Why do people become backers?

Roy Steffensen

Roy Steffensen

locksmith
Silver Member
Posted this in another thread, but feel it could deserve a thread of it own.

I love what backers do, but I think I would only back Ralf Souquet or Dennis Orcullo on a regular basis.

If a backer has a 70/30 deal I just don't like the risk...

Example: Say you go to Derby City Classic and decide to back a player for atleast 5 matches, $ 1,000 each.

lose match 1 = $ 1,000 to pay = -$ 1,000 total
win match 2 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = -$ 300 total
win match 3 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 400 total
win match 4 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 1,100 total
lose match 5 = $ 1,000 to pay = $ 100 total (player 900 +)

You have risked $ 5,000 and your profit is $ 100, and your player won 60 % of his matches.

If the split is 60/40, as some players have, it's even worse.
-$1000, -$400, $200, $800, -$200 total (player 1200 +)

You have risked $ 5,000 and you have lost $ 200, and your player won 60 % of his matches.

If your player wins 4 and lose 1, I still don't like the interest on the money compared to the risk of matching up "even", especially not if the other option is sidebets. example 1 = $1,800 profit, example 2 = $1,400 profit and sidebets = $3,000 profit

Of course you could agree with the player that when the week is done you split 70/30 of the profit, then it will look a little better for you as a backer, but normally when a player has a regular backer they split after each match, because it can take weeks between matches, so my numbers are pretty accurate.

I guess backing isn't my thing. As I said, I love what they do, because without backers there wouldn't be as many matches to watch and do sidebets on.

I know that some people do back because of friendship, and I know that if I had "too much" money on hand, there are certain people I would love to put in the ring myself. I know it wouldn't be a smart way to run your money, but it would be fun.

So, based on these numbers, why do people become backers?
 
they like to gamble but can't play at a high enough level. Maybe they like to feel like they control someone like a manager of a prize fighter
 
Roy Steffensen said:
Posted this in another thread, but feel it could deserve a thread of it own.

I love what backers do, but I think I would only back Ralf Souquet or Dennis Orcullo on a regular basis.

If a backer has a 70/30 deal I just don't like the risk...

Example: Say you go to Derby City Classic and decide to back a player for atleast 5 matches, $ 1,000 each.

lose match 1 = $ 1,000 to pay = -$ 1,000 total
win match 2 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = -$ 300 total
win match 3 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 400 total
win match 4 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 1,100 total
lose match 5 = $ 1,000 to pay = $ 100 total (player 900 +)

You have risked $ 5,000 and your profit is $ 100, and your player won 60 % of his matches.

If the split is 60/40, as some players have, it's even worse.
-$1000, -$400, $200, $800, -$200 total (player 1200 +)

You have risked $ 5,000 and you have lost $ 200, and your player won 60 % of his matches.

If your player wins 4 and lose 1, I still don't like the interest on the money compared to the risk of matching up "even", especially not if the other option is sidebets. example 1 = $1,800 profit, example 2 = $1,400 profit and sidebets = $3,000 profit

Of course you could agree with the player that when the week is done you split 70/30 of the profit, then it will look a little better for you as a backer, but normally when a player has a regular backer they split after each match, because it can take weeks between matches, so my numbers are pretty accurate.

I guess backing isn't my thing. As I said, I love what they do, because without backers there wouldn't be as many matches to watch and do sidebets on.

I know that some people do back because of friendship, and I know that if I had "too much" money on hand, there are certain people I would love to put in the ring myself. I know it wouldn't be a smart way to run your money, but it would be fun.

So, based on these numbers, why do people become backers?
Click to expand...

they like pool they like to gamble and they cant play.
 
Most of the real backers out there don't do it for the money nor do they really care about the money. The split is a deal worked out based on the player backer relationship and is usually more of an incentive for the player. The more comfortable the relationship the backer has with his player the bigger the incentive becomes. If your worried about the split or winning/losing ratio it is probably not a good idea to become a backer. It is all about the action.
 
You didn't know? Here's the answer, in black and white :)

"All I want's the money."

Sure. Just the money. And the aristocratic pleasure of seeing him fall apart. You're Roman, Bert. You have to win them all."

But a more serious answer:
I like statistics to figure this out, but I lack the math power to do it. I think you could figure it out using the kelly system, if you have a fixed bankroll and are trying to work out what kind of split to give your player.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Or you could look at this way:
Let's say you expect your player to win 50% of his games. You're truly gambling, with no idea who is going to win. They perform as expected, winning half their games. With a 70/30 split, then your results are like this (on a 100 dollar bet):

W +70
W +140
W +210
W +280
W +350
L +250
L +150
L +50
L -50
L -150

So you're stuck 150. I think the math says that in the long run, you're going to come out behind no matter what.

