Backers for pool players!

[JAM]

That can be a two way street as well.

Many times the player may not want a backer, but really need one. For the players who engage a backer and settle for less than 50%, well, that is their problem and are probably just desperate.

On the other hand, if someone sets up the game or the action, he may be entitiled to at least half the action. The way I always looked at it is could I have won this without him? If no, he deserves it and I make the deal. If was something I could have done without him, I play on my money and then throw him 10-15%.

In recent times, I have heard of players getting staked by backers for a 20-percent cut. Personally -- and this is only MY opinion -- I think that stinks, but if the pool player accepts this arrangement, then so be it.

That said, I would rather see the pool player play on their own funds at all times and avoid utilizing the services of a stakehorse/backer.

Sometimes, though, there are stakes which may be too high for the pool player to afford. In this instance, the stakehorse/backer is a godsend.

But I can say this for sure. I have a strong feeling that the pool player who is getting staked/backed would produce a hell of a lot more effort and play a little bit harder for 50 percent of the monies than a 20-percent slice of the pie. In fact, I am 100-percent sure about that. :thumbup:

JAM

 

[ironman]

In recent times, I have heard of players getting staked by backers for a 20-percent cut. Personally -- and this is only MY opinion -- I think that stinks, but if the pool player accepts this arrangement, then so be it.

That said, I would rather see the pool player play on their own funds at all times and avoid utilizing the services of a stakehorse/backer.

Sometimes, though, there are stakes which may be too high for the pool player to afford. In this instance, the stakehorse/backer is a godsend.

But I can say this for sure. I have a strong feeling that the pool player who is getting staked/backed would produce a hell of a lot more effort and play a little bit harder for 50 percent of the monies than a 20-percent slice of the pie. In fact, I am 100-percent sure about that. :thumbup:

JAM

I certainly agree with you on this. I will just add that anyone trying to play stakehorse and offers something so pultry to the player is really sticking his neck out there and begging for whatever happens to him. I certainly don't condone dumping, but I don't like a theif either.

 

[corvette1340]

In recent times, I have heard of players getting staked by backers for a 20-percent cut. Personally -- and this is only MY opinion -- I think that stinks, but if the pool player accepts this arrangement, then so be it.

That said, I would rather see the pool player play on their own funds at all times and avoid utilizing the services of a stakehorse/backer.

Sometimes, though, there are stakes which may be too high for the pool player to afford. In this instance, the stakehorse/backer is a godsend.

But I can say this for sure. I have a strong feeling that the pool player who is getting staked/backed would produce a hell of a lot more effort and play a little bit harder for 50 percent of the monies than a 20-percent slice of the pie. In fact, I am 100-percent sure about that. :thumbup:

JAM

I agree with this 100%, and it's the reason I think staking someone is dumb. If a player will play much harder for 50% as oppose to 20% then it stands to reason that they will play much harder for 100% as oppose to 50%. If it's stealing and the player has no other way to get the stake then I can see it, but if it's gambling then why lay 2 to 1 odds?

 

[KoolKat9Lives]

staking guidelines

A related question... What is a typical arrangement with a backer? Let's assume a player has an opponent in mind and can get the matchup, and he gets someone to back him for the entire roll. If the player loses, the backer loses 100%. If the player wins, is it "standard" that they split the $?

If that's true, then the backer is giving 2:1 odds. In a fair fight, that sucks. I guess that's why backers choose their matches wisely. Any insight to guidelines on staking would be appreciated.

I had a situation where someone wanted 50% of my action on a potential match, but the match did not materialize. It made me uncomfortable as I don't know "staking ettiquette", I would hate to lose someone else's $, and I think it would have posed an unnecessary distraction. But, that's me and it would have been a new scenario and with some experience doing it, maybe it could be a good thing...

 

[JoeyA]

Backer's Remorse

That can be a two way street as well.

Many times the player may not want a backer, but really need one. For the players who engage a backer and settle for less than 50%, well, that is their problem and are probably just desperate.

I have it on good authority that 40% for the player everytime is a VERY GOOD DEAL for BOTH parties.

The way the smart players view the 40% number is: Sometimes backers get cold feet from losing more than they win and then simply refrain from backing other players. The 40% number makes it a little more palatable for the backer and the player has more potential backers willing to risk their cash because it is a slightly better deal for the backer than the 50%.

