You got that right!
Do You Wish to Stake a Pro at Derby City?
- Thread starter Jerry Forsyth
- Start date
You got that right!
The last 2 players that I send a little to.
One player decided that it was a better idea to get drunk with the boys the night before his first match and missed it.
He burned a few guys.
The second player walked into a pool in Vegas wearing a funny suit and put the video on UTube.
The video was worth the money. The first player, not so much. If I had have known that would happen, I would have spent the money on myself.
One player decided that it was a better idea to get drunk with the boys the night before his first match and missed it.
He burned a few guys.
The second player walked into a pool in Vegas wearing a funny suit and put the video on UTube.
The video was worth the money. The first player, not so much. If I had have known that would happen, I would have spent the money on myself.
I also was on the same Backers Committees. :grin-square:
What person in their right mind would stake a player and not take ALL the expenses off the top and split 50/50 what's ever left over after that?
The Backer is taking all the risk..............
Now if the player is looking for cooperate sponsorship that is all together different.
The Backer is taking all the risk..............
Now if the player is looking for cooperate sponsorship that is all together different.
Good observation Joe. I got into circle track racing in the 60's. Only took me one season to find out that 2 guys was making money, 2 were breaking even, and the rest of us were losing our a$$. Surely not everyone that attends an event like Derby expects to win.
Not all pros dump
Esp the ones that packspray...!!
packspray!
This makes sense...otherwise the player is just asking for charity.
If a business sponsors a pool player...there could be different considerations.
One way this could work would be if a third party or someone like Greg Sullivan, would act as an escrow service. A stake horse could be sent an itemized bill for expenses such as entry fee, room cost, Per Diem, and such then they would tell this person what the % cut is or provide a contract that spells out how the money would be chopped up. In return the stake horse would me mailed a check directly from the tournament payout. No cash for the player to blow in the casino and no chasing them down for the split after they get their check. I understand this would be a large amount of work but it could take some of the chance of getting bit.
I would also put in a stipulation in the agreement or contract that there would be a penalty if the play didn't show for a match or stayed up all night or got loaded and couldn't play right for the tournament.
I would also put in a stipulation in the agreement or contract that there would be a penalty if the play didn't show for a match or stayed up all night or got loaded and couldn't play right for the tournament.
Lol.
This happens if your not there to babysit them.
The penalty is, YOU lose your dough. Pro moves on to the next stakehorse. It's been this way for 50 years.
interesting concept
Very interesting thread with many thoughtful views and insights.
A thought comes to mind.
First, having a structured process to facilitate the backing of pros in open events is - IMO - a great idea! I realize this is not what the op was suggesting, but perhaps it's something we should explore.
For each open tournament, we could have a online player "exchange" where people could bid on contracts to back players that are interested in obtaining backing for that tournament. The contracts would be uniform and consist of the winning bidder paying a fixed $ amount = (entry fee + designated expenses). In exchange he would receive a percentage of the player's winnings post expenses. Exactly how large a percentage would be determined by the bid itself, i.e. the winning bidder would be the person who offers the largest split to the player.
Clearly, the devil's in the details.
- Just because a player enters the "exchange" he is not guaranteed a bid. Obviously if a total goof enters the US open, nobody is going to bid on him even if they were to receive 100% of their winnings.
- All monies would flow directly from the winning bidder to the exchange. The exchange would then disperse entry fees directly to the tournament director. When the tournament is over, all tournament winnings (for backed players) would flow from the TD to the exchange, and finally the exchange would release payouts + expense money to the players and the backers. In the event that the player does not cash, he would simply receive the expense money. This would greatly reduce the risk of double dipping and other forms of malfeasance.
- Any player that enters the exchange would be required to participate as long as he receives a bid. For instance, a player could not back out of the contract simply because the winning bid left him with too small a percentage. Once you enter the exchange, you're committed.
- The more added money there is, the better this system will work. The more added prize money, the higher the chance of a player being backed. Said differently, if there is no added prize money, it will be almost impossible for anyone but an elite level player to get backed.
- This exchange creates a very powerful feedback loop. Imagine a situation where a player is being backed for 95% of his winnings. While one could argue that this player would have little incentive to play hard, I think the opposite would be true. If a player repeatedly performs under his abilities, or dumps, his future backing prospects would be greatly reduced. On the other hand, as a player wins more and more, his share of the winnings would naturally increase.
- You would obviously need the cooperation of the tournament; they would have to opt into utilizing the exchange. But I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to. It would only add players to their tournament.
- Somebody would have to run the exchange. This is by far the biggest hurdle. There are costs to running anything, and in a sport such as pool, there is very little cushion to support additional overhead. Perhaps a combination of a small contract fee (maybe 1% of the entry fee), tournament exchange fee (paid by the TD), along with donations (in kind and in $$) from places/people like AZB and its members, could go towards initially supporting the exchange?
