Hi guys,

I've been an online player for many years but I'm a newbie to this forum (be gentle!).

I was thinking recently about sponsorship deals and just how lucrative they are for players. I've always considered them to be the Holy Grail of poker; since getting a deal with, say, Pokerstars, would mean paid entry into the most prestigious tournaments and effectively playing with no liability. Since you would be on a contract, I guess I've always thought that sponsored players didn't have to worry too much about results anymore- that they were paid to promote the poker site.

However, a friend of mine is friends with the player Kevin O'Leary (sorry to name drop!), and he tells me that Kevin lost his sponsorship deal recently (not entriley sure which site) due to his dissapointing results. I suppose I was just wondering what the line is in terms of how willing a sponsor is to stick with a player who's results are less than impressive; is it purely a matter of results or does how a high a player's profile is come into play? Difficult to imagine a player like Phil Helmuth, who is never out of the headlines, being dropped.

I have to admit to being pretty clueless to how sponsorship deals actually work so would be great to hear from someone who knows. It was always my dream job as you would effectively be "paid" to play poker (whilst promoting the site); however, if they still expect to see results, there would be a fair amount of pressure... would still be pretty cool though!

It's definitely an interesting concept but I guess it all depends on what type of following you have.

A guy like Staples is a known punter but has a legion of followers, who are most likely depositors, so the Stars gravy train keeps rolling for him.

In today's day and age it's not so much the fame you get from winning a tournament that may propel you into a sponsorship deal like it may have a decade ago. It's about how they can market you going forward when people forget you binked some tournament (with the exception of Moneymaker of course).

These days, it seems that having a lot of followers on social media (and Twitch) is more important than actually being a world-class player. There's nothing wrong with that, imo. It's just a marketing thing.

I very much doubt this. Pokerstars is probably paying a base salary for the live pros and rakeback to online pros, along with hotels and maybe appearance fees for live events. And I'm sure those numbers vary greatly between someone like Jaime Staples and DNegs.

If it wasn't for social media, Elky would've been dropped long ago.

The classic example to me is Joe Cada, who won the WSOP Main Event in 2009, won another $10k bracelet in 2014, and was kicked to the curb by PokerStars a few months later.

They sponsor only the players who can influence more recs to play to their site such as Kevin Hart and Bolt

Yup this. I have no idea who Kevin O'Leary is BTW, so maybe that's part of the reason he got dropped.

DNegs years ago explained his deal with Pokerstars and in comparison talked about the other type of deals people got. It was much less that what FTP was giving their friends at the time and mainly consisted of tournament buyins. If he didn't cash, he ended up with nothing. At the other end of the scale, there were people in tournaments that were handed cash to wear the logo because they were going to be on TV. There was no obligation beyond that day.

Even in the boom period, people weren't paid because they were good. They were paid because they had a strong social presence that attracted others. As Barry Greenstein pointed out, there was a reason Isabella "No Mercy" Mercier was on Pokerstars commercials instead of him.

That said, there are still prop positions around that will pay you to play. Most people don't last long in those positions because they pay does not make up for having to play in bad games and getting pulled out when the game actually gets good.

I wonder how much those pay. I'm sure it varies by tourney & TV outlets but I'm guessing that its probably in the region of $300-500 for a one-off patch deal like that? I'm guessing that it's low enough where I'd wear my own company logo (only mildly poker related) instead of taking the cash.

I caddied for a few years on the PGA...I had a flat salary from a sponsor and also got bonus money for every 30 secs of airtime where their logo was visible.

Haha, well maybe. Kev is a British player (given the nickname Lovejoy as he used to work in antiques) He's not one of the very top guys for sure, but he's had a fair bit of success in Vegas; he won a big tournament at Caesars Palace a while back. And according to wikipedia, his tournament winnings are in excess of $1000'000.




To be fair, 100% per cent rakeback seems a little unreasonable to me. Is it common for sites to grant that much to sponsored players?

The common deal for Full Tilt red pros was always said to be $35/hour plus 100% rakeback. I always had 100% rakeback with Stars, plus other compensation. Do not know what other team pro members got, but I would have thought at least 100% rakeback, plus whatever else.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

100% rakeback was what all the red pros on FTP got as a bare minimum, most got some extra money per hour.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me if somebody doesn't want to have to pay while representing the company.

Compensation for players to wear branded clothing at the WSOP feature table was up to $10k back in the day, but that's a very distant memory.

Yeah getting a young ME champion spokesman at zero cost is totally unreasonable.

pm 2fit2fold