% when backing pool player

Lol

Keith McCready said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't let the door hit you in the A@# on your way out.

Oh and take that self righteous partner of yours with you.

Don
 
Who is the Stake horse ? Are they dumb cheerleaders and nuthuggers or are they business partners ?
For road players they are partners. One will go into the pool hall and clock the talent and will act as the backer. How much they bet will be determined by the overlay. At the end of the tour they split the money and move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
itsfroze said:
I'm sure Keith could give a cr*p what you say.

Tell us again you're important, why ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sticking up for either side and also could care less who is right and who is wrong, but simply replying to your comment.

Being "important" doesn't make you right, smart or make your opinions more valuable. We're all people and all of great importance and our voices can all be heard.
 
Its really simple

Stakehorse has the money. Player has no money. If player wants money he/she has to make a fair partnership with the Stakehorse.

Stakehorse takes all the risks therefore he/she should get the lions share of the split.

Otherwise players goes hungry and Stakehorse finds another player.

Is it really that hard to understand.

Don :thumbup:
 
Poolshootindon said:
Stakehorse has the money. Player has no money. If player wants money he/she has to make a fair partnership with the Stakehorse.

Stakehorse takes all the risks therefore he/she should get the lions share of the split.

Otherwise players goes hungry and Stakehorse finds another player.

Is it really that hard to understand.

Don :thumbup:
Click to expand...

nope. that clarifies it quite nicely. thank you.
i now completely understand why the female pros are self-sufficient.
and so are the stakehorses.
 
50% to make it a Win/Win proposition.

Bmaker12 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The player puts up the talent, dedication, and expertise, the backer puts up the money. All player expenses come off the top and the profit is split accordingly. The better the player, the higher the percentage - top players usually deserve 50% to make it a Win/Win proposition.
 
JAM said:
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:
Click to expand...

If the pool player had money he'd back himself.

If he doesn't he's a skilled tradesman and needs to work for wages. No employee or group of employees get much more than 20% of the profit on the job.

If you're a top player you're not getting many matches where you're much better than evens.

You play ten matches for £1,000. You do well and win 7. I now have £14,000. You get 20%. I now have £11,200. I'm ahead £1,200, you're ahead £2,800. IF YOU WIN 70% of even money matches for a level £1,000 stake. If I pay 20%, I'm probably doing it because I like you and enjoy the action. If I pay more, I'm a rich family member or an idiot. Or both.

Jmo
 
Last edited:
Poolshootindon said:
Maybe he was saying your "classy". Your the one who "assumed" it was another word. Or is it just the "c" word only has one meaning when directed at you.

And as far as posting on any topic, I agree you can post on any topic you want.

But please don't expect us to believe that Mr. Pro Pool Player spoke to you and you posted his words in "verbatim".

I have read a few of his posts and lets just say English is not his strong suit.

Don :cool:
Click to expand...
It's official.....the age of chivalry is toast.

You may want to get somebody to google 'chivalry' for you.
 
CJ Wiley said:
top players usually deserve 50% to make it a Win/Win proposition.
Click to expand...

I assume that by Win/Win you mean the backer and the player should each make about the same amount of money (same net profit) over time due to their arrangement, is this correct? If that is not what you meant, what is your definition of Win/Win?
 
dkleather said:
If the pool player had money he'd back himself.

If he doesn't he's a skilled tradesman and needs to work for wages. No employee or group of employees get much more than 20% of the profit on the job.
Click to expand...
The relationship is more like a partnership. Sort of like a real estate investor finding a deal, getting staked, doing the work, & splitting the profits... only with the excitement of the gamble sometimes.

Btw I have seen players with the cash themselves give stone cold nut action to a stake horse many times. I believe Shane gave his recent action in Greece to Marsman even though he could afford it himself. The relationships are not going to be figured out on here by us. They are what they are and 50/50 is what they are most of the time.
 
dkleather said:
If the pool player had money he'd back himself.

If he doesn't he's a skilled tradesman and needs to work for wages. No employee or group of employees get much more than 20% of the profit on the job.

If you're a top player you're not getting many matches where you're much better than evens.

You play ten matches for £1,000. You do well and win 7. I now have £14,000. You get 20%. I now have £11,200. I'm ahead £1,200, you're ahead £2,800. IF YOU WIN 70% of even money matches for a level £1,000 stake. If I pay 20%, I'm probably doing it because I like you and enjoy the action. If I pay more, I'm a rich family member or an idiot. Or both.

Jmo
Click to expand...

You did the figures on this wrong in a couple of different ways. The first is you essentially included the $10,000 bankroll that you started with into the figures instead of just using the money that was won or lost in the matches. There is an extra $10,000 in your figures that should not be there and that is the $10,000 bank roll you started with. The other thing is you calculated this as if you were not settling up with either your opponent or your player after each of the gambling sessions, but instead played all ten sessions before you settled up with anybody and you then settled them all up at once. This makes a difference because it is then really just one gambling session (and you calculated it as being just one session) instead of ten, and I am sure you meant for it to be ten and not one.

