% when backing pool player

[Poolplaya9]

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...

I'm not sure what any of your post had to do with my post that you quoted. But I would like to comment on a couple of your points even though they didn't seem to relate to my post. You seem to suggest that the stock market is a worse investment than backing players in 1 on 1 matches with a 50/50 split. Not only is the stock market a better investment than being a stake horse in 1 on 1 matches, just about every other investment out there is better too. It would be difficult to find any investment anywhere that would be as bad as staking players in 1 on 1 matches (unless you are lucky enough to stake someone that can always get matches where they are stone cold stealing which would change things but obviously isn't at all typical).

On a side note, the stock market is actually a pretty decent investment vehicle, contrary to what some seem to think. The US stock markets have over a century of history proving that they consistently go up over time. The average stock generally makes money, and of course the more above average they are, the more they make. Even stocks just a little below average will often be making money. I'm simplifying a little, but if you lose money in the stock market it is generally because you picked bad stocks (companies) to invest in that were well below average, and/or you didn't stay in them long enough (because even good stocks or the markets as a whole can go down in value for relatively short periods of time). Both of these things would be the investors fault though, not the market's fault. And as long as you can afford to have your money tied up for a few years, there are ways that even someone who knows absolutely nothing about the market or about how to pick stocks can pretty much guarantee that they will make money in the market with near zero risk (like with a low fee Index Fund or Electronically Traded Fund that mimics the S&P 500 as an example).

 

[Ken_4fun]

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'

Really ?!?!?

I would be willing to bet on that one.

More common working folks have been made millionaires from Wall Street than any other way.

I worked at GE for 10 years and during that time, I was just a young Engineer and I often made more money in stocks than I made in salary. I worked with a lot of millionaires that worked on the factory floor. I mean the men and women who ran the machines, and quite a few of my electricians. Were there some folks that lived paycheck to paycheck that worked there? Yes, those who chose to not invest and pi$$ed their money away.

Saying to make money, "Someone has to lose", is so stupid, it makes you sound like an idiot.

You buy stocks, which is an investment into a company. That company makes a product, they sell that for profit. The company takes that profit and turns it into dividends, or retained earnings for future investments. As the company continues to make money and is successful, the stock value rises.

I know how much I have made during in my career in salary, and I have made more and have more in investments in the market.

I find the "experts" who like to spout the "most crooked game about Wall Street" or "Someone has to lose" are those who are not invested or never were but justify their "non investment" with silly statements like that. CJ, you better stick to talking about pool, because you sure as hell don't understand the Stock Market.

My last question, is if you don't invest in the stock market, what do you invest in? Don't tell me about "start a business", or "real estate". Sure there are a few people that can do that (very few), but I keep thinking about those common folk working on the factory floor, what are YOU suggesting that is better? What I have seen in my 30 years in the professional world is either people save and invest, or they pi$$ it away.

Just as Freddy the Beard says, "Cheese and crackers!"

Ken

 

[Poolshootindon]

Make up

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.

Ok. I am sure you have more experience than I do as a backer/player. And I can see where player/backer can make any arrangement that they seem to agree to be fair.

But the example I just gave is solid.

I hope backer continues to eat steak. Horse meat is not very tasty.:grin-square:

Don

 

[1971]

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.

All true. This also illustrates the importance of getting into the long run.

 

[JB Cases]

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.

I read it differently and my own experience is that it's different for most backer/player arrangements.

The player is the horse who gets picked to play. If that horse loses a session then typically he isn't "in debt" to the backer and obligated to play OTHER players and win until the backer gets even before he makes money.

In a session though the player isn't paid every time a set finishes. The backer holds all the money and settles up at the end. It would be highly uncommon for it to be otherwise.

Now if the player is put into a game with someone else the next day then that's a whole new arrangement and the player does not start out in debt due to the losing session the day before with another player.

UNLESS the backer and player have some sort of other arrangement where they are together in all they do for a time. Say they go on a road trip for a week and book some losers and some winners, they would settle up at the end.

 

[PINKLADY]

isn't this all just simple accounting?

EX: expenses for the week are $1K & they come off the top, cause they are the cost of doing business.

win $7K.
(lose $3K.)
gross $4K.
(less $1K.)
net $3K.
split as agreed %.

of course, the game changes if the player loses & you're in the red - then i can see the player having to makeup for his losses till "square", and/or the stakehorse cutting his losses & moving on.

if the player is INVESTED, then he's always striving to WIN - and since he has no money to even get to the game to compete, then something is better than nothing. (which still boggles my mind, when they've just grossed $15K+/-, and have no money to invest in themselves & build upon & take 100%.)

on the flipside, it was pointed out to me yesterday by 3 people, that DUMPING is a SURE THING. (albeit short-lived in my opinion, so bet deep!)

