% when backing pool player

1Hole_Nut said:

the player should get no more than 25 % if you give him 30 % your giving him a jelly

Click to expand...

Yea, spend your life learning to play pool then offer a player 25%, you'll go far, I promise. Of course I'm kidding! You know nothing about gambling I assure you of that.

itsfroze said:

Have you ever gambled or been in a pool room, internet not counting???
The player in your example is getting $200 more than the total they won?

WILL YOU BACK ME ?

Click to expand...

You made the same mistake several others did and you are actually wrong. I explained it in post #118. You might want to make sure you are actually right before you start making fun of someone. It ends up making you look awful silly when it turns out you were actually the one that was clueless all along.

iba7467 said:

I respect all three of you, but the above can only work when staking a champion caliber player - and almost only in tournaments. Then, of course it works because you have the 75+% favorite to get the cash. If you stake a "fair" game you are going to lose and lose big.

For anyone not understanding the math, I can email you a spreadsheet or discuss further. For everyone just too lazy/uninterested to do the math, I'll summarize below (all figures assume $300 bet per match for simplicity and two matches per month).

50% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,800
Player wins $1,800

Click to expand...

I'm interested in hearing how the backer can possibly lose money when their stake horse wins just as many matches as they lose, assuming all bets are the same size.

Seems to me they would just break even.

Horsetrader said:

Well put, I agree totally!

Click to expand...

Thank you, Horsetrader.

What is incredulous about some of the posts in this thread is that some people actually believe a stakehorse goes into an action match with a calculator and begins to figure out how much he's going to win after the long haul if he puts this play in 10 times and only wins twice? This is crazy! Nobody does that. :grin-square:

You're in a room when action presents itself, and it's a spur-of-the-moment decision, unless it's a challenge match by appointment. Even then, when both sides work out the details, I have never in my life heard of any stakehorse or player for that matter doing the math and figuring the percentages for future match-ups. It's almost laughable to imagine this happening. :grin:

What we have here on this thread is the usual sentiment of AzBilliards' member who have very low opinions of pro players. They will never give credit to any pro player for his skills set on the pool table. It is as if this is a non-factor in pool. I mean, here we are on a pool forum, and many people seem to think a person who plays pool well doesn't mean squat in an action match.

The players who have the mental fortitude and mechanical skills to step up to the plate for big bucks are a rare commodity. As much as some of this pool forum's members would like to throw them under the bus as much as possible, they will be the very people standing in line at the big tournaments asking for photo ops, autographs, and hope to have a conversation with them.

Most pro players are very accommodating and enjoy pool peeps, but if they read this forum -- and some of them have -- they wouldn't think too highly of some of the posts written about them on this thread. It is a factor why there's such a scarcity of professional players represented on AzBilliards. While we''re talking, they're out there actually chalking and enjoying pool at the highest level.

Horsetrader said:

Yea, spend your life learning to play pool then offer a player 25%, you'll go far, I promise. Of course I'm kidding! You know nothing about gambling I assure you of that.

Click to expand...

Man, I like you, Horsetrader.

You do know what's happening. Thank goodness, this forum still has a few people who understand pool culture.

BeiberLvr said:

I'm interested in hearing how the backer can possibly lose money when their stake horse wins just as many matches as they lose, assuming all bets are the same size.

Seems to me they would just break even.

Click to expand...

On Friday you back your player with a 50/50 split against Bill for $1000. Your player wins. You get $500, and your player gets $500.

On Saturday your player and Bill match up again for $1000 with the same 50/50 split arrangement. This time Bill wins. You are now $500 loser as the backer. Your player won one and lost one and you are $500 loser. Your player is up $500 though.

Poolplaya9 said:

You made the same mistake several others did and you are actually wrong. I explained it in post #118. You might want to make sure you are actually right before you start making fun of someone. It ends up making you look awful silly when it turns out you were actually the one that was clueless all along.

Click to expand...

You're to clueless to know you're clueless, sounds like you have a clueless problem to me !

You never said in the OP, it was 20 separate sessions.

itsfroze said:

You never said in the OP, it was 20 separate sessions.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but I have never heard of any stakehorse or player engaging in action for the exact same amount for 20 sessions. Pool doesn't work that way. LOL

Ken_4fun said:

THE MOST I have heard about was 50/50 BEFORE expenses.

I have seen 50/50 after expenses done on low dollars, and the percentage to the player goes down as the dollars go up.

Seen 60/40 after expenses.

Heard the 70/30 after expenses.

Ken

Click to expand...

New York Blackie, me and Joe Villapando were invited to go on a road trip with a friend of mine, many years ago. My friend offered this:
His Car, his gas -NO upfront CHARGE TO PLAYERS.
His Hotel, - No upfront Charge to the players.
Food_ Out of his pocket (or his company's expense account)- No upfront Charge to the players.
Gambling money- 100% out of his pocket.

