Poker Hedge Fund

[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never laid more than 2% of my bankroll on a game, and it's perfectly reasonable and logical that I can in fact beat the house in sportsbetting.

College football is my life. I could've played if I hadn't gone to Berkeley, I understand the game more than most analysts and even some coaches. Two of my closest friends are coaching D-1A football (one is a QB coach and the other is a WR coach) and I watch 15-20 games a week. I get gametapes of most BCS teams (not TV recordings, actual game taps) and I've gone 161-90.

Do any sort of statistical test you want with as high a level of confidence as you can, 161-90 makes me without a doubt able to ebat 52.4% which is 10% juice... that doesn't even factor in the 5% that I got from pinnacle or the 2% that I would pay at matchbook which makes the margin 51% or less.

I don't play some gimmmick system, and I don't know where in my post you got SPORTS BETTING SYSTEM to bold in yours. I don't do parlays or national title picks or anythign else with ridiculous juice... I know football, I bet 5-10 games a week out of the 50+ that they make lines for, and I'm usually betting on wack games that nobody else is watching, I absolutely kill the MAC, WAC and Big East.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one believe you that you are a winning player. I've seen it done for extended periods of time with horses, which arguably is a tougher game.

I think that the reason a lot of people doubt those who claim to be legit professional sports bettors is that the best and brightest have tried and failed. Stu Ungar is one notable example, although I'm not sure he was that good on the risk control side.

If the game's dirty, or you have inside dope, that's one thing, but winning legit over many years is very tough.

[baltostar]

wolffund, I just read your entire blog. Might be the most mind-boggling life story I've ever heard. Well, maybe Stu Ungar's bio is moreso. And I thought I've had some ups and downs ...

[GoldenBears]

baltostar, thank you for your words. I have long maintained that there are three different realms to being a great poker player:

1. Reading the cards. (Calculating pot odds, EV, correctly inferring applied odds, reading patterns etc... this is where online players excel)

2. Reading the players/being difficult to read (self explanatory and necessary to win at higher levels)

3. Money (and ego) management. The most difficult and most important aspect to being a great poker player has nothing at all to do with poker. SO many players overextend themselves or go on tilt or buy into games they can't afford. So many players go on hot streaks, crank up the stakes and get burned.

The same is true for sportsbetting. There is a skill to it which requires both talent and lots of knowledge. Yes, I can name the 25 best players at every position off the top of my head, yes I can name USF's third string quarterback, yes I know players on some teams, yes I read fan boards of all teams relentlessly, yes I watch 15 games a week and yes I have a very deep knowledge of the game of football.

But, to tell you the truth, so do a lot of other people. What I DO have that very few others have is a robotic, emotionless, efficient and economic approach to betting which I never deviate from. I never chase losses, I never change bet sizes mid season, I never bet on games just so watching them is more interesting, I go entire weekends without laying a bet if I don't see one that I like and I never, ever stop working to stay ahead.

That's where the difference between success and crash and burn players is.


Also, while gambling (poker and CFB) is my main source if income, it's not my job. I'm a senior graduating college next year, and I am going to get a very high paying job and then go to grad school.

I'm an entrepreneur at heart, and the only reason that I play poker and bet CFB is to bankroll my business ventures until I've got a high paying enough job to do it out of salary.

In response to the original poster again, the best thing that you can do is to keep asking yourself, 'does it make sense?' If you can come up with valid, logical reasons why your HF will profit, and why players will agree to be bankrolled then you're well on your way.

[Python49]

Ok, the reason this simply won't work is that:

1) If you try to stake a player for the stakes he's already playing, theres no incentive for him to accept the deal because if he's beating it he's already rolled. If he's already rolled this means that he doesn't need someone to stake him because a stake deal does nothing.

Think about it. If a player gets staked for a game he's already rolled for, he basically plays like he always would but now has to give up 50% of his profits. Theres no benefit for him other than if he loses the whole stake he doesn't owe anything but that probably won't happen anyway. There will still be variance because he's playing how he always would it's just that now when he gets out of his downswing he owe's 50% of his profits to someone else.

2) Then if you are staking a player to play higher stakes than he's rolled for (since thats the only time someone would really benefit from being staked)he likely isn't a winning player in that game anyway, otherwise he'd have been moving his way up already.

