Re: Dub / Dev sponsor convo

Fatboydim

Reading your discussion guys how about something like this. Setting up a co-op where before certain tournaments such as ept, esop... we set up a private game online. Say we get 20 players involved. Each willing to pay $150 or whatever... and all players have 50% stake in the sponsored player?

Dub13

I think its a good idea and with a few tweaks could work.What we are looking into doing is a more long term investment,and with the right people involved could become a big success.

I am most certainly be interested in some forum of your idea.

Ste05

Ye, I think this is a great opportunity for all involved, the players that we stake will obviously be solid players with a solid credential but may not want to risk a full buy in to a tournament, so they get to play more tournaments, increase their profile with more cashes, exposure etc. the next Andy Black, and us investors benefit by hopefully spreading our risks and if one of our players cashes in a WSOP or EPT event, we can cash out a profit, if we want, and increase our portfolio by backing more players etc. etc, if nothing comes of it, so be it at least we tried, at the very least we limit our losses, but the potential for all involved is huge IMHO....

Ollieboy

Is this really possible?

There are only about 2 players on this forum that I would sponsor and they mightn’t even be interest in the idea as there already successful players.

Also, having a mini tourney and having a stake in the winner seems a bit unfair, as PP or anyother website dont have a stake in there players.

ntlbell

I think there's alot more than two players worth having a stake in but I guess that's personal opinion, I can think of about 9 or 10 off the top of my head I'd be more than willing to have a few quid invested in.

take daitho for example there's a succesfull player who doesn't want to risk the 4k for the EPT and i'm sure there's plenty of others who are sucessfull but would rather not pay the full whack 10k for wsop 4k for ept etc etc it's a fair amount of poke for most.

DeVore

Ollieboy wrote:

Is this really possible?

There are only about 2 players on this forum that I would sponsor and they mightn’t even be interest in the idea as there already successful players.

Also, having a mini tourney and having a stake in the winner seems a bit unfair, as PP or anyother website dont have a stake in there players.

Thats really the problem isnt it. I think there are maybe 4-5 players I would stake. I wont list them here to avoid nose-joint-outage.

DeV.

BigDragon

Ollieboy wrote:

There are only about 2 players on this forum that I would sponsor and they mightn’t even be interest in the idea as there already successful players.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Olly but I couldnt take your money. I'll take Dev's instead.

Ste05

Surely that's enough though to begin with, I for one, would look at this as an investment, not as a way for players to try their luck at levels they're not used to, I don't think we should or could even consider someone who hasn't cashed regularly in Irish Casino's, and have at least some big event experience. But obviously that's for discussion if this thing gets off the ground.

Culchie

DeVore wrote:

Thats really the problem isnt it. I think there are maybe 4-5 players I would stake. I wont list them here to avoid nose-joint-outage.

DeV.

Well, I thnk there's more than 4 or 5 I'd love to see give it a bash.

There quite a few players here who are not playing the big money games due to other committments/family etc... that I reckon could hold their own but (rightly so) are not willing to place other people directly at risk by spending big money on a buy-in.

It's catch 22 ... if someone is not playing the big tourneys, they are not 'rated' ... it would be nice to find an equitable way to give some hopefuls a leg up. It is a community forum.

Shortstack

This idea could work but If you are looking at backing more than one player in more than one event then the total bankroll for this is going to be quite large. Even if you looked at €1000 events then 5 events and two players is €10k. Of course if you are talking about subsidising players entries then it will cost less per tournamnent.

Ollieboy

Culchie wrote:

Well, I thnk there's more than 4 or 5 I'd love to see give it a bash.

There quite a few players here who are not playing the big money games due to other committments/family etc... that I reckon could hold their own but (rightly so) are not willing to place other people directly at risk by spending big money on a buy-in.

It's catch 22 ... if someone is not playing the big tourneys, they are not 'rated' ... it would be nice to find an equitable way to give some hopefuls a leg up. It is a community forum.

There's a big difference in playing the 100 freeze out in the Fitz on a Monday night and playing for 1/2 million in France. Theirs a big difference in standards and for players to cash is a big achievement. It would take any player a number of tourneys at this level just to get used to the pace of the game and the standard of play, that could be 20k before you even get a result.

I'm fairly new to the Irish poker scene, but have seen enough to know that there's really only 1/2 players here that I think are good enough to win at that level and that would be a once off achievement.

It would take 50k a year to support one player for the EPT events and WSOP, so I think we would have to put all our eggs into one basket and support one player.

Also, most of the poker software house are now moving away from backing players and are dropping pro's all over the place.

Most players in Europe are only breaking even on the tournament scene at the moment if not making a loss. Sorry for been so negative, its the Accountant in me.

Ollieboy

BigDragon wrote:

Thanks for the vote of confidence Olly but I couldnt take your money. I'll take Dev's instead.

Dont forget my percentage Dave

Hectorjelly

Ollieboy wrote:

Most players in Europe are only breaking even on the tournament scene at the moment if not making a loss. Sorry for been so negative, its the Accountant in me.

Its amazing that this has to be stated. Poker is a zero sum game. (in fact its worse than that). Most people who play will end their careers as net losers.

Doc Farrell

Ollieboy wrote:

Is this really possible?

There are only about 2 players on this forum that I would sponsor and they mightn’t even be interest in the idea as there already successful players.

Also, having a mini tourney and having a stake in the winner seems a bit unfair, as PP or anyother website dont have a stake in there players.

Jeeze Ollie,
u made me blush.

anyway, just my 2 cents worth. If 5 players decide to play in a game and the winner of the ticket takes say, 30% of anything he might win in the big tourny, while the rest of the gang shares the rest, then yes, I think that could work.

But I dont think think there'll be many subscribers to naming a player and then paying for his ticket.

I could be wrong, i was once in the past in primary school, but I think anything beyond the scenario above would be too complicated.

anyhoo, considering the budget i play with, none of this particularly applies to me.

Doc Farrell

Hectorjelly wrote:

Its amazing that this has to be stated. Poker is a zero sum game. (in fact its worse than that). Most people who play will end their careers as net losers.

we are fortunate in that sponsorship and corporate advertising in televised poker may be about to widen to help players so that poker may become more like golf.

In other words, the players won't be putting up every bleedin cent themselves! I'm not sure but I'm keeping an eye on the changes.

DeVore

There are some players clearly making a profit in Euro tournies, I see them all the time the money placers the guys who play to make tripe or quadruple their dough, not the TV table. Several are irish but the only one up near that level is Daithio and he'll tell you himself that you need to be playing 50 tournies before you could draw a conclusion. The fact that he's recognised from his wins in the EPT, Belagio etc already, is a achievement and a good indicator.
His brother wins consistently online but there I would agree that moving from online to off can be as hard if not harder then the other way around. Niall is one guy who could and probably will.
Frank Cruise O'Callaghan (no relation) is another consistant money maker. I dont think he's ever been on a TV table but by god can he money.

I dont agree with your pessimism about the ability to make profit on the tournie circuit. Apart from the rake (about 8%) and the ex's (about 700-1k an event) the money that goes into the pool comes back out again.
If everything was random then yes, the standard deviation of 1.2k would be enough to make everyone a loser long term except the exceptionally fortunate one or two.

The fact is that its not random and there is as much dead money in these tournies as anywhere else. The EPT even more so then most. The number of cringingly poor internet qualifiers I see (that you wont see on the tv table!) is shocking. Absolutely shocking. Not to mention the wealthy playboys, thrill seekers and daddys-little-spoilt-brats-on-a-gold-card and the "filthy rich and curious".

Ram vaswani is making a killing as is Dave Colclough for example.

That doesnt mean anyone here could. Or that we could identify them. In that much I might agree with you.

I'm not being negative but the people who were in Vegas last year will tell you that it was painfull obvious that the 20-minute-blinds gamble fests have hurt Irish poker when other countries have moved on. Its an UTTERLY different game when its two hours a level and all the chips you can stack in front of you to start as we both know. In that much I am in agreement with you.

Finally, it is my opinion and a certain amount of my moral belief that no player should ever take a full buy in from someone. If you don't have skin in the game you wont play as well. Its just that simple. It has to hurt a little to keep you from going doolally on the table.

There are people making money consistently from tournaments and you can live on the circuit.
http://www.pokerineurope.com/showmethemoney/index.php?year=2005
http://www.pokerineurope.com/europeanrankings/index.php?year=1

I'm curious who your two choices are (and before anyone comments, I'm under no illusion that I am, or should be, anyone's choice. I wouldnt even make my own list at the moment! ) but I'm not asking you to name them. (you can see how this will get tricky though, yes?)

In general I agree with you but not your pessimism. Last year we wondered when one of us would make a final table. This year we're trying to make tv-tables

DeV.

DeVore

Hectorjelly wrote:

Its amazing that this has to be stated. Poker is a zero sum game. (in fact its worse than that). Most people who play will end their careers as net losers.

Ah Hector, I'm shocked at you. Just because a game is near-but-negative-zero-sum isnt the cause of most players being long term losers.

Here's an example: Everyone who wants to play puts in 10 euro. 1€ goes to the house (to create the negativity) and then Tom wins.

This is a near zero sum game. Clearly I'm going to die a very wealthy man. Sorry for the apparent sarkiness of this reply, I'm not being flipant or sarcastic I'm using "Reductio Ad Absurdum", the process of making something clear by taking it to extremes.

Clearly poker is a zero sum game (or nearly so). Clearly it also favours certain players but favours not players called Tom, but rather those with the better grasp and grip on the game over the long term.

This skews the results from being uniformly average loss (indicated by a natural distribution curve) to a curve that is much more contort towards one end, the skill end.
True the number of players that survive above the water mark is a small percentage. Raising that water mark by including ex's etc put more players under water and fewer who can be called profitable. But they certainly exist and if you run this universe 1000 times you wont find that it never evens out, the skillful always win.

You say "Most people who play will end their careers as net losers." This is accectibly true. Most is a strong word but I guess 92% (as I reckon) probably would justify the use of the term "most". What I'm objecting to is that its got NOTHING TO DO with the zero-sumness of the game. It has to do with the unequal distribution of skill.

Sorry for the pedantry but its an important point or the city of London stock brokers wouldnt be backing "winning" players in a quants exercise ala badbeat and pokershowoff.

DeV.

DeVore

God what crawled up my butt tonight.

DeV.

Shortstack

It is only a zero sum game if the same players are playing all the time. there are millions who try the game, lose anything from $10 to $100,000 and then leave poker altogether. there is a constant stream of these players so there can be more winners in the game than you think.

Of course there are players, myself included, who have won and taken money out of the game. Of course I still play but most of my profits so far are gone from the game on other things. this sort of balances out the equation but I reckon more players are bringing money to the game than taking away.

Hectorjelly

I wasnt very carefull with my words, i agree with you. Similarly you could have a zero sum game in which everyone but one player regularly wins.

Hectorjelly

Shortstack wrote:

It is only a zero sum game if the same players are playing all the time. there are millions who try the game, lose anything from $10 to $100,000 and then leave poker altogether. there is a constant stream of these players so there can be more winners in the game than you think.

If you are talking in terms of game theory then the money brought into the game by players who drop out definitely do not change the game from zero sum to non zero sum, In fact the more of these people who come in, lose and leave quickly without learning the basics, the lesser the % of winners there are of people who have ever played poker.

Shortstack

Hectorjelly wrote:

If you are talking in terms of game theory then the money brought into the game by players who drop out definitely do not change the game from zero sum to non zero sum, In fact the more of these people who come in, lose and leave quickly without learning the basics, the lesser the % of winners there are of people who have ever played poker.

'who have ever played poker' vs 'who still plays poker' - I should have been clearer, my apologies.

Fatboydim

I’m surprised how negative you all are. Ollie as far as I’m aware you hadn’t won a major tourney until the world speed poker open. But you went there and you did it. I think in this day and age it’s like buying into the dream. Personally I’d rather play an online sat against Doc, Big Dragon, DeVore, KP nuts, Nicky OD, Daitho, Ocallagh, Shortstack, Hector, Pokertroll, yourself and a few others. All good players who know the game and are capable of winning. If I win… great I get to go. If I don’t there’s a chance I’ll get a return when our winner plays. Maybe syndicate is a better term than co-op. Maybe a live game would be a better method of selection. And maybe it should be a deep stack – long clock tourney. Let’s face it most of the people who post on here think they are good players. And most of us know the players that we personally rate. So how about forming a syndicate where we nominate and second the players? Then invite them to join... esop costs €2000 ... 10 x 200 or 20 x100 - Lets set up a tourney and send a player. Player takes care of accomodation and flights... That takes care of the point Tom makes about it having to hurt somewhat… [Not sure that’s true in my case. I think I’m more reckless with my own money than somebody else’s.]
If the player makes the money he keeps whatver percentage we agree upon in the syndicate. A syndicate charter could be written up and signed by all members. We just need to agree on enough players that we think would A] be interested... and B] are good enough and C] That we like [quite important]

I'd like to nominate Daitho if he's interested.

Ollieboy

Fatboydim wrote:

I’m surprised how negative you all are. Ollie as far as I’m aware you hadn’t won a major tourney until the world speed poker open. But you went there and you did it. I think in this day and age it’s like buying into the dream. Personally I’d rather play an online sat against Doc, Big Dragon, DeVore, KP nuts, Nicky OD, Daitho, Ocallagh, Shortstack, Hector, Pokertroll, yourself and a few others. All good players who know the game and are capable of winning. If I win… great I get to go. If I don’t there’s a chance I’ll get a return when our winner plays. Maybe syndicate is a better term than co-op. Maybe a live game would be a better method of selection. And maybe it should be a deep stack – long clock tourney. Let’s face it most of the people who post on here think they are good players. And most of us know the players that we personally rate. So how about forming a syndicate where we nominate and second the players? Then invite them to join... esop costs €2000 ... 10 x 200 or 20 x100 - Lets set up a tourney and send a player. Player takes care of accomodation and flights... That takes care of the point Tom makes about it having to hurt somewhat… [Not sure that’s true in my case. I think I’m more reckless with my own money than somebody else’s.]
If the player makes the money he keeps whatver percentage we agree upon in the syndicate. A syndicate charter could be written up and signed by all members. We just need to agree on enough players that we think would A] be interested... and B] are good enough and C] That we like [quite important]

I'd like to nominate Daitho if he's interested.

Sorry Len and to everyone else for been so negative, I do support the idea in general and Daitho and Pokerroll would be my pick.

And your right Len, the World Speed Poker was my third event live and I cash in the other 2 before that, coming 8th in the Redcow and winning the 50 double chance in the Fitz, but I had been playing poker for 20 odd years and had been winning a lot online in my first year playing online. But I was very lucky and have Kevin O'Connell and Scott Grey to thank for my win, they gave me loads of advice over that week and it stood to me all the way. I've learnt loads in the last year and feel I'm a far better player now and will cash big again. But need to build my game up to that level slowly. There is so much more involved at that level and I'm sure Daitho would support me on this view.

I also believed I could win and had no interest in deals or 2nd place.

Maybe we should set-up a research team and find out the costs and what players are interest. Maybe we should discuss a committee or something to move this forward and look at other ways of support, like a sponsor.ie Vegas Baby or PPP for travelling costs etc.

Ollie

DeVore

You wont meet two more decent skins then Kevin O'Connell and Scott Gray. They have every right to be aloof if they chose to be, they've been rounding for years but all I've ever heard from them is good solid advice and support.

I like Lens idea <-- for on topicness.

DeV.

Doc Farrell

Fatboydim wrote:

I’m surprised how negative you all are. Ollie as far as I’m aware you hadn’t won a major tourney until the world speed poker open. But you went there and you did it. I think in this day and age it’s like buying into the dream. Personally I’d rather play an online sat against Doc, Big Dragon, DeVore, KP nuts, Nicky OD, Daitho, Ocallagh, Shortstack, Hector, Pokertroll, yourself and a few others. All good players who know the game and are capable of winning. If I win… great I get to go. If I don’t there’s a chance I’ll get a return when our winner plays. Maybe syndicate is a better term than co-op. Maybe a live game would be a better method of selection. And maybe it should be a deep stack – long clock tourney. Let’s face it most of the people who post on here think they are good players. And most of us know the players that we personally rate. So how about forming a syndicate where we nominate and second the players? Then invite them to join... esop costs €2000 ... 10 x 200 or 20 x100 - Lets set up a tourney and send a player. Player takes care of accomodation and flights... That takes care of the point Tom makes about it having to hurt somewhat… [Not sure that’s true in my case. I think I’m more reckless with my own money than somebody else’s.]
If the player makes the money he keeps whatver percentage we agree upon in the syndicate. A syndicate charter could be written up and signed by all members. We just need to agree on enough players that we think would A] be interested... and B] are good enough and C] That we like [quite important]

I'd like to nominate Daitho if he's interested.

great post Len. not sure if i'll be in but keep me informed.
i nominate len, big dragon and me.

willis

DeVore wrote:

I

Ram vaswani is making a killing as is Dave Colclough for example.

In a recent interview Dave Colclough said last year was a losing year on the tournament scene for him,despite finishing in the top5 of the european rankings. Hes also sponsored. As for Ram it will be interesting to see how he copes without prima's money behind him

DeVore

A year is a short time on the tournament scene. Negreanu was having a losing year until he hit the WSOPT (see Antesup News for details), Now he's got .75M in his pocket. Wonder if he's still down now...

DeV.

Iago

While I wouldn't put myself in the top 4-5 players on here...just I would be interested in coming on board with this.

I definitely think there are a few posters here who have the potential to make regulad money on the tournament circuit. For example less than 2 years ago I was playing €20 home games with Stephen Dunphy, in the last two years he's had cashes in the WSOP, on the Ladbrokes Poker Cruise, in the festival at the macau last year and numerous times in the fitz and SE. There are players on here that I think are far better than he is.

If anything comes out of this keep me posted.

Fatboydim

Someone I left out who I'd also nominate is Matthew Bell AKA CoD.

Very good player.

DeVore

Almost as good as all of England
Aye, a lad to watch.

DeV.