% when backing pool player
- Thread starter Bmaker12
- Start date
I totally agree. Backing someone who's gambling in a close match is a terrible bet. Nobody wants to lay 2:1 flipping coins for a reason.
Backers keep eating, but they don't get their pool high.
Players can always make something happen in whatever place they step foot in if they've got talent and the gift of gab. Seen it happen a kazillion times, with and without backers.
The obvious problem is there is not enough money in pool today. You certainly need the player who can win but the stake horse needs a return on investment otherwise they will back people in different sports such as golfers, poker players (they sell share of themselves), etc. The return is millions not thousands. Remember the stir when the IPT was around, players were coming out of the wood work and I am sure the backers were also. There isn't even a national pool tour.
I would love to see all parties get what they deserve but until the money is there it is not going to happen.
Al
I would love to see all parties get what they deserve but until the money is there it is not going to happen.
Al
I see both sides to this and here is my take:
If I am staking someone for under $500 a set I usually give them 50% after paying table time.
When the betting gets more serious then I normally give the player 35% of everything I bet. I know some stakehorses that will bet 2K in the middle and 8K on the side and give the player 50% of just the middle money. I would give my player 3.5K.
I have had great players offer to take 25% to get me to stake a match where we both know that it is a very tough game.
I once was hanging out at a pool hall and a road player was looking to play a local guy a 5K set of one pocket. They were going to play 5 ahead and pro-rate at the end of the night. I found out it was a pretty close match but the local guy might have a slight edge. I offered to stake the local player and told him I would give him 35% of the winnings. He said he never plays for less than 50% so the match didn't happen. It is amazing to me when a guy who doesn't have any money in his pocket won't get up and play with no risk with a chance to win 1,750 dollars for a couple of hours "work".
All of this has to do with straight up gambling, when it comes to tournaments it can be a completely different story. I have put up entry fees and paid the player 60% before in a tournament. Here you have odds on your money that you don't get normally when you are gambling.
I do find it funny that people always tell me that staking players is a losing proposition, it definitely matters on who you are staking! One thing for sure if I didn't know anything about matching up and always took the players word that it is a good game I would be broke!
I know some players that will play any game as long as they are being staked and others that treat my money like it is their own. I choose to only stake the later.
If I am staking someone for under $500 a set I usually give them 50% after paying table time.
When the betting gets more serious then I normally give the player 35% of everything I bet. I know some stakehorses that will bet 2K in the middle and 8K on the side and give the player 50% of just the middle money. I would give my player 3.5K.
I have had great players offer to take 25% to get me to stake a match where we both know that it is a very tough game.
I once was hanging out at a pool hall and a road player was looking to play a local guy a 5K set of one pocket. They were going to play 5 ahead and pro-rate at the end of the night. I found out it was a pretty close match but the local guy might have a slight edge. I offered to stake the local player and told him I would give him 35% of the winnings. He said he never plays for less than 50% so the match didn't happen. It is amazing to me when a guy who doesn't have any money in his pocket won't get up and play with no risk with a chance to win 1,750 dollars for a couple of hours "work".
All of this has to do with straight up gambling, when it comes to tournaments it can be a completely different story. I have put up entry fees and paid the player 60% before in a tournament. Here you have odds on your money that you don't get normally when you are gambling.
I do find it funny that people always tell me that staking players is a losing proposition, it definitely matters on who you are staking! One thing for sure if I didn't know anything about matching up and always took the players word that it is a good game I would be broke!
I know some players that will play any game as long as they are being staked and others that treat my money like it is their own. I choose to only stake the later.
Tap, tap! I do not argue that staking SVB, Orcullo, or the local champ in your local tournament can be a great bet.
My only point, not directed towards Mars obviously, is the whole IT'S 50% OR NOTHING mindset that is why matches seldom happen.
Any backer that stakes a player for 50% cut on anything close to an even gambling match is an absolute idiot (tournaments are a whole different ball game and much more complicated). You and a lot of the people in this thread don't seem to realize that if you are backing players in anything close to even match ups, and splitting winnings with them 50/50, then you will lose money--a lot of it, and quickly. If you don't believe me, do the math. Let's say you back a player in six different match ups for $1000 each. He wins half, and loses half (and if they are even or "fair" match ups and nobody was stealing that is about what happens, you win half and lose half). You just lost $1,500. You lost $3000 in the three losing matches, and out of the $3000 you won in the three winning matches, $1500 went to you (half) and $1500 went to the player you staked (the other half). So you lost $3000 and made $1500, leaving you with a net loss of $1500.