The Deal was he pays for everything and that comes off the top, then whatever is left over IF ANYTHING, is then split equally between all of us.

Blackie told my friend that he would only go if he got half of ALL OF HIS WINNINGS, none of his losers and no expenses off the top. (Blackie was uninvited after those demands.:grin

We didn't get much action, didn't cash in the tournament. The tournament was in Florida at a pool room called "hot shots" maybe......

I won $200 playing one pocket which we chopped up between the three of us. The stake horse realizing that we didn't spend much money decided that he wouldn't take anything off the top after all. :grin:

Fun trip, those many years ago. Thanks Bobby Landry. You're the best and still going strong.

JoeyA

P.S. In Blackie's favor: He seldom ever took a game that he wouldn't win at. I saw him lose VERY INFREQUENTLY in those many years he stayed here in New Orleans.

24 total matches in a year. Backer wins half the cash in half of the matches at a 50%/50% split (12*$300/2 = $1800), but loses 100% in half of the matches (-$300*12 = -$3600).

Backer net winnings = $1800 won -$3600 lost = -$1800

Key points are in bold.

Kelly

BeiberLvr said:

I'm interested in hearing how the backer can possibly lose money when their stake horse wins just as many matches as they lose, assuming all bets are the same size.

Seems to me they would just break even.

Click to expand...

Poolplaya9 said:

On Friday you back your player with a 50/50 split against Bill for $1000. Your player wins. You get $500, and your player gets $500.

On Saturday your player and Bill match up again for $1000 with the same 50/50 split arrangement. This time Bill wins. You are now $500 loser as the backer. Your player won one and lost one and you are $500 loser. Your player is up $500 though.

Click to expand...

Thanks

..........

itsfroze said:

You're to clueless to know you're clueless, sounds like you have a clueless problem to me !

You never said in the OP, it was 20 separate sessions.

Click to expand...

It was actually pretty clear, several of you just weren't thinking at the time. It happens to all of us. :thumbup:

But since you in particular are being snooty about it and trying to push the blame for your misunderstanding onto me instead of just admitting that you messed up and weren't thinking or just simply didn't have the ability to get it:

First, the math should have instantly told you exactly what I was talking about.

2nd, someone playing 20 sessions back to back is pretty unrealistic.

3rd, a gambling match where they don't settle up sometime before 20 whole sets have occurred at $1000 a piece is pretty unrealistic.

4th, I had mentioned the same scenario earlier in the thread and it was clear I was talking about separate sessions when I discussed it prior.

5th, when other people (like iba) had discussed the exact same scenarios prior to that post, he had also made it clear that it was separate sessions. Separate sessions had been mentioned several times by me and others for the same examples.

And last but not least, if they were back to back and it was settled up all at once at the end, why would I need to even mention that there were 20 sessions played at all? If that was the case it was really only just one session, and I would have stated it as one session for $2000 (which was the difference between the 11 wins and 9 losses if they were all settled at once in one session. Why would I possibly need to mention 20 sets? I would have just said they played and noted whoever won the $2000 that session. Twenty sets only specifically needed to be mentioned because it was material to the point that there were 20 separate sessions.

Yep, it's still you that is clueless.

JAM said:

Not only that, but I have never heard of any stakehorse or player engaging in action for the exact same amount for 20 sessions. Pool doesn't work that way. LOL

Click to expand...

Don't think he's ever been in a pool room so I forgive him for being clueless.


Now arrogant is a different story, all together. :smile:

JAM said:

Not only that, but I have never heard of any stakehorse or player engaging in action for the exact same amount for 20 sessions. Pool doesn't work that way. LOL

Click to expand...

If you knew anything about math you would know that that is the way you figure out what you actually win or lose on average for different ways of staking a match, whether only one match is played, or one million. Of course you have shown you don't have a clue how to match up, a clue how to properly stake a match with decent odds for yourself (in fact you backed matches you had no chance to make money at it and didn't even know), or a clue as to how much money you are actually making or losing over time. I could in fact have done it with differing gambling amounts in each session too, but the math get much, much more complicated that way. What would be the point in making it more complex when you couldn't even understand the most basic and simple math in the simple example?

Poolplaya9 said:

If you knew anything about math you would know that that is the way you figure out what you actually win or lose on average for different ways of staking a match, whether only one match is played, or one million. Of course you have shown you don't have a clue how to match up, a clue how to properly stake a match with decent odds for yourself (in fact you backed matches you had no chance to make money at it and didn't even know), or a clue as to how much money you are actually making or losing over time. I could in fact have done it with differing gambling amounts in each session too, but the math get much, much more complicated that way. What would be the point in making it more complex when you couldn't even understand the most basic and simple math in the simple example?

Click to expand...

