Poolplaya9 and voice of reason are referring to sounds a bit harsh for most Americans, I will agree. Harsh, in that the pool player/horse only gets 20% of the winnings and it sounds like a paltry sum when you say it. But if you look at their figures, it is hard to disagree with their thinking. It seems that voiceofReason has some experience in sponsoring players in tournaments and Poolplaya9 knows his math.
I wonder if two stakehorses started "sponsoring" players in two man tournaments, with the two horses only getting 20%? Could this catch on?
I mean, right now, we don't have much pool action going on. Ray Hansen of poolactiontv.com is doing pretty well with his FIGHT NIGHT PROMOTIONS but other than that, there isn't much left out there. We're fortunate here in the New Orleans area to have a LOT of people who like to gamble so I get to see a lot of action here.
I'm thinking that this MIGHT be a way to get some of the up and coming players into action and give them a chance to test themselves against others.
Two different pool room owners might want to alternate sending their "horse" to the other's pool room and staking their player for $1,000 sets. The horse has a chance to win $200 which is probably a good night's earnings for most up and coming players. The pool room owners get the opportunity to host one of the matches at their pool room. They stand a chance of making $800 on the match. It would bring interest to their establishment. It would eliminate the need for dumping.
This could be repeated over and over, with TOP PLAYERS, playing for larger sums of money earning as much as 1-2 thousand dollars a night and the events could be livestreamed.
Now maybe this wouldn't appeal to some of the players and they might cry heresy but they could continue to try and find a stakehorse who is willing to risk paying a larger percentage.
This thread has just got me thinking that an 80/20 split just might get players matching up with each other and with the stakehorses having no fear of being dumped as there would be no incentive to do so. The players would get a chance to play someone their own speed with no risk of out of pocket money. I often see TOP PLAYERS sitting around the pool room for weeks at a time without being in action of any kind and that's kind of sad when you think about it.
Pool room owners or everyday stakehorses could provide some additional incentives for their horses, such as covering some of their expenses involved in playing the match, such as food and drink and travel OR NOT.
I KNOW, how hard these TOP PLAYERS have had to work on perfecting their game but I just wonder if it is possible that an 80/20 split might be good for the sport.
Let me hear your thoughts pro or con.
Thanks,
JoeyA
You know I have been reading these posts and trying to keep my mouth shut and possibly learn something.
The 20% number that Poolplaya9 and voice of reason are referring to sounds a bit harsh for most Americans, I will agree. Harsh, in that the pool player/horse only gets 20% of the winnings and it sounds like a paltry sum when you say it. But if you look at their figures, it is hard to disagree with their thinking. It seems that voiceofReason has some experience in sponsoring players in tournaments and Poolplaya9 knows his math.
I wonder if two stakehorses started "sponsoring" players in two man tournaments, with the two horses only getting 20%? Could this catch on?
I mean, right now, we don't have much pool action going on. Ray Hansen of poolactiontv.com is doing pretty well with his FIGHT NIGHT PROMOTIONS but other than that, there isn't much left out there. We're fortunate here in the New Orleans area to have a LOT of people who like to gamble so I get to see a lot of action here.
I'm thinking that this MIGHT be a way to get some of the up and coming players into action and give them a chance to test themselves against others.
Two different pool room owners might want to alternate sending their "horse" to the other's pool room and staking their player for $1,000 sets. The horse has a chance to win $200 which is probably a good night's earnings for most up and coming players. The pool room owners get the opportunity to host one of the matches at their pool room. They stand a chance of making $800 on the match. It would bring interest to their establishment. It would eliminate the need for dumping.
This could be repeated over and over, with TOP PLAYERS, playing for larger sums of money earning as much as 1-2 thousand dollars a night and the events could be livestreamed.
Now maybe this wouldn't appeal to some of the players and they might cry heresy but they could continue to try and find a stakehorse who is willing to risk paying a larger percentage.
This thread has just got me thinking that an 80/20 split just might get players matching up with each other and with the stakehorses having no fear of being dumped as there would be no incentive to do so. The players would get a chance to play someone their own speed with no risk of out of pocket money. I often see TOP PLAYERS sitting around the pool room for weeks at a time without being in action of any kind and that's kind of sad when you think about it.
Pool room owners or everyday stakehorses could provide some additional incentives for their horses, such as covering some of their expenses involved in playing the match, such as food and drink and travel OR NOT.
I KNOW, how hard these TOP PLAYERS have had to work on perfecting their game but I just wonder if it is possible that an 80/20 split might be good for the sport.
Let me hear your thoughts pro or con.
Thanks,
JoeyA
JoeyA -
JAM really got pi$$ed, but I offered that 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
I have heard that guys got "taxed" pretty heavily when they won at The Rack, in Detroit, but gladly paid it because it enabled them to get action next time. Those that did win, also were able to win sizable amounts.
JAM and Keith said, that no pool player would play for only 20%, and if you did get one, he probably wasn't a top player. I don't know, but we have often seen on AZ high end players wanting staked or getting their entries paid, so that tells me players are available.
