% when backing pool player

(((Satori))) said:
Another aspect of gambling that really could use a thorough explanation by this guy because the readers here probrably just don't get it. :-)
Click to expand...

You really think most players out there knew how this works? You really think that most knew if their player won 60% of the time and they were doing a 50/50 split with them that they lost money? You obviously haven't been exposed to the pool scene much if you believe that. You also didn't pay much attention to this thread where the overwhelming majority didn't know, including top players and many that proclaimed to be backers themselves. I'm not trying to paint myself as special for having known, it is not anything special, and in fact is pretty elementary, just trying to explain to a guy from another country why it is the way it is over here when he asked. And the truth is the truth.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
You really think most players out there knew how this works? You really think that most knew if their player won 60% of the time and they were doing a 50/50 split with them that they lost money? You obviously haven't been exposed to the pool scene much if you believe that. You also didn't pay much attention to this thread where the overwhelming majority didn't know, including top players and many that proclaimed to be backers themselves. I'm not trying to paint myself as special for having known, it is not anything special, and in fact is pretty elementary, just trying to explain to a guy from another country why it is the way it is over here when he asked. And the truth is the truth.
Click to expand...

I don't know where "over here" is for you but where I'm from there are very knowledgeable backers giving 50/50 splits all the time. Get this, I've even known some backers who at one point have paid players to practice so that they could have time to play without having to get a job. You're knowledge might not be as great as you think it is. I can guarantee you that for everyone of the posters who did not understand the basics of figuring odds in this thread there are many reading who are getting a chuckle out of your thorough explanations.

The truth is that there are still backers who like the action even with a 50/50 split. They like being a part of the action and what is fair to them is between them and the players. These guys are not dumb guys either. They have been around a block or two.
 
Last edited:
There are cases for match ups taking place where the players are not matched ability wise.

Grudge matches - example, Barton vs Lou (someone)

Sometimes players can be great tournament players but fold under the pressure of very great distances for large pots.
 
Not at all

JAM said:
Well, that shows me that English ain't your strong suit either, Pal. Keith's words were written verbatim, with all the grammar faux pas. Interesting you didn't notice any. :grin-square:

So now it's time to attack Keith. :frown:
Click to expand...

Actually I feel sorry for Keith. It appears to me that he hit rock bottom and along came a bottom feeder to the rescue.

Run Keith Run..

Don
 
The rate this thread is going........
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 258
(((Satori))) said:
I don't know where "over here" is for you Over here is the US, obvious by my answering of his question about how it was in the US but where I'm from there are very knowledgeable backers giving 50/50 splits all the time. If they are doing 50/50 splits they aren't that knowledgeable at all unless the player they are backing is at least 2 to 1 favored, or unless making money isn't their main goal in those cases and they don't mind if they are making a bad bet that will lose them money. As I said several times, my explanations were from a financial perspective only. I realize that people can have reasons for wanting to make bad money losing bets and said this several times. Get this, I've even known some backers who at one point have paid players to practice so that they could have time to play without having to get a job. You're knowledge might not be as great as you think it is. I can guarantee you that for everyone of the posters who did not understand the basics of figuring odds in this thread there are many reading who are getting a chuckle out of your thorough explanations. Why would they chuckle at someone trying to help other people, and doing so accurately with good information? You think I wanted to have to be so thorough, or explain it so many times? There were still people who were arguing that it was wrong, and still people that didn't get it. I wish I had only had to make the first post. For that matter I wish I hadn't even had to make the first one as it had already been explained prior, just with far less detail with far more people not understanding as a result.

The truth is that there are still backers who like the action even with a 50/50 split. There are lots of reasons to like something even if it isn't a good bet that is making you money but it still doesn't make it a good bet *financially* They like being a part of the action and what is fair to them is between them and the players. These guys are not dumb guys either. They have been around a block or two.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you beef is. I gave accurate info, that is very valuable info, for those that didn't already know it. For those that already knew it, so what, we all know at least half the stuff that is posted on here but you don't go around jumping the person that is taking the time and effort of explaining it for the benefit of those that didn't know.
 
Keeping this thread on track, keep in mind while some people say doing 50/50 is not good for the backer, that sometimes the backer just likes the action. Money isn't an important factor in their decision to split at that rate. It may not be good for the backer in terms of a financial risk, but if money isn't important and they like to just see some good pool I don't think that's a poor way of doing it at all for both parties. The horse has nothing to lose from a financial viewpoint (unless he has to travel to play the match as opposed to playing in his hometown), and the backer gets his action fill for a win/win situation.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
It depends on how heavily you were favored to win the match. If you were roughly 55% or less favorite to win the match, it is actually use and abuse of the backer, because the backer is going to lose money with that bet. But we know you wouldn't ever do that intentionally, you just didn't know, as most players don't know. It is shocking what a favorite you have to be in a match for a stake horse to make money.

Here is the math:
Lets say a backer backs you for twenty sets at $1000 each. The split is 80/20 with 80% going to the backer. You are 55% favorite over your opponent (which is about what it would be in a real tough match where you are only a slight favorite). As 55% favorite, you win 55% of the sets, which means you won 11 out of the 20 sets. Your side won $11,000, and the other side won $9,000. The backer's 80% cut of the $11,000 is $8,800. But he lost $9,000 by losing 9 of the 20 sets. So $8,800 winnings minus the $9,000 loss means the backer actually comes out loser by $200. Your 20% cut of the winnings was $2,200.

