Question about backing a player...

K

ktrepal85

Banned
This is what I know about backing:

-The backer bets all the money.
-If the player wins he gets 40% of the winnings(sometimes 50%).
-If the player loses the backer pays all of the losses.

Question:

Let's say 3 sets are played.
Set 1: Win
Set 2: Loss
Set 3: Loss

Overall the backer has lost money. Does the player still get 40% of the winnings from Set 1?
 
It depends..

ktrepal85 said:
This is what I know about backing:

-The backer bets all the money.
-If the player wins he gets 40% of the winnings(sometimes 50%).
-If the player loses the backer pays all of the losses.

Question:

Let's say 3 sets are played.
Set 1: Win
Set 2: Loss
Set 3: Loss

Overall the backer has lost money. Does the player still get 40% of the winnings from Set 1?
Click to expand...

typically that would be a no...but I guess it would depend on whether all the sets occurred during the same session.

If they occurred three days apart from each other then I would think that the 40% was already spent.

Again, there is no standard, it is just whatever the backer and the player agree to.

It's kind of the same thing as was addressed in the thread about sponsorships...The real answer is whatever the two parties agree to...

Jaden
 
unless it is arranged otherwise, I say yes.

I think it is most logical/ normal to settle up at the end of each session, but it could certainly be understood that backer/ player would settle up at some other point.
 
ktrepal85 said:
This is what I know about backing:

-The backer bets all the money.
-If the player wins he gets 40% of the winnings(sometimes 50%).
-If the player loses the backer pays all of the losses.

Question:

Let's say 3 sets are played.
Set 1: Win
Set 2: Loss
Set 3: Loss

Overall the backer has lost money. Does the player still get 40% of the winnings from Set 1?
Click to expand...

HELL NO!!!

What if they see-saw all night? The backer loses 100% on all loses and wins 60% on all wins. If they broke even the backer would be the only loser.

This can really be a problem. What if t you lose like $1000. backing a player and like two weeks later the guy comes back. Now your player wins $500.00 what do you do, you are still stuck $500.00. How long does this contract last? I feel in most cases you have to treat every session of play (The whole match or night), especially if they are like days or weeks apart, as a new event and pay the player what is agreed on unless you have some other deal worked out.
 
Last edited:
ktrepal85 said:
This is what I know about backing:

-The backer bets all the money.
-If the player wins he gets 40% of the winnings(sometimes 50%).
-If the player loses the backer pays all of the losses.

Question:

Let's say 3 sets are played.
Set 1: Win
Set 2: Loss
Set 3: Loss

Overall the backer has lost money. Does the player still get 40% of the winnings from Set 1?
Click to expand...

Yes. Unless there is an agreement it's a short term thing(ie 3 matches) then I would say no. But there's likely to be times that the player wins a few in a row. Ebbs of flows in everything.

Edit: This is based on the assumption of 3 different nights or matches.
 
Last edited:
ktrepal85 said:
This is what I know about backing:

-The backer bets all the money.
-If the player wins he gets 40% of the winnings(sometimes 50%).
-If the player loses the backer pays all of the losses.

Question:

Let's say 3 sets are played.
Set 1: Win
Set 2: Loss
Set 3: Loss

Overall the backer has lost money. Does the player still get 40% of the winnings from Set 1?
Click to expand...

No,and some backers play "makeups",which means the player has to make the $ back before he (the player) gets any $. John B.
 
Black-Balled said:
unless it is arranged otherwise, I say yes.

I think it is most logical/ normal to settle up at the end of each session, but it could certainly be understood that backer/ player would settle up at some other point.
Click to expand...
You can't go by each set, you have to treat it like a single event consisting of what ever number os sets they play at that time. In other words the whole match for the whole night.
 
Last edited:
Assuming all 3 sets were played in a row, the backer / player usually settle up at the end in which case the backer would have lost $ and the player gets nothing.

If they were 3 different nights then as mentioned above the player would have already gotten their cut after the first night's win and the 2 consecutive session would be handled individually.

