% when backing pool player

[Ken_4fun]

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

These players you are calling an idiot do it because they are broke and have no other choice.

People who use credit cards are idiots, paying 18%+ interest, carry a balance. But in reality, most folks do it. Again, some folks have no other choice, they may be idiots.

You might call the folks who played at the RACK in Detroit idiots too. They had to pay a "tax" after winning their money. But some "idiots" understood that allowing that tax to be paid, ensured that they were allowed to get future action.

Ken

 

[Poolshootindon]

Just Curious

My other half was offered 20 percent by a prospective backer to compete a challenge-type match some years ago, to which he politely declined. He personally felt it was an insult. That is coming from the player's point of view.

I totally understand the view of the stakehorse, since they're the one putting their dough at risk by financing the entire operation. They can win a bunch or lose it all; whereas, the player gets a free grab at the golden ring. But it *is" the player doing all the work, and it's hard work, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. It's extremely intense, especially if it is being filmed. There is a great deal of pressure that one can only understand if they have experienced it.

I personally think 50/50 *after* expenses is fair, but I'm sure I am in the minority. :grin-square:

There's an old saying "part of something is better than all of nothing".

I'd take the 25% and be happy.

Don :grin:

 

[Ken_4fun]

Ken, you seem to always think pool players are broke dogs. They're not all broke dogs. Some of them have a great deal of pride and get by. It's not the life of the rich and famous, but they're hanging in there. It's getting old seeing people thumb their nose at them as if they're scum of the earth.

It's expensive to shoot pool competitively on the tournament trail. Those that do choose that route in life as tournament soldiers, they take the worst of it in every venue they step foot in, but they keep coming back.

Most stakehorses are just as passionate about pool as the player. It's a good marriage for action.

Agreed.

But there are more broke dogs than "rich and famous" . If I posted the list of HOF members (and known by all that post here) that were absolutely broke and you post the few that gamble on their own money for wagers of over $10,000, lets bet on which list is the longest.

Trust me the players need stakehorses more than stakehorses need players. Stakehorses can and HAVE moved from pool to other games of chance.

Something that wasn't mentioned above that I do regularly when I am those "stupid railbirds" betting on matches. If the guy I am betting on makes me some money, I give him a little jelly, (10%-20%). He doesn't even know I am betting on him, and after the match I walk down and slip it in their hand. Most are so surprised that I think it isn't a common practice, but I have done it forever.

ken

 

[JAM]

Agreed.

But there are more broke dogs than "rich and famous" . If I posted the list of HOF members (and known by all that post here) that were absolutely broke and you post the few that gamble on their own money for wagers of over $10,000, lets bet on which list is the longest.

Trust me the players need stakehorses more than stakehorses need players. Stakehorses can and HAVE moved from pool to other games of chance.

Something that wasn't mentioned above that I do regularly when I am those "stupid railbirds" betting on matches. If the guy I am betting on makes me some money, I give him a little jelly, (10%-20%). He doesn't even know I am betting on him, and after the match I walk down and slip it in their hand. Most are so surprised that I think it isn't a common practice, but I have done it forever.

ken

Without the players, the stakehorses can sit in the corner and twittle their thumbs. There is no action match without the horse. Why do you think they call it "stakehorse."

 

[James Miller]

Ok, lets do some quick math. If you back a horse for $2500 a set and play one set a week and agree to split the winnings after each set 80/20. At the end of 10 weeks if you won 60% of the matches, the horse would get $3000 while the backer would get $2000. The horse got 500 each time he won, the backer got 12000 when they won but lost 10k on the 4 losing sets. So the backer has to risk 25k to win 2k. Here is the problem adjustments. It the match is a coin flip you have to defy the odds to make a profit. Now if you lose 6 of the 10 sets the backer is down 5000 but the horse still wins 1000. So now the question is this your normal horse and do you back him regularly or is this a one time match where you have a line on a pigeon and you are running in a player that is a lock to win. In that case 50/50 or 60/40 may be justified. Just some food for thought. I would love to see the thought process that goes on in Strong Arm John,s head when setting up a game and what to bet and what % to give.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Ok, lets do some quick math. If you back a horse for $2500 a set and play one set a week and agree to split the winnings after each set 80/20. At the end of 10 weeks if you won 60% of the matches, the horse would get $3000 while the backer would get $2000. The horse got 500 each time he won, the backer got 12000 when they won but lost 10k on the 4 losing sets. So the backer has to risk 25k to win 2k. Here is the problem adjustments. It the match is a coin flip you have to defy the odds to make a profit. Now if you lose 6 of the 10 sets the backer is down 5000 but the horse still wins 1000. So now the question is this your normal horse and do you back him regularly or is this a one time match where you have a line on a pigeon and you are running in a player that is a lock to win. In that case 50/50 or 60/40 may be justified. Just some food for thought. I would love to see the thought process that goes on in Strong Arm John,s head when setting up a game and what to bet and what % to give.