I know top players who LOVE this deal because they believe it is more fair for both parties which makes for a better long term relationship between player and backer. And for the record, smart players who take the 40% NEVER DUMP. It's like money in the bank. THEY NEVER TAKE A LOSS and always stay in action on somebody else's money.

THE smart PLAYER WHO ALWAYS ACCEPTS 40% OF THE WINNINGS and NEVER DUMPS seldom has trouble getting staked and even has backers regularly hustling up games for them.

Even when the backer loses with this split, they seldom have backer's remorse.

JoeyA

 

[sunnyday]

I think the main problem between backers and the players is that people seem to forget and not respect the "partnership" in the business venture. Yes, they are partners and one cannot make it without the other. Yes, there are plenty backers with money but no game or talent... Yes, there are plenty talent and "heart" but no money. But when they come together, they must give each other the due respect as "equal" partners. No one deserves more or less, because without the desired combination both are both just twirling their thumbs.

We all have seen backers mistreat their "horses" by cutting them less percentage of the pie or degrade them for loosing. But it's not a secrete that there are bad and conning horses "cut up" their own stakers by arranging the guaranteed money by bumping and getting the cut from the opponent, in this case the "new partner"...

However, it is what it is...taking a GAMBLE, so choose your partner wisely!

S.

 

[JAM]

I certainly agree with you on this. I will just add that anyone trying to play stakehorse and offers something so pultry to the player is really sticking his neck out there and begging for whatever happens to him. I certainly don't condone dumping, but I don't like a theif either.

Well, you definitely know what time of day it is.

After reading many of your writings, Ironman, on this forum, it is obvious that you are a veteran and understand pool etiquette. Not everybody gets "it," but you do. :smile:

Years ago, Keith and I went to the DCC, a long 15-hour drive from D.C. to Louisville. When we arrived, the housekeeping staff was behind, and our room, which was supposed to be reserved, was not ready yet. We sat in the lobby, the frigid cold lobby I might add, for 5 hours waiting, waiting, waiting. Thereafter, I became sick with a fever, hot and cold chills, as did Keith the next day. Our pool vacation was ruined,and it hadn't even started yet. :angry:

Towards the end of the week, Keith was feeling a little better, but he spent many days in bed with a high temperature. Time was running out for action. He didn't do well in the tournaments because he was sick the whole time he played.

So we mosey on down to the bar, and there's a whole room of action tables, just waiting for the taking. Keith's nostrils were wide open, I tell you.

Frankly, I was so disgusted at being sick all week that I just wanted to go home, but no, no, no, not my Keithly. He wanted to gamble. Some local Kentucky kid says he'll play bumps with Keith for a cool nickel, and Keith couldn't wait to step up to the plate.

Marcus Chamat was there jawjacking with Keith and me when the kid approached Keith, and so Marcus says he'll back Keith against the kid. I'm thinking that's fine and dandy with me. We were already stuck over $2,000 for the trip. I could sit back and watch the show. It was, of course, a 50/50 split between Marcus and Keith, like most players do with each other.

Everybody soon draws near to watch Keith and the youngster play, and the kid was no chump. In fact, he was a champ and was giving Keith a run for his money. Marcus didn't look so happy anymore sitting on the rail, and soon Keith was stuck two sets.

Keith didn't want to give up, but I was ready to go back to the room. I'd had enough of this nightmare. Keith comes up to me and says, "Give me $500." I said, "What?!" He says, "Look, I know I can beat this kid, and I gotta win Marcus' money back. Give me $500 now." I reached in the cavernous depths of my purse and pulled out $500 and wasn't liking it one bit. In fact, I wanted to just go up to the room right then and there, immediately, so Keith couldn't bite me again after he lost.

And what happened next was pure pool magic. Keith started dancing around the table on the tips of his toes, warping those bank shots in like they had eyes. Before I knew it, he not only had the kid stuck, but the kid was asking Keith for a spot.

When the monies were counted back in the our room, we split it 50/50 with Marcus. I don't think Keith would have been able to get out of that trap if he was getting 20 percent, and I sure as heck would have NEVER agreed to fork out the nickel.

Oh, yeah. Best part of the story, Marcus gave Keith a $200 tip for winning his money back and then some. :thumbup: