blonde poker forum

No matter what peoples credentails are/were or whatever, would you really see backing a player a sound financial prospect? And what would the criteria be for you to take the plunge?

I mean I have won many online STT and MTT, the biggest "named" the 02:00am $4000 on crypto sites. Why not back me? whats the differance? (i dont want backing by the way)

My thinking is that the players asking for backing are not up to it and are entering the desperation stakes. And if a player was good enough to be back would be giving away a very small slice slice of the cake.

all players long to be sponsors/backed it removes the pressure around your shoulders when playing and allows you to play a better more aggressive game

personally i would never back anyone but thats cause i need my bankroll to back myself

but is a sponsor out there wanted to back me i would have to give it carefull consideration

BTW most sponsored player ASK there sponsors to sponsor them and most of the top names can afford to
put themselves into events but why should they when sponsors are will to pay there way in

I would certainly take a share (and have done) in a player in an event. The criteria I use is personal but obviously return on investment is key. On a couple of occassions I have had backing. This is clearly because I am by my own admission a very crap player. ;D

I can understand why people who play their poker only on the internet or their local casino are questioning the requests for backing/sponsorship ...But if you play the circuit.. ie. the EPT events and even the festivals and ranking events up and down the country, The expenses incurred (aside from the entry fees) are quite horrificallly high... Hotels, travel, food etc .. without financial assistance, only very few players can maintain the "Tour" for very long.  if you dont believe the expenses are that high, try working it out by picking a few major festivals in THIS country and make enquiries as to how much you would need to spend on hotels for the length of your stay, travel arrangements to and from the venue ... food/drink etc etc ... i think you would be shocked ... then multiply it by at least 10 events and you will see why people ask.

taking shares when you play is sound financial strategy, as you spread you're risk.

However if you are looking for profit by backing a player when you are not playing yourself, then you don't understand the amount of good fortune, rubs of the green and following winds required in the game. Consistently backing a good player over several years is of course something different.

I certainly would back a player in the right circumstances, if I had the cash to do so. Lots of criteria would come into play and most of all, obviously, the potential return on my investment.

I think the problem is that too many guys in their early 20s make too much money too easily online and have trouble understanding why good players simply can't fund themselves by cleaning out those who are out of their depth online in the same way they do.

I also think, this way of playing breeds contempt for your opponents and over-confidence in your own abilities but it seems to be profitable for many.

My own opinion, for the tuppence it's worth, is that I don't believe this forum (or any forum) is the right place for what is essentially a borderline spam sales pitch... are you telling me you can't email people who you think might help you out direct?

I am not interested in reading that kind of post, be it from a 'name' or someone who once got on the telly selling 2-for-one Daz.

Mind you - 666 bad beats? devil ate your bank roll? Swallow your pride, play at lower levels and re-build your roll is surely the best answer.

However, if such posts are considered acceptable then those lining up to having a giggle at someone else's expense reveal more about their own character/maturity than highlighting any 'shortcomings' of the person making the pitch. Hmm, locking threads before everyone's had a chance to have their say just leads to off-thread postings, methinks.

Anyway to answer the question, the only circumstances where I would back somebody is as a favour for someone I knew well or to have an interest in a tournament where I was stuck with being a spectator.

Very nice post Divaflava, i think you've hit the nail on the head when you say "is this the place for such a post?" I no simon trumper/EL Blonde have posted about offering shares... yet in a slightly different situation to this!

I think discussing this is ok, as long as it is conducted in the right manner not just needless jibes aired on the forum...

agreed. anything that isn't insulting has every right to be posted, so long as it does turn into spam. Also the moderators have started off fantastically. If a thread is degenerating into flaming, simply lock it and let the participants continue via personal message if they so desire.

Blonde stands out on the web as a place where decorum and respect is paramount, and long may it last!

Mels post may not have been the too well thought out I agree but I don't think she deserved so much general pisstaking out of her. She is obviously in a bad patch and doesn't need kicking. I am in the same boat at the minute and am literally penniless. I am not to proud to admit that I have done my money this year seeking out the "big one" at the worlds biggest events. I could've stuck to low limit stuff on the internet and made a steady income but I took a shot at it and came up a little short. I am now struggling to get back in the game having the taste for the big events (£20 rebuys just dont get the juices flowing now).

 The backing debate: I have been backed on several occasions with varying success. Some events I have made money for my backers some they have lost money. I have however only been backed by friends who play with me and rate my game. They back me when I have gone through bad patches and when my bankroll is low. I would do the same for them at the blink of an eye if the roles were reversed. I know some of the top players in the world are backed in various events (and not sponsorship), one of my best friends backed one of the top tournament pros in europe for the bellagio festival and some world series events. His investment was a risk and was successful at bellagio to an extent and unsuccessful at the series ( but for a bad beat at the last 3 tables at the bellagio his investment would have returned a huge ammount- that is poker though). Backing is common in tourney poker because of the huge ammounts needed to play on the circuit (I would estimate playing just the european circuit would cost in excess of 150k this year alone) , it is usually done however between friends or people who have long standing arrangements. I will be backed for a few events in the next 2 months and hope to return a great ammount for my backers- does that mean I am a poor player because I have gone broke? I can name some of the top names in world poker who have been broke (and I mean flat broke) in the last 2 years and have only got back bacause people have had the confidence in their game to back them.

