questions on WSOP Events #40-45, and backing proposals.

[AtlasRaised]

A few questions:

1. Are events 40-45, those beginning after the M.E. starts, "official" WSOP tourneys (ie - bracelets)? I would assume so, but I overheard at the Rio that these events are more like glorified second chance tourneys for M.E. bustouts --- no bracelet. Can anyone verify?

2. I plan on playing event 41 ($1500 NL) on August 1. Any guesses on how large the field will be?

3. Although I have made a killing on WSOP STT's and have plenty of buyin chips...a co-worker has offered to stake half my $1500 buy in (just for fun, he said). I am up for this, as I wouldn't mind pocketing an extra $750 and gaining a better potential ROI%. Any ideas on a good profit split structure? I was thinking an initial $750 back to each of us and then 70/30 of total profits? too much? too little?

thanks in advance for the responses.

[Ben Young]

50% for 50% seems fair

[Caldarooni]

Few things.

Everything after the ME have been non-bracelet events in the past.

Selling part of yourself would not give you a better potential ROI%.

30-35% of the profits in a deal where you are 50% backed is fair (for the backer), 50% for 50% is generally lunacy unless you are playing above your head.

[lozen]

[ QUOTE ]
50% for 50% seems fair

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
Few things.

Everything after the ME have been non-bracelet events in the past.

Selling part of yourself would not give you a better potential ROI%.

30-35% of the profits in a deal where you are 50% backed is fair (for the backer), 50% for 50% is generally lunacy unless you are playing above your head.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. Why wouldn't someone who puts up half the buy-in get half the profits? Unless this person being backed is a proven winner at these stakes then it seems like the winshare should be proportional to the stake percentage. But a proven winner wouldn't normally need to be back and shouldn't want to be backed.

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
Selling part of yourself would not give you a better potential ROI%.

[/ QUOTE ]

He would be paying 50% of the buyin and keeping 70% of the winnings.

[Caldarooni]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50% for 50% seems fair

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[/ QUOTE ]

Would 100% for 100% also seem fair?

[Caldarooni]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless this person being backed is a proven winner at these stakes then it seems like the winshare should be proportional to the stake percentage. But a proven winner wouldn't normally need to be back and shouldn't want to be backed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Many proven winners are backed for various reasons. While being broke surely is one, reducing variance is another. 1 for 1 stakes are inherently bad deals for a good poker player. There has been much written on this topic, you can search around for it, or revisit the deal Schneids got at the PartyMillion for a real-life example.

[Caldarooni]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Selling part of yourself would not give you a better potential ROI%.

[/ QUOTE ]

He would be paying 50% of the buyin and keeping 70% of the winnings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I left out the word necessarily. Its just a math problem.

[CardSharpCook]

those events are bracelet events this year. It sounds like you are playing above your head. split 50/50. Is fair.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless this person being backed is a proven winner at these stakes then it seems like the winshare should be proportional to the stake percentage. But a proven winner wouldn't normally need to be back and shouldn't want to be backed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Many proven winners are backed for various reasons. While being broke surely is one, reducing variance is another. 1 for 1 stakes are inherently bad deals for a good poker player. There has been much written on this topic, you can search around for it, or revisit the deal Schneids got at the PartyMillion for a real-life example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, well I think that you're assuming that the OP is an amazing tournament poker player who deserves to be compensated with a higher share for putting in the effort.

But I was assuming that he's more of a casual player who is looking to try a WSOP event for the experience and appreciates that his friend would help reduce his variance. In this case I have to assume that he's an average player in the field so a 50/50 payout would seem fair.

I consider myself to be a "good" player at small stakes and if it was me in this tournament then I'd expect to be an average player at best and would appreciate my friend taking half of the action for the experience. So taking more than half of the winnings would seem unjust.

Danneman would be a good example from last year. Do you think he deserved 70% of the winnings for putting up half the buy in and just trying to have fun with the tourney?

[Caldarooni]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself to be a "good" player at small stakes and if it was me in this tournament then I'd expect to be an average player at best and would appreciate my friend taking half of the action for the experience. So taking more than half of the winnings would seem unjust.

Danneman would be a good example from last year. Do you think he deserved 70% of the winnings for putting up half the buy in and just trying to have fun with the tourney?

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome logic. Who cares if you are a good small stakes player when assessing if you are a good tournament poker player at some of the highest levels?

When Raymer won the ME his backers put up 100% of the buyin and received 65% of the winnings. In a casual deal 50% for 50% can be fine if you the poker player are happy about it. If you are then who gives a [censored] what anyone else thinks?

However, since the question was in general to backing agreements 1 for 1 is usually a bad deal for the player, and a deal only taken when other circumstances (i.e. desperate or broke or in your case just happy to play in a tournament where you are average at best) are present.

[AtlasRaised]

[ QUOTE ]


Selling part of yourself would not give you a better potential ROI%.



[/ QUOTE ]

how is this true as I am keeping 100% of the profit from my $750 investment plus a portion of the profit from his?

by the way, Mr. Caldarooni.....Vegas misses you.

[AtlasRaised]

[ QUOTE ]
those events are bracelet events this year. It sounds like you are playing above your head. split 50/50. Is fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Although this is the first "event" this year I will be playing, there is no need for me to get any backing. I have been playing the STT's at the Rio quite sucessfully and have stashed away 9 or 10 buyin chips (after selling off many others). I've also been a regular and profitable MTT player around Vegas for the past couple years, so I don't think I'm playing over my head here. In fact, if the donkfest at the WSOP STT's is any indication of the MTT level play (even at the $525 buyins), then I think I am in pretty good shape.

