Why sell %?

[Saborion]

Why would someone who can afford to play in some specific tournaments want to sell a percentage of his possible winnings?

To cut down his expenses and change the risk vs the reward?
I don't buy that since, as we stated above, he can afford to play in those specific tournaments.

Because he's not sure he's good enough to come itm?
Well then maybe he shouldn't be in those tournaments in the first place?

I can understand the pretty good player who think he has a shot at winning some $10k buy in tournament, but those $10k is still a bit too much for his likings. But someone who has a BIG BR, why would he want to sell percentages?

Or as I just saw, a player that just got itm at a $200 online tournament ($200 who he EASILY can afford), only to have a discussion starting between himself and another person regarding a possible sell of percentage?

[Suvorov]

It's not that unusual. There are a number of pro players who get sponsored for many tournements. Some pro's will even sponsor other pro's. For instance, Phil Helmuth sponsor's a couple of pro's, and gets a share in their winnings. The difference is, most of these are for the pros who travel the tourney circuit.

[Saborion]

I can understand buying percentages, since you would only do that if you expect the player in question to have a shot at the money and that shot is worth the risk you're taking. But if someone is willing to buy a percentage from the player, doesn't that mean that the player is likely to lose on it in the long run, since the buyer wouldn't buy the percentage without a reason?

I don't care if all the pros do it. I asked WHY would you, as a player, want to sell a percentage?

[fluff]

I imagine it's to reduce variance. Sure, maybe the top pros can afford to enter a $10k event no problem, but even for the top pros I imagine some go 10 or more tourneys without making it into the money. Then you have a $100k hole to patch.

Also another reason would be that it's profitable. I've seen backing agreements where you buy 1% of the share for 2% of the cost, so essentially if you sell 50% of your share, you get a freeroll.

Now who wouldn't want to go to all those big tourneys for free? Reward vs Risk is infinite.

[Saborion]

If you can make deals like that, then I understand it.
Deals like that aren't that uncommon then, if people consider the other player an excellent tournament player?

[CrisBrown]

Hi Saborion,

Many pros have backers, for tournament or even ring game play. For example, Able is good enough to beat a $50/$100 NL game consistently, but he can only afford $5/$10 games on his own bankroll. Baker offers to bankroll him enough to play $50/$100 games, for a 50/50 split. Baker may not even be a poker player; for him it's purely an investment. If Able earns a 50% annual return, Baker is getting a better return on his money (25%) than he would most other investments, and Able is making 5x more than he could on his own bankroll.

Similarly, a group of players may pool their bankroll and split their winnings, to reduce their collective variance. Able may be down $5K on a given week, but Baker may be up $10K and Cain up $4K, so collectively they're up $9K (and each profits $3K) on the week. If they're all good players, the odds that all three -- or even two out of three -- will be way down over a given week are pretty small. So they get a more stable income collectively than if each were playing individually. Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim, and Sailor Roberts ran a partnership like this for six years early in their careers.

But yes, if a player has sufficient capital (bankroll) to sustain routine swings at his most profitable stakes -- the highest stakes at which he can consistently beat the game -- it would be a mistake to sell a percentage of his action. He's not gaining security, and he probably won't post a sufficient marginal gain at higher stakes to offset the percentage he's giving up. It might be worthwhile if his backer were also handling other aspects of the poker business, such as bookkeeping (for tax purposes), travel arrangements, etc., but it's usually a mistake.

Cris

[Wayne]

[ QUOTE ]

Similarly, a group of players may pool their bankroll and split their winnings, to reduce their collective variance. Able may be down $5K on a given week, but Baker may be up $10K and Cain up $4K, so collectively they're up $9K (and each profits $3K) on the week. If they're all good players, the odds that all three -- or even two out of three -- will be way down over a given week are pretty small. So they get a more stable income collectively than if each were playing individually. Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim, and Sailor Roberts ran a partnership like this for six years early in their careers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any fear of collusion? When I can profit when certain others at my table do well, it opens up the possibility of collusion.

You shouldn't be able to own a percentage of another player if you are also playing.

[Sheriff Fatman]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any fear of collusion? When I can profit when certain others at my table do well, it opens up the possibility of collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

A group of UK pros known as the Hendon Mob (Ross Boatman, Barney Boatman, Joe Beevers and Ram Vaswani) have an agreement like this (I think they share 5% of their winnings). However, having seen them competing against each other, it is clear that there is no soft playing going on - the competitive edge is too strong in these guys. I'm sure that most professional players operating these types of deals are the same.

In any event it would be impossible to enforce a rule of this type as the majority of agreements are presumably private.

[Saborion]

Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for.

I know that if a group of people merge their individual bankrolls to a bigger one, they will be able to play on higher limits than they would be able to individually, and thus be able to make more money, individually. Making such an arrangement with other players would mean you have to trust their skills enough though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You answered my questions.

[Wayne]

There have been rumors in the past of a pro selling more than 100% of himself. Say at the WSOP, a pro sold %50 of his winnings to four different people for $5000 each. The pro can pocket $10k after paying his entry, as long as he doesn't finish in the money. If he actually finished in the money, he'd have to pay out more that he won.

[ QUOTE ]
However, having seen them competing against each other, it is clear that there is no soft playing going on - the competitive edge is too strong in these guys. I'm sure that most professional players operating these types of deals are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not worried about most pros. I'm worried about the pro that has fallen on to hard times and tries to beat the system.