team play, how to divvy up the profits?
- Thread starter Meistro
- Start date
SleightOfHand
Well-Known Member
Me and my cousin play off the same bank, and as for the player's share, we split up the profits based on accumulated CE. This takes into account win rate and variance.
Josh Axelrad
Member
Dividing player pay
In reality it's never that tidy. I guess you're just asking about splitting up the players' share among players -- bear in mind that deciding how the players' and investors' shares will be calculated is very important too, probably the most crucial aspect to divvying results. Investors can go broke in a hurry if the terms of the split aren't right. And then you won't have any team.
In terms of the players' share: I don't know that there are general rules. People have tried multitudes of arrangements. On the team I was active with for years, the players' share was divided among players based purely on casino hours. Extraordinary performance -- usually meaning large positive results -- was reflected via a bonus pool calculated according to a fixed formula. (The size of the pool was calculated in a predetermined way. The distribution of the pool was left entirely to the managers' discretion.) This was possible because the team had strong central management to whom players deferred. Without that kind of leadership I could see an elective bonus system leading to disputes and unpleasantness.
Often we ran small banks with just a few players of pretty much equal skill, and when we did banks of that kind, there was no bonus pool. We regarded each other as equals, accepted that some of us would win and others would lose, that some would get down successfully for many hours and others would not be so fortunate, and that our respective player-side pay would differ accordingly. We accepted this. It's gambling. And because we played regularly together we understood that near-term inequalities in the player pay would be smoothed out over time.
The ideal bank structure IMHO is identical investments, identical time commitments, identical actual playing hours in games of identical value, identical (positive) results, and when it's done you split the money up equally. Simple!Meistro said:
In reality it's never that tidy. I guess you're just asking about splitting up the players' share among players -- bear in mind that deciding how the players' and investors' shares will be calculated is very important too, probably the most crucial aspect to divvying results. Investors can go broke in a hurry if the terms of the split aren't right. And then you won't have any team.
In terms of the players' share: I don't know that there are general rules. People have tried multitudes of arrangements. On the team I was active with for years, the players' share was divided among players based purely on casino hours. Extraordinary performance -- usually meaning large positive results -- was reflected via a bonus pool calculated according to a fixed formula. (The size of the pool was calculated in a predetermined way. The distribution of the pool was left entirely to the managers' discretion.) This was possible because the team had strong central management to whom players deferred. Without that kind of leadership I could see an elective bonus system leading to disputes and unpleasantness.
Often we ran small banks with just a few players of pretty much equal skill, and when we did banks of that kind, there was no bonus pool. We regarded each other as equals, accepted that some of us would win and others would lose, that some would get down successfully for many hours and others would not be so fortunate, and that our respective player-side pay would differ accordingly. We accepted this. It's gambling. And because we played regularly together we understood that near-term inequalities in the player pay would be smoothed out over time.
Josh Axelrad
Member
suspicion of new posters
i am new. your suspicion is welcome if a little perplexing. what agenda could i have in mentioning the way one particular blackjack team used to break its banks? i don't see the upside in faking such stuff.
anyhow. i use my real name and am pretty frank about who i am and what i've done and where i've failed. check http://axelrad.net/blog if you're concerned.
best,
josh
i am new. your suspicion is welcome if a little perplexing. what agenda could i have in mentioning the way one particular blackjack team used to break its banks? i don't see the upside in faking such stuff.
anyhow. i use my real name and am pretty frank about who i am and what i've done and where i've failed. check http://axelrad.net/blog if you're concerned.
best,
josh
If you're genuine your genuine - i've no issue. I'm just pointing out something that's odd - the other poster, BJQueen, very clearly proved that they were a fake very quickly and as such it wouldn't be beyond possiblity for such a character to try getting a fresh start under another name.
RJT.
RJT.
I agree totally on this point. There should be no bonus paying nor punishment for losses. Every player should be fully aware of the method of team payouts before play begins and there should be no deviation from that. Breaking bank, or team payouts, are, or should be short term deals. Meaning there is no statistical reason a team member should be rewarded extra for winning over EV. Its not good business. If the team breaks a bank well before expectation, the team benefits, not individuals.Pro21 said:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Player Skill & Experience
One could argue that a players skill or even experience should be taken into consideration when deciding pay.:joker::whip:
One could argue that a players skill or even experience should be taken into consideration when deciding pay.:joker::whip:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Incentive To Play
An easy formula would be one is payed based on the % of hours one puts in. If a 2 player team with equal cash investment and one puts in 60% of the time then they should get 60% of the pay. This provides a built in incentive to play. A player who is losing would still have incentive to make it up.
Bonuses based on SD swings are probably not a good idea because it would lead to overbetting as has been mentioned.:joker::whip:
The bank should not be broken until many hours played or a lot of $ won. The longer the time before breaking the bank the less variance becomes an issue.
An easy formula would be one is payed based on the % of hours one puts in. If a 2 player team with equal cash investment and one puts in 60% of the time then they should get 60% of the pay. This provides a built in incentive to play. A player who is losing would still have incentive to make it up.
Bonuses based on SD swings are probably not a good idea because it would lead to overbetting as has been mentioned.:joker::whip:
The bank should not be broken until many hours played or a lot of $ won. The longer the time before breaking the bank the less variance becomes an issue.
Last edited:
SleightOfHand
Well-Known Member
One thing I never liked about the dividing winnings based on hours is in the event that one player is playing a stronger game than the others (due to game conditions, counting system, etc). That is why I originally started with WR. But since it didn't incorporate risk, I eventually decided to split the winnings based on CE. The team only consists of 2 people, and my partner is a much more casual player, so things like consistency isn't an issue like it may be in the bigger teams, but for us, I think its a good way to go.blackjack avenger said:
We also dont reward based on winnings, as it doesn't accurately reflect the strength of the game one plays; a poor player can win, while an excellent player can lose. No reason to reward someone for being lucky.
Last edited:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Skill & Conditions
Yes, taking skill or playing conditions into consideration can be used if all parties agree.:joker::whip:SleightOfHand said:
If you want to differentiate pay between team members based on skill and strength of games each plays you can do so with shares of bankroll. You can still use hours played but each hour will have a share worth based on the criteria agreed upon beforehand. So if one player is agreed upon by the team to be playing a better game and with more skill, his share per hour may be 2 while a lesser player playing a weaker game may get 1 share per hour. This is a slippery slope and should really be thought out and proven before its implemented as it could easily lead to dissention if it is just put forth on assumption. All plans should be simulated, and players tested as to what is their skill level. It is very rare in an EMFH team that you will have vastly different skill levels where pay rates should differ. It is mostly with BP teams where you will see different pay scales based on the job performed. As of strength of games, it can be easily simulated as to the difference in strength whereas an agreeable pay differential can be reached.SleightOfHand said:
