How to handle investors

[Deathclutch]

Alright, as you all know I'm pretty new to counting. I've played BJ for a while, but have only been counting since August. I started out playing a very small replenishable bankroll and have had a nice run so far making 680 units (which I don't like to say because that's not entirely accurate. There were times where I stupidly played far above my normal unit size, but I'm not sure how else I would rephrase my bankroll size since my unit size fluctuated.)

Anyway, here is the issue I'm running into. Someone in my family has taken an interest and wants to invest 1000 units in me. I've explained that it's not going to be like the movies and that there will be bad streaks, but he's still interested. My question is on how to do the payouts. Would payout be determined by the percentage of the bankroll he owns? Like say he owns 60% of the bankroll, would I just do payouts by giving him 60% of the winnings and him eating 60% of the losses? That seems like the right way to go about it, but I thought I'd check with the more knowledgeable posters here first.

Thanks in advance everyone!

 

[creeping panther]

Death

Alright, as you all know I'm pretty new to counting. I've played BJ for a while, but have only been counting since August. I started out playing a very small replenishable bankroll and have had a nice run so far making 680 units (which I don't like to say because that's not entirely accurate. There were times where I stupidly played far above my normal unit size, but I'm not sure how else I would rephrase my bankroll size since my unit size fluctuated.)

Anyway, here is the issue I'm running into. Someone in my family has taken an interest and wants to invest 1000 units in me. I've explained that it's not going to be like the movies and that there will be bad streaks, but he's still interested. My question is on how to do the payouts. Would payout be determined by the percentage of the bankroll he owns? Like say he owns 60% of the bankroll, would I just do payouts by giving him 60% of the winnings and him eating 60% of the losses? That seems like the right way to go about it, but I thought I'd check with the more knowledgeable posters here first.

Thanks in advance everyone!

Here is what I would do. Take up the offer, play the 1000 units at the "BASH", and his return is his investment plus a third of the profit, which should be sizable since the game you will be playing is exceptional. Your expenses will come off the top of the gross before figuring profit.

You must also practice as a focused warrior does before going into battle.

CP

 

[Deathclutch]

Here is what I would do. Take up the offer, play the 1000 units at the "BASH", and his return is his investment plus a third of the profit, which should be sizable since the game you will be playing is exceptional. Your expenses will come off the top of the gross before figuring profit.

You must also practice as a focused warrior does before going into battle.

CP

I cannot wait for the BASH!

 

[creeping panther]

Death

I cannot wait for the BASH!

:celebrate:grin::1st:

We are all looking forward to meeting you!

CP

 

[SleightOfHand]

It really is somewhat at your discretion, but the way I have been doing it is that investors receive 50% of the profits which is divided equally based on investment. So if I invested 7k, a partner invested 3k, and we ended up with a total of 15k. This means that 2.5k goes to the investors, in which I would recieve 70% of that.

As for losses... What I got from a section in Beyond Counting: Exhibit CAA is that in the short run of a 50% share for investors, investors get the raw end of the deal. So to compensate, you can either give more shares to the investors, give a flat salary to players, have players also take 50% of the losses, or something else that you want to do.

 

[zengrifter]

Players time and investor's dollars should be a 50-50 proposition on profits, which can only be taken when bank doubles or the parties otherwise agree the end the bank, except only the investors can lose money and only the players can lose time. zg

 

[BJQueen]

Zen, i agree with you up to a certain extent.

If a player has not the funds for a bankroll and an investor wants to bankroll a player, then the 50-50 rule applies.

but

The player should have the reward of success by being given a % (agreed before hand) that if he hits a certain winning target then the players % increases to say 60%, if he (or she hits the next target, they get 70% etc etc.

This is normally quite common in the teams i have played for. Its quite fair but the player needs to establish if this is "win" or "nett win" , believe me there is a massive difference. I personally have had my fingers burnt on this issue.

 

[SleightOfHand]

Zen, i agree with you up to a certain extent.

If a player has not the funds for a bankroll and an investor wants to bankroll a player, then the 50-50 rule applies.

but

The player should have the reward of success by being given a % (agreed before hand) that if he hits a certain winning target then the players % increases to say 60%, if he (or she hits the next target, they get 70% etc etc.

This is normally quite common in the teams i have played for. Its quite fair but the player needs to establish if this is "win" or "nett win" , believe me there is a massive difference. I personally have had my fingers burnt on this issue.

I disagree that players should be given a reward based on results. I think that players should be rewarded based on the strength of the game they are playing decided by CE (or a different agreed factor). Being rewarded for wins seems to be the same as rewarding someone for being lucky.

 

[BJQueen]

you are so wrong.

so wrong, that i really cannot be bothered right now to go into it.

 

[SleightOfHand]

Maybe you can explain later, but I dont see what is SO wrong about what I said. Perhaps you somewhat misunderstood. 50% of the profits still go to the investors. I am talking about the player's share that should not be given rewards based on wins.