My personal feelings are if I have a steady backer willing to put me in action consistently then we can work a deal but on a one time thing it's 50/50.

 

[JAM]

Hey, ain't everybody hustling? Yeah, everybody's scuffling. You see, there's two different -- there's a scuffler and a hustler. A hustler is one that's always in action and gets it once in a while, see, and a good hustler gets it more often. Then there's a scuffler. He never gets it. Understand? All he ever does is waste his time, gets in everybody's way. You understand? He goes through life, and he's a failure. ~~ Minnesota Fats

I think what we have a case of here on this thread is a bunch of scufflers.

There's a reason why you see all these people sweating the action ---> HERE. :wink:

 

[voiceofreason]

There is a lot being posted here by people that in all likely hood have not backed players.

Certain posters are correct to discuss the odds because of course the odds are the key.

Let us say that two players are going to play for $10,000. First to 15 say?

In order for that match to happen, BOTH players (and or their backers) need to feel they can win the match.

Either the players themselves are evenly match or some sort of advantage is given to one or other player to even the match. For example, let us pretend that one player is SVB, it might be he has to give a few frames start or "give the 8" or whatever it is in order to get the match played.

Thus, the match is, usually, as close to damn it even money. Because the match will usually be corrected so that it can take place.

In this situation, from my own personal experience, it would be ludicrous to get involved at anything like 50/50. There simply is no value.

Remember, player a and player b BOTH need to feel they can win, or the match is not going on - regardless of who is staking what.

Tournaments make more money for me, because the odds cannot be adjusted as in above.

Let us, again, take SVB and pretend we can stake him into a tournament. 50/50 is now realistic because, say, in a 128 runner field with a payout to 25%. It is now a realistic chance to get your money back and if he wins the tournament, a nice profit is possible.

This is because the odds cannot be messed with. No starts or other handicaps exist usually in tournaments.

Even better (for me) is to stake a player on a series or tour - you can spread your risk across the tournament as final ranking standings do not usually lie.

I remember once, years ago, backing two players on a tour. In the very first event, one player beat the other in the final and at the second event, they did the same thing the other way around. They never featured at all in the last 2 events, both being beat early.

I personally much prefer tours and tournaments...

 

[Poolshootindon]

Oh My God!!!!!!!

Ok, lets do some quick math. If you back a horse for $2500 a set and play one set a week and agree to split the winnings after each set 80/20. At the end of 10 weeks if you won 60% of the matches, the horse would get $3000 while the backer would get $2000. The horse got 500 each time he won, the backer got 12000 when they won but lost 10k on the 4 losing sets. So the backer has to risk 25k to win 2k. Here is the problem adjustments. It the match is a coin flip you have to defy the odds to make a profit. Now if you lose 6 of the 10 sets the backer is down 5000 but the horse still wins 1000. So now the question is this your normal horse and do you back him regularly or is this a one time match where you have a line on a pigeon and you are running in a player that is a lock to win. In that case 50/50 or 60/40 may be justified. Just some food for thought. I would love to see the thought process that goes on in Strong Arm John,s head when setting up a game and what to bet and what % to give.

James. You have brought logic into this conversation. That's just not fair. (stamping my feet)

Don LOL

 

[JAM]

Scufflers, read this.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Now let's go to the player, the one who's stepping into the ring, having to fade the stress of winning not only for themselves but for their backer.
If they truly care about making money for their backer, they are going to be more than agreeable to taking less than a 50% cut in close match ups because otherwise their stake horse has zero chance of making money and 100% chance of losing money. This is of course if they actually know how the odds break down as I explained in post #49 and iba7467 explained in post #31, and a shocking number of players don't have a clue. Fact is that if matches are truly exactly even, the stake horse cannot make money no matter what cut he gets, even if he got 100% (in which case he would only break even). And if the player wins 66.66% of the time, or 2 out of 3 matches, the stake horse breaks even with a 50/50 split of the winnings.

