They'd have to be SO well researched to make this feasible.

They are missing the forest... by focusing on trees.

The real beauty of having a cohort of 100 players...
Is that you can ELIMINATE variance if you POOL the profits.

Forget about the Elite Players that do > 5BB/100...
3BB/100 players are actually quite common...
But they get crippled by variance.

You sign up 100s of 3BB/100 players
Only grinders... no gamblers or degens...
And you POOL the profits...
And send each player a monthly check.

Surveillance has to be very creative...
And you have to moniter hand histories...
To make sure a player is performing adjusted for luck.

You have a FIXED number of slots...
And a waiting list...
So this puts pressure on a player to perform...
And play it straight...
Or be fired and replaced.

The "hedge fund" would take 1 bb/100 or about 33%... and the player would be GUARENTEED 2 BB/100 each month or 66%... so goodbye variance.

For example at $1-2 NLHE... a player would be required to 4-table for 5 hours 5 days/week ... that's 40,000 hands/week... which on average should net 800 BB/week for player and 400 BB/week for "hedge fund"... and the player would be GUARENTEED a check of $1,600/week... while "hedge fund" gets $800/week. Not accounting for rakeback.

You're basically turning human grinders into Bots... so 100 grinders would play 4,000,000 hands/week...and net the "hedge fund" $80,000/week... or about $4,000,000/year less all costs.

In terms of liquidity... there are 5,000,000 hands/week of $1-2 and $2-4 just on PP... so probably 50 million quality hands/week total... so liquidity is there for 100-200 grinders.

This could work and is quite interesting... but would be very complex... and would require a MAJOR investment in software systems. You would need to invest 7 figures to get this running... and it would take some number crunching to determine a potential ROI for the "hedge fund" AFTER substantial administrative costs.

This would work best in a 3rd world country... like India or Russia... but poker sites could simply ban anyone affiliated the "hedge fund"... for any random reason.

Paying an hourly wage, which this plan is equivalent to, is about the only way a staking plan can work. You are going to have some cheating (eg large winners through luck dumping "excess" profit, player about to quit dumping, etc) but perhaps a small enough percentage to not have too much of an affect on overall profit.

On your last point look to what happened at Betfair to consistent winners - a 20% "Premium charge" on winnings was recently introduced primarially to compensate for withdrawing money from the betting pool instead of being available for churning. Perhaps poker rooms will soon start charging consistent winners in addition to the rake for having access to the fish.

I generally agree but I don't think poker is high variance from a hedge funds perspective when one considers hand volume and time horizon. If you're a MSNL grinder and you're good and you play 100k+ hands a month, you might lose 1 month in 50.

Taking 100% of losses and 50% of wins with no other form of compensation is a horrible incentive structure and a really ****ty deal for the players (assuming they don't suck)

Might want to check that math ... 4-table * 5 hours * 5 days/week * 100 hands/hr per table (pretty generous) = 10,000 hands/week which is optimistic. 40k hands/week playing 25 hours/week would require something more like 16 tabling.

i think they could easily find 150 players willing to make guaranteed money and play poker essentially 'stress-free'. i doubt they'd stake people for nosebleed games either to 'take shots at guy', that just doesn't make any sense. its probably good to get 2/4-5/10 players and get them into 10-20+ games. i can see a big incentive for players too, you get a bunch of experience at bigger, tougher games devoid of risk. then you can quit and play on your one once you adjusted. seems like a reasonable idea.

all things being equal, you would be a fool to not get backed for 200nl given those two options

oh, this is going to end well.

this would also be a good way for players to get their foot in the door with the investing world....in case you ever want to, ya know, do something other than play online poker for the rest of your life. i dunno how big of a firm or how legit they are, but in theory i can see this working.


their website looks pretty ghetto lol

this is v interesting whether that's is going to really working or not.

Better idea: Run-bad insurance... covers sets, suck outs and flopped straights.

How much would you pay for that?

wtf

I checked their site, as far as possible with the crappy layout, and basically came up with this:

They give you 50% of your winnings and eat all the loss. They pay you at the end of each month, but not the full 50% - depending on the level you play, you get part of your winnings at the end of the year. Additionally, any amount you 'owe' to them will be subtracted from what you can cash out. This leads to the conclusion that they base the 50% figure off of your winnings from day 1, not each month separately.

