% when backing pool player

[Poolshootindon]

Bill Cress who played out of Classic Billiards in Portland for a few years said back in the "old" days there was action everywhere.

Bill said it was easy to get staked in games in the "good ole days".

Bill said most of the "big" stakehorses had gone away.

I wonder why?

Don

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

Bill Cress who played out of Classic Billiards in Portland for a few years said back in the "old" days there was action everywhere.

Bill said it was easy to get staked in games in the "good ole days".

Bill said most of the "big" stakehorses had gone away.

I wonder why?

Don

Confined to elderly care facilities with money now in the hands of lawyers or children.

 

[bdorman]

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.

Wall Street and Canary Wharf have some investments they would like to sell you.

 

[spartan]

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.

I would be surprised if top money players like Orcullo, Yang, Shane got less than 50/50. Theoretically, In the long run they just need 66.7% win rate (two thirds) i.e. win 2 our of every 3 they play to break even. I am guessing Orcullo, Yang, Shane winning record is at least 70% i.e. they win 7 out of 10 matches they play.
That is theory but in practice there may be other factors that may reduce the players share

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.

I am not a statistician but it is Statistics/Probability 101. Just invert the Player win rate % and you get
Player Win % Stakehorse Break even share
50.0% 100.0%
60.0% 66.7%
66.7% 50.0%
70.0% 42.9%
75.0% 33.3%

A player needs to have 66.7% or 2/3 win rate for the stakehorse to break even with 50/50 split. If the player's win rate is 60% and stakehorse give 50/50 split then he will lose money as he need 66.7% share just to break even.
Above are just theoretical numbers but in practice, of cos other factors come into play like players bargaining power, financial need will adjust the ratio

:grin:

 

[dkleather]

Wall Street and Canary Wharf have some investments they would like to sell you.

Lol. Much the same result as giving a pool player 50%.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Tournaments are too tough because of the luck factor

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?

Yes, that's a "Win/Win," although the "real world" says a 20% return on investment is great in most instances.

I really never had any "stake horses," but I did have partners and have "cut up" over a million in gambling earnings through the years. When any of us went on the road we averaged at least a thousand a day.....and sometimes two thousand a day.

There's a LOT of money to be made gambling at pool, but only a few that can truly maximize winnings. Tournaments are too tough because of the luck factor (to make huge money) of short races, hokey rules, gimmicky racks and equipment. One thing about gambling is the best player will always win over time.......sometimes it takes a lot of time though. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[Poolshootindon]

Good for whom?

Cj..

Play 1 set for $1000 per side. Win that set. Player and Staker each get $500.

Play another set for same amount. Lose that set. Player still has $500 to the good and Staker
is $500 loser.

Now play a 3rd set and you win that set. Player is up $1000 and staker has broken even.

Stakehorse better wise up or he/she will soon be in a hole to deep to get out of.

This is the way it has to be no matter what the stake is.

Don



Don

 

[Poolplaya9]

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.

As I noted in my post, your methods of calculation as well as your facts and figures (along with the final numbers you came up with on how much they each ended up with) were all wrong whether it was a case were you were settling up after each set, or whether it was a case where you settled all of them up at the same time at the end. There were no basic questions that I failed to ask. They were wrong either way, and I also explained why they would be wrong in either case. I also made it clear that I was presuming you were settling up after each set because you felt the need to mention individual sets, instead of just how much you won and lost on the trip. Plus it is far more common to settle up regularly than it is to only settle up at the end of the trip. The player rightfully generally wants to see some money along the way during the trip, not just settling up only one time after a whole trip is over. My presumption was the logical one, but in any case I made it clear that I knew I was having to presume which of the two type scenarios your were referring to (now if your calculations had been correct for one or the other I wouldn't have had to presume and could have just seen by your math exactly what you were talking about).

What I don't understand is why people get their panties in a bunch when they are wrong about something and give out incorrect info (factually incorrect things--not talking things that could be opinion), and somebody else sets the record straight so that there isn't misinformation being given out. We all make mistakes from time to time due to brain farts or just having bad information ourselves and not knowing something like we thought we did. The proper response should be something along the lines of "wow I sure did brain fart on that one, thanks for catching that" or depending on the case could even be "I had always been under the impression that my info was correct and never knew until now that it wasn't, thanks for setting it straight for me". Being butt hurt about someone correcting factually wrong information just makes no sense.

I definitely agree with you that 50/50 is nowhere even in the ball park of being a fair split *unless* the player is more or less stealing in all their matches you are backing.

 

[Poolplaya9]

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.

Well if he doesn't get 50% he might dump you (if he doesn't understand the odds and what a stake horse actually makes). So you might lose money, or you might not, depending on whether he decides to dump you or not. But if you do give a 50/50 split on matches that are not just stealing, you are dumping yourself because you will be guaranteed loser for sure, no mights to it. But the fact the fact that the player can dump just adds an additional dynamic that makes the whole staking game an even worse proposition for the stake horse than it already was because of the bad betting odds.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Yes, that's a "Win/Win," although the "real world" says a 20% return on investment is great in most instances.