 Where has everybodies good nature gone on this forum lately?

With more & more 'expensive' tournaments on the circuit I agree that players, used to the high life because of a win that happened 'months' ago find it very difficult to play in the £20 rebuy tournaments again as they feel as though it demeens then somehow.

Sponsorship from on-line card rooms helps these players out big time and I believe this to be to the detriment of the individuals ability to see life as it really is.

Poker, when all said and done, is a game filled with luck. You can be the best, so-called, player in the world but it don't mean poo when the raggy looking six of clubs comes on the end to bust your trip Aces.

In my opinion there are too many ego players that, just because they won 10 large 6 months ago, seem to think that tapping people up for a % of their entry fee into tournaments is a god given right.

If you can't afford to play in tournaments, nomatter WHAT price, then stay out of the way...if only for your own sanity!

Ariston,

I think your signiture says it all... 'better lucky than good'.

Mark, your statement above can be taken in one of two ways....... :o

 Mark and anyone else


I'm watching, I'm sad, I have to be up this time of the morning....please don't let it degenerate into slanging matches

ta

Mr Tightend,

Please don't reply to my posts in the manner you are doing.

Absolutely no inference of offence should be taken to ANYTHING I write here.

This is becoming a police state!

No offence intended, if I got the wrong end of the stick I apologise.  :-*

All the best, off to police training college......

I have promised I will not get involved in slanging matches again, I am happy to debate politely which is why I took the time to answer Marks points. If taglines aren't allowed to be witty and need to be serious we are all in trouble. I don't class myself as lucky or good at the minute, I am quite fortunate that other people think I am both. Under my photo is another joke- wish I had the doormans job on the forum ;)

Mr Tightend,

Apology accepted. Now be off with you!

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. (cue) JAWS music

I personally wouldn't ever accept any form of  backing for myself, If I'm fortunate enough to get a big cash, I don't want to have to give 50% of  it away. I think it all depends on how high you are aiming. If you are happy to grind away in big events to scrape into the cash and then take a 50% cut of what you have made for all that hard work, then fair play to you. If I didn't have the cash to play a big event, I would go online and try to build up the cash that way, rather than getting backed.

divaflava, you're criticising players in their early twenties who are making money for themselves and having the confidence to go with it, but what is wrong with that? I certainly don't see how there can be too many of them?! Why shouldn't they doubt the "good" players who don't seem to be able clean out the online fish in order to finance themselves?

You know I respect your game dpommo but tournament poker and cash games are entirely different. Some of the biggest players in the world can go 12 months without a win then win 3 in a month (when was the last time negreanu won a tournament? I know he is one of your favourite players). I can not do what you do- you are very good at it but my game does not suit that style of poker. If I didn't have friends who are willing to back me then I wouldn't be able to get back into the game at all. Glad to have you on blonde and we really need to get you posting on strategy peices as I know you have a very good poker brain for someone so young.

Do you play live? Have you never had 10% with a mate?

I know what you are saying about the difference, I'd readily admit my tournament play is not up to scratch at the moment. But if I can improve my tournament play, then why can't tournament players improve their cash game? I've just finished reading Barry Greenstein's book, and says numerous times that he feels that the best cash game players are better than the best tournament players, and I agree. If you play enough tournaments and are a decent player, then you are going to do well. I don't understand why more tournament players can't adapt?

Play the circuit for a year then come and tell me you cant understand the difficulty in playing both disciplines. I am not having a pop (you know that of course) but you are a very good cash game player and you have all the moves to be a top tournament player- its just they are completely different disciplines and very hard to do both at the same time. We can discuss this in dublin in more detail as I would like to give you a few pointers about your tournament game if you are serious about playing some of the big ones.

Of course mate, I'd be happy to take on what you have to say. I'm not having a pop at all tournament players... but I think there a a lot who do well, but aren't particuarly great players, they just play EVERY tournament.

Some interesting replies to the post. The point regarding expenses is one I overlooked but that’s part and parcel of playing the circuit, surely?

The point that interest me most is the fact that people are prepared to invest in others, and I am not talking about lending a mate(s) money here, and this comes across as a weakness in there own ability (that is my opinion, and is not meant as a psychological breakdown). This I would not have expected from the quality and obvious knowledge from a lot of the afore mentioned posters.

I have played poker for the last 18 months, mainly internet, which is a very short time to be judging others but two things I have seen is that there is a lot of players who have massive egos after winning a tournament say the 15K on crypto, and then automatically assume that there the next WSOP champ, only to have there dreams shattered within a few months. Secondly the more successful people that I have come across are not winning thousands in one hit but are consistently grinding out small wins on a weekly/monthly basis, when I say small that’s in comparison to a big tourney win, is this the reality that you should expect to achieve? I don’t know.

Dik9 asked if I play live and do I share. Well I am starting to expand playing live in my area (Leeds) and the second point that would be unlikely, but having said that I was asked for a chop while on the last table of a 4K event if we got heads up, problem was there was another 8 players left!!

In the immortal words of Stan Laurel, and a point to consider……”You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead”

I am a twentysomething full time poker player and I am not blinkered in terms of understanding the costs of playing the circuit in the UK or abroad. What I fail to understand is how a good player can get into a situation where they require investment from others. I think there are three key ingredients to poker success (in no order); (i) game selection, (ii) bankroll management and (iii) eagerness to improve your poker game.

With regards to (i) game selection, if a great player goes on a bad run are they willing to move down a notch in the games they are playing? Unfortunatley this side of things seem to be driven by ego and the desire to “show face”. Many of the players on a bad run would hate to have their peers see them playing a 20 quid rebuy tourney or perhaps moving down to 20 quid single table games on the internet to rebuild their bankroll to move to the next level of games. Poker will be around forever, perhaps not in its current state, but even if it takes you 10 years to make it onto the European tour circuit is that a big deal?

With regards to (ii) how many circuit players are playing within their bankroll? I would guess 10% at the most. Why do they continue to put themselves in a position where they are treading water the whole time? It seems to me like the current climate where that one big win can change everything mentality has taken over and I am sure this is used when many players go to backers as a reason to invest. Surely it makes more sense for these players to play satellites online or live which they know are within their bankroll if they don’t make it through one of those, eat humble pie and miss the event!

Finally (iii) encompasses a wide part of playing the game including focus, strategic thinking and bettering your decision making all the time. For the players who are in a slump, how many are reading literature on poker looking for ways to improve? There are lots of great resources on the net in the way of forums, blogs and online magazines which can serve to better your understanding of some new lines of poker thinking and allow you to discuss plays you made and whether they were correct. I think many of the circuit players minds are not open to new thought (all part of the ego) and this has made their game suffer. An excellent example of this is Marcel Luske who has spent a lot of time discussing hands and strategy with his young protégé Noah Bokken. This has kept his game sharp and has seen him have continuing success both in Europe and on a worldwide stage because they come from totally different poker backgrounds.


As I write this I realise that probably the biggest reason players need a backer is ego.........

Just my 2 pence


All The Best

nicely done, thought provoking post.
off to think....................

Spot on Balloo.

Its a pet hate of mine when people say "every player goes broke now and then" well if they do then they aint playing right.

I keep close tabs on my bankroll and my risk management so this cant happen to me. I think all players should do the same.

you in your 20s? thats harder to believe than tikay being younger than 70

but great post all the same

I use oil of ulay every day ironside and I try to play as little on vc as possible now as im sure the 5 second pause before delivering the fatal river card was ageing me by 3 years every day

Interesting debate started joe and at first i didn't think i could add anything to the debate that wan't already covered by ariston, ironside and at-it but i have to disagree with you when you say 'players asking for backing are not up to it and are entering the desperation stakes'.  You never know people's situations and i would say there are a lot of players who if backed would get very good results on the circuit if they were put into most tournamenents throughout the year but because of a lack of backing and other priorities (family, work, mortgages, etc.) they simply cant afford to pay themselves into events.

I think saying that those that seek backing are not up to it is totally wrong.  Personally.. I have won a lot of money this year playing poker and have played quite a few european circuit events with good success but decided straight away that i would do the sensible thing and pay off all my debts with my winnings (car loans, overdrafts, credit cards, student loans etc) and i also set aside some money for a house deposit as i really wanted to move out of home this year.  Therefore since July i have not played any big circuit events as i wanted to be debt free and have also decided to buy a house and use the money to furnish and move in.  I am therefore pretty much starting out again where i was a few years ago - just playing the £50-£300 comps and trying hard to build up my bank roll to go play with the big boys again as i know given the backing and financial muscle i WOULD get results and my game would hold up - I, like ironside, mel and ariston et al would love a backer and feel that they would get a good ROI from my performances, i therefore feel your initial sweeper of a statement needs a little more thought as you never know what the situation or ability of the player is. Just because they need a backer doesn't mean to say they are not up to it!

as for the orignal poll question, if i had the money, a company that wuld benefit from exposure in the poker arena or a website where i could see a benfit from sponsoring or backing a player and i knew them to be trustworthy and a good face for the my product then i wouldn't hesitate in backing them.

thanks
Greg

That last paragraph of your is very intresting Junior, its something Ihave wondered of late.
What is the best for a sponsor.
A: A player who is consistantly cashing in events
or
B: A player who is not cashing regulary but promotes the company (i.e sponsors) well.

This question obviously only involves corporate sponsors not individual backers.

