CNBC's "Who Makes Money From Professional Poker?" (1 Viewer)

[mummel]

The problem is, TDs aren't going to impose rules that limit the field since it's not in their financial best interest. In all reality, casinos don't care where players get the money they gamble with. Until this starts affecting field sizes, it's difficult to see any authoritative body seriously addressing this.

The whole situation is complicated by the standard of proof. Even in Doug's example, we wouldn't be having this conversation if we weren't able to see Bicknell and Foxen's hole cards. This is an obvious and presumably uncommon situation where a romantically involved couple happened to make it to the final three. And while it's easy to surmise that any two experienced players would have undoubtedly and happily have gotten it AIPF here, it's impossible to say with absolute certainty that either player would have acted differently against another opponent. And you need to be able to do that if you're going to impose any sort of penalty.



I haven't read the rules of the WSOP but I'm sure there are provisions against soft playing and collusion. But the only standard that I'm aware of (aside from signalling and other physical signs of cheating) is failing to raise while last to act after the river card with the absolute nuts while heads up in a pot.

This is where public disclosure comes in. Even if you can't do anything about it, I would certainly prefer to know if there are players at the table that have a financial incentive in another's outcome. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than nothing.

I doubt banning players from staking other players that are playing in the same tournament as them will affect field sizes at all. On the flip side, encouraging staking from the public will increase field sizes, which is a good thing for the game.

So I'm a supporter of staking, but only if its done in a way that doesnt harm the integrity of the game. And staking is going to happen regardless. Why not build a rules framework around it, and get it to work in the best interest of the game.

Rules framework mission = 1) protect the consumer 2) create a fair playing field for the players 3) grow interest/support for the game

 

[timinater]

In all reality, casinos don't care where players get the money they gamble with.

To a point, in Canada that threshold is $10K in buy-ins requires a source of funds disclosure, or cumulative $10k daily buy-in (ie: $5k + 5K in same day). I understand it's fairly similar in the US, so not unheard of that they might run up against this at the WSOP with a decent amount of $10K+ buy-ins.

Drake's action was turned away from a casino in Vancouver because he had $10k+ in cash but failed to provide information on the source of funds. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/blame-stringent-rules-for-parq-casino-refusing-drake-sources-1.4164803

I'd be on board for some disclosure in events, but can you imagine processing the registration for the main event if every entrant is required to list backers and percentages? Then trying to seat people so they aren't in a position to collude? No wonder this isn't done.

 

[Moxie Mike]

To a point, in Canada that threshold is $10K in buy-ins requires a source of funds disclosure, or cumulative $10k daily buy-in (ie: $5k + 5K in same day). I understand it's fairly similar in the US, so not unheard of that they might run up against this at the WSOP with a decent amount of $10K+ buy-ins.

I didn't know that about Canadian casinos... but I've never heard that in regard to those in America.

I'd be on board for some disclosure in events, but can you imagine processing the registration for the main event if every entrant is required to list backers and percentages? Then trying to seat people so they aren't in a position to collude? No wonder this isn't done.

I don't think casinos need to seat players a certain way to prevent collusion... they might have success at the beginning of an event but any efforts would eventually be diluted as the field condenses and player seating is largely beyond management's control - which is really when it matters more anyhow. I think the value in disclosure is that a public acknowledgement of a player's financial interests at least makes the information known to all. It becomes the responsibility of the participant to ascertain that knowledge and then apply the information however they see fit.

 

[pltrgyst]

Maybe it was because I was (still am) a USTA member and may have been building ranking at the time. The notification I got from the USTA simply indicated the entry fee, and the dates that I had to be signed up by. It was a long time ago, and I didn't take it too seriously - otherwise I would have met Maria Sharapova, and she would have fallen madly in love with me...

OK, that part might be a pipe dream...

Well, she trained at IMG, and still has at least one home here not too far away. If you didn't waste all your FL time hanging out with a bunch of poker degens, you might have had a shot at those glorious long legs...

(Yeah, it's a pipe dream, but what the hell -- a guy's gotta dream...)

 

[dkersey]

So I looked into both of the sites mentioned in the CNBC piece. And here are my thoughts.

Both have known poker stars with campaigns.
Both have interesting campaigns if you just have to have some action.
Both have lots of variations so you really have to analyze what you are risking and what you might be getting back.
Of the two, YouStake.com seemed easier to get the details. Because of this, I delved more into YouStake.com.

Youstakes handles the money transfers, as well as keeps IRS records. Expect a 1099 of some sort if you win...

Some are straight forward - like selling 20% with no markup. You invest 20% of the buyin, you get 20% of winnings.

Some are trickier. See below where this guy is basically freerolling. Yes, he had 1 good finish in the 2015 ME but who knows if this guy is a winning player.

Joshua Beckley
2019 DEEP STACK SERIES (First Bullet) | Event 5C: $1,650 Deepest Stack No Limit Hold'em - $300,000 Guaranteed Prize Pool
Buyin:$1,650.00
Player Markup:1.43
Selling:70%
Available:0%
Backers:27

Here is the maff on this...The buyin is: $1650. With the markup, he is to collect from all backers including himself: $2360 (1650 * 1.43 = 2359.50). But he is selling 70% and keeping 30%. Well, from the other backers he will collect $1652 (1650 * 1.43 * .7 = 1651.65). Oh lookie there, he has 100% of the actual buy in. If he is ITM, then he keeps 30% of the winnings!!! He had to invest time but none of his own cash. Now, if you wanted part of him, lets' say 10%, it would cost you $256 (1650 * 1.43 * .1 plus 8.3% fee charged by youstake.com), not $165. As you can also see, he is totally sold/backed so several people thought this was a good(fun?) deal.

My thoughts on this particular deal:

• not a bad way to be part of the action.
• $256 isn't a massive amount of money to gamble with.
• If he won $5M, why can't he put any of his own money for such a small buyin event?

There are some bigger names on there, and there are a lot of spares too.