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

It seems that just like poker, its tough to beat the rake at microstakes staking...

Some markups on YouStake are 19% and the fee was ~12% on a $25 stake (waived as a first time transaction, tho).
 
Nothing I didn't know, and have posted about before. However, anything that shines a light on poker that doesn't involve a scandal is good for the game. It was a nice piece.
 
It's all about tournament monkeys. The majority of long-term pros make their living on cash games. Definitely seems like a fluff piece for the staking site
 
Raymer has a bankroll stake. He's committed to buying 20% stake in himself, and he's keeping 40% of the profits (plus his ownership interest).

I guess that's better than the scenario in the video where the horse kept 50% of the winnings and he's committed to 20% of his bankroll rather than the typical horse putting in 0%. But if he loses his bankroll, there's no makeup.
 
See, this piece right here is why I think tournament "poker" is INCREDIBLY disingenuous in any casino environment.

If I came to the WSOP for the first time on my own with $5,000 in buy-ins, I'm already at an inherent disadvantage. I'm wading into fields of players where their own financial risk can be mitigated to any number of percentages, even reduced to 0% by a full backer. One person could have a stable of 10+ horses in the field, another group of players can have swapped various percentages, the permutations and combinations of these variables can go on and on. The lone WSOP neophyte is not only paying his entry fee and tournament rake, he's also in an abstract sense paying for all the financial dealings that have occurred well before the first card is dealt.

Imagine sitting at a table for the $565 Colossus and unbeknownst to you, every other player at your table has had their buy-in paid for in full from a backer with a 50/50 arrangement if the backed player cashes. You need to become a card rack from hand 1 if you have any hope of surviving, otherwise, your stack is going to start dwindling slowly but steadily. With no financial risk from the actual player you're betting against, that's an almost insurmountable hurdle to overcome. Aggressive betting can and does win the day, but that's only if the other player has something to lose. Now, backed players aren't just going to call off any bet you make because they're freerolling (though in wide fields that could still happen in some cases) but this is magnified by degrees if you're up against several horses over the course of your time playing.

Now, does backing occur in cash games? Absolutely it does, but the impact is severely mitigated on a few fronts.

First off, you have only your table to contend with in a cash game. You can be playing against one or even two backed players possibly. There aren't hundreds of other players creating their own edges or stakings that you have to concern yourself with.

Second, if you do find out somehow that you are playing with a backed player, that factors into something that is absolutely paramount for being a good cash game player. That something is of course, game selection. Maybe you want to play with the backed player, maybe you don't, but you are at least somewhat in control of it.

Third, a potential backer's bankroll is much more volatile in cash games. He's not able to reliably predict how much he has to spend on his player that's in the game. It could be one buy-in, it could be four. Freezeout tournaments (or single re-entry) are much easier to budget because of the fixed costs associated.


Caveat emptor.
 
to Kain8 I would say that someone with a larger bankroll than me in a cash game can take more risks too. Had a kid sit down in a 1/2 game with a $200 cap while he waited for a 2/5 seat. He proceeded to raise EVERY hand blind to $100, and was willing to play for stacks (and would put it in on the flop if he was just called, NEVER looking)

I managed to get it all-in with AQ against his QJ and a drunks AT, and the drunk spiked the T to hit a $600 pot. After the gambler left, the drunk was raising to between $30-60 each hand and was playing terrible but running well. He wound up winning over $2,000 in a game with a $200 cap. I managed to only lose $200 for that session.

But someone who doesn't value money can make plays others can't in a cash game as well. Or can go to Vegas and know they are playing 38 tournaments so the one tournament YOU managed to scrounge up the cash to play doesn't matter as much to them as it does to you, so they can take more risks.

I don't see players being backed to be as big of an issue as the unlimited rebuys in events, where players for the first 9-11 freaking levels can just throw buyin after buyin at it.
 
Anthony Martino said:
to Kain8 I would say that someone with a larger bankroll than me in a cash game can take more risks too. Had a kid sit down in a 1/2 game with a $200 cap while he waited for a 2/5 seat. He proceeded to raise EVERY hand blind to $100, and was willing to play for stacks (and would put it in on the flop if he was just called, NEVER looking)

I managed to get it all-in with AQ against his QJ and a drunks AT, and the drunk spiked the T to hit a $600 pot. After the gambler left, the drunk was raising to between $30-60 each hand and was playing terrible but running well. He wound up winning over $2,000 in a game with a $200 cap. I managed to only lose $200 for that session.

But someone who doesn't value money can make plays others can't in a cash game as well. Or can go to Vegas and know they are playing 38 tournaments so the one tournament YOU managed to scrounge up the cash to play doesn't matter as much to them as it does to you, so they can take more risks.

I don't see players being backed to be as big of an issue as the unlimited rebuys in events, where players for the first 9-11 freaking levels can just throw buyin after buyin at it.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 
Anthony Martino said:
to Kain8 I would say that someone with a larger bankroll than me in a cash game can take more risks too. Had a kid sit down in a 1/2 game with a $200 cap while he waited for a 2/5 seat. He proceeded to raise EVERY hand blind to $100, and was willing to play for stacks (and would put it in on the flop if he was just called, NEVER looking)
Click to expand...

Ego is a hell of a drug, too bad he didn't get cleaned out.

My take on this is nuanced, and unfortunately nuanced opinions seem like the hardest to have and share in 2019. Unfortunately I can't say staking is bad, swapping percentages is bad or vice versa. Here are my thoughts:

A word on staking/backing: It's not free money. If you lose, you go into makeup (debt). There is no real incentive to play like a maroon and gamble it up just because you are getting staked. 50% of the winnings and 100% of the losses, and 0% of any winnings while in makeup. Hmmm sign me up!

@Anthony Martino I see the point you are making and to an extent agree. Regardless the source we don't all value money the same way, but I don't think this example is an apt comparison. Someone being a degen playing blind for $100-$200, effectively lighting money on fire is no different than someone blasting off in the pits for $100 a hand blackjack. He's not really playing poker - he's gambling. Nobody is doing that while staked (if they want to remain on that stake, anyways), and we can probably all agree the mythical "all in blind guy" doesn't occur with anywhere near the same frequency in a tournament.

Someone pushing thin edges, firing multiple bullets etc. in a tournament because they are backed, swapped percentages or god forbid are rolled correctly is a different ball game IMO. It's kind of a macro vs micro thing.

For an individual staked or not, there is always the end goal/benefit and of winning the thing, so selling percentages should self correct as people will typically prefer to save enough of themselves to make the time investment in a tournament worthwhile. (If you wanna sell 100% of yourself at a 1.2 markup, ok, enjoy your $100 of profit on a $500 buy-in, but you won't have a long career). I don't worry too much about the freerolling concerns/dynamic in a MTT.

In the macro sense @Kain8 mostly nails the uphill battle your average poker fan faces. It's not that people who sell percentages or are staked are conspiring against an individual, It's that they aren't really playing the same game. The practice of staking allows +EV players the ability to be in more tournaments than they could play on their own, and stay in the game longer - getting to the almighty "Long Run". Variance is bad enough in a cash game, and monumentally tougher for a tournament player. (Going off bankroll management rules of thumb - at least five times the effect as in cash)

More pros and +EV players in the field is bad for recreational players. Compound that with multi re-entry and shit does it get tough for a guy with one bullet and 100% of himself to play the same game.
 
timinater said:
Ego is a hell of a drug, too bad he didn't get cleaned out.
Click to expand...

The kid waiting for the 2/5 seat dumped a grand in our 1/2 game before he got his seat. Once at 2/5 he played a very different game. I loved the action, despite my not being on the positive side of variance to benefit from it.



and we can probably all agree the mythical "all in blind guy" doesn't occur with anywhere near the same frequency in a tournament.
Click to expand...

I played the Little Slick at the Hard Rock awhile ago and there was an absolute maniac who they kept seating to my left everytime he rebought:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/lol-wtf-is-this-guy-doing.29817/post-551278

Anthony Martino said:
Playing the $150 Little Slick 100k guaranteed at Tampa Hard Rock

Starting stack 12k

Blinds 300/600 with a 50 ante

Kid minraises UTG to 600, button calls, I shove 8k with :qd::qh: in the SB

UTG reshoves with :3c::6c: (I can't make this shit up)

Flop is 567 but fortunately KT is the runout and I double up
Click to expand...

I mean, I still had to sweat the shit out of that flop. Kid rebought at least FOUR times from my recollection, maybe even more beyond that, not really sure.