The person who I feel falls into group B is Simon Trumper, although he seems a little out of form of late, there is no harder working pro for his sponsors IMHO

I had forgoten all about this thread but a very good post by Greg there.
 My situation is that I gave up work last year to try and make it as a tournament pro- I have some very strange ideas about poker that have never been put in any books and I know some of my thought processes are completely different to how most people play tournaments. I started with a very small bankroll (around £1000) and intended playing small events. I quickly found myself winning satelittes to big events and cashed in my first 5k buyin tourney. It was at this time I started writing for betfair (a paid post which gives me a small monthly salary). I cannot write about some of my theories because to be honest I wouldn't want anybody to know them. I sailed along from one evnt to the next winning enough online to cover all expenses and buyins without getting the big result I needed to set things up. I could've made a living online but if I am honest I enjoy the big live events (even when you get runner runnered) and made a lot of friends on the circuit. One or two key hands have cost me the chance to cash big this year in major events but thats the way things go in tournament poker.
 After the world series I had a bad 2 months and that was the end of that. I am now not even in a position to play the smaller events. I know my game holds up against the best players but I do not have the finances to continue playing. If I was offered backing I would jump at the chance (either private backing or sponsorship) but I would not take advantage of friends. A few close friends have offered to stake me in a few events lately and I haven't taken them up on the offer because of various circumstances but I would never go with a begging bowl as other posters put in another thread. I will go back to work get a small bankroll together and start again and who knows what may happen in the next few weeks/months/years. Backing is part of the game no matter what anyone thinks and there will always be players backed at every major tournament. Even Gus Hansen has been backed in the last couple of years on a couple of occasions- anyone care to say this guy isn't good enough?

One of the differences between here and the USA concerning backers is other peoples attitude.
Over here, if someone is being backed ,the immediate response is "oh he must be skint!". where as in the USA
its " he must be good if hes got a backer".

Hasan Habib & Tuan Le  are both backed in tournys and look what they have won ,people ask & are asked to be backed for a number of reasons.
. With the every increasing entry fees this is going to be a more common practise on the live circuit, I just wish people would adopt the US attitude to the idea.

good honest posts in this thread today


it's a character thing...Brits look for the faults in things, Americans look for the opportunities

The UK psyche is always that of thinking negatively. I have a friend who was in the public eye - worldwide for something earlier this year, he's absolutely cacking himself for when the British press turns on him. He's been chased around by the press, and people recognise him in the street - but he knows it will change, because it is in the nature of the masses that people are negative.

We find it really difficult to be happy for people who do well - and lets face it.. if someone is backed, they have to be good to be backed, there are lotsof safer places to throw your money than into a tournament!

Dale Winton?


do tell!

Nah Paul Dadge, but he will chortle when I tell him the Dale Winton one :)

Do a search on Paul Dadge :)

a right proper hero then, well done that man. Admirable stuff


I would like to ask why on earth the press would turn against him, but seeing as it's the British press, that might be classed a silly question.

He keeps getting rung up for quotes about anything terrorist related, and he's getting a bit peeved at it, especially as when he used to give comments, they went and printed stuff that had no direct corellation to what he actually said - so he has started saying no comment to stuff, and they are getting a bit antsy at him.

I don't think he quite realises how big it all is yet, it's not going to go away for a long long time - would scare the bejesus out of me to be honest. But he has been doing stuff like this for years - I've known him for about 8 years and he was always doing heroic stuff - I have already told him I am never getting on a tube train with him!

"Just because they need a backer doesn't mean to say they are not up to it!" - Junior

I was not questioning anyones ability in my post, as I am sure your both very good players. What I was trying to show is that being a succesful poker professional is not only about playing good poker its about making sound decisions. Anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they are requiring backing is lacking in one of the areas required to be a professional. I wouldnt question Gus Hansens poker ability but clearly he does not make good decisions away from the table. He chose to play in a game that was above his bankroll and against players that are the best in the world in a number of disciplines he wasnt good at. Thats why he required backing. He went broke.

" I could've made a living online but if I am honest I enjoy the big live events " - Ariston

The point of playing poker professionaly is to make a living. Why didnt you choose to make it online? Obviously poker harbours something more for you than simply making money. I think this is the ego thing and the chance to become famous through playing poker. It is great fun to attend these big events but only if they fall within your bankroll limits. Seems like everyone wants that one big score and ignore the fact 90% go broke trying to get there.

Interesting :)

I'd say that if Ariston likes doing it he should carry on - if you hate your job, you aren't going to do it well - if it is easy it will get boring - in order to do a job well, you have to be continually challenged.

That's probs why I am on a level plateau with my job - I am in ambivalent hell :)

I have never been driven by money alone. My friends will confirm that if I was down to my last £50 and someone close to me needed it then they could have it. There is a lot more to life than money/material things. At 17 I was lucky enough to be earning £1k per week as a salesman and I spent every penny I earned. I looked after my family and friends and I cannot put a figure on how much I have wasted/blown over the years. If I wanted to invest/play it safe I couldve been very rich by now but I would not have had the experiences I have had in my life.
 When I was a child I was first injured very badly as a 10 year old and told I would never walk again- doctors don't know nothing I came close to a career as a professional basketball player a few years later. At 15 I had meningitis and was 50/50 to survive. When I couldn't play basketball anymore I took up hockey and broke alot of scoring records (I scored more goals in the year we won the olymipc gold than sean curly). After 9 years of hockey injuries did for me again so I took up stock car racing and raced in europes biggest races. I have always wanted to be the best at whatever I do and if I can't I don't do it anymore.

 I loved the big events because I wanted to play the best, simple as that. I have travelled the world this year funded by satelitte wins/poker wins and would not swap some of my experiences for anything. I do not wish to feed my ego or seek fame- I have had my 15 mins already and the people close to me are the only ones I want the respect of.  I am not interested in playing online poker 24/7 just to make a living- If I want to make a living I will go back to a career in sales where I can make a very good living.