Let's say you follow the exact same process but you think your player has a 70% chance of winning, and you're right. He always wins 7 out of 10.

W +70
W +140
W +210
W +280
W +350
W +420
W +490
L +390
L +290
L +190

You're up 190. You should win in the long run.

Somewhere in between is the break-even point.
With trial and error it looks like that point is 59%. If you win 59% or better you will make money. So you just need to match up in a way that you're pretty sure your player has a 10% edge.


Yet another way of looking at it:as long as the backer doesn't bet enough to put himself into trouble, he should be able to sweat some great high stakes pool even he ends up losing a little in the long run. It's cheap entertainment.
 
I think a lot of backers like the action and woofing at other players to match up with their player. I've seen some backers woof worse than alot of players. It's like they love to make another player look silly when said player makes claims and then either doesn't agree to match up or gets drilled by the backers player. Also they love the action but can't play at a high level.
 
Most backers have a income that allows them to stake players. Many of the most famous backers over the years have did something that allowed them to stake other players and be a little at ease. Some of the best stake horses used to be the big time bookmakers, long before internet gambling (see Jay Helfert about this or any other old school road grinder). There are still some that exist, but from what I hear, there used to be a "bookie" that would stake players and gamble himself in almost all the action spots. Of course, there are some backers that are into shady businesses such as, escort services (pimps), big time drug dealers, or any other type of illegal activity that produces large amounts of cash. At the same time, we have the legitimate backers that have worked hard and are fortunate enough to have established a very stable and high income that allows them to stake players and risk the loss.

Just a thought, who is the best backer in the country? I have to say that Tony Watson's ex-stake horse had to be the best. I saw Tony in Vegas once (no staker with him) and he walked up to another player and said.."Hey, can I borrow 500?" and before the guy could answer Tony pulled out a knot of $100s big enough to clog a sewer drain and said.." I'm just kidding, Stevie sent me out here with $50,000 and said 'get in action!'"

I heard Tony and him went separate ways and he started staking Kieth Bennett. Does he still? Is he still around?
 
They absolutely, positively, hate their cash. I mean, their money may very well have molested them in some way. They feel, for some reason, that burning it would not be enough of a punishment(maybe because it is illegal), so they decide to divvy it up amongst people who will never keep it for long, or use it wisely. Take THAT, dough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
1on1pooltournys said:
Most backers have a income that allows them to stake players. Many of the most famous backers over the years have did something that allowed them to stake other players and be a little at ease. Some of the best stake horses used to be the big time bookmakers, long before internet gambling (see Jay Helfert about this or any other old school road grinder). There are still some that exist, but from what I hear, there used to be a "bookie" that would stake players and gamble himself in almost all the action spots. Of course, there are some backers that are into shady businesses such as, escort services (pimps), big time drug dealers, or any other type of illegal activity that produces large amounts of cash. At the same time, we have the legitimate backers that have worked hard and are fortunate enough to have established a very stable and high income that allows them to stake players and risk the loss.

Just a thought, who is the best backer in the country? I have to say that Tony Watson's ex-stake horse had to be the best. I saw Tony in Vegas once (no staker with him) and he walked up to another player and said.."Hey, can I borrow 500?" and before the guy could answer Tony pulled out a knot of $100s big enough to clog a sewer drain and said.." I'm just kidding, Stevie sent me out here with $50,000 and said 'get in action!'"

I heard Tony and him went separate ways and he started staking Kieth Bennett. Does he still? Is he still around?
Click to expand...


There are two very different ways to stake a player. One is putting him in action and the other is putting him in a tourney. The second way (which I've done a hundred times) has less dwn side risk. Usually all expenses come off the top and you split the rest. If you have a good player, you have a chance to do pretty well. I have chopped up a 25K score (with Keith) and a 18K score with Tang. Not a bad return on a $1,500 investment. I had many wins in the five to ten thousand area with the same two players.

In gambling it is best to have a "make up" clause with your player. If he loses it must be made up off the next win. This way you can protect your bankroll.
 
Last edited:
Roy Steffensen said:
Posted this in another thread, but feel it could deserve a thread of it own.

I love what backers do, but I think I would only back Ralf Souquet or Dennis Orcullo on a regular basis.

If a backer has a 70/30 deal I just don't like the risk...

