This is exactly my point. Many people are relying on it for their income so if all they're doing is covering living expenses each month so their net roll is static then they're making no progress.

Obv depends alot on someone's circumstances, e.g. 23 year old living with parents in a relatively poor country can more easily move up than a 32 year old renting their own apartment in a wealthier country.

But the job market is tougher than ever, regular wages have stagnated, and poker rake has risen, so I believe many players are facing some of these issues.

For someone in that situation though the only real advice you can give is to spend your time looking for a job and/or take some courses to get a skill. You'd be insane to waste your time trying to put together a syndicate of marginally profitable burnouts.

And how is it even possible for someone to just cover their costs and not have the ability to add to their bankroll? You can always play more hours. For them to be limited in that respect they'd need to already be playing 60-80 hours a week while making less than the minimum wage.

14buy -ins?? we gonna let someone spew that much?

They are only marginally profitable due to playing such low stakes with such high rake. By being in a syndicate they can make a similar amount for far less work, so get a regular job as well if they wish, or could grind their fully owned separate micro roll into a small roll to grind and grow their total income that way.

Why have crops planted in just one field when you could have them planted in multiple fields?

Members move up commensurate with their playing skill level/results. Variance is still real though. Perhaps 14 is too high, could be 8.

14 buyins ? aint that std session, where the hell do i sign up?!?!?!?

OP can team up with this guy who presented (and did not follow through) on his magical ideas in a similar manner.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...ht=baller+fund

As already stated I've at no stage said that I am setting up or want to set up a playing syndicate myself, it is just an idea for low stakes players to consider doing, or some kind of variation of it.

In fact if I was going to, the last thing I would do is declare the business plan on a public forum so that someone else could do it before me and be immediate competition to me.

I'm not going to read that big thread from 7 years ago, but there are successful poker stables and player collaboratives.

Give it a shot. There's no shortage of broke micro grinders.

I hear there's a newfangled betting system called the martingale that works 99% of the time. Maybe you guys can integrate that into your game plan too.

There are people who talk strategy, and there're people who get backed. You're mixing the two when there's no benefit in doing so and a long list of drawbacks and risks.

A negative, pessimistic mindset is unhealthy and achieves nothing.

There are lots of broke or struggling or break even to only small winner poker players because it's a worse than zero sum game so not only obviously do there have to be lots of losing players for the money supply of the winners but they are losing the money supply plus rake.

With rake and juice now increasing and skill edge differences ever reducing, it is tougher still, so any ideas, mine or other people's that could help hardworking skillful players not grind themselves into the dirt, should be encouraged.

.

Sorry, my screen froze, causing what was a duplicate post, which I've now replaced with the single dot above.

I doubt anyone ever thought otherwise.


Yes, it is an idea. A bad idea. A very bad idea.

and that is also obvious, and it is why your "hey, look at how clever this is" idea can not really be taken that seriously. If you actually had any faith in it you would try to follow up on it (at least the Baller guy tried that to his credit before reality hit).


I have run a successful stable for about a decade now. That business has nothing to do with your idea, as your idea would be very awkward to implement fairly, and would pretty much fail 100% of the time.

Still, there are a lot of people who post staking threads here and elsewhere (we used to, though honestly it was not very useful for obtaining quality players) - send them PMs with your idea and see if any established stable wants to pay you as a consultant to help them better understand and implement your idea, at no cost or risk to yourself. That will go nowhere in the end, but at least it will show you put some effort behind an idea of yours.

Simplistic statements like this are just used to try to validate your weak idea. Sometimes an idea just stinks, nothing more - and being optimistic about it is actually not productive. Still, I suggested a way for you to pursue it at no cost to yourself, other than a little bit of time, so do that and put all the naysayers to shame. Actions speak louder than words.

If all else fails, consider going with the single dot as an idea - it has a bit more promise.

All the best.

It's not a weak idea. People have raised two areas of concern, can current smallish winning 50NL players eventually move up towards and win at 500NL/1KNL. Yes it's a challenge but I've covered this in my answers.

And potential player dishonesty. Again, I've covered this but only revealed a small part of how I know this can be mitigated.

Now that you've declared that you run a stable, my read is that the motive for your vitriol is that players adopting my idea would reduce the number of players you can slave drive taking a big chunk of their profits.

Yeah, it is a very, very weak idea. It is also not "news."

Then do it or find someone who will do this since you have everything covered.


