% when backing pool player

[Johnnyt]

My scariest experience involving backing was walking into a restaurant
in Southern Pines NC a few years ago. Buddy Hall and Mike Lebron and
another guy who was even bigger were jut sitting down.
Buddy calls over and they were gonna eat and they were looking for a backer.


I'd rather stake SC5 against SVB.....

LMAO...very good one. JT

 

[xplor]

Back betting a pool player is not the only way to go. You can also play the rail and if you use the Kelly formula make money despite the outcome. Back betting a pool player is like owning a race horse. You have to take out the room and board from your winnings.

 

[Old Nine Baller]

Does anybody know the usual cut a player gets when he is backed in money match or tournament? How much does the player get normally?

Ordinarily, when gambling, the split is 50/50. Anything less and it may interfere with the player's aim.

For tournaments, a 50/50 split after expenses is the norm I've seen.

ONB

 

[voiceofreason]

I don't feel I can add anything more to this thread.. However.. I'm going to buy some popcorn and register anyway...

 

[bdorman]

I'm trying to look at this from a player's perspective. Using the US Open 9-ball tournament as an example simply because I was able to find payout info for it.

Let's assume the cost of participating in the tournament (i.e. the expenses) is $1,500 ($500 entry fee, $1,000 travel, hotel and meals). I have a reasonable expectation (better than 50%) of placing in the 9th-12th bracket and winning $2,000. I have a narrow chance of placing in the 5th-6th bracket and winning $4,000. Likewise I have a narrow chance of not finishing in-the-money.

Let's also assume I can win an equal amount in the action rooms at an additional risk of $500. Total "At Risk Expenses" are now $2,000.

However, I don't have $2,000 that I'm either willing or able to risk.

A backer offers to back me 100% (i.e. pay all expenses) and split winnings 50/50 after expenses.
If I lose, I lose no money.
If I place 9th-12th I get $1,000 ($2K tournament + $2K action - $2K expenses x .50)

If the back offers me 40/60 (me/him):
If I lose, I lose no money.
If I place 9th-12th I get $800 ($2K tournament + $2K action - $2K expenses x .40)

If the back offers me 25/75 (me/him):
If I lose, I lose no money.
If I place 9th-12th I get $500 ($2K tournament + $2K action - $2K expenses x .25)

If I place in the 5th-6th bracket all the winnings above are doubled.

If I choose not to participate I stay home and get $0.

How do I lose by accepting any of the backer's offers?

 

[spktur]

The truth is too many players consider themselves stars and are looking for a free ride. Someone mentioned backers loaning them money, you don't loan money to a player, anything you give them is a gift. I've never had one pay one back yet. As far as the investment quality of backing a player keep in mind a bookie will make a fine living taking 6 to 5 and letting you pick the side of the game you want. If you back a player and give up 2 to 1 on the money you are simply donating to the match.

 

[JoeyA]

It's a FREE ROLL!

I wasn't going to say this but I may as well pile on. It's really just a pet peeve of mine. I can't stand it when a player says "It's a free roll!" when referring to someone willing to stake them. To me that's a despicable statement. I won't go into the reasons why I think it is despicable and maybe some of you don't think the way I do.

Maybe some of you can change my mind about how I view those words but I really dislike players using that term, whether I am staking them or someone else is staking them.

JoeyA

 

[backplaying]

There are few if any big stake horses left in match ups. Most packed it in years ago because of all the dumping going on. I would never stake a pro I didn't know real well W/O them having at least 25% of their own bread on the line. JT

The absolute number one thing that killed the stake horse's. The sad part is, its accepted among many road players as just part of the job. If people would shun the dumpers, you would see gambling like you did in the 70's and 80's. I know many think some jerk stake horse's deserve to be dumped, but it's just an excuse to justify it. I can say in the 70's and 80's it was spit 50/50 among a road team, even if one is the stake horse. I can understand the stake horse's business point of view in laying 2 to 1 on the money with a 50/50 split. I know some players who would book very few losers and made their stake horse a lot of cash over the years.

 

[Poolplaya9]

After thinking about it some more, and looking at the math a little more carefully, I've come to two conclusions.

1. 50/50 splits (on the profit) are okay if it's a short term deal. So if you want to back a player in one big set, then 50/50 is the fair way to handle the split.