And yes, this sort of thing is certainly an outlier and not the norm, but it does happen and I've experienced it firsthand.
 
I have zero problems with staking or the way people handle professional tournaments. It gives players a chance to play bigger/more tournaments and gives people a chance to participate who don't have the talent or bankroll to compete in these tournaments. It grows fields and adds more money to the tournament pots when players have the choice to get backers or not play at all. It feels like a win/win to me.

My issue has always been with the way the media reports winnings. It almost feels like a giant MLM scam.

"Karen makes $6,000 a month selling makeup and so could you!" No she didn't and no you can't. She had $6,000 in sales, $5,000 of which went back to suppliers and $500 went to her up-chain. She made $500 last month.

"John Smith had $650,000 in tournament winnings at the WSOP last year and so could you!" No he didn't and no you probably can't. He won $650,000 before taxes but had $250,000 in buy-ins, most of which he didn't cash, and sold over 50% of his stake. He won like $75,000 after taxes.
 
Zmasterben said:
"John Smith had $650,000 in tournament winnings at the WSOP last year and so could you!" No he didn't and no you probably can't. He won $650,000 before taxes but had $250,000 in buy-ins, most of which he didn't cash, and sold over 50% of his stake. He won like $75,000 after taxes.
Click to expand...

This, a million times this!
 
Zmasterben said:
I have zero problems with staking or the way people handle professional tournaments. It gives players a chance to play bigger/more tournaments and gives people a chance to participate who don't have the talent or bankroll to compete in these tournaments. It grows fields and adds more money to the tournament pots when players have the choice to get backers or not play at all. It feels like a win/win to me.

My issue has always been with the way the media reports winnings. It almost feels like a giant MLM scam.

"Karen makes $6,000 a month selling makeup and so could you!" No she didn't and no you can't. She had $6,000 in sales, $5,000 of which went back to suppliers and $500 went to her up-chain. She made $500 last month.

"John Smith had $650,000 in tournament winnings at the WSOP last year and so could you!" No he didn't and no you probably can't. He won $650,000 before taxes but had $250,000 in buy-ins, most of which he didn't cash, and sold over 50% of his stake. He won like $75,000 after taxes.
Click to expand...
This sadly is the same in every sport. How much did Serena Williams win in the US Open? How much did Juan Pablo Montoya win in the Indy 500? There are expenses. Trainers, crew, managers... many (if not all) who get paid a share of the winnings. Poker staking is no different.

My only "issue" is that there could be collusion - even unintentional - with staked players. If I own 50% of you, should I jam or fold? WSOP tournament director Jack Effel has said that if he knows players are together, he will make an effort to sit them at different tables. Staking is invisible though. It's pretty minor, but when the money gets big, any minor advantage carries a bigger $ on the EV.
 
Last edited:
On a recent DAP podcast, Daniel Negreanu went through the list of the top 10 all-time tournament “winners” in terms of total gross winnings ... and made the argument that at least 2-3 of them were probably net losers.

Having millions in reported “winnings” can be deceptive if that player is entering tons of high stakes tournaments, not to mention that many of them are stakes (so that their actual revenues are lower than reported). We generally don’t have a way to track the times they don’t cash.

Negreanu suggested what others have said here, that most pros are really mainly profiting from cash games, plus the sponsorships and consulting/training fees they reap on the side.
 
Poker Zombie said:
This sadly is the same in every sport. How much did Serena Williams win in the US Open? How much did Juan Pablo Montoya win in the Indy 500? There are expenses. Trainers, crew, managers... many (if not all) who get paid a share of the winnings. Poker staking is no different.

My only "issue" is that there could be collusion - even unintentional - with staked players. If I own 50% of you, should I jam or fold? WSOP tournament director has said that if he knows players are together, wh will make an effort to sit them at different tables. Staking is invisible though. It's pretty minor, but when the money gets big, any minor advantage carries a bigger $ on the EV.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you said in your first paragraph but I don't think it is a perfect comparison. Everything has expenses and it is part of the job. You don't tell an entry level employee they don't actually make as much as their salary because they aren't factoring in expenses for college or gas for commutes.

Serena doesn't need to pay an entry fee to compete at the US Open and you (hopefully) don't need to pay an entry fee to walk into your building for work everyday. Poker players need to pay a fee to enter a tournament, and that fee isn't subtracted from their total winnings. That was more to my general point.
 
