agree to disagree

cmonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

cmonnn swish?.. u really disagree?..

In terms of the amount you profit and loosing (not identifying cuts/%'s etc) it's all the same in the end. But the true reality is totally different..

If we are backed, we are down 40K.. We need to win 40K before we can start to get some money into our hands again?

Now we aren't backed. We start with 100K and are now down to 60K. we are down 40k but the big difference is that when we have bills to pay or other obligations to fulfill, if we win 20k today we can take 10k from that and pay of everything we need. Yes we are still down 20K in the end but we have the freedom to directly use the profit and game-select according to our roll to avoid going broke. We always have hands on money when we win that given day. Either reinvesting it into your bankroll or not.

Also if we are down from 100 to 60K. Our new day starts with 60K and from there we build. If we are backed and in 40K of makeup, our day always starts @ - 40k.

People who argue it's the absolute same are just too stubborn to admit otherwise (or to dumb?).. There is a huge difference. Not only the way you can invest and use the money but also in the psychological effect.

I also agree with Lipo. Being (somewhat) deep in makeup isn't an excuse to get less motivated. It's probably harder to motivate yourself, knowing you are not capable of winning anything in your own pocket that day (let's say your - 50K and you play a regular weekday. It's possible but very rare to clear this).
It should be an excuse to be extra motivated, work harder and improve your game. You choose to be backed and being in makeup is one of the things that will happen every single day you are grinding and not winning.

Being backed it would be wise to not need to win that exact day (also with your own bankroll. but your own bankroll leaves you more space to be flexible). Make sure you have at least three months of living costs on the side and work harder if you don't...

Game selecting is also very important in both scenarios..
You have enough money? Look up variance, play higher stakes, learn, improve etc.
You need direct money, play lower variance games and avoid playing those games (SuperTuesday, 200t, 320 6m etc).

Happy new year everyone!

I believe your example is flawed bc...

Player A has 100k and is not backed, he goes on a 40k downswing, then yes he still has 60k he can do as he pleases with but

Player B has 100k and is backed, he goes on a 40k downswing, then he still has 100k to do as he pleases.

My brain tells me that being backed would be easier mentally during downswings but everyone is wired different and this doesnt make me right. As a disclaimer I've never been backed so I've never been in MU but logically this is how I see it

Why would player B have 100K and play backed?.. this is obviously not the case with the majority (95%+) of the people and that's why your argument is flawed...

This is also why i gave the advice:


The majority of players being backed is not because they don't like variance.
It's because they need to spend there profit in other ways then reinvesting it into a (bigger) bankroll.

I'm backed and I could have been playing without backer already but instead I invested my profits into a house (so no monthly (rental) fee.), business outside of poker and other things.

Well obviously it's better to a have a big roll and not be backed than broke and in MU and backed. You brought up someone starting with 100k so I just assumed that if you are going to argue that being down in MU is mentally worse than being down your own money than the player in question would have all the same variables, bankroll being one of them.

Do people realise that what they're saying is essentially that being backed is more mentally stressful than not being backed?

Christ.

People being backed in general don't have money.. They might have 5 or 10k to there name but it won't often be a lot more (They might have a house, car, good lifestyle etc. But that's mostly not the case)..

My argument (and the reality) didn't state that both players started with 100K.. The backer has a certain roll and the horse (hero in the story) is down 40K in makeup..

The player one his own roll starts with 100K roll and looses 40K. he's still got 60k.

We can manipulate/frame the scenario's where we can prove the other wrong but I think the best way to look at it, is what the majority of the people do/are doing.

Most people playing backed, play backed because they don't have the money to play on there own. The money they earn goes directly into spending and that's why they will remain backed until they have a very big score/upswing.

So yes, in that scenario (again, most common among online players). Playing backed will become a lot more stressful.
Being in makeup for too long will result in being very tight in your spending budget and when you have fixed costs like rent, phone bill, internet, daily living costs, health insurance etc. The pressure becomes very high.

How many people will you find being backed but have a 100K bankroll to there name but not use it and instead play backed that are playing the exact same schedule as the guy with a 100K bankroll himself playing on his own dime..

GL finding one.. This is why this example is far from realistic.

Obviously when you phrase is this way, being on a 40K downswing becomes a lot less mentally draining being backed then being on your own money. But when having the pressure of needing to pay bills, living costs etc it doesn't even come close to the same amount of pressure/stress that comes with it.

So the issue isn't that being backed is psychologically different, it's that the people who get backed don't manage their money well and as a result of their fiscal irresponsibility they become stressed out.