I believe life is for living and I have no regrets on how I conducted the last 12 months of my poker career- like the rest of my life I have done what I wanted and enjoyed every day, you never know which day will be your last so enjoy today.

I agree whole heartedly that bankroll management and game selection are essential skills in becoming a good poker player - and even more essential if one is attempting to make a living from the game.  However when financial pressures outside of the game and away from the table take priority and require the use of your hard earned dosh then it is difficult to continue to try and prove yourself in the big poker comps as you need high a disposable income and financial muscle to play in these comps and maintain your challenge.

therefore to your comment "Anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they are requiring backing is lacking in one of the areas required to be a professional" - i would again disagree.  if a good player who has no spare cash due to other more important financial commitments with which to start a bank roll bulding exercise cant afford to play an event it doesnt make them bad at a key element of the game it just means they are less fortunate than those with a high disposable income who can play bigger events and speculate to accumulate. - i guess it comes down to the old adage 'you need money to make money'.  If i returned an 80% profit in my $2 stt's and that was all i could afford and any winnings had to go towards food, bills etc. then i stand less chance of building a bank roll than someone who could enter a load of $500 sit n go's and return 25% profit that he could keep 100% of for further poker sessions.

it all depends on your situation - some are less fortunate than others and because someone is playing small stakes on the net and local £10 re-buy comps does not meen they cant play or lack the skills to become a good player.

my 2 pence... again!

Recently I have had a genuine offer of backing in the WSOP 06.

The idea being, they would back me in the first week of the WSOP with the view to winning enough $'s to keep entering and finally have a go at the main event.

I for one see no wrong in asking to be backed, whats the worst that can happen? They say NO - so you have lost nothing, cept for a bit of face maybe.

With regards to the offer I have had, I am still considering it - being married and having a family makes the decision VERY hard as I could (possibly) be away for a month. Also, I would obviously have to cover my living expenses.

Keep an eye on that bankroll Junior - all those two pences add up...

will do!
... as for the figures used in my examples in my previous posts, they are purely illustrative - i can afford more than 2p sit n go's  ;D

Some excellent posts in this thread.

Anyone else read card player a few months back when they interviewed Llayne Flack? He was started off by Johnny Chan backing him for a tourney. He saw class plays in Flack one night and told him to leave his cash game get some sleep and he'd put him into the next day's tourney. (which I think he won) Look at Flack now. If it can turn out like than they why shouldn't you accept backing and why shouldn't you seek a backer?

I'm not sure that being backed means you dont necessarily have all the tools. It's a growing part of the game and I think it's very necessary.

In my opinion one name sums up whether a backed player is any good or not. T J Cloutier. IMHO the greatest tournement player in the world, bar none.

He said in an interview, that theres a very long list waiting to back him,and I dont doubt it.
Like I said earlier, there is a multitude of reasons why a person asks  or gets asked to be backed, its just in the UK we look at it in the negative.

I think this is one of the best threads I have read for a while.

I don't really understand why people are so negative about people who are backed/want to be backed to play in big events.  I don't think that anyone can automatically assume people are bad players if they are asking to be backed to play in big events.

I know players who are very good players but don't play in any big events, but could do well in them.  It's a question of disposable income and if that income only stretches to 10 and 20 rebuys then thats what they play.  But if they were offered backing to play in some decent events they may well be able to get a foot on the ladder.

That's a bit of a catch 22 situation - you want to play in decent events with a decent structure - but it's hard to be able to afford it on a consistent basis. 

It's personally a bit of a situation I find myself in.  I want to play in some decent comps which aren't a cr@pshoot, but don't want to start spending big money doing so. 

There's a very good reason why TJ is always backed, and that's because without backing, he probably wouldn't be able to enter any big tournaments. There's a classic study in bankroll management right there; no matter how good your poker is, stay away from the craps tables.

You can be a talented player and have no money, a la TJ Cloutier, Gus Hansen. The best example being Stu Ungar, who was almost always backed, having posessed no money management skills.

BUT... these are world class players who have massive leaks away from the table. Yes I would feel confident if asked to back one of these players, but that's very different to backing somenoe who plays at your local casino and has had a bit of success, imo.

I was contacted by email about a month ago, by an organisation looking to provide backing for cash and mtt players. In my case this was a genuine offer to fund entries to the bigger on-line mtt's with an all entry fee and split winnings formula. The commitment levels of number of mtt's played per week/month is high and the lions share of winnings goes to the sponser. In my case I politely declined, but for anyone interested in being sponsored these people are out there watching, just play well and wait for the email.

Some interesting and thought provoking replies but Dpommo sums it up in a nutshell. World class player’s v egotistical wannabes. Now that may be a tough appraisal but looking through the replies it is almost certainly true. Reality checks are in order.

Fair enough Joe, all the time we have spent answering your initial thread in detail and you still think we are all egotistical wannabes. Its your right to have your oppinion and you will fit in real well on blonde. Why not come along to an event and let us wannabes show you what we can do  ;)

I agree totally.

