moorman1 Wins 24th PocketFives Triple Crown

[AlunB]

FWIW as someone who has worked in poker media for over 10 years now I think there is an awful lot of b****cks talked about player's having a duty to promote the game. Absolute crap. They have no duty to us whatsoever, and I am and was always grateful for players taking the time to talk to me. Even the sponsored ones. Their duty is still not to the media, it's to their sponsors.

This does not apply to Chris if he is not sponsored, but I would have thought these two things were aligned?

If I owned a Poker Site & employed a Pro, I would expect him to be all over the Poker Media trying to raise the profile of my site.

Sure, but that in that case means their obligation are still to the site and not to the media. If they don't want to do an interview and the sponsor is happy then that's that.

[Sark79]

There was a thread on Blonde years ago started by Moorman, 2006ish ( I think it was Moorman ). In it he set his target as making around 100k over the next year at cash games and trying to buy a house. I may have got a completely different player in mind here and be mixed up, I don't think I am though. Thinking back to those days seems like a different age given Chris's achievements and place in poker now. In your mind, did you ever believe any of this would be possible while you were grinding the micros?   Also, if it wasn't a Moorman thread mentioned above. Who was it?  

[tikay]

FWIW as someone who has worked in poker media for over 10 years now I think there is an awful lot of b****cks talked about player's having a duty to promote the game. Absolute crap. They have no duty to us whatsoever, and I am and was always grateful for players taking the time to talk to me. Even the sponsored ones. Their duty is still not to the media, it's to their sponsors.

This does not apply to Chris if he is not sponsored, but I would have thought these two things were aligned?

If I owned a Poker Site & employed a Pro, I would expect him to be all over the Poker Media trying to raise the profile of my site.

Sure, but that in that case means their obligation are still to the site and not to the media. If they don't want to do an interview and the sponsor is happy then that's that.

Well yes, but I cannot imagine the Sponsoring Site would NOT want their Site Pro to do media stuff. That's a significant reason for sponsoring them, I'd have thought.

You are right as to who they are serving though, their first obligation is to the Site, not the media, but I would really think the 2 things are much the same. You serve the site best by being accessible to the Media. That's the key to recreational sign-ups.

[AlunB]

FWIW as someone who has worked in poker media for over 10 years now I think there is an awful lot of b****cks talked about player's having a duty to promote the game. Absolute crap. They have no duty to us whatsoever, and I am and was always grateful for players taking the time to talk to me. Even the sponsored ones. Their duty is still not to the media, it's to their sponsors.

This does not apply to Chris if he is not sponsored, but I would have thought these two things were aligned?

If I owned a Poker Site & employed a Pro, I would expect him to be all over the Poker Media trying to raise the profile of my site.

Sure, but that in that case means their obligation are still to the site and not to the media. If they don't want to do an interview and the sponsor is happy then that's that.

Well yes, but I cannot imagine the Sponsoring Site would NOT want their Site Pro to do media stuff. That's a significant reason for sponsoring them, I'd have thought.

You are right as to who they are serving though, their first obligation is to the Site, not the media, but I would really think the 2 things are much the same. You serve the site best by being accessible to the Media. That's the key to recreational sign-ups.

We don't disagree on this. You're dead right.

I'm just saying poker websites/magazines/TV shows/whatever shouldn't feel they are entitled to anything just because a player is sponsored. The two things are not directly connected.

[The Camel]

FWIW as someone who has worked in poker media for over 10 years now I think there is an awful lot of b****cks talked about player's having a duty to promote the game. Absolute crap. They have no duty to us whatsoever, and I am and was always grateful for players taking the time to talk to me. Even the sponsored ones. Their duty is still not to the media, it's to their sponsors.

This does not apply to Chris if he is not sponsored, but I would have thought these two things were aligned?

If I owned a Poker Site & employed a Pro, I would expect him to be all over the Poker Media trying to raise the profile of my site.

Sure, but that in that case means their obligation are still to the site and not to the media. If they don't want to do an interview and the sponsor is happy then that's that.

Well yes, but I cannot imagine the Sponsoring Site would NOT want their Site Pro to do media stuff. That's a significant reason for sponsoring them, I'd have thought.

You are right as to who they are serving though, their first obligation is to the Site, not the media, but I would really think the 2 things are much the same. You serve the site best by being accessible to the Media. That's the key to recreational sign-ups.

We don't disagree on this. You're dead right.

I'm just saying poker websites/magazines/TV shows/whatever shouldn't feel they are entitled to anything just because a player is sponsored. The two things are not directly connected.