Actually, there is an entry fee for the US Open. It is an "Open" event, just like poker. Anybody can plop their money down and play - however, they are playing during week 0 (the qualifiers). I don't know if the fee is waived for seeded players that draw the crowds, I could see it being either way.

About 13 years ago I was tempted to try it, just for the lark. If I recall correctly, it would have been $125.
 
Poker Zombie said:
Actually, there is an entry fee for the US Open. It is an "Open" event, just like poker. Anybody can plop their money down and play - however, they are playing during week 0 (the qualifiers)....
Click to expand...

Not true. In the first place, you must be a paid USTA member. Then there's the actual US Open qualifying, which is itself a five day tournament for only 128 men and 128 women.

And behind that immediate qualifying is a whole hierarchy of qualifying events to qualify for the actual USTA qualifying. Entry to those lower levels is granted by rankings, not to anyone with cash.

Even 13 years ago, $125 would have bought you a seat to watch, and maybe lunch.:cool

You can't even simply buy an entry into a USTA amateur national event. That's a pipe dream...
 
pltrgyst said:
Not true. In the first place, you must be a paid USTA member. Then there's the actual US Open qualifying, which is itself a five day tournament for only 128 men and 128 women.

And behind that immediate qualifying is a whole hierarchy of qualifying events to qualify for the actual USTA qualifying. Entry to those lower levels is granted by rankings, not to anyone with cash.

Even 13 years ago, $125 would have bought you a seat to watch, and maybe lunch.:cool

You can't even simply buy an entry into a USTA amateur national event. That's a pipe dream...
Click to expand...
I see...

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...
 
Last edited:
Doug Polk addressed something similar a while back with (IMO) a rather egregious example:


Basically, it puts players at a major disadvantage when two players at the same table have a financial interest in one another. I don't necessarily have an issue with playing against those whose own money is not at risk... it's not much different than someone who plays a rebuy tournament recklessly only to re-enter a dozen times.

But if it gets to a point where there's outright collusion similar to what we've seen with the numerous scandals that have plagued online poker, then it'll need to be addressed. The most likely solution is disclosure - where a player's financial support is public knowledge.
 
Moxie Mike said:
Doug Polk addressed something similar a while back with (IMO) a rather egregious example:


Basically, it puts players at a major disadvantage when two players at the same table have a financial interest in one another. I don't necessarily have an issue with playing against those whose own money is not at risk... it's not much different than someone who plays a rebuy tournament recklessly only to re-enter a dozen times.

But if it gets to a point where there's outright collusion similar to what we've seen with the numerous scandals that have plagued online poker, then it'll need to be addressed. The most likely solution is disclosure - where a player's financial support is public knowledge.
Click to expand...

Cool video, thanks for posting.

Man this absolutely nails it Moxie. If everyone is getting backed, there needs to be full disclosure about where the backing is coming from. Or probably a better way to control it is to say no backing of other players that are playing in the same tournament as you are. Failing to comply can result in forfeiture of your earnings etc. I like this idea better vs disclosure due to the ability to enforce it.

Without it, I could see how playing in the same tournament as a player you've staked could open up in collusion and jeopardize the integrity of the game. I would be surprised if the WSOP isnt already all over this in their rules & regs.
 
Last edited:
It is virtually impossible to enforce anything around backing. That’s the problem. These deals and swaps happen informally. If the practice bothers you, the only option is not to play.
 
mummel said:
Man this absolutely nails it Moxie. If everyone is getting backed, there needs to be full disclosure about where the backing is coming from. Or probably a better way to control it is to say no backing of other players that are playing in the same tournament as you are. Failing to comply can result in forfeiture of your earnings etc. I like this idea better vs disclosure due to the ability to enforce it.
Click to expand...

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.

mummel said:
I would be surprised if the WSOP isnt already all over this in their rules & regs.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

tkeavz
What's your favorite place to watch poker?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
timewolf
T
Legend5555
RF Poker & Game Theory Social in GA
Replies
9
Views
561
Legend5555
Legend5555
horseshoez
  • Locked
Found Emergency Labels
Replies
19
Views
605
horseshoez
horseshoez
ykanti
New member from the central coast of California
Replies
11
Views
321
cpiaaq
cpiaaq
Z
Hello from San Antonio!
Replies
12
Views
334
Just1Better
Just1Better
Back
Top Bottom