Poker "Teams" (Cost/Profit Sharing)

[Grange]

I and two other players in our regular game would like to start playing in more tournaments. One thing we've discussed is sharing in some of the risk/reward in order to dampen fluctuations a little. Our thoughts were simply to put half of any winnings into a prize pool which would then be split equally. For example, $100 buy-in, $3000 1st prize which one of us wins (dare to dream), the winner would take $1500, $1500 would go into the prize pool, which would then be split three ways.

My questions:

1) Does a structure like this make sense?
2) Any possible pitfalls?
3) Any recommendations for something like this in cash games? Share stakes or simply share profits?

[eMarkM]

If kinda sounds like collusion, though it doesn't look like you're thinking of dumping chips or softplaying each other. I know I'd raise an eyebrow if this deal was mentioned at a tourney I was playing in. In a ring game, I certainly wouldn't play in it if I knew, since you're all essentially using the same bankroll at the same table.

This is a bad deal for whichever one of you is the best tourney player since he'll be spliting it with the others who won't win as much.

[Grange]

No - collusion ain't part of the strategy. Far from softplaying, I think we take a non-economic pleasure in playing aggressively AGAINST each other in fact. Chop? No way. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just read Amarillo Slim's new (auto)biography and he, Doyle and Sailor were themselves a team (although specific details weren't provided, it sounded like a true shared bankroll, but maybe not). All of this said, it does "feel" more suitable to a tournament structure than a cash game if only b/c subconciously there might be some effect with the thought "even if I lose, I get x% of if this bet back". In the tourney environment it's just like making a final table deal at the start, you know?

Anyone else with ideas on the specific mechanics?

[MikeyEdge]

>>>No - collusion ain't part of the strategy. Far from softplaying, I think we take a non-economic pleasure in playing aggressively AGAINST each other in fact.<<<

Please... Do you mean to tell me that if there were 2 or 3 of you left at a final table with 4 or 5 players left, you wouldn't try to knock the other guys out first?

As far as your idea goes, its not very ethical. So yeah, go for it.

[PlanoPoker]

While it is technically possible to NOT work cooperatively and still have this arrangement, it is not going to happen that way. Therefore you should know that this is a form of collusion, even if you have good intentions. Try announcing to everyone in your game that you are sharing a bankroll with other players and see how that goes. /images/graemlins/smile.gif If you choose to hide that fact, don't have any delusions about where you stand.

[JayKon]

Oh common guys, players combine bankrolls often enough for it to be exactly what was said, a way to soften the fluxuations. Nothing more.

[cferejohn]

This is, of course, a worst case scenario, but its certainly something that could come up. Or if you get at or near the bubble, you're probably going to be less likely to put your friend on a decision for all his chips.

The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that you would be mathematically correct to do these things. I'm not really comfortable playing with people who have things other than their stake in this tournament in mind as they play (small last-longer bets don't bother me, but if I found that someone had a last longer bet that was 1/2 or more of the size of the buy-in that would bother me).

Now, the fact of the matter is it will probably come up quite rarely, especially if you don't always play in the same tournaments (the most ethical solution would be to not use this deal when you are in the same tournament). If two players at the same table told me they had this arrangement, I wouldn't be thrilled about it. If it got down to the final 4 or 5 with them still in, I'd be downright uncomfortable.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

I don't think it makes sense. If you don't all play in exactly the same events, then the person who enters the most events is getting the raw end of the deal, since they will spend more money, theoretically win more often, and then give up more to the shared prize pool. In fact, as you wrote up the deal, I could be a partner, never enter any tourneys at all, and still get a cut.

If you all really believe your skill levels are about even, and therefore you all want to do this just to reduce variance, here is my suggestion. Everytime one of you enters any tourney, they are awarded 1 share for every dollar spent on their buyins/rebuys/addons. Then, when you're dividing up the joint prize pool money, divide it up by shares rather than evenly. That way, the more money each of you is investing in tourney play, the more of the joint pool they receive.

I have no idea how to factor satellites into this at all.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Copernicus]

If you are playing online there are enough tournaments you should get plenty of action never playing in the same one. If you are in the same one the deal should be off, because there is no way that the deal won't influence your play to the detriment of non-team members.

As far as a sharing arrangement for ring games, Ive thought a lot about this for when Ive completed my "bot thats not a bot" and put into use for team play.

I think a solid approach is to determine the teams hourly win rate, and initially pay each player X% of the hourly win rate times the number of hours he plays. (The more equal you are in ability and the more dampening you want to do, the higher X would be.) The balance of the profits would be paid out in proportion to their net contribution to the profit (including negatives).

For example A plays 10 hours netting 3 BB/hr. B plays 6 hours netting 1 BB/hour. C plays 4 hours losing 1 BB/hr. Total profit is 32 BB earned over 20 hours or 1.6 BB/hr. If the sharing % is 50, each player starts out with .8 BB per hour.

A gets 8, B gets 4.8 and C gets 3.2, totalling 16 (as it better!)

The remaining 16 is shared 30/32 to A, 6/32 to B, and -4/32 to C. So A gets an additional 15 for a total of 23, B gets an additional 3 for a total of 7.8, and C loses 2, for a net of 1.2. I think this is the preferred approach if the team includes any relative strangers who may contribute ultimately but start out slowly. Their losses impact them directly, but they get the benefit of sharing. If they turn out to be long term losers, at least you havent supported them in full.

In addition to increasing the %, if you really trust the abilities of the entire team, you could distribute the remaining (100-x%) of the total profit only in proportion to the net winners, not penalizing the losers (but not giving them any "bonus" either). So in this example the excess 16 is paid out 30/36 to A, for 21.33 total, 6/36 to B or 7.47 total, and C keeps his 3.2 hourly earnings.

[John_Manley]

I think it is unethical.