So when you were the 55% favorite over your opponent, and doing an 80/20 split, your backer lost $200. No matter what, he can only lose money with this bet. The 80/20 split is horrible for him unless you are more heavily favored over your opponent than that. And you could only win money with this arrangement, and in this case you made $2,200. And if you were only a 54% favorite it would have been even worse for the backer with an even bigger loss for him.

With an 80/20 split and you being 55% favorite (a close match but one where you were slight favorite), when looking at the backer and you, one of you can only win money at that game, and one of you can only lose money at that game. As you can see, there was nothing fair or reasonable about that arrangement at all--for the backer. He got used and abused even though neither of you knew or realized it.
Click to expand...

My chuckling began when you started explaining basic odds to Keith like you were teaching him something.
 
(((Satori))) said:
My chuckling began when you started explaining basic odds to Keith like you were teaching him something.
Click to expand...

It was clear by his post that he has absolutely no clue whatsoever on whats makes sense for a backer from a financial perspective. And if from that post you thought otherwise, it is clear that you don't either. I'm not trying to be mean, it just is what it is.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
It was clear by his post that he has absolutely no clue whatsoever on whats makes sense for a backer from a financial perspective. And if from that post you thought otherwise, it is clear that you don't either. I'm not trying to be mean, it just is what it is.
Click to expand...

here's a really stupid question (for ITSFROZE's thread too):

if a player can afford 20% expenses to go/enter,
why would he give up 60%+/+, @ 50/50Net terms?
 
PINKLADY said:
here's a really stupid question (for ITSFROZE's thread too):

if a player can afford 20% expenses to go/enter,
why would he give up 60%+/+, @ 50/50Net terms?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about a tournament? I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are asking or what other thread you are referencing...
 
PINKLADY said:
here's a really stupid question (for ITSFROZE's thread too):

if a player can afford 20% expenses to go/enter,
why would he give up 60%+/+, @ 50/50Net terms?
Click to expand...

You're just too logical. That's why I think a woman or a woman and a man should run/control pool. JT
 
PINKLADY said:
here's a really stupid question (for ITSFROZE's thread too):

if a player can afford 20% expenses to go/enter,
why would he give up 60%+/+, @ 50/50Net terms?
Click to expand...

if a player has the money to travel & enter (tournament or side match),
why would he need a stakehorse, when he can net 100%?

(ITSFROZE started a stupid question thread)
 
Poolshootindon said:
Actually I feel sorry for Keith. It appears to me that he hit rock bottom and along came a bottom feeder to the rescue.

Run Keith Run..

Don
Click to expand...
dont feel sorry for me.never been better thank u
i i amm all done w this thread,and all done w the jerks.i got ur bottom feeder hangin though.guys from portland are in the stoneage anyways.eathquake out.
 
PINKLADY said:
if a player has the money to travel & enter (tournament or side match),
why would he need a stakehorse, when he can net 100%?

(ITSFROZE started a stupid question thread)
Click to expand...

Tournaments are a whole other ball game and I am not going to touch that can of worms. As far as if a player could afford to pay his own travel expenses to get to a gambling match why would he need a backer? Maybe he doesn't have enough money to cover the gambling match "entry fee" on top of the travel expenses, or maybe the trade off of getting less if he wins is worth not having the risk of losing any money in the actual match if he lost, could be a number of reasons I suppose...
 
(((satori))) said:
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.
Click to expand...

---------------> lol
 
JAM said:
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.
Click to expand...

For JAM and fans,

I called and ordered the DCC bank pool ring game with Skyler and gang playing.

I asked Pat about getting this match with Keith and Bushwacker and it wasn't available, or at least wasn't a couple months ago.

I think I have all of the Accustats with Keith on it, and there really isn't very many. Keith was pre-Accustats mostly it appears.

Keith McCready PA

Sometimes I crack me up.

Ken
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
Poolplaya9 said:
Tournaments are a whole other ball game and I am not going to touch that can of worms. As far as if a player could afford to pay his own travel expenses to get to a gambling match why would he need a backer? Maybe he doesn't have enough money to cover the gambling match "entry fee" on top of the travel expenses, or maybe the trade off of getting less if he wins is worth not having the risk of losing any money in the actual match if he lost, could be a number of reasons I suppose...
Click to expand...

if a player is in the business of pool, how can you not have enough money to back yourself? its expenses are a fact of life, which compels you to succeed to bank more cash for future business.

cleary said:
Billy said it exactly as I did. Pool players will end up with much more money in the long run taking 25% than 50%. More stakehorses, more action, more money to be won. The mindset of the players is just wrong, it's as simple as that. It's just sad that greed won't allow a logical thing like that to become the standard.
Click to expand...

and if a player needs backing, then yes - something, is better than nothing, to do what you love and claim as your "profession". CLEARY - there's $$$$$ in numbers - you're right! same thing, as flipping stocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top