The people you stake have to win 2/3rds (66.66%) of their gambling matches just for you to stop losing money and just barely break even. Someone favored to win 2 out of 3 matches is pretty heavily favored and is a fair amount of a better player than the other guy, and yet you only break even. Again, do the math. Take those same six gambling matches for $1000 each. If your guy wins four of them, and loses two, you managed to stop losing money and barely break even. In the two matches you lost, you lost $2000. In the four matches you won, your side won $4000, but only half of that, which is $2000, is yours, and the other $2000 goes to the player. So you lost $2000 and won $2000 and broke even when your guy wins 2 out of every 3 matches.
If you want to actually make any money at all as a stake horse and not lose money, then the people you stake need to be favored to win their match ups more than 66.66% of the time before you see a single dime. And if you want to make any decent money, the guy you are backing needs to be massively favored, basically be stealing and robbing, and be favored to win much more than that, like say 80% of the time, 4 out of every 5 match ups.
The problem is that nobody wants to be staked in games where they are stealing. When they are stealing they want to bet their own money, because there is almost no risk. Where they want to be staked is in the tough games, games where it is close to even or where they are favored but not by a whole lot (or of course worst of all in the games where the opponent is favored). The only thing that will allow you to not lose money when staking games that are close to even or where your guy is only a slight favorite is for the player to be getting a cut much less than 50%. Remember, with a 50/50 split, even if your guy is heavily favored to the tune of being favored to win 2 out of 3 sets, you just manage to break even. Any performance less than winning 2 out of 3, or less than a 66.66% chance of winning a set, and you lose money. That is why the player has to get less than a 50% cut in matches that are close, because otherwise you lose your money fast.
Last edited:
And of course my response above is only looking at it from a financial perspective. If you are willing to lose money for the excitement of being a stake horse or whatever else then by all means that is your right of course, more power to you. But if part of the reason you are doing it is to make some cash, or you at least don't want to lose any money in the process, then the people you stake need to be heavily favored to the tune of being at least 66.66% favorite (favored to win at least 2 out of 3 sets or more) just to keep you from losing money if you are doing a 50/50 split with your player.
Tap, tap, tap. Nobody wants to see a Dancing Monkey.
I'm finding it funny that anyone would even expect a 50/50 split unless it was a 'for sure' win situation. Math is obviously not some people's strong subject--as anyone who makes an investment shouldn't have to justify their profit margins. You can have all the skill in the world but with empty pockets you're useless. Someone with cash to burn has more options than just risking it to provide himself and you with a pay day. Either way, you're making money for playing a game and risking nothing--being entitled will leave you broke. Also all of this 'I wouldn't feel right not splitting the money,' you're gambling people out of their socks one way or the other, since when does compassion have any place when money is involved?
FWIW, I know players who have told me they play better when they are getting staked, and I have also been told by some players that they seem to play better on their own dough.
A lot of factors come into play when a pool player is in the heat of the battle, whether it is a tournament match or action.
Once you acquire the mechanical skills of pool, the rest is mental, self-confidence in your game, ability to block doubts in your mind before you pull the trigger. This right here is what separates the lions from the lambs.
A close friend who gambles quite often told me he plays better when getting staked. Why? Because the thought of his children, rent money, food, et cetera start dancing in his head, causing him to miss shots he would not otherwise miss. Stress!
Another friend says the opposite. He'd rather play on his own dough, because he's going to fight with all his might to keep it in his pocket.
The late Grady Mathews always played on his own dough. Scott Frost like a 50-50 mix of his dought and a backer's dough. If Keith McCready is broke, can't get staked, he forms a backers committee and plays hard for those folks. Having them in the audience pulling for him to win helps fuel his pool engine. Chris Bartram swings both ways, staking himself and getting staked.
Everybody who plays pool has mental demons that crop up when stressed. I am not sure how much a factor it is playing on your own dough or somebody else's. I think everybody is different in this regard.
A lot of factors come into play when a pool player is in the heat of the battle, whether it is a tournament match or action.
Once you acquire the mechanical skills of pool, the rest is mental, self-confidence in your game, ability to block doubts in your mind before you pull the trigger. This right here is what separates the lions from the lambs.
A close friend who gambles quite often told me he plays better when getting staked. Why? Because the thought of his children, rent money, food, et cetera start dancing in his head, causing him to miss shots he would not otherwise miss. Stress!
Another friend says the opposite. He'd rather play on his own dough, because he's going to fight with all his might to keep it in his pocket.
The late Grady Mathews always played on his own dough. Scott Frost like a 50-50 mix of his dought and a backer's dough. If Keith McCready is broke, can't get staked, he forms a backers committee and plays hard for those folks. Having them in the audience pulling for him to win helps fuel his pool engine. Chris Bartram swings both ways, staking himself and getting staked.
Everybody who plays pool has mental demons that crop up when stressed. I am not sure how much a factor it is playing on your own dough or somebody else's. I think everybody is different in this regard.