2. If you're entering into a long term deal with a player, then 50/50 is as good as lighting money on fire. Reason being is that every time your player loses (which will happen no matter how good the horse), you eat the entire bet, and when he wins you only get a percentage. In other words, his wins might not always make up for your losses.

You can obviously make up for losses by betting more, but then you risk losing even more money if your horse doesn't win.

It sounds like you are genuinely interested in understanding how this all works so I wanted to point out where I think you are still misunderstanding how the odds work a bit. Your conclusion 2 is pretty accurate. It is conclusion 1 that isn't.

The odds are the odds, and how good or bad they are, or how fair or unfair they are, never changes with how many times you run the game. If they are bad odds, or unfair odds, they are bad or unfair whether you run it once, or run it a million times. Essentially what you said with your two statements was these are horrible odds, and you have absolutely zero chance to outrun them in the long run, but if you only bet like that one time you have a chance of outrunning and beating the horrible odds, so that then makes them good odds that are "fair" if only run once. It doesn't. It just means that you actually had a chance of getting lucky and outrunning the horrible odds if you only bet it once.

Here is another example to illustrate the point. Let's say Shane Van Boening and Dennis Orcullo are going to play a race to five of 9 ball in some tournament, something we would all agree is a pretty close match. Let's say you are in the audience, and the guy beside you wants to bet with you on the match. You want SVB, and he wants Orcullo. But he wants you to give him 2 to 1 on the money, your $200 against his $100. Are you going to do that? Of course not. Why not? I mean you do still have a chance to win the bet and win some money, so why wouldn't you? Because it is horrible odds. You have a chance to win and come out ahead in the money if you only bet like that once (just like you have a chance to come out ahead staking a player with a 50/50 split only once), but you still wouldn't do it because it is dumb. And of course you know that if you did that same bet a bunch of times you would be way in the hole for sure. But if you did decide to make that side bet like that just that one time, did it somehow become better odds just because you had a chance to win and come out on the plus side if you only did it that once? Since his offer was only a one time thing does that now make the bet fair? Of course not and of course not.

And if you are staking a player in a match and doing a 50/50 split of the winnings if he wins, you are essentially giving up 2 to 1 money odds. How many times you stake that game doesn't change how "fair" it is for you or how good the odds are, just like how many times you gave up the 2 to 1 money odds in your SVB/Orcullo side bet scenario above didn't change how crappy and unfair of a bet it was for you, it just means you might get lucky and win if you only did it once. Didn't make it a smart bet though, and certainly not fair.

And for the record again, this is from a financial perspective only. If it is worth it to someone to take the worst of it and make bad financial decisions/bets for any reason of their own choosing like say just wanting the thrill of being a stake horse or whatever else it is, then that is their right and more power to them.

 

[Bigtruck]

Anybody that plays for less than 50% is an idiot.That player is like a trick turning tricks for the pimp.

I've heard this before. This is apples and oranges.

The tricks will never go out and lose the cash. If they do their chosen career will be short lived. Very Short. With the players and action, as Daniel pointed out, the split should be directly tied to the players skill level. Their w/l ratio, also their relationship with the player. You can't just say it should be 50%. It's not that simple.

The backer must be a pool fan because the top player are the only sure bets, and even they aren't that great.

The fans wanna see the horses run, bottom line. I wanna see the horse run.

Let's get the horses running. All they want.

Ray

 

[Bigtruck]

Starts on this topic at 10:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIuUqg2R2Cw

 

[Colonel]

Starts on this topic at 10:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIuUqg2R2Cw

This covers the reality of it very well. In my earlier post I explained my point of view from my experience & that when I realized that was the standard deal then that if I wanted more, the entire lions share, that I had to be willing to back myself. As Billy said in this clip there were FAR more stake horses & action then because players understood the realities of the situation & either accepted the standard deal or like myself, believed in their own abilities to know not only how to play but more importantly, how to match up & backed ourselves.

There have been many posts in this thread from some that have "relationships" with major players that have spouted how insulting the standard road deal was as the player has all the skills. It was this prevalent attitude that many started to have that killed gambling in relation from what it used to be to what it is now. Players felt slighted and dumping started happening which never used to occur & players that still didn't dump started demanding more, touting the same line many have said here on the players ability being the key factor & ignoring the realities of the expenses the stake horses took on, food, gas, lodging.

