Thoughts on Backing

[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

[jillaj]

Thinking about it in the freeroll sense is a great idea. I have been backed in a few tourneys and it didn't change the way I played at all. However when I do finish out of the money it isn't any more disappointing when it is someone elses money than when I lose my own.

Greed is the only reason people would have a tough time giving up the money that they won. Most people play the what if and could of or should have game. Like taking down a 10k prize and having to give 5k to a backer.I imagine most people would sit there and stew about how they should really have that full amount instead of looking at it like a freeroll for half the amount as TP suggested.

[Hawt]

Sorry that this is kind of like a double post since my other post was only a few minutes before this, but I think this is one of the smartest things I have heard. I know that is how I think, or hopefully now, used to think.

[chrisash]

If I was backed i dont think i would mind paying the backer 50%
Just think about backers usally spot you cause you are broke and cant afford it and if you win then really think about it.....if he didnt back you then none of yall would get any cash cause you wouldnt be in!

[Talking Poker]

I guess I just don't understand this whole retirement logic. Say first prize in a poker tournament is $50,000. There are 4 people entered, and for $1, they will let you enter too for a 5 person winner take all tourney. Would you not play, because even if you won, you wouldn't be able to retire? I guess I don't see what that has to do with anything?

And as I see it, it would actually be $1 CHEAPER for you to enter the WSOP if you had a backer, but again, you don't seem to think the prize money is worthwhile. Would you not be happy if you won enough to buy a house or a few cars, or a freaking ipod? This is free money to you if you are backed. Where retirement comes from out of this, I don't know...

Why play at all if you are only looking to retire after one big score? You're not going to win enough in one night of playing $1000/2000 to be able to retire (let alone $1/$2), so is that not a high enough stakes game for you?

Sounds to me like you should quit poker and focus on the lottery.