|
|
#31
08-20-2007, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
Thanks to my oily, used car salesman like charm and Jeff George like talent, i am backed by Timex, Bax/Sheets, Actionjeff, Phil Ivey, and bodog.com.
I get the feeling i'll be busto'ing early. 
|
|
#32
08-20-2007, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
Do players get backed at the low levels? I know it would't take much of an investment to back someone for 4/180's. Ken [/ QUOTE ] Typically I think that if staker's back in the low levels it is a form of a "test drive" before they put substantial money behind a horse.
|
|
#36
08-20-2007, 10:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do players get backed at the low levels? I know it would't take much of an investment to back someone for 4/180's. Ken [/ QUOTE ] Typically I think that if staker's back in the low levels it is a form of a "test drive" before they put substantial money behind a horse. [/ QUOTE ] I know this is pretty off-topic, and I may get my tallywacker spanked for it, but, as a player who has never been involved in staking before, I have a question: 1. What type of record of success or consistency (without getting too results-oriented) is expected before backers consider someone worth a test-drive or staking? I guess I ask because, at some point, I'm hoping to move up in MTT levels, but am financially risk-averse enough to not put the money online it would take to buy in to $50+5, $109, etc., tourneys, and can't seem to take down a 1st place which would allow me to move up. Anyway, sorry to stray off the OP, but I'm trying to understand the fundamentals of what makes someone stakeable generally.
|
|
#39
08-20-2007, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Do players get backed at the low levels? I know it would't take much of an investment to back someone for 4/180's. Ken [/ QUOTE ] Typically I think that if staker's back in the low levels it is a form of a "test drive" before they put substantial money behind a horse. [/ QUOTE ] I know this is pretty off-topic, and I may get my tallywacker spanked for it, but, as a player who has never been involved in staking before, I have a question: 1. What type of record of success or consistency (without getting too results-oriented) is expected before backers consider someone worth a test-drive or staking? I guess I ask because, at some point, I'm hoping to move up in MTT levels, but am financially risk-averse enough to not put the money online it would take to buy in to $50+5, $109, etc., tourneys, and can't seem to take down a 1st place which would allow me to move up. Anyway, sorry to stray off the OP, but I'm trying to understand the fundamentals of what makes someone stakeable generally. [/ QUOTE ] My current backer and I used to/still discusss hands with each other frequentl over AIM. I stopped playing poker about a year ago, but when I decided to start playing poker again this summer I hinted to my current backer that I'd like to play the sunday tournaments but dont currently have the roll to do so. Then him and I reached an agreement. So I would recommend discussing poker with good players, if they think you're suffiently capable they might offer a stake.
|
|
#40
08-20-2007, 11:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
why do bax and sheets back so many dogshit players? [/ QUOTE ] I'll give you a serious answer. Because our standard for quality of play at 2p2 is really really high. Meanwhile it turns out you don't really have to be that good or unexploitable to be a winning tournament player, so guys who, by our standards, totally suck at poker, can be backed and be a good investment. Meanwhile, i've lost Timex like $75,000ish, so what the [censored] do i know?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