This is a little different that other investing scenarios where you are investing by yourself, because in this case you are investing with a partner. The backer and the player are partners together in an investment. So you not only have to take into consideration the potential return on your investment, just like always when you invest by yourself, but you also have to consider how the return you are getting is comparing to the return your partner is getting.

It isn't fair if one partner is raking in money from an investment while the other partner is losing money, if what they both contributed to the investment was close to the same. It wouldn't even be fair if they were both making money, but one was making a whole lot more than the other. My personal opinion is that the backer and the player are both contributing about the same. The backer provides the money, and the player provides the pool playing. I know this can be argued, like it could easily be argued the backer's contribution is the more significant one since he is the only one that can lose anything in the deal, but lets still call it the same for now.

A reasonable argument can be made that over the long haul of their arrangement, one of them should not be making a whole lot more money than the other one. If one is making money, and one is losing money, I think everyone agree that it isn't a very fair partnership at all. Even if they both end up on the positive side, if one only makes a little bit, and the other makes a whole lot, I think most still agree that it isn't a very fair partnership. The bottom line is that the amount of money that you actually get to put into your pocket is the most important thing in determining how fair the arrangement is for both partners.

With a 50/50 split, the money that each one actually pockets in ludicrously unbalanced, and generally the backer is not even pocketing money, but losing it. Here is just one example of an arrangement where both the player and the backer make about the same amount of money, which would be fair by many people's standards. If the player averages being about a 62.5% favorite in the matches you back him in (which means he wins almost 2 matches for each one he loses), then at an 80/20 split, with the 80 going to the backer, the player and the backer will each make the exact same amount of money over time (presuming a random assortment of amounts being bet of course). So if you back a player that averages a 62.5% win rate (almost 2 wins for each loss), if you feel it is fair for you to each make about the same amount of money, the correct split would be 80/20. If the player wins less often than that, then the correct split gets worse for the player. If the player you back wins more often than that (which isn't very common), then the split gets a little better for the player.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Back when I was playing a lot of online poker, I had a small stakes backer (strictly for tournaments) for a little while.

The deal, which I believe is fairly common in the poker world, was 50/50 + stakeback. Although I think 60/40 in favor of the player might be done if the player is really good.

This simply means we would split the profits down the middle, after my backer received the initial stake back. It would end up looking something like this:

Month 1
-Backer transfers the stake of $500.
-I'm free to play in any tournament with a buy-in of $20 or lower.
-At the end of the month, I have $2,000, and have a profit of $1,500
-I transfer half the profit ($750), keep $750 for myself, and use the rest ($500) for next month's tournaments.

Month 2
-This time I'm down $100 at the end of the month.

Month 3
-Backer transfers $100 to bring the stake up to $500 again.
-I finish with $1,000
-But this time I have to give the stake (of $100) back, and then we split the profits.


If at any time the deal is ended, and the player is down any amount. The player does not owe that money to the backer. I'm just wondering if something similar could ever work in pool.

 

[Poolplaya9]

The deal, which I believe is fairly common in the poker world, was 50/50 + stakeback. Although I think 60/40 in favor of the player might be done if the player is really good.

Arrangements similar to that are common for tournaments and can certainly be fair depending on how good the player is and how tough the tournament fields are of course. But the arrangements that are correct for tournaments, are not correct for 1 on 1 matches, and vice versa. Most of the odds and such that have been discussed on the past few pages on this thread were for 1 on 1 matches. The odds are MASSIVELY different between tournaments and 1 on 1 matches, so the arrangements and splits will also need to be massively different. Or to put it another way, a fair arrangement or split with a player when you are backing him in tournaments is usually not even close to what the fair arrangement or split is when backing the same player in 1 on 1 matches.

 

[CJ Wiley]

the backer would get 100% until they get even again

That's not quite how it works.....in this scenario the player and backer would be up $500. each (minus expenses).....the player goes on "make up" if they lose a set and the backer would get 100% until they get even again.....at least this is the common way of going about it from my experience.

Cj..

Play 1 set for $1000 per side. Win that set. Player and Staker each get $500.

Play another set for same amount. Lose that set. Player still has $500 to the good and Staker
is $500 loser.

Now play a 3rd set and you win that set. Player is up $1000 and staker has broken even.

Stakehorse better wise up or he/she will soon be in a hole to deep to get out of.

This is the way it has to be no matter what the stake is.

Don



Don

 

[CJ Wiley]

"for someone to win, someone has to lose" (on Wall Street)

There's a lot more "dumping" going on in professional sports like boxing, basketball, football, and yes, even the stock market than pool.....by a LONG SHOT.....the difference is TRILLIONS of dollars.

Go ahead and invest in Wall Street and see what happens......it's almost a sure loser over time, especially if you make a lot of investments "for someone to win, someone has to lose"....and that's the way of the "real world".....'The Game is the Teacher'

Well if he doesn't get 50% he might dump you (if he doesn't understand the odds and what a stake horse actually makes). So you might lose money, or you might not, depending on whether he decides to dump you or not. But if you do give a 50/50 split on matches that are not just stealing, you are dumping yourself because you will be guaranteed loser for sure, no mights to it. But the fact the fact that the player can dump just adds an additional dynamic that makes the whole staking game an even worse proposition for the stake horse than it already was because of the bad betting odds.

 

[BeiberLvr]

That's not quite how it works.....in this scenario the player and backer would be up $500. each (minus expenses).....the player goes on "make up" if they lose a set and the backer would get 100% until they get even again.....at least this is the common way of going about it from my experience.

That's what I was talking about in my post above.

I think that deal is best for the backer and the player. Sure it sucks as the player to win and not get anything if you owe stake back, but at the same time, you get a bigger piece when you don't owe.

 

[JB Cases]

There are great stories out there about various deals. Deals where a backer backs a player and that player legitimately loses and the backer pulls up, they argue about continuing to play and the backer offers to back the other guy who won because he thinks his horse can't win. Then the player finds another backer and goes on to bust his first backer.

There is no standard for backing but in my limited experience it's generally a 50/50 cut after expenses. For casual matches in the pool room that come up I have always understood it to be 50/50.

 

[JB Cases]

That's not quite how it works.....in this scenario the player and backer would be up $500. each (minus expenses).....the player goes on "make up" if they lose a set and the backer would get 100% until they get even again.....at least this is the common way of going about it from my experience.

I agree. When the session is happening there is no payout per set. The backer is paying by the set and taking all the losses and holding all the winnings. At the end of the session the profit, if any, is paid out.

The player though is not "in debt" if he has a losing session. If another match is arranged then the player starts fresh. Unless they have other other arrangements.

 

[CJ Wiley]

it's ok if the player only gets 30% (+or-) until the backer recoups his losses.

I agree. When the session is happening there is no payout per set. The backer is paying by the set and taking all the losses and holding all the winnings. At the end of the session the profit, if any, is paid out.

The player though is not "in debt" if he has a losing session. If another match is arranged then the player starts fresh. Unless they have other other arrangements.

I'm not sure if "starting fresh" is going to acceptable, however, it's ok if the player only gets 30% (+or-) until the backer recoups his losses. I would be ok with this arrangement.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I agree. When the session is happening there is no payout per set. The backer is paying by the set and taking all the losses and holding all the winnings. At the end of the session the profit, if any, is paid out.

The player though is not "in debt" if he has a losing session. If another match is arranged then the player starts fresh. Unless they have other other arrangements.

That isn't what CJ was talking about, and I'm basing that on his wording which was real clear, and also on the fact that he was quoting and responding to the specific example in post #287 where they are settling up after set (as evidence by that OP noting who was up or down how much after each set). What CJ was essentially saying is that the most common way of doing things is that as soon as the backer is in the negative, the player is essentially playing the next gambling match (or however many it takes) for free and letting the stake horse keep 100% of the winnings until the stake horse is able to get back to even, and then it goes back to the 50/50 split again after that.

It isn't the most common way it is done at all. While there may be some arrangements out there like that where the backer and player have a longstanding and solid arrangement, the reality is that most players are never going to play a gambling session for free just because they "owe" a stake horse that lost money on him the last time he backed him. They would just find a different stake horse if their last stake horse wanted them to play for free until he got back to even.

Regardless though, that method wouldn't be fair or equitable anyway. It would just help to limit the backer's losses some. He still couldn't make money that way, he would just stay closer to even all the time, all while the amount the player earned pulls further away and keeps going up and up.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I'm not sure if "starting fresh" is going to acceptable, however, it's ok if the player only gets 30% (+or-) until the backer recoups his losses. I would be ok with this arrangement.

Whether the player is player for free until the backer gets back to even (backing getting 100% until back even), or whether the player plays for a reduced percentage (as you mentioned this time above) until the backer gets back to even, all that does it help the backer stay closer to even (he will still usually be down if you are doing realistic relatively close match ups, just not down by as much). Meanwhile the amount the player is earning just keeps going up, but the backer won't ever get far away from being even (on either side).

Run the numbers doing it like that and you will see. Do it with about 20 different gambling sessions, one per week, for say $1,000 each, with a 50/50 split when the backer is in the positive, and some lesser split when he is in the negative. Make the number of sessions that are won and lost realistic (like 11 or 12 wins and 8 or 9 losses). You will find that all it does is keep the backer nearer to even (and most often still in the negative) and the player still does good, and always way, way better than the backer does. Like not even close. At no time this way, if the matches aren't stealing, can the backer ever get far from even. The players earnings continue to grow over time though.