 

[voiceofreason]

nope. that clarifies it quite nicely. thank you.
i now completely understand why the female pros are self-sufficient.
and so are the stakehorses.

Had a little chuckle out loud at this.

Quality!

 

[voiceofreason]

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

In red - exactly the point I made about ten pages ago

 

[ElKabong]

Ken, what did I tell you about arguing with liberals ? :deadhorse:

To liberals it a zero sum game, for the poor to "rise up", the rich have to pay/suffer.

Remember our little demonstrators a couple summers ago?

As you and I know, there is room at the table for everyone, wealth is generated every day.

There are plenty of people out there that if you gave them a million dollars tomorrow, they would be back next year with all kinds of bad luck stories with their hands out.

Really ?!?!?

I would be willing to bet on that one.

More common working folks have been made millionaires from Wall Street than any other way.

I worked at GE for 10 years and during that time, I was just a young Engineer and I often made more money in stocks than I made in salary. I worked with a lot of millionaires that worked on the factory floor. I mean the men and women who ran the machines, and quite a few of my electricians. Were there some folks that lived paycheck to paycheck that worked there? Yes, those who chose to not invest and pi$$ed their money away.

Saying to make money, "Someone has to lose", is so stupid, it makes you sound like an idiot.

You buy stocks, which is an investment into a company. That company makes a product, they sell that for profit. The company takes that profit and turns it into dividends, or retained earnings for future investments. As the company continues to make money and is successful, the stock value rises.

I know how much I have made during in my career in salary, and I have made more and have more in investments in the market.

I find the "experts" who like to spout the "most crooked game about Wall Street" or "Someone has to lose" are those who are not invested or never were but justify their "non investment" with silly statements like that. CJ, you better stick to talking about pool, because you sure as hell don't understand the Stock Market.

My last question, is if you don't invest in the stock market, what do you invest in? Don't tell me about "start a business", or "real estate". Sure there are a few people that can do that (very few), but I keep thinking about those common folk working on the factory floor, what are YOU suggesting that is better? What I have seen in my 30 years in the professional world is either people save and invest, or they pi$$ it away.

Just as Freddy the Beard says, "Cheese and crackers!"

Ken

 

[CJ Wiley]

on the stock market for a dollar to be made a dollar must be lost

Really ?!?!?



Saying to make money, "Someone has to lose", is so stupid, it makes you sound like an idiot.

II beg to differ, on the stock market for a dollar to be made a dollar must be lost....this is the facts, the way money is taken in to the stock market is by {people's} investment, and it's taken out by {people} removing investments AND by fees and/or commissions charged by stock brokers. The stock market doesn't "make" money, it simply redistributes it.

Watch the movie 'The Wolf of Wall Street' - it's not the "norm," but it's entertaining and shows the attitude that these "wall street players" have about the "common folks".

I've made many, many investments, but not without "good information" - this goes for pool too, I'm involved with a group that makes WAY more money betting on pool in a year than Shane makes playing tournaments...'The Inside Knowledge is the Teacher'

 

[TheMarsMan]

II beg to differ, on the stock market for a dollar to be made a dollar must be lost....this is the facts, the way money is taken in to the stock market is by {people's} investment, and it's taken out by {people} removing investments AND by fees and/or commissions charged by stock brokers. The stock market doesn't "make" money, it simply redistributes it.

Watch the movie 'The Wolf of Wall Street' - it's not the "norm," but it's entertaining and shows the attitude that these "wall street players" have about the "common folks".

I've made many, many investments, but not without "good information" - this goes for pool too, I'm involved with a group that makes WAY more money betting on pool in a year than Shane makes playing tournaments...'The Inside Knowledge is the Teacher'

CJ,
If I start up a company for a million dollars and build it up to where I am profiting 2 million dollars a year and I sell that company for 10 million dollars I have created 9 million dollars of profit. No one lost any money, you can use the same model for the stock market. It isn't true that the market just redistributes money.

 

[mantis99]

This has been an interesting thread, but notice that the person on here who suggested a 50/50 split after expenses is a players significant other. Ask a union man what they should make (nothing against the unions), and its always more than they are making now. People always think they are worth more than they are getting. In this world, risk often dictates what what someone makes. If you take no risk, you generally don't get as much of the profit. This is true in all pro sports. Baseball owners have all the financial risk in owning a team, and the players have none. While pro baseball players make a lot of money, none make as much as the owner does. It shouldn't be any different here. The one taking the financial risk should reap the greatest benefits, especially when you look at how much they have to win to be successful. Also, playing a pool match just isn't that much work as it has been said on here, certainly not compared to what a lot of people do at work on a daily basis. I am not saying it isn't hard work, just not that it is so tough that it warrants the player to walk away with more than the backer.

