Monday, July 30, 2007
Back Me Or Sack Me
I posted a response on 2+2 to Bryan Devonshire's article about backing. Unfortunately I suck at starting threads on 2+2 and don't seem to have the knack of generating a lot of responses, but we'll see if any discussion kicks off. Probably the one line that kicked me into posting was where he says that backing a good player is "free money", which I thought was irresponsible. You're sharing the risk (and sharing the rewards), you're not making it disappear.
Outside of what I said in the response, there seems to be a common view that backing/sponsorship is something to be sought after, a higher state than playing off your own money. I take the opposite view, that having to be backed is a fallback position if you can't manage on your own.
I suppose in the end it's like the Shaw quote ; everyone knows what we are, and we're just negotiating. If someone said they'd put me in every tournament and I could write off all losses at any time and just pay back the buyins when I was ahead, of course I'd take it. If someone offered me a full makeup deal where I get 20% if I'm winning and my legs broken if I lose and try to quit, then I wouldn't. In between, it depends what your personal price is. Even so, I can't see anything better than being properly bankrolled to play any event I want to, and keeping all the profit. I can live without playing the EPT this year because it's out of bankroll. No big deal. If you can't live without being seen at the big events, then you have a problem.
I still think I have a different attitude to most people though. When Skalie posted on the Mob Forum post-WSOP he said something that I thought was odd. Something along the lines of "maybe now I can get that sponsorship deal that we all dream of". I'd be the other way round. I'd be like "phew, now I can play on my own money and not have to answer to anyone". Depends what you want I suppose.
Outside of what I said in the response, there seems to be a common view that backing/sponsorship is something to be sought after, a higher state than playing off your own money. I take the opposite view, that having to be backed is a fallback position if you can't manage on your own.
I suppose in the end it's like the Shaw quote ; everyone knows what we are, and we're just negotiating. If someone said they'd put me in every tournament and I could write off all losses at any time and just pay back the buyins when I was ahead, of course I'd take it. If someone offered me a full makeup deal where I get 20% if I'm winning and my legs broken if I lose and try to quit, then I wouldn't. In between, it depends what your personal price is. Even so, I can't see anything better than being properly bankrolled to play any event I want to, and keeping all the profit. I can live without playing the EPT this year because it's out of bankroll. No big deal. If you can't live without being seen at the big events, then you have a problem.
I still think I have a different attitude to most people though. When Skalie posted on the Mob Forum post-WSOP he said something that I thought was odd. Something along the lines of "maybe now I can get that sponsorship deal that we all dream of". I'd be the other way round. I'd be like "phew, now I can play on my own money and not have to answer to anyone". Depends what you want I suppose.
