I think they do it if they dont have a roll to support the buyins they want to play, correct me if im wrong.

most players get backed to be in action they couldn't comfortably be in if they weren't backed, pretty simple really...

I have even recently sold some of myself on the circuit to reduce variance...

I stake a number of players in small/middle stakes cash games. Although winning players are giving up a percentage of their earnings in a staking arrangement, in most cases my clients earned more in the backing arrangement than they would have made playing on their own. Some poker players need the stability of a backer or coach to prevent re-occuring leaks. It may not be such the case in tournaments, because tournament backing arrangements are typically 50/50 or 60/40 whereas my staking arrangment are much more in favor for the player. However, as others have already mentioned, expenses and the variance in tournaments are compensated for in staking arrangements.

yea... like i said, tournament players DON'T win as much as most people on here think they do. only a few do.

waco,

along with that...how much do you get to support some website on the circuit like a sticker or patch?

I think waco knows and hit it closer than most. I guy might be rolled to play $10 to 50ish buyin tourneys. He might also have the possible skillz to play $50+rebuy to 100+rebuys, but could not play any volume of these on his roll without being scared of running bad, or taking beats in the beginning and have his BR deplete to a level of having to drop way down entry below where he is now.
So, the safe thing to do is- get staked, risk none of his own money or a small % keeping his own roll phat an in the black, case the higher stakes gig doesnt go well.
With the top 500 in the world better than average winning high stakes MTT ITM at around 15% and FT'n at no better than 5% it might it take some deep pockets to pay entry fees before a score is made.
That is one very good reason to get staked IMHO

lol mkind @ stuck in make up some ppl might not get it.

I'm not backed so i don't know the ins and outs but that doesnt sound right to me.

Surely if you've just cashed for 500k after 10x10k buy-ins, the 100k make-up gets taken out of the cash first and then the remaining 400k is split 50/50 between the player and backer. It's a 50k difference than the way you described.

**take the example of a single tourny with 10k buy-in and cashing for 20k. under jason's scenario the player gets nothing and the backer doubles his investment: can't be right can it?**

I'm not knowledgable about this, but my guess is it could be either the way Zpacman described it or the way Mkind described it...It would all depend on the terms of the backing agreement as to when the expenses come out and when you divide the profits as per any contract...

Your blessed Donku to have so many detailed replies...Look at all the thought gank gave into making his reply and some of the others as well...very nice thread...maybe they'll turn this into a P5's classic...

I just stopped a backing arrangement I've had for over a couple of years for just this reason. I had originally started it because I was really up against the wall and it was either get backed or get job. Since then I'd been up and down and in and out, but since I was getting 80/20 by then (started at 50/50) from my backer I still used it a lot. The problem became that I did not treat my own bankroll properly because I knew I had an out. Also, I would play all of the bigger buy-in stuff on the stake accounts, so my biggest scores were the ones I would get raked on. That's a big chunk of change to just be giving away, even to a person that you like and has always been a stand-up guy for you.

So, I decided for those and other reasons (including that I am more mature now and more stable and better at handling my own money and etc) that I vowed to handle stuff myself, braving it on my own. So far what it's meant is that I am using much stricter bankroll requirements, thus having to play significantly lower stakes than I was, thus having to put in many more hours than I had been in order to make the same amount that I was. The consequence though is that I've found the games much easier and less stressful, which is a big plus since that is partially what backing was giving me. Also, I've found that I can play multiple tables better/faster/stronger/longer because of this. It does feel good to know that I'm taking care of my own business myself, which is part of the reason that I am playing poker for a living in the first place.

In any case, by all means, if you need or like being backed, go for it. But I too would recommend getting your tish together and doing things on your own as soon as possible without showing disrespect to your backer (who may not want to back you in the future if you dodge out too soon because the risk/time/hassle won't be worth the pay-off). We already get raked in so many places, getting raked on top of that by your friends just doesn't need to happen.

Oh, I'm generally a middle-stakes player, so keep that in mind. If I was dropping $10k per tournament I might think very differently about the concept of backing. gank, etc, make very good points on that issue.

And once again......

GANK OWNS!

that's it, that's all, may many people be from Ganktown in a month

It's the same reason, why would a successful company sell stock and share profits?

Zpaceman is correct. Make up is paid back before the money is split. It wouldn't make sense the other way.

B/C a sufficient roll to play 10k events is prob close to like 1 mil. Not many people have a million dollar bankroll and it would take way too long as an online player to do so. Thats why I made the trade off to give up half my online action if I could get as much live as I wanted, which is basically what my deal is. I'm allowed to play pretty much anything I want, and in the next few months I have full plans to take advantage of this opportunity. If I hit something big live, I will obv reconsider my options but for the time being, I really don't mind the trade off. On the other hand, if the deal was strictly for online tournies, I never would have taken it b/c I still have plenty of money online.

Honestly the only real intelligent advantageous reason to be backed is if you are underrolled for games that you could beat that would provide more profit than half of your current profits.

If your profit from the games that your backer allows you to play (that you wouldnt normally play) is greater than what you are giving up from the games that you are currently playing without a backer then it is profitable/advantageous to be backed.

Every other reason is not advantageous for the player (financially).