Your agenda and bias are more clear now, but your idea still stinks. However, use your last post and assume I am saying it stinks because it is actually world changing and revolutionary and will change the entire backing industry as it is known. Your next step is to pursue your idea. Go for it.

All the best.

The backing industry is very "Wild West" so you singing its virtues isn't a good way of you debating your viewpoint.

I don't have an agenda, but it's a fact that traditional stables take big chunks of profits in exchange for backing and coaching.

A system similar to the one I've suggested is FREE on both counts.

The personality you display in the tone of your replies to me also supports something I mentioned earlier ITT, that with a syndicate it's likely to be a much more enjoyable experience for the player because there is no boss and horse hierarchy.

With all due respect, you do not really know what you are talking about, but obviously that does not you from talking about topics. Quick search shows you have started other trainwreck threads of this kind with "ideas" like the following (most of which were locked):


https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...78/?highlight=

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...rchid=58211711

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...40/?highlight=

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...25/?highlight=

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...64/?highlight=

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...58/?highlight=


etc.

Wish I did that search before, as I would have had a better idea of what I was dealing with ( I do not go to NVG a ton).

This latest idea still stinks, but you will move onto your next inspiration soon enough, and post it as news (which it is not). At least this thread has not been locked yet, which is rare for you, so congrats on that achievement.

All the best.

The, you can't debate logically, so you search other threads, tactic.

A REG player in the thread supported my points. I made many valid points and was about to post about many things REG are doing wrong/could improve, but a spiteful mod (he later admitted this) shut me down.

My thread about a player funded new web site resulted in a new poker company approaching me and offering me a senior position.

I'll happily debate anything else with you, but unlike you I won't ever display a condescending or aggressive attitude in debate.

Sadly, SageDonkey is the reason I don't read NVG/2p2 anymore. Could also explain the increasingly declining numbers of 2p2 both users and quality of posts.

Players pooling their money to play higher stakes. What a novel idea. This has never, ever happened in the history of poker, and definitely doesn't happen every single day in every card room and on every poker client.

Here is some logic for you in nice simple terms:

- I have a lot of experience in this industry, you have basically none.

- Your idea is not that new in concept, as people have been trying variants of it for years. Sick house in Thailand etc. People working together (both properly and improperly) has been done in all variants for years. The only thing you are really adding is the silly belief that a handful of low level players should just pool money to play high stakes, which as I said if you think is practical then do it.

- You post a ton of bad idea posts with a label as news, so that shows you have a very distinct weird need that gets fulfilled when you post these things.

- You said if you ever had a good idea you would not post it for fear others would copy it. That leaves ideas like this that you do post.

- The only real support your posts tend to get is from you, and as I said if I searched earlier to see that trainwreck threads as news are a hobby of yours I just would have chuckled at this bad idea of yours (if I read it ) and moved on. That was my mistake not spending a bit of time researching you to see that, but I will not make that mistake again, and seem like others already learned that.

You can debate that all you like, if you like. Your idea in this thread is still a non starter, which even you say will never happen. Praise your flawless logic a last time or whatever as you need - I grant you the final word, and then I wish you best of luck in your next LOLbad news thread which I will certainly not read.

All the best.

I very likely have a lot more experience than you do in, shall I call it, proper financial industries having been a professional financial markets traded options market maker and trader. Poker backing/staking/financing is a very low level, simplistic version of this in terms of its mathematics and everything else.

The most likely reason why these grind houses you speak of often failed, and I believe many poker stables have failed, is that they are badly designed and run.

I don't claim my design is perfect but I do believe the overall concept is valid and has legs.

Not sure if SageDonkey is trolling or just stupid/doesn't understand that games get harder as you play bigger.

I'm actually not sure. This is weird.

I think he's a genuinely dim bulb.

What year is this? Did I time travel?

Hey everyone's views are cool with me. Btw I am aware that skill edges tend to shrink the higher up the games go and have covered this ITT.

Maybe I should complete a poker project, specifically one that I know ~90% of people in poker will think is stupid, impossible to do and will fail, then post a "Hi everyone I have this ............... idea" thread, let people rubbish the idea for a few weeks and then post images and results of the completed project at the end of the thread. That would be fun.

Of course you should, this would be infinitely better than what you are currently doing, just posting **** ideas on here that you are never going to action.

You won't though.

This is gold. A very good idea to consider in lieu of all your future posts as well