[xxGreat1xx]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,
We LOVE this idea. Please get it going as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,
Brian Townsend
Patrik Antonious
David Benyamine

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao

[The Gift Of Gab]

I hope you are not scum and were instead cheerfully unaware. Of course there are bots out there, and the last thing the game needs is a bunch of quants with deep pockets writing smarter ones. What happens when Newsweek runs an article about online poker describing how funds are writing sophisticated bots?

Something like your idea has been done on a smaller scale in tournaments: Sheets and JohnnyBax have experience in finance and stake many players. I don't have a problem with the idea of a fund per se, though there are plenty of issues involving incentives, transparency and collusion. I actually think your plan could be successful on a modest scale in cash games, and I have some ideas for how it could work.

I had to look up 'spiv' and it's a great word. I've sent you a PM.

[GoldenBears]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, the reason this simply won't work is that:

1) If you try to stake a player for the stakes he's already playing, theres no incentive for him to accept the deal because if he's beating it he's already rolled. If he's already rolled this means that he doesn't need someone to stake him because a stake deal does nothing.

Think about it. If a player gets staked for a game he's already rolled for, he basically plays like he always would but now has to give up 50% of his profits. Theres no benefit for him other than if he loses the whole stake he doesn't owe anything but that probably won't happen anyway. There will still be variance because he's playing how he always would it's just that now when he gets out of his downswing he owe's 50% of his profits to someone else.

2) Then if you are staking a player to play higher stakes than he's rolled for (since thats the only time someone would really benefit from being staked)he likely isn't a winning player in that game anyway, otherwise he'd have been moving his way up already.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Staking Cash game players doesn't work for exactly the reasons that you described. What MIGHT work is staking pros in tournaments. Tournies are so top heavy that they have huge variance, and many pros would be willing to give up the risk of losing $ for 60% of the potential winnings, I know a lot of them would welcome the stability.

2. Not necessarily true. There are many players who are good enough to beat a bigger game, but just won't be able to play it for a couple of years until they build a bigger bankroll to be able to comfortably play that level, which takes a lot of time to do at lower levels.

[drj003]

[ QUOTE ]

2. This part may or may not be legal or even moral but set up a group of bots to play lower limit and lower no limit online poker on various sites (I may set this up in BVI for safety). I would welcome moralistic thoughts on this. Note my own hedge fund trades as a bot using tradestation software and via online futures brokers etc (automated)..



[/ QUOTE ]

Please do not even consider this.

[Unarmed]

If you want to stake a cash pro pay him an hourly rate regardless of earn, with some sort of incentive plan built in. That's the only way I could see anyone agreeing to do it. I was staked in this manner for quite some time and loved it... Knowing that 10 hours of play will net you 2k or w/e regardless of how you run can be a very attractive deal.

Also, Kirk's thread is very good. Quite simply, there's a lot of players (including me) that would have a higher earn rate if they were completely fearless with respect to variance/bankroll. I play 5/10-some 10/20 for the most part, but I'm quite confident I could beat the higher games for a better rate, I just don't want to risk a large downswing at 25/50+. There is also times (I hate to admit this) in the middle of a downswing where I avoid the high var play even tho I know its best.

[innerpeace]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is you'd have a very hard time finding players who could beat the game who would want to give up enough of their earn to make it worth your/your investors while.


[/ QUOTE ]

with regard to players, i think there are many 'hidden gems' out there who could do very well given the opportunity. for example, i know someone who occasionally posts on these boards and who has an excellent understanding of the game. i am certain he could be a consistent winner at msnl up to about 3/6 and with a little work even 5/10 and above. why doesn't he play higher? in part since he cashed out much of his role just prior to the neteller/uigea debacle, in part since he has a very well paying full time job, so doesn't put in the hours/hands to build a bigger bankroll, he also has a family and doesn't want to get in the habit of dipping into savings to fund a bank roll.

i offered to stake him on several occasions, and he almost took me up on it, but then backed out because he felt uncomfortable getting into such a financial arrangement with a friend. i think he would be a perfect candidate for the sort of set-up op is proposing. i would bet that there are others just like him too.

i'm surprised that many people here are openly against an idea that would infuse more money into the poker economy. are you the same people who berate opponents when they draw out on you?

to the op, i can understand the rationale behind the law of large numbers, but as i'm sure you are aware, i would think there are some great opportunities to fund professional or semi-professional players in ultra high stakes cash games that include independently wealthy, but weak, opponents looking for big action. however, many of these games are private, and so you might have some legal issues.