blonde poker forum

Of course it's always tough to find someone whom you think represents positive equity especially when the volatility is so great but of course some of them do exist. However I would suggest that your best chance is to go for younger newer players to the scene as the older more established ones are probably already ties up to longer term deals by others.

The integrity issue has always been a major concern.

I recall staking one player that asked me to put him into The Commerce $10k WPT event a few years ago and he wanted 50%. I told him it was way too much and that 30% was a fairer mark especially as I did not share his optimism about the field being that weak. However I still backed him pure and simply becasue he made it clear he would not soft play against me if we ended up on the same table. Without that assurance he would have had ZERO chance of getting backing.

"the younger, newer players". Exactly.

It goes without saying - no soft play with Partners. Soft Play is cheating.

So what kind of levels would you "talent spot" at before taking a chance with someone who you believe may be a good "investment"?

Would you take a chance with someone who was playing and winning regularly solely online - or would they have to have the "live" results to back it up?

If so what level would they need to be playing and winning at in live tourneys, small rebuy tourneys in local casinos or festival events?

To keep the horse racing analogies alive, backing newbies is something like trying to find the winner in a 2-yr-old maiden race.  Lots of decent pedigree first time out and a couple of has-beens and a couple of never-will-be's.

In poker, trying to assess the quality of a promising youngster must mean that the volatility is even higher?  You can't possibly evaluate that they are a winning player in teh long run because they probably haven't even been playing as long as the long run!  Of course you can occasionally see a bit of magic - a superb play that demonstrates that someone is thinking on the highest level.  And that might be enough to take an investment shot.  The volatility creeps in when you find out that they actually turned out to be a "choker" on the final table or something and they aren't ever going to give you top 3 returns.

In previous employment I have pulled my hair out when risk adverse managers have chosen "the office cart horse" rather than some up and coming noob that shows signs of promise.  I would much rather risk 10 noobs and uncover one gem rather than revert to the old "safe choice" that will never amount to very much.

So, definitely the value is with the upcoming stars - I just think the added volatility introduced by an uncertain selection process means that you may still struggle to show that elusive profit.

How nice it must be to have a backer. I still reckon if you can't afford the ante yourself through whatever means then you probably aren't good enough for the game..............

looks across at trophy and thinks it was worth battling it out in Luton to gain £30 to enter BB3

Well here's a classic case-study.

Phil Quayle was working for Wiliam Hill, & he had scores of wannabes writing to him, many of them established "names".

But he was looking for someone new, someone a bit different to the average pro, someone who had special game, charisma, would not just take the money (as most do) but work behind the scenes to promote his Sponsor. So he picked a numpty with almost no track record at all.

That was less than 2 years ago. The guy was almost unknown on the circuit at the time.

He's since pocketed over $350,000 on the UK Circuit alone, is 30-something in the all time UK money-winners list, is second in the European Rankings as we speak, & is probably among the 3 or 4 most popular guys on the circuit, and a credit to his sponsor.

Yup, Phil' selection was Julian Thew. Which just proves, you can't get it right every time.

Are you still going on about that little win??  :D