Backing Others in Tournaments (Long)

[Harry Demetriou]

I disagree backing players is a long term losing proposition.

I am well ahead backing players and I have won money for people that backed me (Unfortuantely Harry didn't cop the one time he risked a few quid on the Camel)

I have three criteria for backing players. In order of importance:

1 I like the player.
2 I trust him/her.
3 I think it's a winning long term investment.

I rarely look for backing these days as my bankroll is pretty healthy. The one time I did in the last year was for the 25k event at the Bellagio. There I sold 40% of myself for $12,500. I like to think I have an edge of at least 20% of the field and hence I think the backers had a value investment.

Long term winning players (imho) are few and far between but the problem is also one of identifying such players and it is not easy to find such players from a volatility point of view if nothing else.

I thnk Keiths criteria are musts and you would have to be crazy not to have all three of his conditions met before deciding to put someone into a tournament.

However even when Keiths criteria are met there is still the argument of how much the backer and how much the player should get.

Longer term you can give the player a bigger percentage (especially if there is a make up figure where the backer gets his money first) but what percentage can you realistically afford to give?

If you have a 20% edge after the juice in a tournament you still can't afford to give away 30%-50% of the returns that the player gets which are the normal figures banded about and sought by players seeking backing. This is why make up figures are important and should be carried over.

As for selling part of yourself in a tournament at a premium again no problem but if we take Keiths example he valued himself at $37500 for a $25k tournament. Now I am not going into the arguments of whether or not Keith is worth this amount (he is indeed a fine player) but the Belagio $25k tournament has not got that much dead money in it as I feel certain that 400 of a 600 player field there would have a shot at winning which would make him a fair bet but not a great value bet. (Please note I am not taking a dig at Keith just using figures to demonstrate a point and these are not difinitive figures).

In the WSOP main event however I would have to say that Keith would of course be worth more percentage wise and have to say he would be worth $20k+ for a $10k event as I doubt that more than 4000 out of the 8000 had a chance of winning.

Perhaps then the question should be a mathematical one of how much you give a player if you provide 100% of the entry dependant on his expected profits in the long run (assuming we can of course anticipate the long run).

[totalise]

Perhaps then the question should be a mathematical one of how much you give a player if you provide 100% of the entry dependant on his expected profits in the long run (assuming we can of course anticipate the long run).

yes, it is a mathematical question, but the intrinsic problem is one of skill. The player will in nearly all cases over-value their skill.. I bet if you asked every single WSOP M.E player this year what their seat was "worth" in terms of EV, the sum total of all the players self-evaluated EV would come somewhere close to $150 million!

Notoriously all the horror stories of backing deals come from the backers side, and not the horse's side...which is pretty telling. The mistake they make is one of EV.. if someone has an expected ROI of 100%, then they think that splitting the profit 50/50 means that each side is getting a fair deal, but in short-term deals the backer is absorbing 100% of the loss without much hope of make-up, so its heavily weighted towards the player, and the problem with long-term deals is that its hard to pin someone down to a long term deal.

If you have a deal where you play tournaments with make-up and run up a $200k deficit (which in this day and age isn't overly difficult) then its too easy to get into disagreements/arguments to try and get yourself dumped from your current backer, maybe they would even start to dump chips and lose on purpose. Anything to renege on the deal.. then they can get a new deal elsewhere, free of the $200k burden.

I think the only really logical deal for backers to try and get a reasonable return is on a tourney by tourney basis, but the problem there is that the players aren't willing to play for a percentage that is fair on the backer (something like 20--25% or so)

[Simon Galloway2]

I disagree backing players is a long term losing proposition.

I am well ahead backing players and I have won money for people that backed me (Unfortuantely Harry didn't cop the one time he risked a few quid on the Camel)

I have three criteria for backing players. In order of importance:

1 I like the player.
2 I trust him/her.
3 I think it's a winning long term investment.

I rarely look for backing these days as my bankroll is pretty healthy. The one time I did in the last year was for the 25k event at the Bellagio. There I sold 40% of myself for $12,500. I like to think I have an edge of at least 20% of the field and hence I think the backers had a value investment.

My only 2 rules are trust and never pay over 1:1 for a slice.....

[bobby1]

with the occasional thirty-something "no-name" internet player thrown in too!!

better be careful with these new age-discrimination laws due to take effect soon - you cant say things like "i'd back fabulous young players" 

These new agei laws seem ridiculous to me (not arguing their merits just that they are so impractical to implement).

What is going to happen in reality? Is there going to be a governement department that goes around fining companies for not employing their quota of oldies?

Does  this mean that there will be no place on application forms for age and date of birth?

I have always been an advocate of "The best person for the job"  regardless of age sex creed or colour etc etc and its a company's own loss if they ever deviate from such an employment practice.


Now back to poker..........

Tikay is not only old but also only a poker player in his own mind ;-)
[/quote]

Sigh......

Listen, I got asked got my autograph yesterday, inside the front cover of a Poker book. Truly! Another player had already signed it, & I was curious as to who it was - I'm thinking, who else am I associated with if I sign this?

Answer? Malcolm "the Rock" Harwood. Guess the guy wanted to balance out the ageism thing.....I mean, Malcolm IS old.
[/quote]

Sorry but I have this mental image of you growing up to look like Malcolm Harwood in your old age!!!

[tikay]

with the occasional thirty-something "no-name" internet player thrown in too!!

better be careful with these new age-discrimination laws due to take effect soon - you cant say things like "i'd back fabulous young players" 

These new agei laws seem ridiculous to me (not arguing their merits just that they are so impractical to implement).

