Thoughts on Backing

[Aequitas58]

Awesome thread. It seems like I've been wading through crap all week, but I like the topic and responses so far.

In poker, pool, and chess, I have played the role of backer and player. I have won, I have lost, but each "opportunity" is fun. Some of my greatest pool "memories" involve backer situations.

I always felt more pressure when I'm backed because it's not my money. I'm much more "reckless" with my money than I am with someone else's because I want to show a good return, and I want to be able to use that investor in the future.

That being said, I guess it does (somewhat) affect my play, but only to the extent that it makes me play better. But that's just me. Pressure is natural, I think it just comes down to how you handle the pressure. I think this is what Zybomb was alluding to.

I like that TP didn't care about writing that check. I don't think I would have cared either. In my mind, if not for the backer, I wouldn't be writing the check to begin with. It's a simple business transaction.

Oh, and anyone who says their game doesn't change if they are playing w/ backer-money has either (i) never been backed, or (ii) is full of shit.

IMHO.

[oketz7777]

there is nothing wrong with backers on the contrary its a good thing think about players who want to make money but are bad at the game so others will play for them and give them some of the winnings.

[Reel Deal]

Please tell me English is not your first language.

[chrisash]

I backed my brother inlaw in a Bowling tourney.i know it not about poker but its about backing...........It was a $60 entry fee and 1st took $3000 so i had no doubts on backing him cause he is a great bowler and all i can lose was $60 and gain alot..........He ended up winning like $960 so it worked out in the end but he didnt get 1st. I was happy.

P.S willl back him again

[Hawt]

I haven't backed anything really major but I have put up the money for friends in small tournaments around my school campus, usually around $20. It's nice for me because if I bust out and one of my friends comes in the top 5 (usually 20 players or so) I get my money back and then $60+ more.

Being the backer is nice, but I couldn't imagine having to pay a backer in a bigger tournament though.

Take Steve Dannenmann for example, his friend backed 5k of his 10k entry and in turn got half of his winnings, something around 2.25million.

If you look at it though, (and I hope I am getting this all right) Dannenmann won something like 4.5million for second place. My guess is that he had to pay around 1.8 million in taxes, leaving him with 2.7 million. So by the time he gave half to his friend he ended up with only like 1.35million.

Personally I don't think I could risk giving up that much money, because 1.35 million isn't that much in the big scheme of things.

I don't know much about backing though, I'm guessing not every situation is that extreme and that in most cases, backers don't get 50%. I think someone mentioned earlier they took 10% from TP one time, which wouldn't be so bad.

-Tim

[Talking Poker]

I sold him 10% of my action. This is different than "backing."

As for your post, I don't think I get it. One minute you are saying you couldn't "give up that much money," and the next you are saying the exact same amount "isn't that much." Well, which is it?

Also.... why not think about it like I do:

Would you rather play in a $10k tourney with a $56 million prizepool or a $0 freeroll with a $28 million freeroll? If you have loads and loads of $10k bills lying around, sure, put yourself in. But if you don't, why not play in the $28 million freeroll???

[Hawt]

It's been a long night with no sleep. I'll try to rephrase it to make better sense.

I try to look at things in terms of "could I retire on this much money." In Dannenmann's case, since I am so young, I think if I won 4.5 million, I could retire on that. But he had to give 40% or so of that to taxes leaving him with 2.7 million, which would be harder to retire on, but would still be possible with some good investments.

I couldn't retire on 1.35 million though, which is what I am guessing he was left with. 1.35 million just isn't that much, which is why I wouldn't be able to give up the OTHER 1.35 million.

I think I just confused myself more trying to explain it, but hopefully you can sort of see where I am coming from.

I never really thought about it like that though and when you put it like that it makes sense.

I mean don't get me wrong 1.35 million is still a good deal of money, but it isn't as much as most people tend to think it is, which is why I was thinking about it in terms of "being able to retire". On a side note I guess it really isn't all that smart to be thinking of poker as a retirement plan, but when it gets into that much money, and I hear people on ESPN talking about how life changing the money these people are winning I can't help it.

Edit: You said you gave him 10% of your action. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. I think it means that he pays you a certain amount and then takes 10% of whatever you get, but that definition sounds like backing to me, could you explain the difference please?
Thanks,
-Tim