Backer Fees?

Andy52086

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
23
So I'm trying to get a buddy playing again...he was an extremely great player...anyway...I am about to start putting up the money for us playing some decent games and my question is how much should the backer receive and how much should the guy not taking any loss receive? 70-30?
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
687
The days of 50-50 split are over. Depending on your relationship with your guy and the game, most players are playing for 35-40%. That makes it a little easier on the stake horse/backer to keep him in action and absorb losses.

I would recommend to split only after all action is done, rather than after each match. It's really the only way to do it. If you are going to a tournament, chop the money after all the smoke clears at the end of the weekend.

Good luck
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,139
in reality is should be based on his chances of winning. more as the better the game he has. if its an even game he should not obviously be allowed to play. and if you give him 30% make sure it isnt for one match but over a certain amount of times he plays if he is ahead money. and usually if you do a 50 50 split or any deal he has to make up losses so you dont end up with him being ahead and you loser. that is a sucker deal.
only fools give a large % on each match unless it is a dead lock and cant lose.
and you only split money after a certain period of time.

overall staking someone who doesnt have their own money to put in the pot is usually a losing deal. only time it works if you are willing to lose money as a favor to the person.

when people ask me to stake them i tell them that if you cant win with your own money why would i think you could win with mine.
 
Last edited:

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,680
in reality is should be based on his chances of winning. more as the better the game he has. if its an even game he should not obviously be allowed to play. and if you give him 30% make sure it isnt for one match but over a certain amount of times he plays if he is ahead money. and usually if you do a 50 50 split or any deal he has to make up losses so you dont end up with him being ahead and you loser. that is a sucker deal.
only fools give a large % on each match unless it is a dead lock and cant lose.
and you only split money after a certain period of time.

overall staking someone who doesnt have their own money to put in the pot is usually a losing deal. only time it works if you are willing to lose money as a favor to the person.

when people ask me to stake them i tell them that if you cant win with your own money why would i think you could win with mine.
what if they dont have any money??
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,139
if they dont have money then they are not winning gamblers. they may shoot well but that is the smallest part of winning money at gambling.

you can take them by the hand and force them to only play winning games and mange their lives but is that worth it. if it is a great friend then maybe so.

but a person who cant keep his own money will find a way to lose yours as well unless you keep him in your sight all the time.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
687
if they dont have money then they are not winning gamblers. they may shoot well but that is the smallest part of winning money at gambling.

you can take them by the hand and force them to only play winning games and mange their lives but is that worth it. if it is a great friend then maybe so.

but a person who cant keep his own money will find a way to lose yours as well unless you keep him in your sight all the time.
Most of the greatest players in the world are broke most of the time. Just because they are great at pool doesn't mean they don't go off to everything else. To each his own, but a broke pool player is the norm, not the exception.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,139
yea and all of those are not going to be playing with my money. i might make a side bet if the game is right but not be part of their action. why would i want to.
i can gamble for as high as i want myself and control the situation to my liking.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,087
Anyone who puts up all of the money and gets back less than 100% of the bet is either a sucker or someone who doesn't like money!!! Why would you knowingly take the worst side of any bet??
 

Scrzbill

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
3,502
Anyone who puts up all of the money and gets back less than 100% of the bet is either a sucker or someone who doesn't like money!!! Why would you knowingly take the worst side of any bet??
Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?
 

Scrzbill

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
3,502
Maybe I’m doing it wrong because I’m known as a stuck horse. After time, food, lodging, I’m lucky to break even after winning.
 

Gettherack

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
15
Most stake horses are want to be players wishing they could be out there in battle I should know I use to be one of them so I dicited to work on my game and be a player not just hang around them it’s a lot more profitable !!!
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,087
Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?
Bill, all I'm saying is unless you know you have the nuts, why would you put yourself in a position where the match is relatedly even and you are risking more than you will receive. Its a negative expectation bet. Lets say the player you are going to back gets 10% of his winning and you get 90%, that's the same as flipping a coin and if you lose the flip you pay $100/ flip and if you win you get $90/flip, would you make that bet??? Now think about how bad a 30/70 split is, its just doesn't make sense financially. Now if you get something else out of being a steak horse likeit fuels your ego and you don't mind taking the worst of it than go ahead.

To answer your question, yes I mean the player gets nothing unless he puts up his own $$$$$$$$$$.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,087
Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?
Bill, let me add to my last post. Besides the terrible odds you've given yourself as a backer there is always that possibility that your player will throw the game. In that case you are drawing dead before the first break.

Last example, you're in the pool room talking to Tony Chohan and in walks Scott Frost. They sit down and talk for several minutes and agree on playing with Tony giving Scott 9-8 which you feel gives Tony a slight edge. You approach Tony and tell him you want to back him up to $10,000. Tony says sorry Bill but Beattle is covering all his action. You ask Tony what the split is and he tells you 75/25. Now you offer Tony a 70/30 split but Tony says no. I overheard this conversation so I ask you if you want to bet me you can have tony all you have to do is lay me your $10,000 to my $8,000 giving you much better odds.

Would you take that bet?? I don't think so and yet as a "backer" you would be willing to lay $10,000 to win $7,000. Why they are both terrible investments!!!

Now Bill don't get all upset my example is just an possible scenario to show that on any reasonably close match it make no sense to lay those type of odds.