(On a side note it was always 50/50 where I came from but it's whatever the 2 agree upon before the match)
 
On the road if the expenses are covered by the money guy...then.......at the end of that road trip, one day or one month or whenever it ends, is when the profit (after expenses ) are split by whatever agreement they had.
 
macguy said:
You can't go by each set, you have to treat it like a single event consisting of what ever number os sets they play at that time. In other words the whole match for the whole night.
Click to expand...

if the 3 sets were played in the same session/ day, then i agree, but what if the 3 sets occur over a week? a month? a year, etc...?
 
As far as backing as a business investment goes....it was not the normal reason the backer put up his money... it was the excitement, adrenaline rush of being in action....most backers can't play at a high level ........ in an interview with Ronnie Allen this came.up.during a $$high stakes one pocket match,.a real tough shot make it and win ...miss it and lose ...he looked over his shoulder and said to his backer "Here we go boys!!"
That's the thrill the backer was paying for
 
Black-Balled said:
unless it is arranged otherwise, I say yes.

I think it is most logical/ normal to settle up at the end of each session, but it could certainly be understood that backer/ player would settle up at some other point.
Click to expand...

He didn't say session, he said "set".

I don't personally back players or bet on pool for that matter, but if I did, the 40% would come out of whatever there was at the end of the agreed upon session. For example, if I was backing SVB to play Earl over a three night period, his winnings would come at the end of that three night period.

If you are going to do stuff like this, it has to be as fair as possible for both parties.
 
mmktierney said:
On the road if the expenses are covered by the money guy...then.......at the end of that road trip, one day or one month or whenever it ends, is when the profit (after expenses ) are split by whatever agreement they had.
Click to expand...

Agreed! That is the most fair way to do it. Also, this way the player has motivation to "show up" every night.
 
Black-Balled said:
if the 3 sets were played in the same session/ day, then i agree, but what if the 3 sets occur over a week? a month? a year, etc...?
Click to expand...

That is where you can have real problems. A player gets backed and loses. Day or two later he may play the same guy with a backer or even with his own money and he wins. The backer from the first day is going to resent it. He isn't owed anything really, but he still is not going to be happy.
 
mmktierney said:
As far as backing as a business investment goes....it was not the normal reason the backer put up his money... it was the excitement, adrenaline rush of being in action....most backers can't play at a high level ........ in an interview with Ronnie Allen this came.up.during a $$high stakes one pocket match,.a real tough shot make it and win ...miss it and lose ...he looked over his shoulder and said to his backer "Here we go boys!!"
That's the thrill the backer was paying for
Click to expand...
In most cases the backer is not some goof, they are actually opportunists.
I used to back guys all the time. Not because I am some kind of gambler but I know who is going to win.

Some guys just never have any money or for some reason like being backed. I may even be the one who made the game in the first place. When you own or work in the pool room and you know how everybody plays. It's not hard to pick the winner.
 
macguy said:
That is where you can have real problems. A player gets backed and loses. Day or two later he may play the same guy with a backer or even with his own money and he wins. The backer from the first day is going to resent it. He isn't owed anything really, but he still is not going to be happy.
Click to expand...

Truth...and players who do that will find themselves without future support too, won't they?

It is like any other business arrangement: gotta be clear-and in agreement- on all scenarios, before joining forces.
 
mantis99 said:
He didn't say session, he said "set".

I don't personally back players or bet on pool for that matter, but if I did, the 40% would come out of whatever there was at the end of the agreed upon session. For example, if I was backing SVB to play Earl over a three night period, his winnings would come at the end of that three night period.

If you are going to do stuff like this, it has to be as fair as possible for both parties.
Click to expand...

I read goodly, don't you worry bout that. Any inference that the 3 sets occur in one, two or three sessions is purely on the reader.

He said 3 sets were played, but failed to state the time frame in which they were played.

If I lose to efren today, then again in July, I don't think any backer would assume any responsibility for the 2nd set, unless there was some agreement in place beforehand.

And I aing going for a 3rd set, dammit!:yikes::bow-down::thud:
 
ktrepal85 said:
This is what I know about backing:

-The backer bets all the money.
-If the player wins he gets 40% of the winnings(sometimes 50%).
-If the player loses the backer pays all of the losses.

Question:

Let's say 3 sets are played.
Set 1: Win
Set 2: Loss
Set 3: Loss

Overall the backer has lost money. Does the player still get 40% of the winnings from Set 1?
Click to expand...

No he kept playing and made a loser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top