BRS What are they looking for ?

[ukpkrpro]

Hello Guys and Girls

First of all I want to make it clear that the aim of this post is not to slate Brs or the work that they do in the Poker community. Brs have received some bad publicity from users on a number of Facebook groups recently but I personally do not believe a lot of the claims that are being circulated and although it is possible a few members are up to shady shit I don't believe their actions are supported or condoned by Paul Jackson or his team. So please I am looking for answers to my query based on this groups knowledge of Brs and how they operate, I am not looking for a bunch of replies saying don't deal with them they are corrupt etc as that does not help anybody.

I first contacted Brs a couple of months ago enquiring how their staking programme worked with an aim to being staked as a Live player. I got a quick response explaining that although there are a lot of opportunities to play live they primarily staked online players. I replied and was totally honest about my abilities, basically stating that although I was a competent Live player my online game was not anywhere near the standard it should be. Brs replied with a link to their academy and suggested that I take their trial and if successful they would help my online game improve. I was very impressed with their attitude and gave it some thought.

While at the Goliath festival I spoke to 5 players who were staked by Brs and they all told me how good Brs were and that I should give the trial a go as I had nothing to lose. When I explained that my online game was not great and I was worried about messing up the trial they said not to worry, of the 5 players I spoke to only 1 had finished the trial in profit, 1 had broken even the other 3 had lost money.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to go forward with the trial and was quite excited at the prospects of being a staked player
For stage one they deposited $55 in my account in the form of a bonus and asked me to play 10x $5.50 sngs
I won 3 and had 1 second place for a profit of $10
I was then accepted to move on to stage 2 where I was again asked to play 10x $5.50 sngs
i had a disaster with the first 5 and only managed one cash but won 3 of the last 5 for a stage 2 profit of $18
So over the 20 games I made a profit of $28 which I know is not great but knowing that players were invited to join the academy after breaking even and losing I was pretty confident
Also my strike rate of cashing in 40% and winning 30% seemed to be quite good to me,obviously a very small sample size

Unfortunately I received an e mail on Tuesday stating that after reviewing my performance i did not mahe the next stage of sponsorship and giving me instructions on where to send half of my balance (so I actually made a profit of almost $70 from the trial)
I did e mail them asking for feedback and if there was any way forward for me but so far have not had a reply

I assume this post will be read by staked players for Brs and other companies and was just wondering if anybody could tell me where I went wrong and what Brs are actually looking for in a player and what if anything I can do to help my cause

Many thanks for taking the time to read this

Terry P

[actionjack]

Hi
If have asked our acedemy manager for details of your issue and will provide more feed back in due course.

The academy process is a loss leader for us as most applicants lose money through it.

We tolerate this loss because it gives players without a suitable proven online history to get a shot at showing us what they can do and in addition if we get some good long term winning players through it then that is  hopefully well worth the lcost in the long run .

Asking mtt applicants to trial by playing 20 sng is not ideal and we may get some wrong but with sometimes up to 50 applicants a week and needing a relatively quick and as reasonable a way possible (excluding the natural variance of playing mtt) this we feel is the best, if not perfect, way to do it  for us.

The academy manager assessed performance based on various criteria which pays little regard to profit or loss but more to overall performance as a whole so just having made profit will not necessarily ensure you are accepted to the next stage

[Marky147]

Top man, shit jumpers

[actionjack]

Our academy manager has advised that the consistency of performance was not adequate and suggested a boom or bust type approach.

She also checked your mtt graph for additional information and it was not sufficent to change her overall opinion

She also confirmed that my jumper selection is excellent

[bookiebasher]

Our academy manager has advised that the consistency of performance was not adequate and suggested a boom or bust type approach.

She also checked your mtt graph for additional information and it was not sufficent to change her overall opinion

She also confirmed that my jumper selection is excellent

two out of three she got right , not bad I suppose

[Marky147]

Our academy manager has advised that the consistency of performance was not adequate and suggested a boom or bust type approach.

She also checked your mtt graph for additional information and it was not sufficent to change her overall opinion

She also confirmed that my jumper selection is excellent

[ukpkrpro]

Paul
thank you for taking the time to look into this for me
I am disappointed with your academy managers assessment of my play as I certainly wouldn't describe it as she did but at the end of the day it is her call so I have to trust her judgement
I would agree that looking at my mtt chart on sharkscope is not great reading but in reality it is not nearly as bad as it looks as I play a lot of mtts after winning satelites, my sharkscope shows me as losing $215 in a tourney that only cost me $11 to enter yet the profit of $204 by winning the ticket is not shown.
The idea behind this post was not to get you to change the decision but to give me a better insight into what you are looking for and where I can make improvements, its a shame as I feel with a bankroll and some help and guidance I could perform well for your or any stable.
Thanks again for your time
Good Luck at the tables

Terry P

[actionjack]

Cheers Terry

The academy manger has a tough and intensive job and is constantly under pressure and I will not micro manage her as I trust her judgement.

Will she get it wrong sometimes with players ? Absolutely as would anyone managing an assessment system like this but we have to live with that and we try to reduce those “mistakes”  by looking st other information other than just results or indeed profit/loss .