Can mine be made out to H Foster please? Just leave the amount and total boxes blank - I'll sort those out  :)up

I remember talking to Paul Maxfield about sponsorship deals, his opinion was , he didnt want it. for the following reasons :
He didnt like the idea that if he won ,he would have to give a % back.

He didnt fancy the thought of writing articles each  week, month.

This conversation was about 2 weeks prior to his WPT cash of $1.7 million, so it doesnt really matter now.
 Paul was in the position to fund himself before the WPT cash on the basis that he used to hand pick his events for the year
,unlike some who seem to try and play everywhere and in every event. These people could in no way take part unless they had a backer.

There maybe only a couple of events maximum that take part in Europe each year with a big enough 1st prize to able to fund these non-backed poker careers.

Paul is of the same opinion now too. He sees being sponsored as having a normal job with lots of work involved. However I'm sure he has put people into events before so maybe he sees backing as ok.

It was really refreshing to hear Paul's views on this as it was totally different from what I expected. It'd be nice to hear other pros (and players with larger bankrolls) views on sponsorship and backing.

I didnt mean Paul was against the idea of "backing" as a whole, its just not for him.
I think an important issue has been raised in this topic, that money management is a very important factor in being successful in poker.
Paul demonstrates this in his planning of events. I guess that he hasnt played a dozen tournys since his Bellagio 2nd place, including all his WSOP entries.

I think a lot of players think/dream that they are only one win away from securing that poker dream, but realisticly the prize pools in Europe are not big enough to take care of the Entry fees and expenses for very long.
JoeStrummer may have a point in saying there are a few egotistical players out there, as some will play in any TV tourny regardless of entry fee, structure and prize pool.
As long as they are seen in the public eye.

You are right, he has played just 2 events since Vegas.

So how about those who are paid to play, or do have a large enough bankroll to support themselves? What do you guys think of this discussion?

Not all Ariston have agreed but all the same its a fairly split opinion, I was not expecting that. I have read your articles and actually think you talk sense which cant be said for a lot out there. Now your a maths man the percentage of tornie wins at any level cant be that great, excluding low level events which would have to hit high win percentages to justify entering, I would say along the lines of one in 25 to 50 as a ball park figure and with this being the case your bankrolls cant sustain such losing streaks. That I believe is the win ratio that busts many a player and thats the bottom line IMO. I have no pretentions at what level I play at so the desire to be the next WSOP champ is not there but i am certainly open to a challenge :)up

Fair point. I lost my bankroll down to a bit of bad luck but also bad money management. I didn't seek fame by playing the big events I just happened to qualify for them. I work very hard on my writing (for which I get paid quite well) and feel sponsorship is the route I would like to go down. However it is a double edged sword- you don't get sponsorship without a big result and if you've had a big result you don't need sponsorship. I don't think personally you could make a good living on the circuit if you were paying your own expenses and paying your own buyins. Without sponsorship I fear for many of the smaller tournament pros. I could go into cash/final ratios but it would be very boring and prove nothing but I will say I have never bought into an event bigger than 1k because I don't think there is enough value in them. Good luck to anyone who survives on the circuit without backing/sponsorship but I don't think there are many out there.

I was offered sponsorship by a soon to be launched online poker site. They had some great ideas and said they were committed to looking after their customers

I worked my butt off for them because I believed in them, I wore their logo every time I played a live comp, I promoted them when ever it was possible do so, I helped with tourney structures, kept them up to speed with all the feedback I could and I even helped the MD to play better poker (not difficult)

I was officially 'put in' to two tournaments, I made the final table in one and got second in the other

Was I ever reimbursed for my buy in's?  No

Did I get any money at all? No

Have I heard anything from them for months?  No

Do I regret it?  No

I assume the massive costs of launching an independent online poker site turned out to be too much, and if things had been different I believe they would have honoured their commitments

Would it have been nice to get a phone call to say I'm sorry but.... etc  Yes

Would I do it again? Yes, but I take Paul Maxfields point, if someone sponsors you they have every right to expect you to do more than just play poker

It's nice to be independant, but in my book there is nothing wrong with backing, or being backed by someone

If you do get an offer, I think it's important to make sure you will be promoting something you believe in

Money isn’t everything, don’t compromise your integrity, at the end of the day, that’s all you have

that is so wrong on so many levels Red, i played a couple of games with coolblonde on laddies fairly recently and she was raving on to people about you and about sponsoring you!!
Bitch horrible person >:(

I think one point that is missed by some on this thread is there is a big difference between being 'backed' and being 'sponsored'.

A backer (as I understand , pays some of the entry fee for a player and takes a % of the returns, usually slightly over the % value of the original outlay). The player does not have a duty to a company or provide content or opinion for a website. It is simply the backer providing funds for a player they think will give them a roi. In some cases this can be profitable and enjoyable for someone with the funds to get an interest in tournaments that their own playing ability would not allow them to take part in.

Sponsored players receive entry fees in reward for representing a site or company. The three William Hill players were all selected because they had a mixture of ability, they act in a professioinal and friendly manner and fitted the values of a big company. They are 'paid' with entries into events. In return they promote the company. This can take the form of article writing, appearances at private events and 'hosting' online qualifiers at land based events. I think a few players on this forum will have been looked after by our team of three players at WSOP CPC and other comps. I am sure all those players will vouch that our sponsored pro's have all the qualities I mentioned above.

