Who is responsible for money owed?

[poolplayer4ever]

This just came up in our local Facebook pool group, which is very active with thousands of members. Here are the details as they were presented:

-The player is known for playing big money games/sets. Like 300 minimum/game.
-His opponent is a guy he's played before, and gets in action a lot.
-Opponent says the same guy is backing him as the last time they played.
-Opponent loses $2K.
-Player reaches out to backer to collect.
-Backer says he only gave opponent permission to play for 30/game, and offers to pay the player based on that.
-Player wants his 2K.

The question is, who would you say is responsible for that debt?

I have been backed several times in the past, and after losing, my backer decided that he did not want to pay, so that made me responsible for paying the money owed.

If the backer knows the amount of the bet, and agrees to back the player for the full amount, then the backer should be responsible for paying, but I feel that in cases where the backer does not pay, then the player who lost is expected to pay up out of his own pocket.

I have lost my cue several times due to this type of situation, because I did not have the cash, so had to give my cue up as collateral. I think it is BS, but that is the way it is. You must have complete trust in your backer keeping their word, or you might get screwed if you lose.

 

[tomatoshooter]

I have been backed several times in the past, and after losing, my backer decided that he did not want to pay, so that made me responsible for paying the money owed.

Were these bets you made independently of your backer?

 

[poolplayer4ever]

Were these bets you made independently of your backer?

I do not understand the question, but the backer always knew the amount of the bet, and agreed to back me for that amount. After being screwed over several times, I no longer agreed to be backed by anyone that I did not fully trust.

The bets were made with me though, not the backer. I understand that. If the bets were made directly with my backer, then it should be on them, and should never be on the player in those situations, in my opinion.

 

[ShootingArts]

I do not understand the question, but the backer always knew the amount of the bet, and agreed to back me for that amount. After being screwed over several times, I no longer agreed to be backed by anyone that I did not fully trust.

The bets were made with me though, not the backer. I understand that. If the bets were made directly with my backer, then it should be on them, and should never be on the player in those situations, in my opinion.

A backer and a player have to have a tremendous amount of trust to let the player make bets on his own. Even then there has to be a cap. Even a wealthy backer may want to draw the line at ten K or so unless the backer is directly involved in the bet. It is very easy to dump a backer who isn't present.

I have never backed anyone, never had a backer. I had people wanting to back me but I didn't feel the need for one in that time period.

Hu

 

[tomatoshooter]

I do not understand the question, but the backer always knew the amount of the bet, and agreed to back me for that amount. After being screwed over several times, I no longer agreed to be backed by anyone that I did not fully trust.

The bets were made with me though, not the backer. I understand that. If the bets were made directly with my backer, then it should be on them, and should never be on the player in those situations, in my opinion.

A backer and a player have to have a tremendous amount of trust to let the player make bets on his own. Even then there has to be a cap. Even a wealthy backer may want to draw the line at ten K or so unless the backer is directly involved in the bet. It is very easy to dump a backer who isn't present.

I have never backed anyone, never had a backer. I had people wanting to back me but I didn't feel the need for one in that time period.

Hu

I don't have a deep understanding of how the backer thing works. So a backer will back a player, covering all of the money and then pay the player 20% of the profit? If the player loses, the backer absorbs the loss? I assume the total is calculated at the end of each individual match or event.

Does the player has a sort of non compete agreement with the backer where the backer gets the opportunity to bet on all games the player plays? Or the backer gets a cut of matches the player plays with his own money? And some backers may have a standing agreement to back a player in matches that the player sets up without the backers knowledge?

 

[336Robin]

Backers are investors. They believe the players they back will win more than they lose.
When they lose more than win, that is what this thread is about. A sad story.

I don't have a deep understanding of how the backer thing works. So a backer will back a player, covering all of the money and then pay the player 20% of the profit? If the player loses, the backer absorbs the loss? I assume the total is calculated at the end of each individual match or event.

Does the player has a sort of non compete agreement with the backer where the backer gets the opportunity to bet on all games the player plays? Or the backer gets a cut of matches the player plays with his own money? And some backers may have a standing agreement to back a player in matches that the player sets up without the backers knowledge?

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

I don't have a deep understanding of how the backer thing works. So a backer will back a player, covering all of the money and then pay the player 20% of the profit? If the player loses, the backer absorbs the loss? I assume the total is calculated at the end of each individual match or event.

Does the player has a sort of non compete agreement with the backer where the backer gets the opportunity to bet on all games the player plays? Or the backer gets a cut of matches the player plays with his own money? And some backers may have a standing agreement to back a player in matches that the player sets up without the backers knowledge?

Well Bert was Fast Eddie backer in Hustler.

If you say Hustler, you saw what Bert told Eddie about being backer.

 

[ShootingArts]

I don't have a deep understanding of how the backer thing works. So a backer will back a player, covering all of the money and then pay the player 20% of the profit? If the player loses, the backer absorbs the loss? I assume the total is calculated at the end of each individual match or event.

Does the player has a sort of non compete agreement with the backer where the backer gets the opportunity to bet on all games the player plays? Or the backer gets a cut of matches the player plays with his own money? And some backers may have a standing agreement to back a player in matches that the player sets up without the backers knowledge?

Almost no end of possible arrangements with a backer. Some are long term deals some for a single session. I might back my brother full time if he played really well, I won't back most pool players for a single session if I am standing there.

Unless you are clubbing baby seals you are almost always in a losing proposition as a backer. You do cover all of the losses usually. You may cover expenses including most of the living expenses of the player. I have never heard of only giving 20% to the player, that would have to be a huge bet. Usually the player gets 35 to 50%, rarely 30%. If you are backing a player for a session the percentage is higher than if you are covering a big chunk of expenses. Sometimes the player has to pay back his share of the losses but these arrangements seldom last long and few backers really get paid back.

Any way you size it, the backer is giving odds on the money. After expenses and losses the backer rarely wins long term. They are giving roughly two to one odds on the money. If the player that they are backing loses they pay out 100% but if he wins they only get 50%. Your player has to win two bets out of three to break even. 100 = 50 + 50. To make money you have to win more than two bets out of three, a pretty tough hill to climb! You need an unknown monster or a constant stream of suckers, the reason for the road grind. I could make expenses plus wages or a bit better on the road alone for short trips of a few weeks. There were some nice scores too but not every time I hit the road. It would have been pee-poor pickings for me and a backer.

While on the subject, unless you are running strong you have to manage expenses tightly on the road. That means you aren't staying in a hundred a night or more hotel very often, you aren't eating steak two meals a day either. You are usually glad to just eat two meals a day and maybe a snack. Often it was just a snack before I got in action. I found it hard to play well when my stomach sounded like an angry lion and everyone could hear it. A very few lived well on the road, for the rest even if they played very well it was a rough life. You needed to know how to manage expenses and not have expensive habits.

A chuckle, I forget who told this story now: Two guys are on the road together. They stop in at a pool hall and one is chatting to the counter man while the other has his elbows on the rail leaning back lightly and checking out the players. About five minutes and he is grabbing his partner's elbow, "Let's get out of here before somebody thinks we are pool players!" Once out the door his partner asked what the problem was. "The game is one pocket and I saw eight and out on three different tables in those few minutes."

More than you asked for but your question brought back a lot of memories.

Hu

 

[Pedestrian]

This just came up in our local Facebook pool group, which is very active with thousands of members. Here are the details as they were presented:

-The player is known for playing big money games/sets. Like 300 minimum/game.
-His opponent is a guy he's played before, and gets in action a lot.
-Opponent says the same guy is backing him as the last time they played.
-Opponent loses $2K.
-Player reaches out to backer to collect.
-Backer says he only gave opponent permission to play for 30/game, and offers to pay the player based on that.
-Player wants his 2K.

The question is, who would you say is responsible for that debt?

When I and others have engaged, backers are past tense. If one has a backer, all of the cash is up, if not...no game.

 

[DynoDan]

The first time time I had a ‘backer’, he never even offered me a cut of the winnings, and I was young/naive & only too happy to play.gamble without fear of losing any $ (free table time also).

 

[PoolPlayer4]

It happened. Well-known local players. It's on the Arizona Pool Players group on facebook.

I experienced a similar scenario in Phoenix/Tempe. There for a tournament at Freezers approx late 2019, I think (before it became Millie's). Match up with player I met in the tournament. I say show money. Only a couple hundred a set and I don't worry too much about posting unless its nosebleed. We're paying after every set so I'm only getting stiffed for one set, max. It has only ever happened once.

He says someone else is staking him. I say, no problem, but I'm dealing with whoever will be paying me.

He goes away for a bit, comes back and says he got the money and no one is staking him, and shows me the cash. We played there once and again at Main Street in Tempe. IMHO, whether you post or not, always deal directly with whoever will be paying.

 

[Fatboy]

I don't have a deep understanding of how the backer thing works. So a backer will back a player, covering all of the money and then pay the player 20% of the profit? If the player loses, the backer absorbs the loss? I assume the total is calculated at the end of each individual match or event.

Does the player has a sort of non compete agreement with the backer where the backer gets the opportunity to bet on all games the player plays? Or the backer gets a cut of matches the player plays with his own money? And some backers may have a standing agreement to back a player in matches that the player sets up without the backers knowledge?

It can be long term, it can change in the middle of a session between races. The % a player gets is a variable as well, that’s fluid too. Also if there’s “make-up” meaning the player has to win back losses before they can get paid-this is common in poker

Most of the people answering you here have some experience in this world, but not much.

To address your post specifically, nobody is playing for 20%. 30% is the lowest I’ve ever seen and that’s with someone you know real well and have a relationship with. 50% was normal back in the 80’s. It’s dropped some since.

It’s complex and shit changes fast sometimes. On a rare occasion there are long standing arraignments-usually not.

And “backing” isn’t a all or nothing thing either, sometimes one game will have multiple backers on each side and each of those guys might have a different deal with their player. Sometimes the player keeps a % of himself and only lays part off to backers so he can win more $. Why get staked when you know your gonna win?

Backing is just one part of gambling on pool. Which is why it’s called pool. Money is “pooled” in different ways then put in action.

Best
Fatboy<———on his way to a gamblers anonymous meeting, great place to find action

I’m not much of a “staker”, I don’t like laying a price on a pool match that close to a even prop. And then you have to sweat getting dumped.

I’ve intentionally put people in action for small $ to see if they would toss me off. Cheap way to learn the integrity of someone. I’ve lost $500 doing that a couple times. $ well spent. This was back when there was lots of action and was testing the waters for more action. Been 20+ years ago. Now no chance I’d do that.

I’ve made more than I’ve lost staking or taking a piece of players over the years. But I’d rather bet the match even $ than stake it and lay a price.

Sometimes you have to stake a match for it to go off-that’s the only reason to really stake a player is to create the game. And that’s not me, most of the time.

I’d rather pick a better spot and just bet $1 to win $1. Staking a game and betting $1 to win 60¢ is a BAD bet.

There are a few exceptions

This is a complex topic, you have to be in the mix to really see how it works. It still happens, was a little over a year ago when I got involved in a “match” I had a piece and bought out, before it started. Then re bet another match to win back the buy out $. It’s complicated. You really have to be there and have been around this world for a long time to fully understand it. And there’s probably things I still don’t know after almost 40 years. There’s no way to learn it without doing it. And being a player too helps a lot. That’s a big edge.