Backer Fees?

[Andy52086]

So I'm trying to get a buddy playing again...he was an extremely great player...anyway...I am about to start putting up the money for us playing some decent games and my question is how much should the backer receive and how much should the guy not taking any loss receive? 70-30?

[BRLongArm]

The days of 50-50 split are over. Depending on your relationship with your guy and the game, most players are playing for 35-40%. That makes it a little easier on the stake horse/backer to keep him in action and absorb losses.

I would recommend to split only after all action is done, rather than after each match. It's really the only way to do it. If you are going to a tournament, chop the money after all the smoke clears at the end of the weekend.

Good luck

[beatle]

in reality is should be based on his chances of winning. more as the better the game he has. if its an even game he should not obviously be allowed to play. and if you give him 30% make sure it isnt for one match but over a certain amount of times he plays if he is ahead money. and usually if you do a 50 50 split or any deal he has to make up losses so you dont end up with him being ahead and you loser. that is a sucker deal.
only fools give a large % on each match unless it is a dead lock and cant lose.
and you only split money after a certain period of time.

overall staking someone who doesnt have their own money to put in the pot is usually a losing deal. only time it works if you are willing to lose money as a favor to the person.

when people ask me to stake them i tell them that if you cant win with your own money why would i think you could win with mine.

[lll]

in reality is should be based on his chances of winning. more as the better the game he has. if its an even game he should not obviously be allowed to play. and if you give him 30% make sure it isnt for one match but over a certain amount of times he plays if he is ahead money. and usually if you do a 50 50 split or any deal he has to make up losses so you dont end up with him being ahead and you loser. that is a sucker deal.
only fools give a large % on each match unless it is a dead lock and cant lose.
and you only split money after a certain period of time.

overall staking someone who doesnt have their own money to put in the pot is usually a losing deal. only time it works if you are willing to lose money as a favor to the person.

when people ask me to stake them i tell them that if you cant win with your own money why would i think you could win with mine.

what if they dont have any money??

[beatle]

if they dont have money then they are not winning gamblers. they may shoot well but that is the smallest part of winning money at gambling.

you can take them by the hand and force them to only play winning games and mange their lives but is that worth it. if it is a great friend then maybe so.

but a person who cant keep his own money will find a way to lose yours as well unless you keep him in your sight all the time.

[BRLongArm]

if they dont have money then they are not winning gamblers. they may shoot well but that is the smallest part of winning money at gambling.

you can take them by the hand and force them to only play winning games and mange their lives but is that worth it. if it is a great friend then maybe so.

but a person who cant keep his own money will find a way to lose yours as well unless you keep him in your sight all the time.

Most of the greatest players in the world are broke most of the time. Just because they are great at pool doesn't mean they don't go off to everything else. To each his own, but a broke pool player is the norm, not the exception.

[beatle]

yea and all of those are not going to be playing with my money. i might make a side bet if the game is right but not be part of their action. why would i want to.
i can gamble for as high as i want myself and control the situation to my liking.

[sappo]

Anyone who puts up all of the money and gets back less than 100% of the bet is either a sucker or someone who doesn't like money!!! Why would you knowingly take the worst side of any bet??

[Scrzbill]

Anyone who puts up all of the money and gets back less than 100% of the bet is either a sucker or someone who doesn't like money!!! Why would you knowingly take the worst side of any bet??

Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?

[Scrzbill]

Maybe I’m doing it wrong because I’m known as a stuck horse. After time, food, lodging, I’m lucky to break even after winning.

[Gettherack]

Most stake horses are want to be players wishing they could be out there in battle I should know I use to be one of them so I dicited to work on my game and be a player not just hang around them it’s a lot more profitable !!!

[sappo]

Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?