To a company like William Hill the results these players get are not the most important element to their sponsorship and this is the part that many people don't consider and is the biggest difference between being backed and sponsored.

A backer is looking for a financial gain from his investment, a sponsor(well in our case) is looking for repesentation, press coverage, manners and the players to be the face of the company when meeting our online players. Of course big and consistant results obtain coverage and do make us very proud.

Ariston is friends with all our players and he also knows many other sponsored pro's, I think he would agree that our players have qualities that other sponsored players lack and this is what makes the difference in my eyes an always will.

3 players with a mixture of ability.

The order of ability from best to least good would be ?

 ;) ;D >:D

Sandy

ps any backers or sponsors accepted as long as i don't have to pay you !!

Naught naughty Sandy :).

One players has over 35 top ten finishes in their career, one is pot limit world champion with three(?), memory isnt what it used to be EPT final appearances and one has made a great impression and had ranking success and three EPT final appearances. Some sponsored players have better results but don't represent themselves or their compoany in a very good light, some players have had a lot less success but make ideal people to represent a company. I am sure you  know players that fit into both sides.

The big problem I have (as a potential investor) with most of the backing requests are that they are invariably short-term arrangements, such as for an individual tournament or festival (obviously something such as the WSOP is a little different to a typical festival).  Consequently, regardless of the ability of the player concerned, you are effectively relying on them cashing over a period of, say, 1-3 events.  There is no player in the world who I would feel confident enough to be able to achieve this.  What surprises me is that many players seeking backing seem to be oblivious to the fact that records/results/reputation are largely irrelevant over such a short period of time.  This, more than anything, makes me question whether they are really as good as they believe themselves to be.

Personally, if I want to take a short-term shot at a festival/event then I'll stake myself to do it.  At least that way I have only one person to blame at the end of the day!

A longer term arrangement, such as the one Greg Raymer sought and obtained a few years ago (in which he sold shares for 6 months of his action, during which time he retained discretion to pick the games he played upto prescribed limits dependent on his bankroll), is an entirely different matter.  A winning player and potential backer should be much more confident in their ability to obtain a worthwhile return over this period and, in the right circumstances, this would be a much more interesting proposition.  Incidentally, Greg sought backers at the time via RGP and 2+2 and received a torrent of abuse for it regarding his abilities (for those who are unaware he was a well known/respected poster on 2+2 long before his WSOP win).  Clearly, not every case is going to pay off in quite as spectacular way as this one eventually did but it highlights to me the vast difference in nature of various backing arrangements.

This post is not intended to be a slight on anyone who has sought/provided backing on a short-term basis.  I think most would recognise the level of volatility and risk involved in doing so at the time.  I have, on occasion, bought a piece of a player on a one-off basis for low-stakes as a bit of fun.  However, I tend to view these types of gamble the same way as I would any other recreational gambling - chances are I'll lose money on the deal but occasionally I might get lucky.  I would never attach any serious expectation to an arrangement that ran for anything less than a few months.

Sheriff

Im glad at least one sponsor (BOBBY1) has answered this question in relation to William Hills stance on the subject of sponsorship.
To be fair to the posters on this subject, I think everyone knows the difference between being backed and being sponsored. I just think the subject of sponsorship blended into the topic " to be backed or not".

I must say im really enjoying the topic and love when a new post starts up again.

Yes, this is debveloping into a stunningly good debate.

I hope nobody minds too much, but I'm gonna sticky it for a few day - it's truly terrrific stuff, a shame to waste it.

Apart from a great dea else, some real eye-opening posts by Ariston. Much respect to the King of Tilt.

I agree, It is a good thread, whats more amazing is it is on the same subject as the deleted thread, but the opinions are being put forward in a reasonable and friendly manner

Red,

I really don't want this thread to meander too far off-topic, but I'm gobsmacked by the suggestion that when you were sponsored by you know who, they never paid the entry fees, which I assume they had agreed to do, at least in part. They still send us prono stuff from time to time, to put on the Home Page. If your suggestion is correct, we shall refuse to do so in future. Please reply off-forum - I already feel a tad guilty about diverting this really excellent thread ftom it's subject.

I know it, I'm sorry I don't know your name but I know you are a good friend of Pauls. I have never met Paul but I did speak to him when he won our player of the month award and I have him in the bracket of perfect for sponsorship for William Hill.

Other firms may not know what Paul has achieved this year and are far more likely to take on a 'face' as this gives them instant access to the market. I would always look at someone with the qualities Of Paul Maxfield before some high profile players even if he hadnt had his fantastic result in the US.

As you indicated some of the aspects of a sponsored players job would not suit Paul and I respect him even more for not just looking to take a deal if he doesn't feel it is the right thing for him.

It has to be said that TV exposure has helped many players attain sponsorship. The amount of LNP players that found deals is quite high but appearing on TV doesnt automatically mean you have the qualities that I would look for, this doesnt make me right, its just different people see different needs in their sponsored players. I have just tried to tell you mine.

I should also add that Simon is also a fantastic ambassador for his company and like Steve, Julian and Xuyen is rightly judged on what he does in the bigger picture than on tourney results alone.