I have never understood why the holy grail for many poker players is to be sponsored.

Surely we all play this game to avoid responsibilities and do exactly as we please?

Why give up the freedom we enjoy to be at the beck and call of a poker site?

Sure I understand why skint members, losers and break even players would love to be sponsored.

But for people like Chris, surely the aim is to win enough NOT to sponsored?

[Marky147]

Maybe the aim is to win enough not to be 'staked', but being 'sponsored' is a whole different kettle of fish, imo.

[The Camel]

Maybe the aim is to win enough not to be 'staked', but being 'sponsored' is a whole different kettle of fish, imo.

Meh.

Interviews, blogs, glad handing strangers, being told you have to somewhere specific at a certain time etc etc

Poker players like to do as they please, when they please. Being sponsored is the very opposite of this.

No chance I'd accept any sponsorship if I was Moorman unless it was just wearing a patch when I chose to play poker.

Any other responsibilities? No thanks.

Might as well have a proper job.

[DMorgan]

I have never understood why the holy grail for many poker players is to be sponsored.

Work out the hourly for being a sponsored pro when you're being put into live majors every couple of weeks and getting 100% rakeback online in return for a few interviews a few extra stops on the tour. Backers usually stipulate that they want ALL of a players action when they are being backed and often want their horses to only play whatever they are being backed for. With sponsorship from a site, said MTT pro can also grind cash games on the side with 100% rakeback which as you can imagine would be pretty lucrative.

Most of the guys with big sponsorship deals think the same as you Keith and the sites know this, so they make the price right, and everyone has a price whether they'd admit it or not. Chuck in most MTT pros having far less money than their OPRs suggest for a variety of reasons and thats why everyone wants a sponsorship deal.

Of course this was all much more applicable a few years ago. Sponsored pros are dropping like flies these days so I can't imagine the deals now are anything close to what they were in FTPs heyday.

[The Camel]

I have never understood why the holy grail for many poker players is to be sponsored.

Work out the hourly for being a sponsored pro when you're being put into live majors every couple of weeks and getting 100% rakeback online in return for a few interviews a few extra stops on the tour. Backers usually stipulate that they want ALL of a players action when they are being backed and often want their horses to only play whatever they are being backed for. With sponsorship from a site, said MTT pro can also grind cash games on the side with 100% rakeback which as you can imagine would be pretty lucrative.

Most of the guys with big sponsorship deals think the same as you Keith and the sites know this, so they make the price right, and everyone has a price whether they'd admit it or not. Chuck in most MTT pros having far less money than their OPRs suggest for a variety of reasons and thats why everyone wants a sponsorship deal.

Of course this was all much more applicable a few years ago. Sponsored pros are dropping like flies these days so I can't imagine the deals now are anything close to what they were in FTPs heyday.

As I said, I understand why the vast majority of players would take sponsorship in a flash.

But, for example, Phil Ivey.

He obviously hates being interviewed, doesn't like making videos or meeting the public.

And he definitely doesn't like being in a place at a specific time.

He must be wroth 10 million minimum, so why would would he put himself through all the stress and annoyance being sponsored involves just for a few extra quid?

If I make the November Nine I'm a million to accept sponsorship unless it simply involves wearing "Fat Bastard Poker" patch for the duration of the event.

[Kmac84]

How much media work does a sponsored pro actually have to do for said site?  I guess also it must depend on what level you are at for example I would think the players with the really big reps would be expected to give more in terms of media obligations than the MTT grinders who play thousands of tournaments a year.  

I defo get the benefit of sponsorship.  I mean imagine you were a pro footballer at a lower levels and someone offers you sponsorship in return for you doing a little in return your not going to knock it back for a few extra grand, and similarly how much do you reckon guys like Federer got for endorsing Gillette and its not like he is short of the cash.  

[Marky147]

I have never understood why the holy grail for many poker players is to be sponsored.

Work out the hourly for being a sponsored pro when you're being put into live majors every couple of weeks and getting 100% rakeback online in return for a few interviews a few extra stops on the tour. Backers usually stipulate that they want ALL of a players action when they are being backed and often want their horses to only play whatever they are being backed for. With sponsorship from a site, said MTT pro can also grind cash games on the side with 100% rakeback which as you can imagine would be pretty lucrative.

Most of the guys with big sponsorship deals think the same as you Keith and the sites know this, so they make the price right, and everyone has a price whether they'd admit it or not. Chuck in most MTT pros having far less money than their OPRs suggest for a variety of reasons and thats why everyone wants a sponsorship deal.