Yes, you are spot on with that.

all these arguments are just assumptions about how backed players feel. its nonsense. maybe i think this is such nonsense bc i have 100k+ and am backed? there is no way being backed and in 100k makeup is more stressful than losing 100k and being broke and possibly looking elsewhere for work.

rh300487 and cborders are spot on.

Doesn't sound like very smart bankroll management.

Currently backed for all my high stakes action using a method that doesn't have make up. Not sure if I like this or your standard deal with MU better I havnt been doing it long enough to say. I will say that if I was flat broke I would way prefer this method because you are more likely to have cash on hand for living expenses

What other kind of deals are there? Care to discuss the details of it? Stakeback per session with a small cut?

I believe his makeup free staking is this but its for cash not mtts

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...aking-1249403/

(i dont know the guy but he posted there so I could be completely wrong here)

Yeah, you can get shortterm mtt backing deals where you get lower %. Like 1000 games, after that you get 35% of profit and if youre in MU its erased

Yes this, the numbers are off but the concept is correct. The most well known backing group that uses this system is run by Imawhale, maybe he would like to elaborate.

im about to come off of my first losing year of poker since 2006. Ive won meaningfull money every year since 2008 when i started grinding small/midstakes mtt's more seriously. I slowly moved up the stakes unbacked using good br management/ game selection and won significantly more every year. Anyway, after a HUGE year in 2011, live and online, ive been losing for all of 2012 right from the start.

My first big swing built up to about 23k at a $55-$60 abi only playing on stars, i started playing/ winning on party and ran better on stars for a while which left me down only 3k for the year. Im still losing for the last few months, in nov i was 4k away from being even, now im prob 15k away.


I think most of it is due to only playing on stars for half of the year grinding all big field turbos <$109 and big field reg speeds <$320. My average field size on stars for 2012 is 3000 and i only played 2400 mtt's, i think its safe to say that variance played a big role in my swong, one other factor might have been me coming into 2012 overconfident and less hungry to grind/win after winning life changing money in 2011.

12k downswing was worst when i was off my own dime and had the BRM of a man who had weeks left to live lol. alot less of that now and what was said about game selection and playing some smaller sites i think to help reduce variance a bit is also solid advice

or be rh34007 and just ship every mtt u play obv

Interesting discussion for sure. I have to disagree with the general trend though, but it may be a derivative of circumstances idk.

I don't think I would have been nearly as motivated to grind and work as hard on my game as I did last year had I not been backed. I have a great relationship with my backers and consider them to be very good friends. I'm not saying other people aren't in the same situation, but for me, this is a huge motivating factor that I want to get their money back for them.

At times it has even been a slight problem that I feel so guilty for having lost so much last year and being in MU for so long when they have shown faith in me throughout all of it, yet I am still unable to repay that faith. If there is a downside, that is it.

I can honestly say that I don't think there would be realistic circumstances that would have made me more motivated to grind and work ridiculously hard on my game than the circumstances that have arisen over the past 12 months. Sure, I would like to make some money for myself, but I rarely think about that. It's all about clearing the MU for me, I know what lies beyond that, but it's not my main motivating factor. As weird as that all is to think about...

I take absolutely no pride fwiw.

I can kinda understand where you're coming from, but I had a >1000BI downswing last year and pretty sure you can ask anyone who knows me and they will assure you this could not be further from the truth.

As hard as it is to swallow this has to be true. I like realism, and for the majority of last year 'working on my game' has been my key priority. Nonetheless, the chance of having a >1000BI downswing should be miniscule as an outlier.

I remember having a moment around mid-2012 when I realised I must just suck. Those around me tell me that's not true, but living in reality we should all know that that type of swing is inconceivable and most certainly not limited to variance. The problem that comes with that realisation is the hit to confidence, the realisation is hard to swallow.


End Rant Just a couple of posts that stood out to me, and as one of those people who have actually had an abnormally large downswing, thought I'd spew some thoughts out...

One last thought...

Serious question; at what point in time does someone become a losing player? Even if they're deemed to play a 'winning style', there must come a point where the results override these subjective opinions right?

Would anyone take a guess at a sample or games? Number of lost buyins?

I guess it can be hard because people's skill sets change and the nature of the games change over time so maybe it is hard. Just curious if anyone has strong opinions though...

A losing player is someone who has lost money at poker. A winning player is someone who has made money from poker over a significant sample.

They aren't mutually exclusive though. It's not like "if you haven't made money over a significant sample then you must be a losing player". You could well have made money in this time but still be a losing player.

You can't put a number of games on it really though since it's the type of games one plays that defines how large the variance they encounter, and therefore what is a meaningful sample.