Example: Say you go to Derby City Classic and decide to back a player for atleast 5 matches, $ 1,000 each.

lose match 1 = $ 1,000 to pay = -$ 1,000 total
win match 2 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = -$ 300 total
win match 3 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 400 total
win match 4 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 1,100 total
lose match 5 = $ 1,000 to pay = $ 100 total (player 900 +)

You have risked $ 5,000 and your profit is $ 100, and your player won 60 % of his matches.

If the split is 60/40, as some players have, it's even worse.
-$1000, -$400, $200, $800, -$200 total (player 1200 +)

You have risked $ 5,000 and you have lost $ 200, and your player won 60 % of his matches.

If your player wins 4 and lose 1, I still don't like the interest on the money compared to the risk of matching up "even", especially not if the other option is sidebets. example 1 = $1,800 profit, example 2 = $1,400 profit and sidebets = $3,000 profit

Of course you could agree with the player that when the week is done you split 70/30 of the profit, then it will look a little better for you as a backer, but normally when a player has a regular backer they split after each match, because it can take weeks between matches, so my numbers are pretty accurate.

I guess backing isn't my thing. As I said, I love what they do, because without backers there wouldn't be as many matches to watch and do sidebets on.

I know that some people do back because of friendship, and I know that if I had "too much" money on hand, there are certain people I would love to put in the ring myself. I know it wouldn't be a smart way to run your money, but it would be fun.

So, based on these numbers, why do people become backers?
Click to expand...



In my opinion they love pool, they love to gamble, and they can't play a lick!!!!!!!:D
 
Roy Steffensen said:
If a backer has a 70/30 deal I just don't like the risk...

Example: Say you go to Derby City Classic and decide to back a player for atleast 5 matches, $ 1,000 each.

lose match 1 = $ 1,000 to pay = -$ 1,000 total
win match 2 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = -$ 300 total
win match 3 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 400 total
win match 4 = $ 1,000 to collect, give $ 300 = $ 1,100 total
lose match 5 = $ 1,000 to pay = $ 100 total (player 900 +)

You have risked $ 5,000 and your profit is $ 100, and your player won 60 % of his matches.
Click to expand...

I always thought it was dumb from a financial standpoint to risk 100 to win 70 (in this case). But it's even dumber the way you've laid it out. After the first two matches the "team" of backer and player are even, but the player has +300 and the backer has -300. If the five matches were done on a team basis, the backer would have 700 and the player 300 - the correct result for a team that won 1,000.

I suppose the argument is you have to give the player an incentive to win on every match. After losing match 1 he wouldn't care to play match 2 if he's not going to get anything for winning - he'll find himself another stakehorse. Makes sense, but just reinforces how dumb it is to be a backer. Dumb, that is, from the standpoint of making money. Not dumb if you like the action and don't mind (probably) paying for it.

But your odds are a lot better in a Las Vegas casino.
 
Because they think they have the nuts. The player they are backing has them drinking the Kool Aid.

They are laying odds on the money because they feel the game is not 50/50 but like 80/20 in their favor.
 
Backers are KING!

Backers are choreographers and they enjoy their time in the sun.

Most of them fully understand the odds of making money by staking pool players but do it because they enjoy it, not because it is the best money-making venture out there.

Book-making is far more profitable.

JoeyA
 
Or...maybe they plan to write a book about their experiences and make money that way...:wink:
 
pwd72s said:
Or...maybe they plan to write a book about their experiences and make money that way...:wink:
Click to expand...

Not a bad thought but writing a book is about as profitable as staking pool players (at least writing a book about pool). You'd better be doing it for the pure love of it because it takes an awful long time to write one and the target audience is relatively small as well as their check books. :D

JoeyA
 
Roy Steffensen said:
If a backer has a 70/30 deal I just don't like the risk...

So, based on these numbers, why do people become backers?
Click to expand...

RoyBoy,
If gamblers were logical and frugal, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY LAS VEGAS.

I have not met any stakehorses that believed their "horse" was not a DEFINITE favorite to win the money. Are there really any gamblers that don't think they are smarter than the "house", smarter than the "opposition", and smarter than everyone else at the table???

In the majority of gambling matchups that I've seen, it seems likely that one player is closer to 80% likely to win (they are not the usual TAR matchup where 2 champions collide). In that scenario, the backer still would be better off playing roulette; BUT WOULD HE HAVE AS MUCH FUN?

In addition, many backers just think of the risk as "overhead". If you could spend an additional $1000 every day in a business to make $200 extra profit a day you would do it. The overhead is huge, but the small profit is nice if you think there is no risk to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top