I would add that , whilst I accept believe and respect what you say, you would not want to take the over under on the number of unsuccessful applicants that day same or similar to what you have said above

[Simon Galloway]

I have a stable, I don't think Paul will mind me giving a 2nd opinion...  Just in case there is any suspicion of a conflict of interest, I definitely won't be staking you

Winning online nowadays is pretty difficult and requires continuous work on a weekly basis to fix leaks and to adapt and evolve as everyone else evolves.

If you had applied to me, I would have asked for your screen name and would have used Sharkscope etc to filter your results for buyin, satellites, game types etc in an attempt to find something encouraging to work with.  Fwiw, I rarely look at results any older than 1 year, the game moves that quickly that lots of 2016 winners are now massive losers.  I suspect that from your writing, your Sharkscope would lead me to say "no thx" right there.  If there was something reasonable, I would have asked you to send in ~ 20 HHs that were fresh.  The buyin wouldn't really matter, but it would give enough of an insight into how your game was, where the leaks were and your situational awareness.  If you didn't already have a reasonable database of your play and use various online tools to analyse your own play, it is almost impossible to believe the play is going to be good enough for it to be a profitable proposition.


So I wouldn't have paid you for the sample, I'm guessing Paul recovers some of the loss from affiliate lifetime value but I have no doubt the trials are a loss leader for him.


I would have given you direct feedback though, it would be fairly short and to the point and the profit/loss would be the most irrelevant statistic of all of them.  If you had shown decent awareness and your stats were reasonable with perhaps a minor leak or two, it might even be possible to start you low and iron out the creases.  If your game was miles off, then it really isn't a good spot for anyone to have to pay money to try and turn you into an expected winner.

[ukpkrpro]

Hi Simon
Thanks for your input
I totally understand what you are saying and to be fair I would think twice before staking me

The truth is I have a good understanding of the game but for reasons that escape me I cant seem to transform my live results to online which is why I was hoping to join a stable that were prepared to start me small and work with me, From everything I had heard about Brs they were that stable. AS i mentioned previously I was reluctant to take the trial based simply on my sharkscope stats but I was encouraged to do so by Brs players

As for the job that Jesse does at the academy I wouldnt want to be in her shoes, I can only imagine the stress she goes through on a daily basis, I am also aware of her workload and am sure she would have got back to me with constructive feedback as soon as she could


Good luck at the tables

Terry P

[Doobs]

I have a stable, I don't think Paul will mind me giving a 2nd opinion...  Just in case there is any suspicion of a conflict of interest, I definitely won't be staking you

Winning online nowadays is pretty difficult and requires continuous work on a weekly basis to fix leaks and to adapt and evolve as everyone else evolves.

If you had applied to me, I would have asked for your screen name and would have used Sharkscope etc to filter your results for buyin, satellites, game types etc in an attempt to find something encouraging to work with.  Fwiw, I rarely look at results any older than 1 year, the game moves that quickly that lots of 2016 winners are now massive losers.  I suspect that from your writing, your Sharkscope would lead me to say "no thx" right there.  If there was something reasonable, I would have asked you to send in ~ 20 HHs that were fresh.  The buyin wouldn't really matter, but it would give enough of an insight into how your game was, where the leaks were and your situational awareness.  If you didn't already have a reasonable database of your play and use various online tools to analyse your own play, it is almost impossible to believe the play is going to be good enough for it to be a profitable proposition.


So I wouldn't have paid you for the sample, I'm guessing Paul recovers some of the loss from affiliate lifetime value but I have no doubt the trials are a loss leader for him.


I would have given you direct feedback though, it would be fairly short and to the point and the profit/loss would be the most irrelevant statistic of all of them.  If you had shown decent awareness and your stats were reasonable with perhaps a minor leak or two, it might even be possible to start you low and iron out the creases.  If your game was miles off, then it really isn't a good spot for anyone to have to pay money to try and turn you into an expected winner.

Bengt Sonnert has been playing poker tonight on stars!  I hadn't seen him at the tables for many years, but it seems like he has been back playing for the last 12 months.

For those who have no idea who he is, he was a massive cash game crusher who probably retired before most of today's high stakes crushers started playing.

[tikay]

I have a stable, I don't think Paul will mind me giving a 2nd opinion...  Just in case there is any suspicion of a conflict of interest, I definitely won't be staking you

Winning online nowadays is pretty difficult and requires continuous work on a weekly basis to fix leaks and to adapt and evolve as everyone else evolves.

If you had applied to me, I would have asked for your screen name and would have used Sharkscope etc to filter your results for buyin, satellites, game types etc in an attempt to find something encouraging to work with.  Fwiw, I rarely look at results any older than 1 year, the game moves that quickly that lots of 2016 winners are now massive losers.  I suspect that from your writing, your Sharkscope would lead me to say "no thx" right there.  If there was something reasonable, I would have asked you to send in ~ 20 HHs that were fresh.  The buyin wouldn't really matter, but it would give enough of an insight into how your game was, where the leaks were and your situational awareness.  If you didn't already have a reasonable database of your play and use various online tools to analyse your own play, it is almost impossible to believe the play is going to be good enough for it to be a profitable proposition.