The game changed, between players wanting more, dumping, etc the margin shrank for the stake horse & they packed it in. Gambling in pool has never been the same since. Rarely do you see the high stakes action that was commonplace in the 70's or 80's when stake horses were everywhere.

This kind of shows that while the player possesses the skills it was the stake horses that drove the high action match ups, in both the amount played for & the frequency these match ups occurred. There is still plenty of high skilled players, maybe more than ever but the amount of stake horses dwindled & so did high stakes gambling along with it as no one can deny gambling now is not even a shell of what it was back then.






Why am I the Colonel? Because I always get the chicken

 

[Poolplaya9]

Starts on this topic at 10:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIuUqg2R2Cw

Good stuff and he is exactly right.

To keep it really simple without all the percentages etc, all people really have to remember is you are laying 2 to 1 money odds when you are backing a player in gambling matches and doing a 50/50 split. In order for that to be "fair" for the backer, or good odds, or giving him a chance to make money instead of lose money, or however else you want to word it, the player you are backing has to be at least 2 to 1 favorite or more to win that match. If he is anything less than 2 to 1 favorite, the stake horse is getting hosed and it is a bad bet that is a losing proposition for him.

 

[voiceofreason]

Here is another example to illustrate the point. Let's say Shane Van Boening and Dennis Orcullo are going to play a race to five of 9 ball in some tournament, something we would all agree is a pretty close match. Let's say you are in the audience, and the guy beside you wants to bet with you on the match. You want SVB, and he wants Orcullo. But he wants you to give him 2 to 1 on the money, your $200 against his $100. Are you going to do that? Of course not. Why not? I mean you do still have a chance to win the bet and win some money, so why wouldn't you? Because it is horrible odds. You have a chance to win and come out ahead in the money if you only bet like that once (just like you have a chance to come out ahead staking a player with a 50/50 split only once), but you still wouldn't do it because it is dumb. And of course you know that if you did that same bet a bunch of times you would be way in the hole for sure. But if you did decide to make that side bet like that just that one time, did it somehow become better odds just because you had a chance to win and come out on the plus side if you only did it that once? Since his offer was only a one time thing does that now make the bet fair? Of course not and of course not.

And if you are staking a player in a match and doing a 50/50 split of the winnings if he wins, you are essentially giving up 2 to 1 money odds. How many times you stake that game doesn't change how "fair" it is for you or how good the odds are, just like how many times you gave up the 2 to 1 money odds in your SVB/Orcullo side bet scenario above didn't change how crappy and unfair of a bet it was for you, it just means you might get lucky and win if you only did it once. Didn't make it a smart bet though, and certainly not fair.

One of the best posts on the subject so far..

The only real way you can justify the magical 50/50 that the players herein are talking about is when you are hustling and/or playing complete unknowns. Maybe that is the case on the road in the US?

There is no such action in the UK. All the top players are known and many many money matches are streamed now so there is no hiding place.

 

[voiceofreason]

Good stuff and he is exactly right.

To keep it really simple without all the percentages etc, all people really have to remember is you are laying 2 to 1 money odds when you are backing a player in gambling matches and doing a 50/50 split. In order for that to be "fair" for the backer, or good odds, or giving him a chance to make money instead of lose money, or however else you want to word it, the player you are backing has to be at least 2 to 1 favorite or more to win that match. If he is anything less than 2 to 1 favorite, the stake horse is getting hosed and it is a bad bet that is a losing proposition for him.

And getting that match is rare. Very rare.

I'd back a player where they were 1/2 favourite. Anything up to £10,000 or so but who the hell is going to play my player?

So then, hence modern reality. I won't give more than 20% and normally, I'd want there to be other money on the match, maybe even the player themselves money..

But my position is that I'd rather invest in tournaments anyway because my player(s) will play matches where they are 1/2 favourite or even better odds..

 

[JAM]

I've heard this before. This is apples and oranges.

The tricks will never go out and lose the cash. If they do their chosen career will be short lived. Very Short. With the players and action, as Daniel pointed out, the split should be directly tied to the players skill level. Their w/l ratio, also their relationship with the player. You can't just say it should be 50%. It's not that simple.

The backer must be a pool fan because the top player are the only sure bets, and even they aren't that great.

The fans wanna see the horses run, bottom line. I wanna see the horse run.