What is going to happen in reality? Is there going to be a governement department that goes around fining companies for not employing their quota of oldies?

Does  this mean that there will be no place on application forms for age and date of birth?

I have always been an advocate of "The best person for the job"  regardless of age sex creed or colour etc etc and its a company's own loss if they ever deviate from such an employment practice.


Now back to poker..........

Tikay is not only old but also only a poker player in his own mind ;-)

Sigh......

Listen, I got asked got my autograph yesterday, inside the front cover of a Poker book. Truly! Another player had already signed it, & I was curious as to who it was - I'm thinking, who else am I associated with if I sign this?

Answer? Malcolm "the Rock" Harwood. Guess the guy wanted to balance out the ageism thing.....I mean, Malcolm IS old.
[/quote]

Sorry but I have this mental image of you growing up to look like Malcolm Harwood in your old age!!!
[/quote]

I'll wory about that in 30 years time. (Only jesting, Malc!).

[The Camel]

I disagree backing players is a long term losing proposition.

I am well ahead backing players and I have won money for people that backed me (Unfortuantely Harry didn't cop the one time he risked a few quid on the Camel)

I have three criteria for backing players. In order of importance:

1 I like the player.
2 I trust him/her.
3 I think it's a winning long term investment.

I rarely look for backing these days as my bankroll is pretty healthy. The one time I did in the last year was for the 25k event at the Bellagio. There I sold 40% of myself for $12,500. I like to think I have an edge of at least 20% of the field and hence I think the backers had a value investment.

Long term winning players (imho) are few and far between but the problem is also one of identifying such players and it is not easy to find such players from a volatility point of view if nothing else.

I thnk Keiths criteria are musts and you would have to be crazy not to have all three of his conditions met before deciding to put someone into a tournament.

However even when Keiths criteria are met there is still the argument of how much the backer and how much the player should get.

Longer term you can give the player a bigger percentage (especially if there is a make up figure where the backer gets his money first) but what percentage can you realistically afford to give?

If you have a 20% edge after the juice in a tournament you still can't afford to give away 30%-50% of the returns that the player gets which are the normal figures banded about and sought by players seeking backing. This is why make up figures are important and should be carried over.

As for selling part of yourself in a tournament at a premium again no problem but if we take Keiths example he valued himself at $37500 for a $25k tournament. Now I am not going into the arguments of whether or not Keith is worth this amount (he is indeed a fine player) but the Belagio $25k tournament has not got that much dead money in it as I feel certain that 400 of a 600 player field there would have a shot at winning which would make him a fair bet but not a great value bet. (Please note I am not taking a dig at Keith just using figures to demonstrate a point and these are not difinitive figures).

In the WSOP main event however I would have to say that Keith would of course be worth more percentage wise and have to say he would be worth $20k+ for a $10k event as I doubt that more than 4000 out of the 8000 had a chance of winning.

Perhaps then the question should be a mathematical one of how much you give a player if you provide 100% of the entry dependant on his expected profits in the long run (assuming we can of course anticipate the long run).

If my maths hasn't failed me, selling 40% of myself for $12,500 actually values me at $30,000.

When I put a mate in a small tournament I usually let them have 50% of themselves. In a larger event it's usually 70:30.

[bolt pp]

Guaranteed right; what difference does it make?

[Harry Demetriou]

[/quote]

If my maths hasn't failed me, selling 40% of myself for $12,500 actually values me at $30,000.

When I put a mate in a small tournament I usually let them have 50% of themselves. In a larger event it's usually 70:30.
[/quote]

Sorry $31250 to be precise.

[ariston]

I think backing players as an investment is overall a very bad idea as has already been outlined earlier in the thread, however backing friends who have lost bankroll down to unforsen circumstances/leaks away from the game  is a different thing entirely. In Vegas this year I had a horrible time and by the last week was completely potless and several good friends/blondites offered to buy me into the bellagio daily events etc, I was honest enough to say I wasn't playing well enough and they would be just wasting their money but when you are down you still find out who your real friends are. The other circumstance is when you see a particularly talented player who has other leaks away from the game- certain players have a huge ROI in tournaments but blow all the winnings away from the tournament circuit, these players have terrible bankroll management but would still be a good investment imo. Anybody on here who could afford to wouldn't back Gus Hansen (who has been backed in the past) for a few tournaments? I think if you paid gus into all his tournaments for 12 months you wouldn't be out of pocket at then end of the year.

[Royal Flush]

I have won money for people that backed me

Can i get a refund then!!! 

Intresting debate guys.

[Slick Kid]

Great thread and l have to agree with the original poster on most points. I started playing in Jan. this year after 8 months on the net and l think lve managed ok but l dont think l could do it the same next year, financially. Ive made numerous final tables and most festivals l played lve cashed but l believe unless u hit a big one u could not sustain this lifestyle without some backing. The one thing lve learned this year is that most of the regular circuit players have bigger EGO'S than bankrolls.

[ifm]

I'd be interested to see the "books" at badbeat to see just how their concept has progressed.
I don't mean name players just to see if the model works.

[TightEnd]

I think backing players as an investment is overall a very bad idea .

Generally, yes

So speaks Mr 0 for 3 here....

[matt674]

Matt, I am prepared to stake you in your next tournament - please accept this investment.

Lol, thanks mate - i'll be playing the $50 p/l hold'em on pokerstars at 8pm so if you could get the bananas to my treehouse before then that would be great!!

What happened AndrewT? my bananas never turned up and i went on to make the final table!!

You missed out on your cut

lesson 1: never use jungle couriers!! 

[GlasgowBandit]

So who's taking a chance?