So I wouldn't have paid you for the sample, I'm guessing Paul recovers some of the loss from affiliate lifetime value but I have no doubt the trials are a loss leader for him.


I would have given you direct feedback though, it would be fairly short and to the point and the profit/loss would be the most irrelevant statistic of all of them.  If you had shown decent awareness and your stats were reasonable with perhaps a minor leak or two, it might even be possible to start you low and iron out the creases.  If your game was miles off, then it really isn't a good spot for anyone to have to pay money to try and turn you into an expected winner.

Bengt Sonnert has been playing poker tonight on stars!  I hadn't seen him at the tables for many years, but it seems like he has been back playing for the last 12 months.

For those who have no idea who he is, he was a massive cash game crusher who probably retired before most of today's high stakes crushers started playing.

Crikey, there's a blast from the past.

He was the Isildur of his era, feared by almost anyone with any sense. Last time I saw him was at the WSOP-E in Leicester Square about 10 years ago (held on 3 floors & in & 4 different casinos, what a farce that was) when he finished 4th in the one Juanda won.

We used to look at him in awe, coolest bloke on the planet, or so we thought.

[Doobs]

I have a stable, I don't think Paul will mind me giving a 2nd opinion...  Just in case there is any suspicion of a conflict of interest, I definitely won't be staking you

Winning online nowadays is pretty difficult and requires continuous work on a weekly basis to fix leaks and to adapt and evolve as everyone else evolves.

If you had applied to me, I would have asked for your screen name and would have used Sharkscope etc to filter your results for buyin, satellites, game types etc in an attempt to find something encouraging to work with.  Fwiw, I rarely look at results any older than 1 year, the game moves that quickly that lots of 2016 winners are now massive losers.  I suspect that from your writing, your Sharkscope would lead me to say "no thx" right there.  If there was something reasonable, I would have asked you to send in ~ 20 HHs that were fresh.  The buyin wouldn't really matter, but it would give enough of an insight into how your game was, where the leaks were and your situational awareness.  If you didn't already have a reasonable database of your play and use various online tools to analyse your own play, it is almost impossible to believe the play is going to be good enough for it to be a profitable proposition.


So I wouldn't have paid you for the sample, I'm guessing Paul recovers some of the loss from affiliate lifetime value but I have no doubt the trials are a loss leader for him.


I would have given you direct feedback though, it would be fairly short and to the point and the profit/loss would be the most irrelevant statistic of all of them.  If you had shown decent awareness and your stats were reasonable with perhaps a minor leak or two, it might even be possible to start you low and iron out the creases.  If your game was miles off, then it really isn't a good spot for anyone to have to pay money to try and turn you into an expected winner.

Bengt Sonnert has been playing poker tonight on stars!  I hadn't seen him at the tables for many years, but it seems like he has been back playing for the last 12 months.

For those who have no idea who he is, he was a massive cash game crusher who probably retired before most of today's high stakes crushers started playing.

Crikey, there's a blast from the past.

He was the Isildur of his era, feared by almost anyone with any sense. Last time I saw him was at the WSOP-E in Leicester Square about 10 years ago (held on 3 floors & in & 4 different casinos, what a farce that was) when he finished 4th in the one Juanda won.

We used to look at him in awe, coolest bloke on the planet, or so we thought.

The Bengt Sonnert aura was broken last night.   I always imagined him sitting with zen like calm playing poker.  I found a twitch channel with him on (in Swedish with cards covered if you thought you might learn something), and when he got knocked out he flung his mouse across the room...  Don't ever meet your heroes.

His twitter says he is a semi-professional racketlon player now.  Don't worry, I had to google it too.

[arbboy]

Paul
thank you for taking the time to look into this for me
I am disappointed with your academy managers assessment of my play as I certainly wouldn't describe it as she did but at the end of the day it is her call so I have to trust her judgement
I would agree that looking at my mtt chart on sharkscope is not great reading but in reality it is not nearly as bad as it looks as I play a lot of mtts after winning satelites, my sharkscope shows me as losing $215 in a tourney that only cost me $11 to enter yet the profit of $204 by winning the ticket is not shown.
The idea behind this post was not to get you to change the decision but to give me a better insight into what you are looking for and where I can make improvements, its a shame as I feel with a bankroll and some help and guidance I could perform well for your or any stable.
Thanks again for your time
Good Luck at the tables

Terry P

Unless SS has changed the way it reports sat results since my (long gone) glory days of online donkfests then all sat winning tickets WILL be reported as a $204 profit on SS then if you lose the resulting mtt you won a ticket for you will show a $215 loss so overall the SS loss will only be the sat buy in.

[Jamier-Host]

The truth is I have a good understanding of the game but for reasons that escape me I cant seem to transform my live results to online...

Probably because it is way harder online. Casino games still have plenty of random punters happy to splash a couple of hundred quid about (or more) per visit for fun. They don't choose stakes based on ability, just on whether it's an amount that gets them vaguely excited about a win or loss in comparison to their general level of wealth.

Clearly they exist online too but are massively diluted amongst all the grinders.