 

[Ken_4fun]

II beg to differ, on the stock market for a dollar to be made a dollar must be lost....this is the facts, the way money is taken in to the stock market is by {people's} investment, and it's taken out by {people} removing investments AND by fees and/or commissions charged by stock brokers. The stock market doesn't "make" money, it simply redistributes it.

Watch the movie 'The Wolf of Wall Street' - it's not the "norm," but it's entertaining and shows the attitude that these "wall street players" have about the "common folks".

I've made many, many investments, but not without "good information" - this goes for pool too, I'm involved with a group that makes WAY more money betting on pool in a year than Shane makes playing tournaments...'The Inside Knowledge is the Teacher'

CJ -

Quit, I like you and you seem like a nice guy.

Why don't you watch "The Hustler" and "The Color of Money" to understand the pool world?.... I don't watch movies that are made for entertainment as a reference. (Just for your information, the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street" was based on a true story, but there are errors in it too.)

I don't know where you got your MBA, but that "someone has to lose" isn't the way it works. If it was, the stock market would never change value, but if you listen it goes up and it goes down. It isn't a net zero gain.

As mentioned above, its about companies making money and distribution of those profits. Some go bankrupt (E.F. Hutton? General Foods? RCA?), some do not keep up with technology (Kodak?), and others take their place (Apple? Facebook?).

That's the facts CJ. If it wasn't, why the hell would a company try to make a profit?

I have to admit, your responses do make me shake my head....

 

[ElKabong]

Ok, very simplistic, Ken will correct me where I'm wrong...

CJ doesn't know that there are millions of NEW dollars being printed as we speak.

As the population base grows, so does the amount of money to be had.
It used to be gold based, but new gold was being mined all the time also.
It's all about trading your labor for a unit of fiat currency.

We could make that currency corn, then Iowa farmers would be running the show instead of the bankers at the Federal Exchange. :bow-down:

The stock market is the teacher

 

[Ken_4fun]

Ok, very simplistic, Ken will correct me where I'm wrong...

CJ doesn't know that there are millions of NEW dollars being printed as we speak.

As the population base grows, so does the amount of money to be had.
It used to be gold based, but new gold was being mined all the time also.
It's all about trading your labor for a unit of fiat currency.

We could make that currency corn, then Iowa farmers would be running the show instead of the bankers at the Federal Exchange. :bow-down:

The stock market is the teacher

You are correct.

It doesn't matter who is the teacher, some folks wont listen (CJ).

Ken

 

[Spimp13]

We could make that currency corn, then Iowa farmers would be running the show instead of the bankers at the Federal Exchange. :bow-down:

I am not sure if this is supposed to make me smile or cry lol...

 

[Poolplaya9]

I read it differently and my own experience is that it's different for most backer/player arrangements.

The player is the horse who gets picked to play. If that horse loses a session then typically he isn't "in debt" to the backer and obligated to play OTHER players and win until the backer gets even before he makes money.

In a session though the player isn't paid every time a set finishes. The backer holds all the money and settles up at the end. It would be highly uncommon for it to be otherwise.

Now if the player is put into a game with someone else the next day then that's a whole new arrangement and the player does not start out in debt due to the losing session the day before with another player.

UNLESS the backer and player have some sort of other arrangement where they are together in all they do for a time. Say they go on a road trip for a week and book some losers and some winners, they would settle up at the end.

You had read it incorrectly, and CJ subsequently clarified it again the same as I had understood it, albeit this time he backpedaled a bit from the player playing for free until the backer got back to even and switched over to the player playing for a drastically reduced percentage until the backer was back to even. He didn't specify whether he felt this was only for additional sessions with the same opponent or with new opponents too but he certainly made it clear he felt it applied even after the backer and player settle up and then negotiated a new session with an opponent later. The rest you wrote I agree with and it mirrored what I said. CJ said this is the most common way players are backed, but it is not (although it happens).

There is still some confusion for how the numbers showing how much money the player and the backer will earn over time with various splits will apply to the various scenarios where you are backing them by set, session, trip, etc. I assumed that how the mathematical concept would apply to the different scenarios was pretty easy to see and explained it with that in mind but I am learning that is only the case for those that are already math inclined. To try to further clarify, it is based on how likely your horse will be to be the overall winner (defined in this case as whether he won or lost money) starting from the moment you last settled up with him until the moment that you will next settle up with him. The correct split depends on how likely he is on average to be money winner during the period of time between settle ups. Here are some examples so everyone can see how the math applies to each scenario and hopefully it clears up any confusion.