Any player on the face of the earth who has self-esteem is going to want 50 percent if they're going to step up to the plate.
Again, not if he actually knows and understands just how much money the stake horse actually loses or wins in a given scenario such as a close match. But it is shocking how many players don't know that a player has to win 2/3rds of his matches just for a stake horse to break even with a 50/50 split for example. In fact the vast majority of players don't know this. And even the number of extremely good players and stake horses that don't know this is shocking.

But most players, again, who have self-esteem aren't going to accept a 20-percent cut in any action match.
Well the 20% was somebody else's number, not mine. All I said is that it is substantially less than 50% to the player if the matches are anywhere near close matches in order for the stake horse to even have a chance to make money. The exact cut percentage where the stake horse breaks even depends on the exact odds that your player will win a particular match up. But yes, there is a point where an 80/20 split is fair. For example, if the player won about 55.6% of their matches, and the stake horse got 80% of the winnings, the stake horse would only break even. You can see post #31 for a few other examples of different scenarios with different win percentages and different split amounts to see what the stake horse actually wins (it's shocking just how bad a bet it is for the stake horse to those learning about it for the first time).

I'm going to have him weigh in on this thread when he wakes up and see what he thinks about getting 20 percent in an action match if he is taked.

Well the math can't be disputed on what is fair based on the actual amounts they would each win, regardless of anyone's opinion on what percentage they feel they should get. I am still curious to hear what he thinks though and if he is aware of where a stake horse's break even point is in different scenarios. A surprising amount of even big gamblers don't know.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Once again, you're wrong. I have repeatedly stated that emotionless pro tournament soldier robots are hurting pool. Not many of them in America, thank goodness.

So...

The "robots" are hurting pool.

The majority of "robots" aren't Americans.

Yet, pool is not as big in America in comparison to other countries where "robots" are more prevalent.

 

[JAM]

So...

The "robots" are hurting pool.

The majority of "robots" aren't Americans.

Yet, pool is not as big in America in comparison to other countries where "robots" are more prevalent.

In case you haven't noticed, pool is almost non-existent on American TV, thanks to the emotionless robots and know-it-all scufflers getting in everybody's way.

 

[ssbn610g]

Stopped reading 2 pages ago!!

This is like the Republicans vs. the Democrats who have polar opposite views. Both are entitled to their view. Do as you believe. Where's the dead horse emoticon??:deadhorse:

Al

 

[JAM]

Well the math can't be disputed on what is fair based on the actual amounts they would each win, regardless of anyone's opinion on what percentage they feel they should get. I am still curious to hear what he thinks though and if he is aware of where a stake horse's break even point is in different scenarios. A surprising amount of even big gamblers don't know.

Keith has more experience dealing with action, stakehorses, and backers committees than I do, but I have a fairly strong knowledge base from my personal experience, before and after I met Keith.

Nobody wants to lose. Show me someone who likes to lose, and I'll show you a loser.

No player with any amount of self-esteem is going to play pool for 20 percent of the stake unless they're in a lock for a six-figure purpose playing a clown who's stepping up to the plate for attention.

Tony Watson used to have a stakehorse named Stevie. I'm not sure what the arrangement was between them as far as Tony's cut, but I know that Tony didn't play for 20 percent. Never!

There is only a handful of pool players who can play for big bucks and not have it affect them. They are rare. Without them, there is no action. A stakehorse can find any player they want to put them in the action pit, but finding a strong horse, one who is capable of overcoming the odds and stress in the heat of the battle is like striking gold.

Again, it is a marriage between the horse and the backer. If they work together on a frequent basis, they can form any business arrangement they want, but I don't see a strong horse ever playing for 20 percent unless it's, again, a lock bet with a clown.

 

[Poolplaya9]

No player with any amount of self-esteem is going to play pool for 20 percent of the stake unless they're in a lock for a six-figure purpose playing a clown who's stepping up to the plate for attention.

As I said, unless the player is is more than a 55.6% favorite to win a match, with an 80/20 split with the 80% going to the backer, it is a horrible bet for the backer. The backer can't win and is guaranteed to lose money. If the player is only 55% favorite to win, and the backer gets 80%, the player is actually taking advantage of the backer whether the player realizes it or not, because the backer can't win.

You can talk about pride or any of the other emotions you want, but you have been given the indisputable facts about what percentages a backer needs in given scenarios just to even break even and not lose money, and it is not anywhere even close to percentages your emotions tell you that you should feel like you should get. No matter what you say, or what feelings you profess, nothing can ever change the fact that it is unreasonable, by any standards, to expect a backer to stake a game in such a way that it absolutely guarantees that he will lose money.