If any of our members understand why being a backer you is taking all the risks while receiving only a % of the winnings please explain it to me.

You know Vegas was built on much smaller odds. I once heard a casino owner say just give me 1/2% of a percent edge with enough action I well win millions.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,087
Your statement is confusing. Do you mean the player receives nothing?
Bill, let me add to my last post. Besides the terrible odds you've given yourself as a backer there is always that possibility that your player will throw the game. In that case you are drawing dead before the first break.

Last example, you're in the pool room talking to Tony Chohan and in walks Scott Frost. They sit down and talk for several minutes and agree on playing with Tony giving Scott 9-8 which you feel gives Tony a slight edge. You approach Tony and tell him you want to back him up to $10,000. Tony says sorry Bill but Beattle is covering all his action. You ask Tony what the split is and he tells you 75/25. Now you offer Tony a 70/30 split but Tony says no. I overheard this conversation so I ask you if you want to bet me you can have tony all you have to do is lay me your $10,000 to my $8,000 giving you much better odds.

Would you take that bet?? I don't think so and yet as a "backer" you would be willing to lay $10,000 to win $7,000. Why they are both terrible investments!!!

Now Bill don't get all upset my example is just an possible scenario to show that on any reasonably close match it make no sense to lay those type of odds.

If any of our members understand why being a backer you is taking all the risks while receiving only a % of the winnings please explain it to me.

You know Vegas was built on much smaller odds. I once heard a casino owner say just give me 1/2% of a percent edge with enough action I well win millions.

Also Beattle don't you get up set I know you wouldn't put yourself in the position. I just needed a CA name.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,139
dont worry about me i have a thick skin and am in complete agreement with you.

ill give an example you play 6 with different people of a period of time. matches for 1000 dollars each. and win 4 out of the 6. thats pretty good isnt it.

so you win 4000 and give him 1200 for his 30% and you have 2800 bucks for yourself in winnings.

but you lost 2 matches and lost 2000 for a total of 800 in winnings.

not much in winnings and he made 50% more than you did and you put up all the risk.
--------------------

now suppose he just breaks even now.. you break even but he makes 30% of 3000 for 900/ so you lose 900 when you break even and make 800 when you terrorize your opponent.
-------------

now you lose the 4 out of 6 matches.
you lose 4000 plus 30% of the 2000 you won for minus 4600 and win 1400 dollars for a net loss of 3200 dollars

so in effect you laid 4 to 1 in the money you would win 4 out of 6 rather than lose 4 out of 6 matches.

that is why you need a total lock if you are staking someone to play.
 
Last edited:

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,132
The odds are not terrible, you're only laying 2 to 1 the first game or the first set.
 

cincy_kid

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
4,503
Ive never staked anyone (that I remember) and I really have never been staked, I feel more comfortable playing on my own money.

That being said, I understand your logic Keith but here's the thing.

If you are backing someone, what makes you think they want to win you money when there's nothing in it for them? Even if they don't do any funny business with their opponent, how hard do you think they are going to fight to win the game? You have to give them something as an incentive to win. It's using their skills, their time and energy, their knowledge to out move or out smart their opponent. Why should that be for free just to benefit you?

Otherwise, you are going to have to step up yourself and make a game with the opponent which is what I have always opted to do.

So yea, you are not going to win as much as you could potentially lose but that's why you have to be confident in the person you are backing and the game they have made. You can always say no, but I can't imagine anyone playing to win and not getting any of the loot after they have succeeded.

(just my 2 cents)
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
687
I was in the pool room the other day and some guy who thinks he's smart started in on betting on players.

Smart guy: "Yeah, we aren't staking any more players. We are just going to bet on the side. Why lay 3-2 when you can get even money?"

Me: "Do you guys tip the player"?

Smart guy: "Nah, that's the whole point. We keep the money."

Me: "How long until the players realize that the only way they can make money is to dump the rail?"

Smart guy: "They wouldn't do that, would they?"

I knew a guy who is quite famous; actually in this Hall of Fame, who was notorious for dumping the rail until they got off the bet, then taking the opponent off after he fattened him up. All these smart guys thought they could just bet on the side. He would let them all bet on him and then lose on purpose, knowing that he could make 5 x the score by doing that. So go ahead and try to just bet on the rail and never let the player make any money. See what happens.
 
Last edited:

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,087
Ive never staked anyone (that I remember) and I really have never been staked, I feel more comfortable playing on my own money.

That being said, I understand your logic Keith but here's the thing.

If you are backing someone, what makes you think they want to win you money when there's nothing in it for them? Even if they don't do any funny business with their opponent, how hard do you think they are going to fight to win the game? You have to give them something as an incentive to win. It's using their skills, their time and energy, their knowledge to out move or out smart their opponent. Why should that be for free just to benefit you?

Otherwise, you are going to have to step up yourself and make a game with the opponent which is what I have always opted to do.

So yea, you are not going to win as much as you could potentially lose but that's why you have to be confident in the person you are backing and the game they have made. You can always say no, but I can't imagine anyone playing to win and not getting any of the loot after they have succeeded.

(just my 2 cents)
Sorry Kid, I don't think you read my post. I said unless you have THE NUTS backing anyone where the game is somewhat even is a bad bet/investment. Im saying that the backing anyone where you are only getting a piece of the winning but you pay all of the losses is a terrible bet. K
 
Top