Let's get the horses running. All they want.

Ray

All the technology experts say the Internet will replace traditional TV as far as how we view programs in the future.

Ray, I wish you would consider doing something like this, a running series on the Internet between matches, a pool talk show with regularity as far as scheduling, maybe once a week ---> Park Bench

I notice the camera does not stay in one place and goes to different areas in the room, which I realize requires splicing film, something I have no expertise in.

That said, if done correctly, a regular "series" of pool peeps, between matches, before and after tournaments, on an Internet, much like a talk show, might be alluring, if done in a similar way.

It doesn't have to be pool players all the time. It can be pool room owners, railbirds, and stakehorses (to stay on topic of this thread).

The X-rated Accu-Stats video of Keith playing Bushwacher with Grady commentating is priceless. One of the things that makes it so funny is Keith's stakehorse is in the booth with Grady, giving a little color to what it's like to be Keith's stakehorse. :grin-square:

A pool talk show like this could highlight various factions in the pool world, from young beginnings to seasoned pros, industry members and tournament directors, referees and even live-streamers like you, Ray. I think it would be a hit. It would provide a glimpse into the world from different angles and viewpoints.

 

[Poolplaya9]

The only real way you can justify the magical 50/50 that the players herein are talking about is when you are hustling and/or playing complete unknowns. Maybe that is the case on the road in the US?

Here is how it works in the US.

Very few people actually know how the odds really work when backing players. They are under the impression that with a 50/50 split that as long as the player wins more than he loses then the stake horse will also be winning more than he loses. They see it as an even bet. Even a large portion of the great players and stake horses don't know how it really works. You already heard from one top pro in this thread, one of the best of all time in this country, who didn't know or understand how it works. You also heard from several stake horses in this thread that don't know. Most others in general don't know either. So the 50/50 split is common here because of ignorance, they just don't know any better. They think they are winner if the player wins more often than he loses.

Because few people know how the odds really work and how bad that bet really is for a stake horse, and think that a 50/50 split is an even money bet, a 50/50 split is common here and is the norm, and of course the players (who largely don't know any better either) also pretty much expect and insist on that percentage cut.

No, there are not that many matches here any more where as you alluded to you one player is extremely heavily favored (more than 2 to 1 favorite as would be needed) and is stone cold stealing in the match. They happen, but are not the norm. The funny thing is though, more often than not when a player has a match where they really are a heavy favorite to win, they somehow have their own money to bet and rarely need a backer. They want to bet their own money in the cases where they are stealing. They only need a backer for the tougher matches.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Here is how it works in the US.

Very few people actually know how the odds really work when backing players. They are under the impression that with a 50/50 split that as long as the player wins more than he loses then the stake horse will also be winning more than he loses. They see it as an even bet. Even a large portion of the great players and stake horses don't know how it really works. You already heard from one top pro in this thread, one of the best of all time in this country, who didn't know or understand how it works. You also heard from several stake horses in this thread that don't know. Most others in general don't know either. So the 50/50 split is common here because of ignorance, they just don't know any better. They think they are winner if the player wins more often than he loses.

Because few people know how the odds really work and how bad that bet really is for a stake horse, and think that a 50/50 split is an even money bet, a 50/50 split is common here and is the norm, and of course the players (who largely don't know any better either) also pretty much expect and insist on that percentage cut.

No, there are not that many matches here any more where as you alluded to you one player is extremely heavily favored (more than 2 to 1 favorite as would be needed) and is stone cold stealing in the match. They happen, but are not the norm. The funny thing is though, more often than not when a player has a match where they really are a heavy favorite to win, they somehow have their own money to bet and rarely need a backer. They want to bet their own money in the cases where they are stealing. They only need a backer for the tougher matches.

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand how odds work now. Can you move on to explaining what the last two is? This puzzles a lot of players and backers I know.

 

[JAM]

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand how odds work now. Can you move on to explaining what the last two is? This puzzles a lot of players and backers I know.

Do you mean his last two paragraphs or points, or do you mean the last two as far as a pool handicap?

 

[(((Satori)))]

Do you mean his last two paragraphs or points, or do you mean the last two as far as a pool handicap?

Last two as in spotting a player. Another aspect of gambling that really could use a thorough explanation by this guy because the readers here probrably just don't get it.

Maybe this guy can give us one or two pages explaining how it works.