 

[Double-Dave]

Ok, lets do some quick math. If you back a horse for $2500 a set and play one set a week and agree to split the winnings after each set 80/20. At the end of 10 weeks if you won 60% of the matches, the horse would get $3000 while the backer would get $2000. The horse got 500 each time he won, the backer got 12000 when they won but lost 10k on the 4 losing sets. So the backer has to risk 25k to win 2k. Here is the problem adjustments. It the match is a coin flip you have to defy the odds to make a profit. Now if you lose 6 of the 10 sets the backer is down 5000 but the horse still wins 1000. So now the question is this your normal horse and do you back him regularly or is this a one time match where you have a line on a pigeon and you are running in a player that is a lock to win. In that case 50/50 or 60/40 may be justified. Just some food for thought. I would love to see the thought process that goes on in Strong Arm John,s head when setting up a game and what to bet and what % to give.

Hi James,

The way you word things is a little confusing, but I will assume your players is playing for 20% of the potential profit of
each match, and each match has $ 5.000 in the middle (2x $ 2.500).

If that is so and your player loses 6 out of 10, he wins 4 out of 10 and gets $ 2.000 for those 4 matches, not $ 1.000 (4x $500)
The backer gets 4x $ 2000 profit, or $ 8.000 total, but has had to pay 6x $ 2.500 for $ 15.000 total and is stuck $ 7.000

If the player wins 6 out of 10, he wins $ 3.000 for those 6 matches (6x $ 500).
The backer 6x $ 2.000 profit for a total of $ 12.000 but has to pay off $ 10.000 for the 4 lost sets.

So, even with an 80/20 split of the profit in the backers favor it doesn't look great with a 60% player.
1 bad night/set where the players loses a set he is supposed to win and the backer loses money ($ 2.500) instead of winning.

gr. Dave

 

[Keith McCready]

Just from a player's point of view, somebody looking to give 20 percent, they must be betting some serious, serious money, maybe $100,000. Anybody that wants to give up 20 percent, it's sort of an insult, especially playing for $500 or $1,000.

Second of all, I've had people back me from out of the stands, never seen them before in my life, just wanting to see a good game. "What would it take for you to play the game?" That's what they would ask me, and then they would ask me, "Well, what kind of cut do you want?" They would never, ever say anything about 20 percent. That's a joke. I mean, that's taking complete advantage of a pool player.

It just reminds me of a couple times they tried to run that by me, and the only time that I ever thought about it is if I was betting 50,000 or more. The going rate on, say, 10,000 to 50,000 to 100,000 would be a third. 25 percent at the lowest. I only say that because there might be a corporation of backers. If there's a corporation of backers and they're all putting up $12,500 to make $50,000, say you got four, then you can work out some arrangement.

You'd really have to be desperate to do it for 5,000 and everybody putting up $1,250 apiece to make 5,000, then your end out of that would be $1,250, I mean, I guess if you're just totally broke and don't have any way to get no money, you might allow it one time. But believe me, you would not let it happen again.

I used to play all the time. I would be betting so much in the center, and there would be four times as much money bet on the rail, and I got real tired of that. I mean real tired, so I stopped that. Everybody winning way more money than me. And then when it came time to get a little bone, they all hit the door.

A lot of backers treat pool players like a business. Too much like a business. A lot of times, you sort of eliminate those type of guys. You sort of want the backers that treat you good, and whether you win or lose, they're still your friend. The 20-percent backers can never get in with you when you're stealing, and on the other hand, when the good backers are there, they can get in on something like that, because they treat you good, loan you money if you're broke, not worried about it, don't hound you for it every day like a 20-percent backer would.

In my lifetime, I've lost some and I've won some, but I will tell you what, my backers are all winners with me. They might have lost a couple times here or there, but all the backers that stayed with me through the years, they're all winner. Every one of them.

Just for your information, 20 percent to a player is use and abuse.

Earthquake out.

[Transcribed verbatim by JAM.]

 

[Johnnyt]

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

 

[Seth 304]

So what's Jam's deal anyways? This is pretty much nothing but 7 pages of her going off like an infant on anyone who disagrees with her. Like is there a block option on these forums? Because if I have to read anymore of her ignorant squabbling, I'm going to do a cartwheel off the Hoover Dam.