This is very accurate

i still dont get it. when you're backed you can still use all your money in your bank account for bills at any time. your day doesnt start at -40k bc hopefully you're not a broke muppet that needs a 60k month to pay bills. your day starts at however much you have in your bank account plain and simple. i guess im the only person in the world that isnt broke and is backed?

ricky is brokebacked tho. lets hit a buffet!

i think in other words, what people are saying is if you are unbacked and lose 40k, you can withdraw a certain amount to cover future expenses, drop down in stakes, and start grinding it back up. while backed, you have the money in your bank account, and unless you have a special deal with a backer, no way to withdraw to cover living. that brings on stress, maybe a lack of confidence, etc.

That's great but when you're backed you don't have to put any money online so you always have money available to put toward bills.

Let's bareback the China buffet

You play poker?

think my IQ just dropped like 20 points from reading this page, christ some of you are ****ing stupid.

Tophand2nite returns to the ring soon

then your new day starts at -20 points and from there you build

gained an IQ point today. PROFIT

So you'd rather have 60k in the bank and no obligations/makeup vs. 100k in the bank and be -40k in makeup? Just making sure this is what you're saying.

I guess mo' money, mo' problems.

Clap clap clap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xKm_wRwjmw

I think you are one of the few (% wise) guys with 100K aside and playing backed. Again, I'm not talking about how it should be done, I'm talking about how it's done by the majority of the players and that makes it a lot more heavy and mentally they would be better of having there own bankroll.

However, they wont be able to manage them well most often. Since they can't even manage a life roll well.

Seems like a ****** post that is totally putted out of context.
I am, and always have been writing about the reality (i.e. what the majority of the scene is doing). Not about how it should be done. If so, Sirswish wins in this topic as a backed player, having 100K life roll on the side.
But if you take all backed players, how many % would have that?

I think discussing things, we should look at it from the general rule/norm and not the exceptions. Even if the exceptions should be the rule in this case.

About your question. Personally, yeah. with normal (most common) 50/50 deal. I'm rather down to 60K then have 100K and be -40K in makeup.
Cause when we win again, we keep 100% and since we should be profitable enough in the games we select to play, we win more in the long run for this to have a way higher EV.

welp

should just get backed, and go to 40k MU, then win 40,000 exactly, and leave the backer and play on your own. all the run bad is out of the way and you can crush!

Err, I guess I misread some posts or something, what are we comparing here?

I was under the impression that people were arguing that going on a downswing is more stressful if you are backed vs. unbacked, all other factors equal.

If you're down from 100k to 60k you need to either drop down in stakes or sell action to bring your risk of ruin back to the level it was when you had 100k, otherwise your expectation drops. The backed player has the same risk of ruin whether he is 40k in makeup or 40k profit, provided his backer has the roll to take on the risk. If he gets too deep in makeup, he may get coached, get a deal to play lower stakes for a reduced makeup figure, get sold for a reduced figure, or dropped all together. In none of these situations does his expectation change for the worse unless he gets dropped or forced to play lower stakes, neither of which are that common under a good backing deal because savvy backers recognize the value of makeup.

I think you guys who believe being backed is more stressful than being on your own are huffing paint or something. I realize we all perceive things differently, but you're saying a proposition with 0 risk of ruin is more stressful than one with a nonzero RoR and that's absurd. Just because a lot of people think it's more stressful doesn't mean it really is. How many of the people complaining about the stresses of being backed can say with high confidence that they can beat the stakes they play with enough volume to make a living (not an existence) after chopping with their backer? For every one guy who walks the walk and talks the talk there's at least ten clowns who have no business being backed complaining about million buy-in downers because they took shots at wcoop, etc. when their abi is $20. Most of the people who are burning the furniture because they're in makeup and have no income probably shouldn't be playing poker for a living.

The majority of people don't get backed because they think it's a sound business decision that aligns with their personal financial goals - they get backed because they are broke and want to play poker or they are too impatient, lazy, and egotistical to play 180s for a couple of months and build a roll. These kinds of people categorically seek opportunities for fast cash, and when backers are willing to put horses in big series' with abi's 8-20 times the horse's usual with 1500-9000 entries, there's going to be a handful of huge winners and the rest are left to grind it out, dreaming of what might have been and anxiously awaiting the next big series so they can get their "one time". This creates askewness which leads people to believe being backed is somehow more stressful. Since the sample of backed players is overwhelmingly populated with people who have financial woes before they even get into the deal, it's not surprising at all that more of them are stressed, depressed, burned out on poker, etc. Combine this with the fact that so many backers are just as ignorant as their horses with regards to game selection/player management, and yeah, backing is stressful. When one person who can't find his ass with both hands goes into business with another with the same ailment, there's going to be a lot of headaches.

It seems like people are assuming backers are inflexible, etc. but that makeup is worth a lot to your backer and if you're getting to the point where you may not be able to continue playing they'll likely work with you if they are made aware of the issue. There's nothing that says the current deal can't be paused or adjusted temporarily to help the horse. But again, the people who get backed are generally not very smart about things, so they won't say anything to their backer about their financial woes until the last minute. Or worse, they'll say nothing and either go broke and force the backer into an awkward spot where he has to support the player or cut him and give up the equity. Or the player will just steal from the backer.

The player who is on his own with 100k, drops 40k, wins 2k one day and cashes it out for expenses is making a number of fundamental risk management errors, and the fact that there are people who really believe and practice that exact philosophy proves MTTs aren't dead.

I don't know how this is true.

While being backed you do feel pressure to win for your backer, as you are obligated to try your best to do so. When you lose your own money, you still are obligated to yourself to try your best to win it back, and instead of someone else having taken the financial hit, you have yourself.

Playing backed is immensely less stressful than owndiming. But I'm saying this as someone who wants an immense roll before going on my own, and have played backed my entire career.

Maybe playing backed is more stressful for certain players, I don't really see how though.

I think a lot of people let the social pressure of a backer/horse relationship stress them out and I think that's the hidden variable you guys are missing.

I have a healthy life roll but prefer to play backed. I get to keep some of my own action which helps but even if I had to choose to play 100% backed or 100% on my own I would choose to play backed. I have blown up bankrolls in the past and it is comforting to know that I don't have to gamble my own money to make an income and it would be difficult to lose it all without poker or gambling it elsewhere.

can you explain what you mean by this a little more?

I just mean sometimes it can be very emotionally draining gambling with someone else's money. I think that the natural reaction to that situation is feeling uncomfortable, indebted, apologetic and like you have let somebody down. Those are all negative emotions and it's takes time to train ourselves to transcend them, not many poker players have achieved this level of maturity. They still look at the business relationship in an emotional way on some level. Having one of your horses deal with negative emotions whenever they are losing means they will be less happy and productive "employees". This is why I think a expiring makeup backing system is beneficial for both horse and backer. I think it occurs on a spectrum too, and it depends on how close the backer and the horse are socially. It applies less in situations such as zimas in a big stable, and more when good friends back each other.

On my phone can't type more for now

There are plenty of pros and cons of playing backed vs own dime, that's purely situational. I don't think that has anything to do with the initial debate though.

rh fails and cborders wins. I understand that people might feel stress in mu for a variety of reasons, but unless they are life busto in the first place I see no way this can be more stressful than playing on your own. And if they're life busto and playing backed, they should have either a back up bank balance or another source of income. If they don't, well they prob deserve to be sweating bullets tbh.

Couldn't agree more with this. It's not what the core of the debate is here, but I definitely can relate to this.