Poker sponsorship

Flushdraw

Just looking for some advice/feedack about poker sponsorship. Lets say that someone offers to sponsor you into whatever poker tournaments you want to play for a percentage of what you win. How many players on here would go for it?

What sort of deal would you be looking for or willing to accept?
Is a 50/50 split straight down the middle good enough?
Should you have to pay your own expenses?
What about side events and cash games?
Should you limit the sponsorship to games where the buyin is over 1k, 3k or whatever?
Any other general advice or things you need to consider?

Thanks lads

Tony

Shortstack

It depends whether it is sponsorship for a wearing a logo or whether it is a private backing deal.

You would expect the player to get a bigger cut if it is sponsorship than if it is a backing deal.

Typically poker sites that sponsor players retain 20-35% of winnings. Of Course there are some big sites that take none of the winnings but this is usually only the big sites for very well known players.

Most private backing deals are at most 50% for the player. Expenses vary from deal to deal.

Considering long term ROI for MTT's is not that high even for winning players any backing deal at less than face value is probably bad for the backer, obviously very good for the player though. If I was looking to back players as a private investment then I would rather buy a percentage at as near to face value as possible.

Flushdraw

Mike,

I probably shouldnt have used sponsorship. Its private backing so no need to wear logos etc. When you say buy a percentage at as near to face value, what do you mean??

Shortstack

Flushdraw wrote:

Mike,

I probably shouldnt have used sponsorship. Its private backing so no need to wear logos etc. When you say buy a percentage at as near to face value, what do you mean??

I mean if someone is playing a €1k event I would want 50% for as near to €500 as possible. There are a few players I know that I would pay 10% premium, ie: €550 for 50% but not many.

On the occasions I have sold % in myself it has been for face value. Although I was put into a $1k WSOP sat whereby if I won a seat I would get 50%.

If a backer is going to get a profit out of a player paying 100% of the entry then you need to run at +100% ROI for him to profit, and that is with you paying all exes. This is pretty difficult long term even for the best players unless you win a big tournie outright.

EG: You play 10 * 1k events, you need to win 20k for him to break even. In the short term a good variance swing will be profitable but you could easily get into a postion where you need to win a tournie just get your backer even.

Some backers have a claw back system which means you have to repay the entry fees from previous tournaments before you get paid from a win. I know of someone who won €30k in a tournie but only cleared €7k after repaying his backer. This kind of system is open to abuse by the player as at some point on a losing streak it is not worth you playing with your backers money as if you win you would have to pay it all back to him.

Flushdraw

Thanks for the time and effort you put into explaining this Mike. Theres a bit to consider for both parties in a deal like this. Its an interesting subject. You seem to know a bit about it. I might give you a buzz over the weekend, or maybe have a chat in the Boyne Valley on Sunday. Cheers

valor

You should change the thread title to staking as that its what you mean

Tar.Aldarion

Somebody wanted to buy 10% of me for my tournament before, its an odd concept to me, and I told em to not throw away their money.

Drakar

As a player you should definately be trying to get more than face value (ie in a $1000 entry, if you are selling 50% you should be trying to get more than $500). If you take it to the extreme and sold 100%, you'd have to pay all your own expenses, donate your own time between getting there and actually playing, and presumably you are entering the tournament because your $1000 in chips is worth more than $1000 in cash (ie you expect over time to make money by playing).

If the share you are selling doesn't include some element to compensate for elements outside the pure entry cost, you are losing out as you still have to pay the full price of all the other costs, and are now only getting a percentage of the reward.

robinlacey

staking always seems like a weird and murky area,having said that i'd love to get staked into big events,i'm sure there's loads of 5 and 10k events i'd be +ev but wouldn't have the bankroll for.

BigCityBanker

robinlacey wrote:

staking always seems like a weird and murky area,having said that i'd love to get staked into big events,i'm sure there's loads of 5 and 10k events i'd be +ev but wouldn't have the bankroll for.

What is the cutoff point at which you no longer retain interest cos "ah i only have 50% of myself?"

The Clamper

as an investment for a return

if a player is that good that you would like a slice of his winnings and you are thinking of investing / staking the guy, here is a few questions

if he is that good,
why would he let you have any part of it
why can he stake himself, from his winnings
would you allow him to make deals at the final table with, essentially, your money

sponsorship is a whole new deal, you have to ask yourself will this person enhance the reputation or goodwill of you and your product, will they get TV airtime displaying your LOGO or property, will they always behave in a manner that reflects the nature of your business or in a manner likely to bring new business or profit

sponsorship deals vary from promoter to promoter, but generally they sponsor all costs and entry fees for a % of the winnings, usualy anything from 25% to 50%.

if i was that good a player, i probably wouldnt accept paying anything higher than 25% in return for all ex's paid. i would want to keep all winnings. there is merit in sponsorship for the player as costs can spiral over a month, never mind a year and unless you ghet a win every so often, you can go broke, unless of course you have an alternative means of income, which defeats the purpose

nicnicnic

Drakar wrote:

As a player you should definately be trying to get more than face value (ie in a $1000 entry, if you are selling 50% you should be trying to get more than $500). If you take it to the extreme and sold 100%, you'd have to pay all your own expenses, donate your own time between getting there and actually playing, and presumably you are entering the tournament because your $1000 in chips is worth more than $1000 in cash (ie you expect over time to make money by playing).

If the share you are selling doesn't include some element to compensate for elements outside the pure entry cost, you are losing out as you still have to pay the full price of all the other costs, and are now only getting a percentage of the reward.

I suppose a lot of decent players who want a stab at a bigger tournament then they usually play have no problem selling up to 50% of themselves to get to play the event.

However the point about charging a small Premium to cover half the expenses to be only fair. If some one is selling half of a WSOP entry well I think $120 for 1% is much fairer then the face value $100.


Personally I have been staked into three tournaments in the past. The first one was a 50% stake for 20% of the profits ( I won the tournament) second was 100% stake for 30% of any cash over €4000, I cashed for €2000. The third one was this year's open where I sold 20% to a friend at face value, the reason I did this is that he had offered to stake me for the tournament so I felt that if the person had that much confidence in me he deserved a bit of my action.


writing this I've just realised that my best performances have been when there some kind of stake hmmmmm that me selling 5% of my WSOP action for luck

kpnuts

Exactly as Mike has outlined in my experience...

I've been backed for a couple of decent-sized games. I never asked for a premium as such, but reasonable exes would be taken into account and the % staked on that basis. e.g. event is €3k to enter, add €€€ for flights, hotel, taxis etc, would come to say €3,600. Therefore, backer puts up €1,800 for 50%. For me, it helped me play bigger events for which I felt I was +EV but not adequately rolled to stump up full buy-ins. I'm no Patrik Antonius/Roland De Luckbox, but I reckon deal was fair for both me and backer. Prefer playing for my own stake, obv, but those big buy-in MTTs really do add up in a dry spell!

Best of luck Tony with any prospective deal. By all accounts, you'd be as good a man in Dublin to back as any.

kpnuts

nicnicnic wrote:

I suppose a lot of decent players who want a stab at a bigger tournament then they usually play have no problem selling up to 50% of themselves to get to play the event.

However the OPs point about charging a small Premium to cover half the expenses to be only fair. If some one is selling half of a WSOP entry well I think $120 for 1% is much fairer then the face value $100.


Personally I have been staked into three tournaments in the past. The first one was a 50% stake for 20% of the profits ( I won the tournament) second was 100% stake for 30% of any cash over €4000, I cashed for €2000. The third one was this year's open where I sold 20% to a friend at face value, the reason I did this is that he had offered to stake me for the tournament so I felt that if the person had that much confidence in me he deserved a bit of my action.


writing this I've just realised that my best performances have been when there some kind of stake hmmmmm that me selling 5% of my WSOP action for luck

I'll take 5%!

BigCityBanker

kpnuts wrote:

reasonable exes would be taken into account

The price of Panama Hats and Banannas...

pppspecial

kpnuts wrote:

I'll take 5%!

ill split it with u kp.. that no fair.

nicnicnic

Kp and PPP I was kinda being tongue in cheek but seems that it's two players of such eminence and integrity how does 2% each for €150 sound. I had told a few close friends they could have 2% for an interest but I hadn't intended selling more then 10% also wouldn't like to annoy anyone by selling bigger blocks.

kpnuts

nicnicnic wrote:

Kp and PPP I was kinda being tongue in cheek but seems that it's two players of such eminence and integrity how does 2% each for €150 sound. I had told a few close friends they could have 2% for an interest but I hadn't intended selling more then 10% also wouldn't like to annoy anyone by selling bigger blocks.

2% for €150. done deal! will happily fix u up in the Deise next week

robinlacey

The Clamper wrote:

if a player is that good that you would like a slice of his winnings and you are thinking of investing / staking the guy, here is a few questions

if he is that good,
why would he let you have any part of it
why can he stake himself, from his winnings
would you allow him to make deals at the final table with, essentially, your money

the varience in tournaments is huge,i mean unimaginably huge,its only when you read stuff about varience that you start to realise just how crazy it can get.for this reason,you need a huge bankroll for tournaments,to play on the live circuit you'd want to have a bankroll in the millions to do it properly,so i'm sure there's loads of good players who can't afford to stake themselves in big events,except as "taking a shot"

as for deals,if i staked someone i would believe in their ability to make good decisions while playing poker,i don't see any reason why this wouldn't extend to dealmaking as well as playing hands.

robinlacey

BigCityBanker wrote:

What is the cutoff point at which you no longer retain interest cos "ah i only have 50% of myself?"

i don't think that'd be an issue for a good player-i certainly wouldn't want to stake someone who would think like that!

nicnicnic

kpnuts wrote:

2% for €150. done deal! will happily fix u up in the Deise next week

sound sir and Dave is confirmed via text

Flushdraw

Drakar wrote:

If the share you are selling doesn't include some element to compensate for elements outside the pure entry cost, you are losing out as you still have to pay the full price of all the other costs, and are now only getting a percentage of the reward.

I think I’ll factor in expenses when offering the deal. Seems to be the best idea and I reckon a 50/50 split on all flights/hotels/transfers should they be required. I suppose I’ll have to pay for my own drink and hookers though

robinlacey wrote:

staking always seems like a weird and murky area,having said that i'd love to get staked into big events,i'm sure there's loads of 5 and 10k events i'd be +ev but wouldn't have the bankroll for.

I agree Robin. If I could get staked into maybe 4 or so 5k events over the year, it would cost the backer maybe 25k. The experience I’d gain for playing the bigger and better games will be invaluable for my game but I wouldn’t be bankrolled for such a plan. I’d be confident enough to hold my own but I do realise that I’d need to make 50k for the backer to break even, and 100k for him to make 100% profit. When put like that, it looks scary from a backers point of view

BigCityBanker wrote:

What is the cutoff point at which you no longer retain interest cos "ah i only have 50% of myself?"

Are you serious? I don’t think this would ever enter a players head and definetly wouldn’t enter mine. I wouldn’t be staked for a €200 or €500 game but if I’m going to play in a 5k buyin event, most cash prizes would be for considerable amounts

The Clamper wrote:

if he is that good,
This isn’t really the question. Its an opportunity for me to better myself and move up the poker ladder and he sees it as an investment opportunity. Obviously theres a gamble involved
why would he let you have any part of it
How many players on the scene do you know that can pick and choose which games they want to play? My bankroll doesn’t stretch to 5k buyins
why can he stake himself, from his winnings
If I played 3 or 4 big buyin games and failed to cash, I’d take a serious hit to my bankroll. I allow myself to play 1, maybe 2 a year but I’m being given the opportunity to play a lot more through private backing
would you allow him to make deals at the final table with, essentially, your money
I choose the events, I play the poker and I make the deals. Everything poker related is entirely my decision and the backer wants no input. He's fully confident in my ability to suggest a deal that would best suit us both

sponsorship is a whole new deal, you have to ask yourself will this person enhance the reputation or goodwill of you and your product, will they get TV airtime displaying your LOGO or property, will they always behave in a manner that reflects the nature of your business or in a manner likely to bring new business or profit

This person has a lot of businesses and contacts. I asked him if he wants me to wear any of his logos and he said “Bollox. This is a private thing between you and me”

nicnicnic wrote:

I suppose a lot of decent players who want a stab at a bigger tournament then they usually play have no problem selling up to 50% of themselves to get to play the event.

That’s what I’m thinking Nicky. I probably wouldn’t play these events just yet otherwise.

kpnuts wrote:

Exactly as Mike has outlined in my experience...

I've been backed for a couple of decent-sized games. I never asked for a premium as such, but reasonable exes would be taken into account and the % staked on that basis. e.g. event is €3k to enter, add €€€ for flights, hotel, taxis etc, would come to say €3,600. Therefore, backer puts up €1,800 for 50%. For me, it helped me play bigger events for which I felt I was +EV but not adequately rolled to stump up full buy-ins. I'm no Patrik Antonius/Roland De Luckbox, but I reckon deal was fair for both me and backer. Prefer playing for my own stake, obv, but those big buy-in MTTs really do add up in a dry spell!

Best of luck Tony with any prospective deal. By all accounts, you'd be as good a man in Dublin to back as any.

Cheers KP. I really appreciate what you said

robinlacey wrote:

the varience in tournaments is huge,i mean unimaginably huge,its only when you read stuff about varience that you start to realise just how crazy it can get.for this reason,you need a huge bankroll for tournaments,to play on the live circuit you'd want to have a bankroll in the millions to do it properly,so i'm sure there's loads of good players who can't afford to stake themselves in big events,except as "taking a shot"

as for deals,if i staked someone i would believe in their ability to make good decisions while playing poker,i don't see any reason why this wouldn't extend to dealmaking as well as playing hands.

Spot on Robin. Thanks for all the input lads. Its extremely helpful to me

BigCityBanker

Tony,

Reg for the 25$ feeder to Sundays GJP game there - 5 players needed

Flushdraw

BigCityBanker wrote:

Tony,

Reg for the 25$ feeder to Sundays GJP game there - 5 players needed

I'm in. Deciding on the $160 feeder. 8 mins to make up my mind!

BigCityBanker

Flushdraw wrote:

I'm in. Deciding on the $160 feeder. 8 mins to make up my mind!

Ya im in the ME feeder also - needs 10 players that doesnt look likely.

delanec8

Flushdraw wrote:

I’d be confident enough to hold my own but I do realise that I’d need to make 50k for the backer to break even, and 100k for him to make 100% profit. When put like that, it looks scary from a backers point of view

I would have thought that any staking deal would involve paying back your buyin and then the 50/50 comes into play.

Flushdraw

delanec8 wrote:

I would have thought that any staking deal would involve paying back your buyin and then the 50/50 comes into play.

I wasnt thinking of that for some reason. Another thing to consider. Cheers

Goodluck2me

delanec8 wrote:

I would have thought that any staking deal would involve paying back your buyin and then the 50/50 comes into play.

more likely to be like this is its over a no. of tournaments. ie. 25K for 5 x 5K tournaments you might say well if i win 30K in this ill keep 5K and go 50-50 on what left, this is imo too high for the backer, 50-50 means 50-50. so everything should be split.
(one other note- if the backer is paying 100% and getting 50-50 return then the stake back first is fair)

MrPillowTalk

Most long term backing deals the backer gets refunded there outlay before any split is done, i.e. you play say 4 5k events and in the fourth you cash for 35k then the backer gets 30k and you get 5k. Any business man worth his salt would be mad to enter a long term backing deal that didnt work this way imo.

If you can negotiate a better deal than that then take it, there are so many sponsored players who only have to cover there exs and cant even make money season in season out, playing the livetourney circuit now seems to be more about trying for one huge score every year or so than getting consistent cashes with such huge fields.

Jesus Wept

nicnicnic wrote:

Kp and PPP I was kinda being tongue in cheek but seems that it's two players of such eminence and integrity how does 2% each for €150 sound. I had told a few close friends they could have 2% for an interest but I hadn't intended selling more then 10% also wouldn't like to annoy anyone by selling bigger blocks.

Did I miss the boat on this? arg

any chance of playing it twice this year so I can get in on the action?

The Clamper

I SPKE TO A VERY WELL KNOWN PRO LAST NIGHT ON THIS TOPIC AND HE HAS A SPONSORSHIP DEAL WITH ONE OF THE BIGGIES

HE IS A FAIRLY WELL ESTABLISHED WINNER YET HE SAID

GETTING SPONSORSHIP TAKES OFF SO MUCH PRESSURE THAT HE NOW FEELS HE PLAYS MUCH BETTER, NOT HAVING TO CONSIDER FINISHING UP THE MONEY JUST TO GET SOME KIND OF BANK ROLL TO KEEP HIM BEING ABLE TO TRAVEL AND ENTER TOURNEYS

THE X's WILL KILL YOU

FLIGHTS, ACCOMODATION, BEER, PANAMA HATS, SUNGLASSES ETC ETC

ITS A BIT LIKE BACKING THE RGHT HORSE, IF YOUR STAKED PLAYER COMES IN, YOU MAKE A BUNDLE
IF THE PLAYER HAS A REP FOR MAKING THE MONEY, THAT COULD BE GOOD ENOUGH TO MEET A RETURN ON YOUR STAKE MONEY,

MOST POKER PLAYERS WILL ACT IN A FAIR AND HONEST MANNER SO IF YOU CAN GET A GOOD / GREAT PLAYER TO ACCEPT A STAKE, GO FOR IT

I USED TO STAKE A GUY UNTIL HE RACKED UP A FEW NICE WINS, HE DECIDED HE NO LONGER NEEDED A BACKER AND MOVED ON, IT WAS GOOD FOR ME WHILE IT LASTED AND I HAVE NO COMPLAINTS.

50% OF THE BUY IN WITH 50% OF THE X's IS FAIR FOR 50% OF THE PRIZE

Goodluck2me

The Clamper wrote:

I SPKE TO A VERY WELL KNOWN PRO LAST NIGHT ON THIS TOPIC AND HE HAS A SPONSORSHIP DEAL WITH ONE OF THE BIGGIES

HE IS A FAIRLY WELL ESTABLISHED WINNER YET HE SAID

GETTING SPONSORSHIP TAKES OFF SO MUCH PRESSURE THAT HE NOW FEELS HE PLAYS MUCH BETTER, NOT HAVING TO CONSIDER FINISHING UP THE MONEY JUST TO GET SOME KIND OF BANK ROLL TO KEEP HIM BEING ABLE TO TRAVEL AND ENTER TOURNEYS

THE X's WILL KILL YOU

FLIGHTS, ACCOMODATION, BEER, PANAMA HATS, SUNGLASSES ETC ETC

ITS A BIT LIKE BACKING THE RGHT HORSE, IF YOUR STAKED PLAYER COMES IN, YOU MAKE A BUNDLE
IF THE PLAYER HAS A REP FOR MAKING THE MONEY, THAT COULD BE GOOD ENOUGH TO MEET A RETURN ON YOUR STAKE MONEY,

MOST POKER PLAYERS WILL ACT IN A FAIR AND HONEST MANNER SO IF YOU CAN GET A GOOD / GREAT PLAYER TO ACCEPT A STAKE, GO FOR IT

I USED TO STAKE A GUY UNTIL HE RACKED UP A FEW NICE WINS, HE DECIDED HE NO LONGER NEEDED A BACKER AND MOVED ON, IT WAS GOOD FOR ME WHILE IT LASTED AND I HAVE NO COMPLAINTS.

50% OF THE BUY IN WITH 50% OF THE X's IS FAIR FOR 50% OF THE PRIZE

use small caps please, your posts are really the opposite of reader friendly....reader unfriendly maybe?