Of course this was all much more applicable a few years ago. Sponsored pros are dropping like flies these days so I can't imagine the deals now are anything close to what they were in FTPs heyday.

As I said, I understand why the vast majority of players would take sponsorship in a flash.

But, for example, Phil Ivey.

He obviously hates being interviewed, doesn't like making videos or meeting the public.

And he definitely doesn't like being in a place at a specific time.

He must be wroth 10 million minimum, so why would would he put himself through all the stress and annoyance being sponsored involves just for a few extra quid?

If I make the November Nine I'm a million to accept sponsorship unless it simply involves wearing "Fat Bastard Poker" patch for the duration of the event.

He put up with it for a millyball a month

[The Camel]

How much media work does a sponsored pro actually have to do for said site?  I guess also it must depend on what level you are at for example I would think the players with the really big reps would be expected to give more in terms of media obligations than the MTT grinders who play thousands of tournaments a year.  

I defo get the benefit of sponsorship.  I mean imagine you were a pro footballer at a lower levels and someone offers you sponsorship in return for you doing a little in return your not going to knock it back for a few extra grand, and similarly how much do you reckon guys like Federer got for endorsing Gillette and its not like he is short of the cash.  

Federer probably gets 100 times more from Gillette than the average poker player does from a site.

And does a fraction of the work to earn it.

Maybe 1 day shooting an ad, and another day being a sponsors guest at some function.

Nadal probably gets as much fronm Stars as all the regular pros put together.

[Marky147]

If I was a poker pro, the way I would look at  it is - 'Ok, I have to do a few meet & greets, and chat with a few journos about poker'

For that, I get my buyins, and get shots at all the biggest scores going, and don't have to lump up the massive buyins.

I doubt many pros can afford to travel around the world playing $10k MTTs, but having a sponsorship deal affords you that opportunity.

To me that doesn't seem like a bad trade off?

[DMorgan]

The million a month figure included his payments as a part owner but to give an idea of how much of this came from sponsorship

http://www.subjectpoker.com/2011/07/ivey-benyamine/

Ivey was paid well for televised appearances. He received $170,000 for wearing a Full Tilt logo during his appearances on Poker After Dark‘s most recent season, which amounted to about 25 hours of poker at the Aria Resort & Casino this past November.10 He received $25,000 “for London Press” and $5,000 “for press at WSOPE” this past September,11 $50,000 for wearing a logo during his second place finish in the 2010 Aussie Millions 100,000 AUD tournament, and a few more similar payments. Given how often Ivey wore Full Tilt’s logo on television during this time period, it is likely that he received many such payments via other methods.

Not including the 2014 final table, 53 of the 54 november niners played the final table with a sponsorship deal.

Its probbaly not much of a stretch to imagine that your life outlook will be shared by a lot of these people (mostly poker pros and rich businessmen), so the sites offering sponsorship have probably factored that into the price

'Amaya share price continues to tumble as investors' confidence in striking deal with The Camel wanes' would be an amusing FT headline though

This guy would have a buddy in the 'no sponsorship' club though



Apologies for the derail, gl with the book Chris

[The Camel]

The million a month figure included his payments as a part owner but to give an idea of how much of this came from sponsorship

http://www.subjectpoker.com/2011/07/ivey-benyamine/

Ivey was paid well for televised appearances. He received $170,000 for wearing a Full Tilt logo during his appearances on Poker After Dark‘s most recent season, which amounted to about 25 hours of poker at the Aria Resort & Casino this past November.10 He received $25,000 “for London Press” and $5,000 “for press at WSOPE” this past September,11 $50,000 for wearing a logo during his second place finish in the 2010 Aussie Millions 100,000 AUD tournament, and a few more similar payments. Given how often Ivey wore Full Tilt’s logo on television during this time period, it is likely that he received many such payments via other methods.

Not including the 2014 final table, 53 of the 54 november niners played the final table with a sponsorship deal.

Its probbaly not much of a stretch to imagine that your life outlook will be shared by a lot of these people (mostly poker pros and rich businessmen), so the sites offering sponsorship have probably factored that into the price

'Amaya share price continues to tumble as investors' confidence in striking deal with The Camel wanes' would be an amusing FT headline though

This guy would have a buddy in the 'no sponsorship' club though



Apologies for the derail, gl with the book Chris

Don't think it's a derail. Alun and tikay were discussing the merits of Moorman being a sponsored pro.

I was just thinking aloud, why would Chris need or want to be a sponsored pro?