Profit Sharing for SNGs and MTTs

[JadamLI]

I would imagine that this is the right forum for this, if not, ship it.

A bunch of friends want to get together for a profit sharing/rakeback deal. However, some problems arising include:

1) Some of these people play MTTs, some play SNGs. Ring games are not part of this setup, so we don't have to worry about them. However, we do have to deal with the substantial difference in variance between the two.

2) If 10 people each start with 1000, what should be the highest SNG or MTT (also, rebuy mtts) allowed? Should there be a limit/minimum on games played in a month?

3) How much profit should be kept by each person, how much goes into the "general fund" to split amongst everyone? What's the best way to split it up (by rake accumulated or pure profit or other)?

4) Is one month intervals for splitting up money too short of a timeframe?

I'm sure there are other questions that need to be asked, but I just want to hear feedback and comments about such a plan, especially from those who have tried it before.

Thanks

[syphlix]

seems to me that this is a formula for breaking up a lot of friendships while not getting much value added...

questions u gotta ask yourself... what benefit do you guys get from pooling your $$?... not like u can play higher level tourneys just cuz you have more $$... you have to be good enough to play there...

u don't exactly get much better rakeback...

just can't see what the benefits are...

[Voltron87]

profit sharing is a terrible idea 99% of the time. play your own money.

[pokerlaw]

Yeah, I don't like the idea. My friends who do play poker each have quite different styles and preferences regarding just about every factor you had a question about - and we are equally stubborn about the veracity of our opinions. I wouldn't do it.

[Slim Pickens]

The variance in SnG play is small enough that a single winning player easily can play enough in a short period of time to show a profit close to 100% of the time. I don't think this is true for MTT's or blackjack, where profit-sharing arrangements are more common. Just look at what happened to the a recent MIT blackjack team when things got good then turned bad and see why profit-sharing arrangements must be highly profitable to be worth the trouble.

Slim

[Scuba Chuck]

What's your motive in this arrangement? For $1000, you each could have your own accounts. For $100, you each could have your own accounts. I don't see the benefits, so what are the motives?

[GFunk911]

I agree with the posters here. I'm friends with JadamLI, and I was dubious. There seem to be 2 possible reasons to do this

1. Playing big MTTs, where there is a lot more variance
2. By pooling money, players get the ability to play higher

If neither of these criteria are met, there seems to be little benefit.

[MattyKGB]

The motive would be to play at higher levels than you normally would, while maintaining the same risk of ruin as if you were playing at a lower level.

[JasonP530]

Amongst your friends, some have to be better than others, and should not want to enter into this type of deal. Since profits would be split(if you can find a way to do it fairly), I dont understand how that would benefit you(i.e if you got together with 4 friends, you could now play at buyins 4 times higher, but you would have to split it 4 ways. You would need a sufficient bankroll to make sure that you could play these tournaments(and it would have to be high because the variance is big). At such a high bankroll, you would be better off playing tournaments on your own I believe.

The info about friends dealing with money together is not to be taken lightly either.

[hummusx]

I'm sorry that everyone is raining on your parade, but I have to throw my two chips in the pot:

friends + money + 'in business' = loss of friends (and/or money)

This is almost a certainty.