What this means for you is that once you are in the black, you are essentially playing for your own money. If you win 10k one month and lose 5 the next, they only pay you 2500. This does not reduce the variance for you at all. They give you a starting roll, but once you're winning, you will suffer the exact same swings you would otherwise. If you lose too much, they force you to drop down, just like you would if you played for yourself.

The negative is of course that you play twice the stakes, which means your overall winrate should be lower. The only 'no risk' factor in this is that you won't have to put up a starting roll - but once you're winning there's essentially no difference from playing your own money. The other benefit might be that they let you play more than twice the stakes you otherwise would, and accelerate your moving up. This only counts for so much though, because they would want evidence that you're good enough, which means you have to win a significant amount at lower stakes, at which point you'd more than likely be rolled anyway. For this to be worth it to someone that's already a pro, the criteria would have to be so low that he could freeroll them and hope he goes on a short heater. Any measures on their part to prevent this, ie. requiring more proof of success, make it so that the pro might as well play for himself.

Any staking agreement has to cover a limited timespan, or it isn't worth it to the stakee. If you intend to play for them years on end, which they seem to suggest by having annual rewards etc, you're probably better off getting a crap job to grind up a small roll, and then have twice the 'rewards' for yourself after that.

The 50% of winnings in return for no variance thing is a different animal. If, as has been suggested, they guaranteed me part of my winrate on a per hand basis, or at least reset the counter more often, allowing me to not have to eat the big downswings, I would consider this. As it is, it's a ******ed proposition for anyone that's good enough to win in the first place.

EDIT you can artificially do this if you only do this once, and simply quit after X hands, or once you're 'in debt' to them enough that you're playing for no profit at first. But either of those makes it a one-time freeroll opportunity at best, not a feasible long-term solution if you want less variance.

EDIT2 yet another reason why this is a bad idea: even IF they somehow can determine that you're good enough and move you up artificially fast, eventually you'll hit the highest stakes where it's worth it to play. So even if they put you there before you could reach it on your own, you're trading perhaps a few months' worth of climbing the ladder quicker vs. only half the profits, EVER. Would you rather make 100 an hour tomorrow, until eternity, or start at 10, but work your way up to 200 over the span of a few months - both involving the same swings?

?? explain...

given 200nl should is harder than 100nl then why play it with half your action. Makes more sense to play an easier level with the same monetary reward/risk

i joined badbeat a year ago because i was a broke student who had no money to play with. Its allowed me to go from $0.10/$0.25 to $2/$4 which i couldnt have done playing on my own. It works out well for me because i get my bankroll managed for me (i'm a bankroll ******) and i just get to spend the money i win rather than having to build up a roll which i'd lose playing $50/100 whilst drunk

sophisticated bots playing limit poker backed by poker hedge funds = the future

that's why I said all things being equal. same ptbb/100 will yield same results, but in reality you should be able to beat 100nl for more. I still think the safety net that being backed offers is better for most players. I have countless friends who crush on stakes, but do nothing but lose on their own money.

More indepth article here

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd08df46-8...0779fd18c.html

Dale,
That's how lots of staking works. It's beneficial to the stakee entirely because they don't have to put up the starting roll.


God, it's so unlikely they're actually backing winning players.

This is really an interesting idea, but the first thing that would have to happen is a very reliable EV calculator.

I agree with this from personal experience. I'm fine with 2/4-5/10. I had a pretty good run and I took a shot at 10/20 and 25/50 and I just wasn't comfortable risking that much of my own money and went back too nl400 and 600

just felt compelled to reply to this for some reason. personally i respect other ppl's money more than i respect my own since i have no one to answer to when it's my own. this is just one of the reasons i dont mind playing on a stake. make sense?

being too nitty can be a bad thing IMO.

Some play way better staked.

IT says in the article that if a plr wins over 100k a year they get 70% of their winnings, this is fair. I've been meaning to sign up with them recently but talked myself out of it and ended up blowing my roll not long after on more than one occasion. They back Ben Grundy who plays 50-100 and sometimes 200-400 plo check out his blog 'Milkybarkids poker blog' july 4th 2008.