If you did ten separate gambling sessions for $1,000 each, settling up with your opponent and player after each one, then you lost $3,000 for the three sessions that you lost. And your side is $7,000 winner for the seven sessions you won, but that $7,000 was split up between you and your player. Whatever your cut of the $7,000 is, you then have to subtract your $3,000 in loses from that since you take all the losses, and now you have the final figure of what you actually netted or made after all was said and done. And of course there is nothing for the player to subtract out of his cut of the $7,000 since he doesn't take any losses.

So in this case doing an 80/20 split, your cut would have been $800 for each of the seven wins, for a total of $5,600 (7 x $800), minus the $3,000 in losses that you incurred, for a final net total for you of $2,600. Your player in this case would have received $200 for each of the seven wins, for a total of $1,400 (7 x $200), and he doesn't have losses to subtract.
 
Hi, I did it as a road trip. I start with 10k and he gets 20% of what we have at the end. We have 10 x £1000 matches arranged that are approximately even. I am prepared to lose the 10k but if I do he knows he gets nothing. If he wins 1 match he gets 20% of the $2k at the end. That way he knows if he wins at all he finishes with something to go home with.

You're a cleverish guy and a lot of what you say is correct but don't come on here and tell me I'm wrong or have done my figures wrong without first having the courtesy to ask basic questions.

It doesn't matter what scenario anyone dreams up, 50% is nowhere near correct.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
You did the figures on this wrong in a couple of different ways. The first is you essentially included the $10,000 bankroll that you started with into the figures instead of just using the money that was won or lost in the matches. There is an extra $10,000 in your figures that should not be there and that is the $10,000 bank roll you started with. The other thing is you calculated this as if you were not settling up with either your opponent or your player after each of the gambling sessions, but instead played all ten sessions before you settled up with anybody and you then settled them all up at once. This makes a difference because it is then really just one gambling session (and you calculated it as being just one session) instead of ten, and I am sure you meant for it to be ten and not one.

If you did ten separate gambling sessions for $1,000 each, settling up with your opponent and player after each one, then you lost $3,000 for the three sessions that you lost. And your side is $7,000 winner for the seven sessions you won, but that $7,000 was split up between you and your player. Whatever your cut of the $7,000 is, you then have to subtract your $3,000 in loses from that since you take all the losses, and now you have the final figure of what you actually netted or made after all was said and done. And of course there is nothing for the player to subtract out of his cut of the $7,000 since he doesn't take any losses.

So in this case doing an 80/20 split, your cut would have been $800 for each of the seven wins, for a total of $5,600 (7 x $800), minus the $3,000 in losses that you incurred, for a final net total for you of $2,600. Your player in this case would have received $200 for each of the seven wins, for a total of $1,400 (7 x $200), and he doesn't have losses to subtract.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to question the maths on this. But based on these figures, I think this is a great deal for the pro pool player.
$1400 per 10 money matches on average.
10 money matches per month on average. That's 2.5 matches per week (this is attainable)
x12 months
= $16,800 per year!
This does not include tournament play where the pro player could gain an additional 10-40K for going deep into tournaments...
Where do I sign up? :thumb up:

So there is a strong case that a pro pool player can make a living, albeit low if they have a strong backer :thumbup:
 
I'd like to simply a little for those that seem unable to grasp odds and probability

stake for fun, NOT for profit, because statistically you're done

if you're even considering staking and and are asking questions on this thread....it's not for you



if you want to PROFIT from sports gambling, it's statistically extraordinarily difficult and close to impossible consistently on a long term basis......... yet still easier than staking players
 
It's settled. I will play pool for fun, stake small ball horses for the action/thrill, and play poker for money.
 
Here are my thoughts

If the 50/50 ratio is so good for both sides then why is the Stakehorse a dying breed.

I have done that math several times and it always comes out the same.

Stakehorse is the loser.

Stakehorse has to book 90% winners to be really successful.

10 matches for $2000 per match. (total of both sides)

Player/Stakehorse win 8 of 10 matches. $6000 profit. $3000 for player and $3000 for stakehorse.

And that's at a 80% win rate. Not many players will have that win rate. And if they do the competition will either dry up or weight will be given to the weaker player(s) putting the stakehorse at even more of a risk.

It would take just a few bad sessions and the stakehorse is eating McDonalds and the player is eating filet mignon.

Don :cool:
 
Poolshootindon said:
If the 50/50 ratio is so good for both sides then why is the Stakehorse a dying breed.



Don
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about stakehorses being a dying breed and I haven't read every post in this thread but here's one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet; A good reason to give the player a 50/50 split is because if you don't he can just dump you and get 50/50. You want to remove that incentive. Of course, if you need to worry about that then you shouldn't be in the staking business.

ONB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top