Bill, all I'm saying is unless you know you have the nuts, why would you put yourself in a position where the match is relatedly even and you are risking more than you will receive. Its a negative expectation bet. Lets say the player you are going to back gets 10% of his winning and you get 90%, that's the same as flipping a coin and if you lose the flip you pay $100/ flip and if you win you get $90/flip, would you make that bet??? Now think about how bad a 30/70 split is, its just doesn't make sense financially. Now if you get something else out of being a steak horse likeit fuels your ego and you don't mind taking the worst of it than go ahead.

To answer your question, yes I mean the player gets nothing unless he puts up his own $$$$$$$$$$.

[sappo]

Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?

Bill, let me add to my last post. Besides the terrible odds you've given yourself as a backer there is always that possibility that your player will throw the game. In that case you are drawing dead before the first break.

Last example, you're in the pool room talking to Tony Chohan and in walks Scott Frost. They sit down and talk for several minutes and agree on playing with Tony giving Scott 9-8 which you feel gives Tony a slight edge. You approach Tony and tell him you want to back him up to $10,000. Tony says sorry Bill but Beattle is covering all his action. You ask Tony what the split is and he tells you 75/25. Now you offer Tony a 70/30 split but Tony says no. I overheard this conversation so I ask you if you want to bet me you can have tony all you have to do is lay me your $10,000 to my $8,000 giving you much better odds.

Would you take that bet?? I don't think so and yet as a "backer" you would be willing to lay $10,000 to win $7,000. Why they are both terrible investments!!!

Now Bill don't get all upset my example is just an possible scenario to show that on any reasonably close match it make no sense to lay those type of odds.

If any of our members understand why being a backer you is taking all the risks while receiving only a % of the winnings please explain it to me.

You know Vegas was built on much smaller odds. I once heard a casino owner say just give me 1/2% of a percent edge with enough action I well win millions.

[sappo]

Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?

Bill, let me add to my last post. Besides the terrible odds you've given yourself as a backer there is always that possibility that your player will throw the game. In that case you are drawing dead before the first break.

Last example, you're in the pool room talking to Tony Chohan and in walks Scott Frost. They sit down and talk for several minutes and agree on playing with Tony giving Scott 9-8 which you feel gives Tony a slight edge. You approach Tony and tell him you want to back him up to $10,000. Tony says sorry Bill but Beattle is covering all his action. You ask Tony what the split is and he tells you 75/25. Now you offer Tony a 70/30 split but Tony says no. I overheard this conversation so I ask you if you want to bet me you can have tony all you have to do is lay me your $10,000 to my $8,000 giving you much better odds.

Would you take that bet?? I don't think so and yet as a "backer" you would be willing to lay $10,000 to win $7,000. Why they are both terrible investments!!!

Now Bill don't get all upset my example is just an possible scenario to show that on any reasonably close match it make no sense to lay those type of odds.

If any of our members understand why being a backer you is taking all the risks while receiving only a % of the winnings please explain it to me.

You know Vegas was built on much smaller odds. I once heard a casino owner say just give me 1/2% of a percent edge with enough action I well win millions.

Also Beattle don't you get up set I know you wouldn't put yourself in the position. I just needed a CA name.

[beatle]

dont worry about me i have a thick skin and am in complete agreement with you.

ill give an example you play 6 with different people of a period of time. matches for 1000 dollars each. and win 4 out of the 6. thats pretty good isnt it.

so you win 4000 and give him 1200 for his 30% and you have 2800 bucks for yourself in winnings.

but you lost 2 matches and lost 2000 for a total of 800 in winnings.

not much in winnings and he made 50% more than you did and you put up all the risk.
--------------------

now suppose he just breaks even now.. you break even but he makes 30% of 3000 for 900/ so you lose 900 when you break even and make 800 when you terrorize your opponent.
-------------

now you lose the 4 out of 6 matches.
you lose 4000 plus 30% of the 2000 you won for minus 4600 and win 1400 dollars for a net loss of 3200 dollars

so in effect you laid 4 to 1 in the money you would win 4 out of 6 rather than lose 4 out of 6 matches.

that is why you need a total lock if you are staking someone to play.