What % of major tourney players are backed by sheets/bax?

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As cbloom said, I've heard these stories in my gossip trip to vegas, about Men's team. I've heard a more specific story, which was about Ivey's horses and the full tilt pros in the 50k WSOP HORSE tournament.

From what I've heard, Ivey and certain other key players for the team got the horses to dump chips at them in critical times, especially during the bubbles. Ivey was very shortstacked a number of times on the bubble, but recovered quickly.

Obviously I did not hear that directly from the player who complained, so I can't assure it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to level an accusation/rumor like this against Ivey, please have stories, action from suspicious hands, or at least a source willing to go on record. As it is to The Camel, the idea of Ivey arranging for chips to be dumped, and in such an obvious way as to bring outside attention to it, seems basically implausible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, Shane? I'm saying what I was told. I didn't make this up, perhaps someone else did, but I'm just repeating it. You can easily search the players who cashed and add that up with my location to figure out who I'm talking about.

The guy who told me that story (about the specific player being pissed at Ivey and his horses) did not say it was an organized game plan or anything, just that it became obvious on the bubble that they are def soft playing him.

Right? Wrong? [censored]? Dunno.

BTW, that pro is also backed by a guy who runs multiply horses in big tournaments. Again, should be easy to guess who the backer is too.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As cbloom said, I've heard these stories in my gossip trip to vegas, about Men's team. I've heard a more specific story, which was about Ivey's horses and the full tilt pros in the 50k WSOP HORSE tournament.

From what I've heard, Ivey and certain other key players for the team got the horses to dump chips at them in critical times, especially during the bubbles. Ivey was very shortstacked a number of times on the bubble, but recovered quickly.

Obviously I did not hear that directly from the player who complained, so I can't assure it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to level an accusation/rumor like this against Ivey, please have stories, action from suspicious hands, or at least a source willing to go on record. As it is to The Camel, the idea of Ivey arranging for chips to be dumped, and in such an obvious way as to bring outside attention to it, seems basically implausible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, Shane? I'm saying what I was told. I didn't make this up, perhaps someone else did, but I'm just repeating it. You can easily search the players who cashed and add that up with my location to figure out who I'm talking about.

The guy who told me that story (about the specific player being pissed at Ivey and his horses) did not say it was an organized game plan or anything, just that it became obvious on the bubble that they are def soft playing him.

Right? Wrong? [censored]? Dunno.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's the problem with paranoia and suspicion--were people softplaying Ivey on the bubble or were they simply scared of bubbling themselves, or scared of playing against Ivey? Someone who is bitter at having bubbled can easily distort the situation or easily miscontrue things at the expense of Ivey's reputation.

Edit: You can do it, we can help?

[Yuv]

It's very possible, I wasn't there nor do I know all the facts nor do I know him or ivey personally. Take it as is. Since when is NVG against gossip, and I swear I did not make that up myself.

[fukkeneh]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the issue of people leaving with makeup....yes that is obviously an issue, and one which must be worked out beofrehand. We tell our players in advance thgat they cannot voluntraily leave to play for someone else once they have makeup, and they agree to it in advance. No we dont make them sign anything, because if a person is going to be that much of a <insert expletive> to go back on his word, having it in writing wont help either. We also have worked out are own control measure thought which works out just fine, as our players realize that if they left us, it would be very difficult to play with no arms. While we do trust people, te "no-arm" clause seems to work well for the business.


[/ QUOTE ]

So are they like your slave until you are even?

I would guess a backing arangement has a set amount of tourneys that you will back for, that I imagine can be terminated by the backer at any time... not by the backee..

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the issue of people leaving with makeup....yes that is obviously an issue, and one which must be worked out beofrehand. We tell our players in advance thgat they cannot voluntraily leave to play for someone else once they have makeup, and they agree to it in advance. No we dont make them sign anything, because if a person is going to be that much of a <insert expletive> to go back on his word, having it in writing wont help either. We also have worked out are own control measure thought which works out just fine, as our players realize that if they left us, it would be very difficult to play with no arms. While we do trust people, te "no-arm" clause seems to work well for the business.


[/ QUOTE ]

So are they like your slave until you are even?

I would guess a backing arangement has a set amount of tourneys that you will back for, that I imagine can be terminated by the backer at any time... not by the backee..

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the double-edged sword of being backed: You surrender your independence as a poker player for the ability to be in action that you otherwise couldn't put yourself in.

From a backers perspective, it would be insane to give a horse a freeroll for x-number of tournaments, because they'd be left with un-recouped buyins too often to make the arrangement profitable in the long run. What you are describing is a "no makeup" deal, and although there are some players who manage to secure them, they're far from standard.

[El Diablo]

sheets and others,

Thanks for the responses. Interesting that you usually only have about 10 in 10k tourneys. My guess would have been closer to 30.

I'm glad you're providing some info, and the direction you give your team is admirable. I really wish that the info regarding who is backed by major stakers was disclosed, though. While I'm not particularly worried about you guys, nor do I have any specific concerns about any specific backers for that matter, I really do believe the more transparency in these matters the better. I have yet to hear a compelling reason against backers disclosing who plays for them or why players would want to keep that info private.

I'm really not sure how this transparency comes about or if there's any good way to make it happen (as others have pointed out, swapping prob brings up even more concerns), but I think the more open the dialogue and information around this stuff, the better.

Also, to whoever asked, guys who get paid by sponsors can still get backed, since they often don't owe a percentage to the sponsor.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like every online player who plays in these except Alex Jacob and Strassa are backed by these guys.

How many horses do these guys have? In a standard WPT tourney, what % of the field is playing for sheets/bax?

Also, what about Ivey? Seems like every other non-online player is playing for him. How many horses does he have?

Anyone else besides these guys have big chunks of the fields?

[/ QUOTE ]

diablo i'm disappointed i was not included with aj and strass man. i'm trying to break into the big time man, hit me with some press

[Daddy Warbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
I have yet to hear a compelling reason against backers disclosing who plays for them or why players would want to keep that info private.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about pride or ego, 2 qualities that are stronger than normal in the vast majority of poker players?

[Nate.]

Most of this is so obvious I hesitate to write it, but for the sake of advancing the conversation:

[ QUOTE ]
How would you quantify what cheating is worth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as how you quantify every other poker decision. You guess.

[ QUOTE ]
How does chip dumping get someone out of makeup?

[/ QUOTE ]

The backer sees a spot where he has lots to gain, pulls the guy aside, and says that some makeup will be forgiven if the guy dumps to X.

[ QUOTE ]
A player's best strategy to get out of makeup is to increase his personal EV as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above.

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing, the risks that a backer brings on to himself by signing up unethical players FAR outways any advantages he gains in my opinion. You're dealing with situations where typically there is no contract, and in certain situations only limited ways of tracking money, not to mentioned you are trusting these people with large sums of it. Given this, it's very much in the backer's interests to bring on the most honest players they can, and get rid of anyone even with a hint of dishonesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's as if you've never spent a second in the poker world, which is full of guys who are very loyal to specific people but generally void of morals.

--Nate

[cbloom]

Most poker pros live by a moral code where "you scratch my back I scratch yours" is more important than following the rules exactly or providing a fair game to the rubes.