...just a thought.
Very interesting thread with many thoughtful views and insights.
A thought comes to mind.
First, having a structured process to facilitate the backing of pros in open events is - IMO - a great idea! I realize this is not what the op was suggesting, but perhaps it's something we should explore.
For each open tournament, we could have a online player "exchange" where people could bid on contracts to back players that are interested in obtaining backing for that tournament. The contracts would be uniform and consist of the winning bidder paying a fixed $ amount = (entry fee + designated expenses). In exchange he would receive a percentage of the player's winnings post expenses. Exactly how large a percentage would be determined by the bid itself, i.e. the winning bidder would be the person who offers the largest split to the player.
Clearly, the devil's in the details.
- Just because a player enters the "exchange" he is not guaranteed a bid. Obviously if a total goof enters the US open, nobody is going to bid on him even if they were to receive 100% of their winnings.
- All monies would flow directly from the winning bidder to the exchange. The exchange would then disperse entry fees directly to the tournament director. When the tournament is over, all tournament winnings (for backed players) would flow from the TD to the exchange, and finally the exchange would release payouts + expense money to the players and the backers. In the event that the player does not cash, he would simply receive the expense money. This would greatly reduce the risk of double dipping and other forms of malfeasance.
- Any player that enters the exchange would be required to participate as long as he receives a bid. For instance, a player could not back out of the contract simply because the winning bid left him with too small a percentage. Once you enter the exchange, you're committed.
- The more added money there is, the better this system will work. The more added prize money, the higher the chance of a player being backed. Said differently, if there is no added prize money, it will be almost impossible for anyone but an elite level player to get backed.
- This exchange creates a very powerful feedback loop. Imagine a situation where a player is being backed for 95% of his winnings. While one could argue that this player would have little incentive to play hard, I think the opposite would be true. If a player repeatedly performs under his abilities, or dumps, his future backing prospects would be greatly reduced. On the other hand, as a player wins more and more, his share of the winnings would naturally increase.
- You would obviously need the cooperation of the tournament; they would have to opt into utilizing the exchange. But I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to. It would only add players to their tournament.
- Somebody would have to run the exchange. This is by far the biggest hurdle. There are costs to running anything, and in a sport such as pool, there is very little cushion to support additional overhead. Perhaps a combination of a small contract fee (maybe 1% of the entry fee), tournament exchange fee (paid by the TD), along with donations (in kind and in $$) from places/people like AZB and its members, could go towards initially supporting the exchange?
...just a thought.
It doesn't have to be that way. People in all kinds of professions have to sign a contract that spells out what's acceptable behavior. If a player wanted to be on the list for a stake horse on the exchange they would have to put up a cash bond for as long as they wanted to participate. If they screw up they forfeit the bond money to the stake horse they screwed. I understand this would be strange for pool players at first but it would be a step in a direction that could help them and the sport. It's the way things have been handled with other athletes and professionals for a long time.
I agree with Jumping Joe. If you can't afford to pay your own way in tourns don't beg someone to put you in. Have some pride !! Get your life together and make your own $$$.If your a full time pool player and your not a pro ( like all those players in N Orls trying to hustle each other every night. LMAO what a FU life). you are all idiots . And, if your a full time Pro, good luck with that also, but very very few of you are going to make a meger 30k a year. that's not even taking to account expenses of traveling. SVB Alex, Darren, Dennis O,Busty Efren and a few of the euro players are accually making a living worth talking about. The rest of you need to wake up because your prolly next to being broke. Take a talent like Stevie Moore, he's smart enough to know pool isn't going to cut it.
Is Stevie doing, or planning to do, something unrelated to pool?
Who are these mysterious Pros that beg, dump and have no pride?
Didn't Jerry Forsyth start this thread? I wouldn't exactly say he was begging or has no pride.....who's begging anyway?
Who are these mysterious Pros that beg, dump and have no pride?
Do they really exist?
Do they have names?
Are they like "Santa Claus" and ride flying pool tables from tournament to tournament?
Didn't Jerry Forsyth start this thread? I wouldn't exactly say he was begging or has no pride.....who's begging anyway?
Who are these mysterious Pros that beg, dump and have no pride?
Do they really exist?
Do they have names?
Are they like "Santa Claus" and ride flying pool tables from tournament to tournament?
character review is huge. I would not stake someone I did not trust or someone i suspect would be up all night drinking or on drugs. And if your an ass you dont deserve a stake anyway.
Definitely at least to the point that, what is the history of getting your part if successful.
In the past, some players would get staked by more than one stakehorse. they would usually solve the problem by not cashing in the tourney and hoping they could make some money gambling.