If you are backing your player per set and settling up with him after each set, then if the horse is favored to win 62.5% of those sets the backer and the player will each make the exact same amount of money over time at an 80/20 split (with the 80 to the backer).

If you are backing your player by the session and settling up with him at the end of the session, then if the player is favored to win money in 62.5% of those sessions then the backer and the player will make the exact same amount of money over time with an 80/20 split (with the 80 to the backer).

If you are backing your player by the trip and only settling up with them at the end of the trip, then if the player is favored to be overall money winner on 62.5% of those trips then the backer and the player will make the exact same amount of money over time with an 80/20 split (with the 80 to the backer).

Essentially what you have to do when deciding what split is fair is to estimate the likelihood that the player will be overall net money winner for all the action that will occur between now and the time that you will be settling up with him. Once you know about how likely it is that he will win more money than he loses during that time period, you can then figure out the fair split using the figures I and others like iba have provided for what each person will actually get to pocket. If you are going to back a player by the set, then what is important is how likely he is to win that set. If you are backing your player by the session, then what is important is how likely he is to win money in that session. If you are backing your player on a trip, then what is important is how likely he is to win money on that trip.

 

[Poolshootindon]

True Dat

isn't this all just simple accounting?

EX: expenses for the week are $1K & they come off the top, cause they are the cost of doing business.

win $7K.
(lose $3K.)
gross $4K.
(less $1K.)
net $3K.
split as agreed %.

of course, the game changes if the player loses & you're in the red - then i can see the player having to makeup for his losses till "square", and/or the stakehorse cutting his losses & moving on.

if the player is INVESTED, then he's always striving to WIN - and since he has no money to even get to the game to compete, then something is better than nothing. (which still boggles my mind, when they've just grossed $15K+/-, and have no money to invest in themselves & build upon & take 100%.)

on the flipside, it was pointed out to me yesterday by 3 people, that DUMPING is a SURE THING. (albeit short-lived in my opinion, so bet deep!)

Lady... You are correct. It really is simple to understand. And I can understand where the player thinks that he/she should be in for more of a %. But only if he/she continues to make a profit for the backer.

Don

 

[Poolplaya9]

Wall Street......it's almost a sure loser over time, especially if you make a lot of investments "for someone to win, someone has to lose"

I beg to differ, on the stock market for a dollar to be made a dollar must be lost....

These two statements would only be true if the value of the companies and their stocks never changed over time. But we all know that their values do of course change. Over time most go up, and some go down. We all know companies can continue to grow and be worth more and more over time, and a stock is essentially an ownership share (a minuscule ownership percentage) in a company.

Think of the stock market as a group of cue collectors, and the stocks are cues that they buy and sell amongst each other. Just because you buy a cue, does not mean the guy that sold it lost money, just like just because you buy a share of stock, does not mean that the guy that sold it lost money. Guy 1 might have been the first guy that bought the cue directly from the cue maker (same as the first guy that bought the share of stock when it was first issued by the company). Now that cue's value is going to change over time, and it might go up, or it might go down (stocks go up more than they go down on average though). So lets say guy 1's cue has increased in value since he bought it from the maker, just like the majority of stocks do. Well guy 1 eventually decides to sell the cue to guy 2, and guy 1 makes a profit since the cue increased in value during the time he had it. Guy 2 has it for a while, and eventually sells it to guy 3, and guy 2 also banked a profit because its value increased during the time he had it too. Guy 3 eventually sells it to guy 4, and guy 3 also makes a profit for the same reason, the cue was still increasing in value. And so on and so forth.

As you can see, nobody has to lose at all. There is not a winner and a loser in every transaction. Sometimes everybody in every transaction are all winners all along the way, because the value of what they are buying and selling was consistently going up over time, just like the majority of companies/stocks do, and the market as a whole always does. Of course somebody at some point along the way that had that same cue might have taken a loss on it if the market was down at the time he sold it, or the cue maker was out of favor at that moment, etc. But nobody has to lose at all for somebody else to make a gain. You only gain or lose on the cue solely based on whether it increased or decreased in value between the time you bought it and the time you sold it. The biggest difference between stocks and cues is that more stocks go up than go down, and more cues go down than go up.

 

[voiceofreason]

So in summary then, it appears my original posts of 80/20 backer/player in a straight up match are about right and 50/50 in a tournament/series where he/she is a favourite to win money is about right?

Sigh....