You can look at this as trading. Anyway, I was reading a book where backing poker players was mentioned the backer taking 75%. I thought that was a bit too much so I looked it up: https://www.pokernews.com/news/2012...s-insight-into-the-world-of-staking-13579.htm "What is a standard backing deal? A standard backing deal is fifty-fifty with make-up. Editor's Note: What Mercier's talking about here is your common backing deal. Generally, the backer fronts all money for tournament buy-ins and takes a 50 percent cut of the winnings. The other 50 percent goes to the player. A player is often going to lose more times than he wins, which is why make-up is in place. This can be best explained through an example. Let's say Mercier is backing a player in five $10,000 buy-in events. That player busts all four before cashing and is in the red $40,000. In the fifth event, the player cashes for $100,000. First, the player must clear his make-up, which is $50,000. That leaves $50,000, which the player and the backer will then split fifty-fifty. Mercier and his horse would each get $25,000." Now in this backing deal one player is backing other players, which should be against the rules because of possible collusion, but that is for another discussion. So we can look at TST's and OneUp's deals in this new light, where a backer takes 50+ % of the worker's profits. But they also take possible decent losses and entry fees... More explanation of staking a "horse": https://www.upswingpoker.com/staking-truth-stake-makeup/
Thanks for the link ... I've played enough poker (only online, in my case, and a few years ago) to find the whole subject interesting. You'd want to choose your players pretty carefully, for backing them, wouldn't you? Is it excessively cynical of me to have the instinctive reaction "If you're such a safe investment, as a poker player, why do you need backing in the first place: why not play in smaller games and work your way up steadily?" I suspect the analogy here, between futures trading and poker (or - if you like - between firms like TST and poker backers like the guy interviewed in the article) is that with poker there are big games, small games and in-between games: there isn't an equivalent of the effective "minimum stake requirement" for trading futures. For futures trading, regardless of your skills, you really do need some minimum capital of your own, which for people in countries such as Ukraine (I choose this example only because TST funds several people there) is extremely hard to amass. The same isn't true of poker games, where people can literally start with an amount as small as $200, play in very low stake games (or $5/$10 STT's and coolers, as I used to) and work their way up. So this is a significantly different "market", in that sense, I think? My own experience of building my way up through $5/$10 STT/cooler poker games was ultimately unsuccessful - I was steadily and repeatedly profitable in those games, after reading "all the books", but however many times I worked my way up enough to play in $20/$25 games, I was never profitable in those, against different oppontents. I lacked the skills (and ultimately, to be honest, the interest) to survive at a higher level.
I don't understand the whole concept of playing poker online. Sitting across the table and looking someone in their eyes or reading their tells is what makes the game a game of skill and not chance correct? I would think playing online is essentially a completely different game. More luck than skill.
I don't know: I've only ever played online. There's certainly enough skill in it for people to make a living from it, by playing very "scientifically"/"mathematically", typically playing many tables simultaneously and "grinding away", only staying for the flop when they have really premium starting-cards. It must be as boring as hell, granted, but there are people making a living from it. I've only played a few hundred hours, altogether, but I've seen enough to tell that there's certainly plenty of skill in it, anyway.
10,000 to make 100,000 payout is a small field and the backer should take less money depending on the player level. 10,000 to make 7 million in a 5000 player field is another animal. peace.
Online there are also tells and you can play across many tables and the deal is quicker,,,so you are playing way more hands. Avg human dealer is dealing 25-30 hands an hour and there is no timer ( for the most part) online you are dealt 35-40 per hour and there is a timer.
Bigger games tend to be cheaper in terms of costs eg the rake and they also attract whales, those participants whose motivation is not profit seeking but entertainment. Parallels with the markets imho.
I've played both online and now live for years as a scratch player 1/2 and 2/5 NL. Live games you tend to tip the dealer which also cuts into your earnings....I'm one to not be bale to sit there and not tip the dealer, in 1/2 2/5 that can cut hard, but in higher games not so much as Visaria pointed out above.
I believe Antonio Esfandiari was backed to enter Guy Lalibetrte's $1M entry fee poker tournament in 2012 and he ended up winning almost $21M.