I agree with itsfroze!

I'm joining this thread a little late in the game.

I trade for a living (futures and stocks). It's an odds & probablities profession.

All I can say is that anyone who backs a pool player can't be doing it to make money...at least not on a consistent basis. It must be for the fun, action, thrills, cameradarie, etc., because the odds that have been talked about here are ridiculous.

When your player wins you get 50%, and when he loses you lose 100%? He's got to win twice as often as he loses for you just to break even. If he can win twice as often as he loses, why would he need a backer? He should save up his own bankroll and keep 100% of the winnings.

I guess your player could acheive that kind of winning percentage by hustling fools and drunks; nothing wrong with that. But how many players can win twice as often as they lose in even-up matches?

JAM said:

What we have here on this thread is the usual sentiment of AzBilliards' member who have very low opinions of pro players. They will never give credit to any pro player for his skills set on the pool table. It is as if this is a non-factor in pool. I mean, here we are on a pool forum, and many people seem to think a person who plays pool well doesn't mean squat in an action match.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't think people on here discredit pool players for their ability. It's pretty clear that they have talent and knowledge that puts us bangers to shame. Strictly financially speaking, backing pool players with a 50/50 split (unless the player is the STRONG favorite) is a losing gamble in the long run. Like I said earlier, give up 2:1 flipping coins and you'll go broke. It's pretty simple logic. If a pool player feels insulted with less than 50%, I would personally suggest they pay with their own money. If they don't have their own money I would say they have themselves a problem.

Poolplaya9 said:

If you knew anything about math you would know that that is the way you figure out what you actually win or lose on average for different ways of staking a match, whether only one match is played, or one million. Of course you have shown you don't have a clue how to match up, a clue how to properly stake a match with decent odds for yourself (in fact you backed matches you had no chance to make money at it and didn't even know), or a clue as to how much money you are actually making or losing over time. I could in fact have done it with differing gambling amounts in each session too, but the math get much, much more complicated that way. What would be the point in making it more complex when you couldn't even understand the most basic and simple math in the simple example?

Click to expand...

I understand you were using the numbers as a simple example, not as actual amounts. Come on guys don't read more into it than that. Poolplaya, was trying to make a point that most missed.

Probably the best gambler of all time, Titanic Thompson, WOULD KNOW EXACTLY THE ODDS, and actually won often. For the smart ones, they were in WITH TITANIC, or they wouldn't play.

For those who don't want to face the math, then bumble through life. Jam, for those who do know understand the math, and make "spur of the moment decisions" do so at their own peril. Trust me, Titanic could make decisions in a moment, but he sure as hell knew the odds before he bet......

Ken

cleary said:

I certainly don't think people on here discredit pool players for their ability. It's pretty clear that they have talent and knowledge that puts us bangers to shame. Strictly financially speaking, backing pool players with a 50/50 split (unless the player is the STRONG favorite) is a losing gamble in the long run. Like I said earlier, give up 2:1 flipping coins and you'll go broke. It's pretty simple logic. If a pool player feels insulted with less than 50%, I would personally suggest they pay with their own money. If they don't have their own money I would say they have themselves a problem.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are reading different threads than I am, but I continue to read a barage of posts degrading and ridiculing pro pool players.

It's very simple. I would just love to get 40 top pool players in a line, go right on down the line, and have a backer come out and say, "Hey, I got you a game. I got you a game for a thousand. Do you want to play? " Naturally, the player says, "Yeah, I'll play." The backer says, "Okay. I'll put up the $1,000, and you'll get $200." How many players do you think you would get out of the 40 top players who would be willing to play for that $200? You might get that kind of deal for some shortstop who's never played for that kind of money, but most of the top players wouldn't budge. Some of them would get a good chuckle at the backer's proposition.

I would venture to guess the backer won't get many takers. In this regard, you are correct: The player should play with their own money.

JAM said:

I agree with itsfroze!

Click to expand...

If you understood the math, you would also understand how the same principals hold true no matter what amounts you are betting, no matter how many sessions you are betting, and regardless of the amounts wagered, and even if they changed every single session or set or game.

I took the time to explain something that most people don't know, including you and your boyfriend, that will save a lot of people a whole bunch of money, and make a lot of people a whole bunch of money. I did it because it is good info that will help a lot of people.

I get that you didn't get it, and that you didn't understand the math. No biggie, math isn't everybody's strong suit. But what I don't get I why you would argue about something that you didn't even get or comprehend? Why would you tell me I am wrong with what I explained when you didn't understand what I explained? You obviously just have a personal vendetta. When you don't understand something you either say nothing, or you say something like "well I didn't understand what you are saying so I can't really argue with it but I always went by another method that I always thought made sense to me." How can you say something is wrong when you don't understand what was said? It's asinine. There was simply no reason for your trolling.