We all want jobs that pay $250K a year, but eventually most of us settle at something less. If we all said, we wont take a job that pays less than $250K, or I become a "dancing monkey" (JAMs words not mine), I think I might be a little thinner.
Ken (who makes less than $250K, and apparently is a "dancing monkey", and could stand to be a little thinner...
)
Last edited:
I was one of the heretics posting that even at 50/50 it's a bad deal for the backer unless he's doing it for the excitement, cameraderie, etc. In fairly even matches (excluding drunken hustles, etc.) it's just not a good business decision.
Two thoughts:
1) Probability. The percentages have to be adjusted to take into account the player's probability of winning. The higher the probability, the higher the player's payout (i.e. if a backer is being asked to take a bigger risk on a long shot, he has to get a bigger reward). IMHO 80/20 is a good ratio for a long shot. 75/25 or 70/30 for an even match; and 65/35 or 60/40 for a high probability winner.
2) Goal. The goal is that action matches become common again, so that backers are competing with each other to back a player -- that's how the payout percentage gets higher. "He's offering me 70/30 but I'll play for you at 60/40." More backers = higher payouts...but it takes time to develop a market. I get the impression that there are so few backers for mid-level players that they have to take any deal they can get, or not play. That would change if backers see the opportunity to score a big payday.
JoeyA -
JAM really got pi$$ed, but I offered that 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
I have heard that guys got "taxed" pretty heavily when they won at The Rack, in Detroit, but gladly paid it because it enabled them to get action next time. Those that did win, also were able to win sizable amounts.
JAM and Keith said, that no pool player would play for only 20%, and if you did get one, he probably wasn't a top player. I don't know, but we have often seen on AZ high end players wanting staked or getting their entries paid, so that tells me players are available.
We all want jobs that pay $250K a year, but eventually most of us settle at something less. If we all said, we wont take a job that pays less than $250K, or I become a "dancing monkey" (JAMs words not mine), I think I might be a little thinner.
Ken (who makes less than $250K, and apparently is a "dancing monkey", and could stand to be a little thinner...
Ken, it is obvious by your last paragraph that you need to dance more.
Jennie has a right to her opinion and I respect what she has to say. Sometimes we want certain things but if it is not equitable for all conerned, then it is most of the time, very short-lived.
I am just trying to look at this from a different perspective. I'm not sure if this is the way to go or not. I am going to bring this idea to my local pool room owner, who is too generous for his own good. He will most likely shoot this down but I think I am going to pursue this a bit more with others.
Anyway, this is just food for discussion, nothing more. The truth is, it is not likely to change to course of pool history but it could increase the amount of action matches around the pool rooms.
Maybe we need to start a STAKE HORSE'S FORUM for discussion purposes.
JoeyA
I am going to ask in our local pool rooms if there are any stake horses who want to experiment with this idea.
I think a thorough explanation of the equitable distribution of risks and rewards might generate some interest. We'll see. I suggest people in each locale, talk to the people who like to see matches played, then once they agree to do this type of staking, ask which horses would be interested. Maybe we could toughen up some of our players and create more interest in our sport.
The larger matches might qualify for Live Streaming and your FIGHT NIGHT matches have been AWESOME!
Good thread!
JoeyA
With respect, this is complete opposite of correct. The stake horse is usually a Pool fan who can afford to see his heros play. If the player will take a position that is more fair for both he will have a fan for much longer and a lot more action.
Ray
This is CORRECT!
For the most part, stake horses have made their money in other avenues and do the pool staking thing for the love of the game and entertainment but they just don't like being skinned in the process.
JoeyA
Interesting thread indeed...
Joey you're thinking in the right direction.
Without going into a history lecture, I did want to point out that (way) back in the day, hot players had managers, who were for all sakes and purposes the stakehorse, the maker of matches, and the ones who agreed on odds etc.
The slightly lesser but still action worthy players got backed by room owners, with the intent that the action be brought to their establishment. Everybody made money. Almost lol.
Joey you're thinking in the right direction.
Without going into a history lecture, I did want to point out that (way) back in the day, hot players had managers, who were for all sakes and purposes the stakehorse, the maker of matches, and the ones who agreed on odds etc.
The slightly lesser but still action worthy players got backed by room owners, with the intent that the action be brought to their establishment. Everybody made money. Almost lol.
I suggest that others of you around the country, talk with your local stake horses about this plan and see if there in interest with them to do this on a regular basis. I don't believe for a minute that I can't find two players who would not like to make some money for a few hours work. I could be wrong, but when you have two players saying they play close to each other but they're scared to play each other because it's so close, then maybe they would play for a smaller percentage, especially if they get to play more often.
You know it doesn't have to be for super large stakes either. If a stake horse wins small money, risking small money, he might even opt to sweeten the winner's wallet if he chooses to. Regardless, this is just an exercise in contemplating whether it would help to improve the action in pool rooms.
JoeyA