I'd like to reply on forum first because I want to be fair, the first event they 'put me in' to was the festival at Blackpool, I was going to play it anyway and I understood that I would not be paid until the site was up and running, although I was told that would be very shortly after the festival, Then I was told I was being put in to the Stanleys festival at Glasgow, after I had made arangements for myself and Mrs Red to go, ie travel, hotels etc I was told at the last minute that they couldn't put me in, I wasn't best pleased and I decided to play anyway because I had told people I would, as I say, I was told before hand that I wasn't being paid, although there was still the promise of 'when the site is up and running'

What upset me was the fact that despite everything, I still wore their logo at Glasgow, got second place, and I haven't heard from them since

I think they were under terrific financial strain and had things gone better for tham I like to think things would have been different

I don't know what the state of play is at the moment, I don't know what problems they face. so I don't like to judge too harshly

I think the question of sponsorship is very different to that of a backing agreement, in which both player and backer are seeking a financial return in (generally) a private arrangement.

Basically, there seems to be little downside to a sponsorship deal for a player, other than his own personal feelings regarding being tied to a sponsor/schedule and having to potentially share out any winnings he/she achieves.

Equally, its very difficult to determine who would be a 'good' sponsored player for a particular sponsor.  Some sponsors would love a 'brat' type character who will generate a lot of exposure via their antics while consistently failing to achieve any success compared to a well-mannered, winning player who only generates publicity when making a TV table.  Neither is wrong.  The decision lies solely with those stumping up the cash and their particular goals from doing the deal.

Personally, I'm frequently frustrated by the fact that Player A or B has a sponsorship deal when I could think of many 'better' players in terms of understanding/knowledge/ability/manners who would, in my opinion, generate more success in financial terms.  However, tournament success is not the only relevant consideration to any sponsorship deal so, provided that sponsor and player are happy with the arrangement, then I guess its really no-one else's concern.

Sheriff
(Available for sponsorship, considerable shirt-advertising space available!)  ;)

Although I am not a sponsored player I still feel obligated (even though I have been told I am not) to wear the betfair logo at any event I play. I have a very good writing arrangement with them and help them out with anything they ask and they look after me. They were kind enough to put me in a big event this year but that was a reward for consistantly winning seats to all their other events. I wouldn't want to be sponsored by a site I had no faith in (even though I am broke at the minute)- I couldn't write/play for a site that was going to put people away (ie sites with no traffic or financial stability) as I would feel bad misleading people.
Sponsorship is as already been said by bobby and co so much different from backing where they have a budget to spend for marketing/advertising and the sponsorship deals come from this budget (the marketing spend for companies like betfair and will hills is frightening). Most of the people I know who are/have been backed are people who've had taken a hit to their bankroll and friends help them out, obviously this is returned when roles switch round. The regulars on the circuit do tend to help each other out. I have only ever been backed by my closest friends.
As a general investment to make money long term I think backing is not financialy viable but to help mates out short term is a different thing. I know people who have helped someone out for the odd game/festival and they have had huge results which have returned plenty for the backer. 

Personally i dont think i would ever want to be backed to play in an event or festival for a couple of reasons. The first is that i dont think i would want to play under the added pressure that somebody else is relying on me to make them money, if i make a mistake and it is my fault then i only have myself to blame and i have to endure the consequences on my own. The second reason is greed (not that i'm a greedy person by nature) but i feel that if i have done all the work and made all the effort - why should i then give a percentage of my hard earned winnings away. I also would never back another person as if i want to make money playing poker, i'd like to be the one playing not relying on others.

Sponsorship on the other hand is a different matter, but then there are so many stories about as to all the different kinds of deals that the top sponsored professionals get and without knowing which ones are true and which ones are just rumours it is hard to form an opinion. As i'm just an internet player who plays on the one site so its highly unlikely in the near future that i'll be getting anyone knocking my door down to get my signature even though my online record isnt that bad. My plan is to give up work one day so that i can spend a year playing poker for a living, this will enable me to then try and play a few more live events and festivals as most are now 2 day events and i struggle to get the time off work.

Like Junior said in his post earlier in the thread, I too could have played more live events than just the handful i have - using the money i have won online but instead the last 22 months i have used all that to pay off all my debts, all outstanding monies owed on both my houses, my car and my credit cards plus treating myself with spending money and flights to the WPT pokerstars event in the Caribbean and the WSOP main event in Las Vegas. I have decided however now that i have paid everything off that instead of giving up my job straight away, i will carry on working (even though my job pays less than i'm making online - its a steady regular income which means i dont have to touch my bankroll) while i build up my online bankroll to an amount (my aim at the minute is approx $60000) where i can take a year off work and just play poker, making sure that i have enough to last me for a year without putting myself under the added pressure of having to constantly get results week in and week out to pay the bills.

Whether i manage to achieve my target or not only time will tell but i want to try and do it myself without the financial assistance of a backer, then i hopefully will not have to rely on someone else to help me achieve my goals and also for the added personal satisfaction if i do make it. If i dont then ho hum, its been an enjoyable few years anyway and i'm still going to enjoy playing poker as an amateur!! :)