To be backed or not!!

[I KNOW IT]

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.

[The Baron]

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?

[JoeStrummer]

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 

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

[ariston]

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.

[RED-DOG]

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

[ifm]

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

[bobby1]

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.

[henrik777]

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.

3 players with a mixture of ability.

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

 

Sandy

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

[bobby1]

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.

[Sheriff Fatman]

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

[I KNOW IT]

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

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.

[tikay]

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.

[RED-DOG]

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

[tikay]

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.

[bobby1]

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.