Given this, I am considering this deal more for my friend to have a chance to "get in on the action" rather than a sincere desire to lessen my risk. He knows my normal MTT ROI and is willing to take a cut. I was just wondering what the proper cut should be. Correct, I am not an established pro with a winning record in the WSOP events....but I still don't feel I need to be giving 50/50. Not worth it for me.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
When Raymer won the ME his backers put up 100% of the buyin and received 65% of the winnings.

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason, I thought Raymer won his buy-in from PokerStars?

[locutus2002]

Those gains are sunk.

You are playing a tournament for $750 instead of $1500, unless you can negotiate a deal where your friend gives up some equity to get some of your action.

If you are worried about $750 then you should lay off the action on your friend. If you are worried about $750 you are unlikely to be EV+.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]

For some reason, I thought Raymer won his buy-in from PokerStars?

[/ QUOTE ]
He did but he still had backers.

From www.fossilmanpoker.com (http://www.fossilmanpoker.com)

[ QUOTE ]
As mentioned above in question #3, I had a deal with my wife where my bankroll was a fixed amount. By 2001, I was playing in some pretty big games, as my bankroll had grown to support it. For example, I would often play in the 75-150 mixed games at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, and occasionally these games played as high as 150-300. In 2002, I spent a big chunk of my bankroll on my family and house, more than I should have. I then went to the 2002 WSOP, and paid cash to enter the main event, as well as a couple of other events just prior to the main event. Unfortunately, I lost about $30,000 on that trip, and was left with a bankroll of only about $15,000. The good news was I still had plenty of bankroll to play poker, but the bad news was I could not afford to play in the big mixed game at the local casinos anymore. Since the next biggest game that was regularly available was 20-40 holdem, I decided I should see about getting some backers to add to my bankroll, as I felt that having a piece of my self in the big mixed game would be more lucrative than having 100% of myself in the 20-40 game.

Thus, I went out on the internet to raise money. I could’ve asked many of my poker friends personally, either live or by email, if they wanted to invest. However, I did not want them to feel any social pressure to do so, and did not wish to have any investors who were doing it because we were friends. I only wanted them to do it if they thought it was a good investment, and they had the bankroll to afford it. So, I put up a post on the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup, as well as on the 2+2 forums, laying out the deal and asking interested parties to email me. As you might imagine, I caught a lot of flack from the naysayers out there. Fortunately, I also found about $30,000 worth of interested investors, who bought anywhere from 1-10 shares each at $500 per share. I bought shares with my bankroll also.

The deal was simple, though we laid out a multipage contract to cover all the details. Each of us bought shares at $500 per share. I played poker within prescribed limits for the rest of 2002. If we lost, each share took a proportionate share of the loss. If we won, I got the first 35% of the win for my time and effort as the player, and each share then got it’s portion of the remaining 65% of the win. Since I owned about 1/3 of the shares, I was getting a bit under 60% of the win.

At the end of this deal, each share was worth about $488. We decided to renew the deal and do it again for the first half of 2003. Of course, there was some turnover, with a couple of investors who cashed out, and a couple who bought more shares (or new investors who came in). At the end of deal 2, each share was worth about $550. We did it again, and the shares were worth about $600 at the end of 2003. Finally, we renewed the deal in 2004, with the deal set to end as soon as I was done in the WSOP main event. At the end of the deal, each share was worth over $36,000. My largest single investor collected well over 1/3 of a million for his initial $5000 investment!

[/ QUOTE ]

[AtlasRaised]

[ QUOTE ]
Those gains are sunk.

You are playing a tournament for $750 instead of $1500, unless you can negotiate a deal where your friend gives up some equity to get some of your action.



[/ QUOTE ]

exactly my point.

[Caldarooni]

Atlas,

Pretend you won 100k.

In one example you paid 1500 to enter and keep all the winnings.

In the next example you paid 750 to enter and keep 1/2 the winnings.

What is your ROI in each?

[CardSharpCook]

the ROI is the same, but you are now making 10-35% of X(where X is the winnings).

Dude, people for whom $1500 is no big deal don't go 50/50 with someone. It seems pretty clear to me that you were excited by the prospect of not having to put up all $1500. Which is fine, in fact, there was an event where I went 50/50 with a friend because after having bustoed in the previous 7 events, I wasn't happy about putting up another $2500. If you were really thinking about "being a nice guy and letting your firned get in on the action," You would have allowed him to give you $20-$100. My mother has 1% of my Main event action. You can also be sure that she is getting 1% of the winnings.

[Caldarooni]

CSC,

You are such a good son. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[AtlasRaised]

[ QUOTE ]
CSC,

You are such a good son. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If he was a good son he would give her 2%. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

By the way, Caldarooski...I think its about time for another big night out at the Palms. Yes it's me. Yes I know...welcome to 2+2, blah blah blah.

but just to clarify...in your example, 1500 to get 100% or 750 to get 50% is the same ROI, sure. But the point of my OP was to gain some equity in his share, just like you recommended. Otherwise there is no point in doing this. CSC, I do not "need" to get a half backer...but sure I wouldnt mind pocketing an extra $750, ESPECIALLY if I'm gaining more than a 50% return on my $750.

I dont understand the confusion here. How can you possibly say 50% on 750 + 20% on 750 is not a better ROI than 100% of 1500?

Maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe I'm better at math when we are standing around donking off our chips at the Roullete table outside the Rio steakhouse.

[Caldarooni]

The OP finished 2nd in event #41.

I wonder if he sold half of himself for $750??

Either way, congrats dude. The bling would have been sweet. . .