Why does an allegedly winning player need a backer?

[steamboatin]

We have a few threads about Poker Players on Ebay looking for backers. On is Dutch Boyd and we don't need another thread about him. One reports to have won $30,000 and finished in the money 7 of his last 10 tourneys.

If you are that good, why do you need a backer? Why would you give up half of your winnings for an entire year for some short term cash?

surely if you were as good as these players want you to think, they could slide down to Tunica this month, win a couple of the medium sized tourneys or place well in some big ones and be set for the year.

I really am serious about why a professional player would need a backer for any extended period of time.

Now I could see if variance kicked him in the but and he needed some short term cash for a little while. But I would have to ask myself, if he didn't protect his bankroll when it was all his money, is he going to protect it better now that it isn't his money?

[BradleyT]

Why does a business owner look for investors instead of doing it all themself? To hedge some risk I'd say.

That's why I put my eBay auction up anyway - to hedge the risk [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[RollaJ]

I believe DS wrote in TPFAP that even the BEST player may only win a tourney three times more than would be expected (assuming all players were equal). So basically no matter how good you are you will lose most tourneys you play. There is a lot of variance. To get rid of some of your variance you could sell a stake in yourself. Personally I see nothing wrong with it. (Hell, my mom took half my action 2 1/2 years ago when I wanted to move up from 2/4 to 4/8 [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]).

From what I have read many if not most tourney pros do something to lower their variance either through backers or taking pieces of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a backer.
I do think there is a problem backing someone who may not pay you though

[TStoneMBD]

the answer to this question is obvious. if dutch boyd has 30k in the bank, he is risking far too much to enter into 10k tournaments, even 3k tournaments. ive been told that 50x the buyin is the absolute minimum to have for tournaments. that would entail that boyd have 150k in order to buy into the 3k event. im not even going to embark upon the skill level of boyd as we all know hes not all that good and doesnt deserve backers.

[Drunk Bob]

Icould see 3 possiblities.

1.Reduced variance.


2.Spent it all on wine,women and song (mostly women).


3.Liar.


4.Charity to E-Bay users.



I guess that is four reasons but my rating for most likely would be.


3 2 1 4

[BradleyT]

There was a blog post recently where he said his roll was $300 lol. That's f'n sad.

[droolie]

Getting backing is a very good idea in a big tournament where the buy in is a significant amount and the final table share is very large and the odds of winning big is very low.

I would rather play in a tournament for free and risk nothing to potentially make a large amount in the end (even if I would have made 2x as much if I had paid for myself) then risk a huge chunk of my money to potentially make a larger amount in the end. Especially if the tournament was loaded with players of equal or better talent.

[steamboatin]

Okay, if it is a good deal for the player and reduces the amount he loses, doesn't that make it a less than optimal deal for the buyer?

[BradleyT]

Depends on the player. TJ Cloutier always took backers for tournaments and paid out hundreds of thousands more than he took in according to his book.

You could have also started backing Greg Raymer a few years back as he posted a thread on here asking for backers and got scoffed and laughed at.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of variance. To get rid of some of your variance you could sell a stake in yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could play lower, which might even increase your edge.

Incidentally, a few years back one Gregory Raymer of Stonington, CT negotiated for backers right here on twoplustwo. I can't find the thread; sorry.

If I remember correctly, he had very particular reasons. Mainly, he wanted to play the WSOP, and he didn't want to fund it from his non-poker money. He thought he would have enough money to play when the time came, but couldn't be sure, what with poker being the game he is. So to reduce his variance without having to play lower, he sought backers.

The point was, for Greg, playing lower would have precluded playing the WSOP, which was his goal.

I have no idea who backed him or how it worked out but I guess they were at least backing a good horse [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Guy.