Putting someone in a tournament ???

Split the cash before or after taking out tourn. fee's ?

  • Backer gets entry back then split !

    Votes: 84 77.8%

  • Split the winnings 50/50 !

    Votes: 24 22.2%
  • Total voters
    108
iowa_player

iowa_player

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This topic came up last night at the pool hall just wondering
what your opinion is on this ?

If you put someone in a touriment and they win do you
split the winnings 50/50 or does the backer get the entry
fee's back then split whats left ?
 
Backer gets the post money. Then they split the Winnings on an agreed upon split. Overall if the Horse gets 50% of the purse then they still came out ahead winnings wise. If they 50-50 split the winnings after the post is recouped then the backer will come out ahead.

Black Cat :cool:
 
Anytime I've ever put someone in a tourny it been a 50/50 split without me gettign the entry fee back. That's just the way it is, I dont ever think it even been discussed between me and the player, it's just a givin. BUT, I dont do it often so maybe I dont know how it usually is ???
 
A hanger if ever there was one.

The player is lucky to get 50% of anything. He/She/It/Thing should only get whatever percentage of the profit, buyin should be returned to the stake horse first. Otherwise it would be like paying the broke and or heartless He/She/It/Thing to play.
 
Like any other form of gambling, you gotta stipulate ahead of time. No assumptions.

Personally the way I see it is... whether I win or lose a tournament,
do they ever give me back my entry fee?
Nope.

So if the entry fee is gone forever once it leaves my hands, why should an entry fee
return to the backer once it leaves his hands? It's a bet, not a personal loan.
 
The backer should absolutely get the entry fee back. At least that is what I would agree upon. After that, however the split is concerned will usually depend on the situation. It may not always be 50/50.
 
I don't quite get the incentives behind staking someone for an amateur tournament. If I were to risk my money on an entry fee, I would want far more than 50% of the purse in order to outweigh the risk. The risk profile is different for top pros who are expected to place highly in a given field.
 
Player normally gets 50% of the profit.. Which is of course after monies paid to play are deducted..
 
I honestly can say from the results of this poll that most people that picked the first option have never been backed by a stakehorse or backed a player. 50/50 after entry fees are paid back?? I hope that's a joke :rolleyes:
 
RunoutJJ said:
I honestly can say from the results of this poll that most people that picked the first option have never been backed by a stakehorse or backed a player. 50/50 after entry fees are paid back?? I hope that's a joke :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not a joke to 80% of the poll takers.. YMMV
 
MOJOE said:
Not a joke to 80% of the poll takers.. YMMV
Click to expand...


Anybody that tried to offer my a deal (if that's what you call it) like that I would tell them to shove off and put myself in!! Pift!! Never heard of such a thing. So you mean to tell me that you deserve the entry (or said bet) back after you earn your winnings?? Bunch of Horseshite!!

So lets say the entry fee is $100 and the player wins $300. You get the $100+$150 spilt and the player gets $50 messly bucks for charging through a tough bracket to win you money?? Yeah aint happening... I think that since you're only putting up the cash and the other guy does the work why should you be entitled to get the lions share?? You should also know that backing players is not a profitable aspect or situation. Unless you honestly feel like your player snaps the whole event off then don't bother... Its a waste of time and money.

Say you back a player in a gambling session. What would your spilt be then?? Would you take 70-30 like Bert or would it be spilt 50/50. I think we all know the answer to that!! So whats the difference about entry fees and backing a player in a heads up session?? Not much other then the player has to play longer and harder to make any kind of money in a tournament situation.

These economics are pretty basic and like I said before... I think most that voted the first option don't gamble or play in tournaments!! HELL... If this really is the standard im gonna be a bonafide stakehourse and rob my players!! Hell YEAH!!! Sounds like being a creep is profitable so Im gonna go for it.

Ive heard some corkers but this one takes the cupie doll :speechless:
 
If they both agree before hand this should never be an issue.

I think the backer is entitled to recoup the entry fee's. and the split the winnings. As stated above, the profit is what should be split.

I also think that after the agreement is made the backer should sit back and shut up. (in a tournament) There's nothing worse than mouthy money.
 
vapoolplayer said:
And this attitude is one of the reasons there aren't as many people willing to stake players these days.

Unless you are consistently backing a stone cold world beater, the backer will lose money in the long run if he doesn't recoup expenses before splitting profits.

I will not back pool players.....period. They are typically poor gamblers, have terrible logic, are are in general a pain in the ass to deal with. Obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule, I don't deal with staking pool.

Poker on the other hand, if I know someone is a good player and has just run across a bit of bad variance, I will stake them. However, they do not make profit until I make a profit.

If I put them in a game for 500 tonight and they lose, then put them in a game for 500 tomorrow and they leave the game with 1000 total.....guess what.....there is NO profit from the past two days to split up. I would be a total idiot to take 1000 risk over two days, only to take a 250 loss and the stake player takes a 250 win.

I've never understood this attitude from pool players. They are the ones that are in need of the stake money, the person doing the staking is the one that should be in control of how the money gets distributed. Obviously it should be discussed beforehand.

It makes absolutly no sense to stake anyone at anything and they get to basically "free roll" on your money each night. I've personally seen this happen.....player X plays three different nights on stake horse Y's money. They lose 1k on first night, 3k on second night, then win 3k on third night. Now player X expects 1500........that's complete bullshit. Even if the stake horse pays the player 0$, he is still stuck 1k.....if he pays 1500, he's now stuck 2500 and the player is up 1500 while taking NO risk.

Again, unless you are consistently backing the best in the world, you will come out a loser by paying out before current and past expenses are recouped. This is another one of the nails that has been driven into pool's coffin.

For players who disagree with this approach, answer these simple questions......why should somoene back you and pay you out each night like everything starts over? What do you bring to the table that puts you in spot to free roll on my money? I would be better off side betting on your game in that case. There is a reason you need my money, and not the other way around. So why should I take 100% of the risk to make much less than 50%?
Click to expand...



Thats why its called gambling my friend. Nobody owes you shite if you lose on a bet. You have to know that going into this that if you lose then you lose simple as that. IF you win then you should spilt. So you mean to tell me you are loan sharking instead of gambling?? WHOOOO!!! Because that's what this ^^^ sounds like to me.

I agree with you on the fact that I dont back players and I back myself. Then I don't have to whack up a stack with a horsefaced jackass after its all said and done!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top