As usual you will take the player's side no matter how unreasonable it is, no matter how wrong they are, and no matter how it impacts anyone else. You could care less if the stake horse loses his a$$, as long as the player made money. But if the matches are anywhere even close to even matches, and not flat out heists, then the only thing fair *for both sides* is for the player to be getting a good bit less than 50%. With a 50/50 split in tough games the stake horse is getting shafted royally by the player, which of course is just the way you like it.
I've done it both ways, when I started out I used a stake horse for what some here consider a ridiculously low %. The way he justified it to me was "other" expenses, motel rooms, gas, meals, that alone was well over $100 a day at the time & because we matched up well we made good $, him better than me because we didn't book many losers. After a period when I realized because I knew how to match up I had tipped odds & didn't like the arrangement anymore & started playing on my own dime. As Grady Mathews once said, "there is no feeling more glorious than walking out of a pool room with your pockets stuffed with Cecil's & not having to wack it up with anyone".
Why am I the Colonel? Because I always get the chicken
Why am I the Colonel? Because I always get the chicken
I wasn't even figuring in expenses in my post #49 above. It was all based on there being no expenses for the stake horse at all. If there are expenses involved such as gas, hotel, meals, or anything else, that lowers the players fair share of the winnings even further than when there are no expenses.
You have no idea what I feel about a stakehorse. I'm a stakehorse, FWIW. What a joke! Find somebody else to fight with on the forum. In recent times, that seems like it's all you do. Every thread I read, you're embroiled in a bitter battle of the words. I have bigger fish to fry on my platter, and they sure as heck don't include an anonymous minnow AzB-er with no identity.
There is a camaraderie among pool players that look out for each other, through thick and thin. Very few on this forum never will understand that. Your theme is to hate the pros, not mine. I have respect for pros and stakehorses, equally.
We just shipped $500 to a player who lose his true love to cancer a few days ago. It wasn't a stake, and it wasn't a loan. It was a gift. He didn't ask for it, but we could read between the lines. He was hurting deeply and needed a lift.
So take your money-worshipping thoughts and keep them away from me.
As tough as pool is, it's nowhere near as hard as being a pro gambler, and there is always action, if not in pool, then elsewhere.
A pro gambler would scoff at some of these deals being discussed and will analyze based on probability
gambling matches and tourneys are two different animals
if you're staking a guy in a gambling match, and the odds are 50/50, the horse needs more than 50% or he's just betting on a coin flip
a tournament with expenses will always differ based on prize payouts and entry fees, however, one needs to learn how to handicap in order to get the best roi, the british gambling sites that take snooker bets can serve as a guide
basic rule of thumb, if you're staking, then your roi needs to be greater than what you would receive placing such a bet online, if so, you're ahead of the game, and if not, you're not
as a very basic example, a top player in any given tournament could have odds as low as 1/20 or worse to win, so in a case like the US open where the prize is 20k (let's assume winner takes all for the sake of simplicity) then the horse will need to stake UNDER $1000 for improved roi
the math rarely works for a horse in most scenario from a statistical standpoint
and in legal gambling regions, all athletes are dancing monkeys
A pro gambler would scoff at some of these deals being discussed and will analyze based on probability
gambling matches and tourneys are two different animals
if you're staking a guy in a gambling match, and the odds are 50/50, the horse needs more than 50% or he's just betting on a coin flip
a tournament with expenses will always differ based on prize payouts and entry fees, however, one needs to learn how to handicap in order to get the best roi, the british gambling sites that take snooker bets can serve as a guide
basic rule of thumb, if you're staking, then your roi needs to be greater than what you would receive placing such a bet online, if so, you're ahead of the game, and if not, you're not
as a very basic example, a top player in any given tournament could have odds as low as 1/20 or worse to win, so in a case like the US open where the prize is 20k (let's assume winner takes all for the sake of simplicity) then the horse will need to stake UNDER $1000 for improved roi
the math rarely works for a horse in most scenario from a statistical standpoint
and in legal gambling regions, all athletes are dancing monkeys
You aren't reading very much then. But such an accusation sure sounds funny and ironic coming from the queen of $hit stirring.
Looking out for each other is great. Siding with someone who is wrong is not. You have never, ever, ever, ever sided against the players on anything ever, no matter how out of line or wrong it was. You have the biggest case of bias that ever existed in that regard, and it's not healthy, reasonable, or anything to be proud of. Quite the contrary actually.
I don't hate pros, nor do I have a theme of hating pros. I do however hate crappy behavior, and unlike you, if it comes from a pro, I can still see it as crappy and call it like it is, just like as if they were anyone else. Sometime you should try not letting bias blind you, you might just find it liberating living in reality.