For a somewhat extreme example, if a player decided to stop counting cards altogether and play a BJ game that had the lucky ladies side bet and started playing, and happened to get the QhQh v BJ jackpot and hits the goal, should he receive a bonus for it? Same principle applies for playing a positive game. The reward should go to those who put in the most time (10 hrs vs 300 hrs) and played the games that maximizes bankroll growth (CE/SCORE), assuming they are playing within the limits of risk. It is possible for the player that played for 10 hours make more money that the player who played 300 hours. Who should get more reward? Mebe 300 hours is a little extreme, but I hope you catch my drift.

 

[BJQueen]

ok, let me explain briefly why i think you are wrong, its only fair i suppose.

It depends on the investor.

If the investor is your best mate John who thinks you are a good AP player then any return is good.
If your investor is a pro that has worked out the game and has recruited you as a player of HIS game, then its different.
In this case, the investor has worked out what you should make per hour and what your expectations are.

The problem investors have is recruiting good players. when an investor eventually recruits a good, honest player then win-rate comes into effect.
To dangle the carrot so that the investor benefits and the player benefits, it makes financial sense to give the player more (and we are talking about AP here) as an incentive to carry on.

My "boss" does just that, our team is happy, the boss is happy.....and the useless pit bosses are crying.

perfecto!

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Players time and investor's dollars should be a 50-50 proposition on profits, which can only be taken when bank doubles or the parties otherwise agree the end the bank, except only the investors can lose money and only the players can lose time. zg

Excellent way of putting it. The investors risk minimal time, which should be balanced by the players risking minimal money. To pay the players a salary means the players risk no time, while the risk of bankruptcy to the investors increases due to the salary expense.

 

[RJT]

ok, let me explain briefly why i think you are wrong, its only fair i suppose.

It depends on the investor.

If the investor is your best mate John who thinks you are a good AP player then any return is good.
If your investor is a pro that has worked out the game and has recruited you as a player of HIS game, then its different.
In this case, the investor has worked out what you should make per hour and what your expectations are.

The problem investors have is recruiting good players. when an investor eventually recruits a good, honest player then win-rate comes into effect.
To dangle the carrot so that the investor benefits and the player benefits, it makes financial sense to give the player more (and we are talking about AP here) as an incentive to carry on.

My "boss" does just that, our team is happy, the boss is happy.....and the useless pit bosses are crying.

perfecto!

I understand your point and there is no right or wrong when it comes to this issue - each team has to generate their own solution to this problem and that often comes down personalities rather that theoreticals, but i personally would never have win related incentives for any players i worked with. As SOH pointed out above, when your players get rewarded for positive variance you encourage them to raise the variance of the game to get the reward.
Now i can see from what you've written that the bulk of their pay comes from playing a good game and it's a fractional increase based on positive results, but i would never put the temptation to stray from the game plan in front of any recruit. Think of the example - you're only $50 away from that 10% extra payday for the team and you've got to leave in a few minutes, a quick MG progression's got a good chance of taking you over that goal, and if you do it during a positive count you've still got the advantage. Variance goes up, and RoR goes up, but no-one's likely to know that your player did this. And if he lost $400 in the attempt he just reigns himself in and accepts he's not going to break that goal this time. Or the opposite example - the game's still good and you've just gone $50 over the point required for the extra 10% payday for the team - there's still plenty of time left to play and no impending heat - do you're team still feel motivated to play, given that if they lose just $50 they also lose 10% of their pay?
In my mind anyone motivated by variance related paydays probably shouldn't be playing with my money. Using a 50/50 player/investor split still ensure that player get a variance related pay-off in either the size of the total win or the frequency they get paid. And player's who bitch about their great results and other player's poor results in the short-term don't understand enough about the game to be truely great players.

RJT.

 

[moo321]

50% of the win to investors in proportion to level of investment.

 

[SleightOfHand]

If the investor is your best mate John who thinks you are a good AP player then any return is good.
If your investor is a pro that has worked out the game and has recruited you as a player of HIS game, then its different.
In this case, the investor has worked out what you should make per hour and what your expectations are.

But in the case of the investor/player situation, the player usually does not have the money or resources to do as well as if he was part of a team. And its not like the investor wants you to make less than your potential (assuming the risk is within safe limits)

The problem investors have is recruiting good players. when an investor eventually recruits a good, honest player then win-rate comes into effect.

And how do know what their WR is if not by simulation? Short term results will tell very little on how strong your game is. The guy who made 20k in 3 months may be a BS player for all we know. Playing a game with a SCORE of 100+ can still lose money %15 of the time after 100 hours of play. I guess he wasn't that good.

To dangle the carrot so that the investor benefits and the player benefits, it makes financial sense to give the player more (and we are talking about AP here) as an incentive to carry on.

Being on a team should be incentive enough. As an investor or a player, being on a (assumingly) winning team is a great deal. Investors get faster return on their investment as well as less variance. Players get to play at levels that they couldn't have played at without the investment who also experience less variance due to the other players.

Investors need players as much as players need investors (assuming neither have the resources to play on their own). Therefore there should be a shared 50/50 profit between the two.