Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[tikay]

I have split this debate off from the original staking thread. No Posts have been removed.

The Staking Thread itself is here.....

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57778.0

[tikay]

It is unfortunate and unfair that this debate has blown up in this thread.

I've heard rumours and bad mouthing against a multitude of players. Virtually everyone.

Yet, I have never heard one bad word about Chris. His reputation is spotless.

I think perhaps there should be a thread for discussing issues about staking, where things like this caveat, the 70/30 freeroll debate and anything else which might arise.

Agreed, & sorted.

[Doobs]

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

When you chime in with views about the mark up in other people’s threads I wonder why you care? The terms are clear before people decide to buy aren’t they?

My remarks were to add balance to your post stating this type of caveat is perfectly acceptable. More so to express my disapproval of the notion that a professional player would adopt an unhappy attitude if he was forced to honour a staking agreement. After asking for people’s money I think that would be unprofessional and would lack integrity. Don’t get why pro poker players think it’s ok to pick and choose which obligations to take seriously based on the amount of beer tokens in their pocket?

However, when we make general comments in staking threads the op will usually take the point personally. In this thread I don’t quote op and I use deliberate objective terms like ‘the horse’ and yet op has still taken things personally (op if I wanted to question your integrity I would quote you and do it directly). Sorry for any offence caused but we can either pass comment on general issues like caveats and value in staking threads or we can’t.

This:

Keys is an active buyer in blonde marketplace and it is in his interests for it to be in a healthy state, im not sure if you've ever bought before, but keys caring and you caring are two different things imo.

So I'll ask again, why do you care? Why have you chosen to challenge this particular injustice in the world, instead of making yourself much more useful, for example commenting on some youtube videos? Surely some people there are saying/doing far worse, and are more relevant to you?

Yeah, perhaps I shouldn’t have posted in this thread. But I do find it quite hard to read bullshit and not respond. You said the caveat was perfectly acceptable. Here’s why it’s not. And I reckon as the sheriff of this here town you should listen up. A staking arrangement is a business deal not some jolly for one of your mates. So let’s start looking at it like a business deal with some degree of neutrality. The caveat presents the following deviations from standard

- Investors have their capital tied up for an indefinite period without any assurance of action.
- The horse has the luxury of using the investment when he’s running bad and can abandon investors if he finds form. Before the package starts investors are gambling their horse will run good.
- There is potential the investor will see his horse scoop the world and have to confront negative emotions/feeling cheated.

To think the addition of this caveat has no bearing on a deal is delusional. If I were negotiating a business deal I would expect some movement from the other side to recognise and absorb some of the risk associated with the addition of this caveat. Not one investor would cash in given the choice after the first bink remember. So selling at a standard rate after introducing such a caveat isn’t correct. I’m not saying anything against op and it's not 'abuse' ffs. But if something is very different it’s not ‘perfectly acceptable’ to say it’s the same. A more attractive rate than standard should be offered with every caveat attached, especially deals involving hundreds of thousands.

Btw bless you for caring x

There's all sorts of controversial shit going down in the world at the minute, like apple employees in china committing mass suicide, child labour making half the world's trainers

There is plenty of controversial shit going down in the world, so why the need to stray so far from the truth? 

[MANTIS01]

The reason I'm commenting is because it's a growing trend in poker and I don't agree with it. Like live streaming which I also spoke up about. I think casually throwing in a deal changing caveat at the bottom of a business proposal like it doesn't matter either way is not good business practise. The other habit I'm not liking is when people ask for thousands of dollars up front and add the caveat they might not even play the event because of 'partying' or 'cash action'. I think this is bullshit. It's a very casual approach to have to a business deal and to thousands of dollars of somebody else's money. As a horse you get a jolly to Vegas with the guarantee of buying into various events if you decide you want to, but meh, if you want to go out on the lash instead you retain the right to do so. Or if there happens to be a juicy cash game the investors can do one. Or if you bink a jackpot on the bandit the investors can do one. Wait, it's ok if there's no juicy cash action or no bandit bink, or you run bad, cos the investor picks up the tab, sweet. Best of both worlds imo.

Where is the professional commitment to the business proposal? If people want to be staked there should at least be a sense of obligation to investors and to the proposal. If people invested thousands of dollars in me I would play the events I said I would. I would turn up on time with a serious attitude and an appreciation that this is someone else's money. The comment that a pro would have an 'unhappy' attitude if he was 'forced' to play out the commitment HE proposed after a bink is pretty disrespectful imo. It's also patronising to suggest if the horse gets an early bink the investor should be thankful for this return and fuck off. Well the investor has paid for the potential of that return. Seems like horses want to pat the investor on the head and tell them to do one because they're not needed anymore, and that should be enough pocket money to be running along with. Remember, not one investor would cash out given the option.

Glad the thread was split. Oh and sorry for being a terrible poster.

[MANTIS01]

...ps I thought bobby posts were good. That shit about the bolded part being off the scale condescending and insulting was ridic. Another growing trend I don't like is how pro poker players get all precious in the face of normal comment. Stops people having an adult debate. I challenge why caveats are being added to deals and not being visibly recognised in any sort of preferred selling rate. Pretty sensible topic. All I get from precious people is op is good guy, why are you posting? and I am terrible poster. Nh, wp.

[RED-DOG]

Great thread, if I may make so bold.

[gatso]

is everyone forgetting that is the caveat is enforced, chris will have returned investors a great profit?

So he's not saying - I want to use your money if I run bad, and not if I run good, he's saying "I want to use your money, then after we've run good I wanna 10x+ your money then cancel all your risk for the rest of the summer" don't forget, once he buys the action back, he's taking the same risks you took when you bought, as in the liklihood that he'll do it in.

It's just not an issue at all honestly. If I had a piece of chris I would praying to god I wouldn't have his action for the last 1/2 of the package, cos it'll mean I'll have done sick good from the deal. I think as well you're all underestimating what kind of bink he would need to cancel the deal, $120k would only 2x the package, so prolly needs to be ATT LEAST $200k and depending on the situ maybe not evven then, basically I think you're looking at $400k+ before he is a lock to want to buy his action back when every 1% has made a profit of $3,600.

I agree if the main event was included I'd be a bit more reticent as an investor (because a MASSIVE draw of the package would be to have BRam's action in that event) to the clause but as it stands right now I think it's 100% legitimate, even more so by the fact it's stated up front. And if the ME was included and I was adament I wanted the action regardless I would either stipulate when I bought that my ME action MUST stand, or insist he pays a premium purchasing it back, if he didn't want to do either I wouldn't buy but this isn't the case in this specific scenario.

Also I don't think it's a case of "good player gets X, bad player gets Y" I think it's a case of A PLAYER, putting in a non-stnd, but perfectly reasonable stipulation in a staking agreement. It defo isn't stnd btw, but out of line, it defo isn't, imo

It's implied that the "big score" is a tournament win.

How about if the big score isn't in this package?

What if Chris bought 50% of a bracelet winner and binked 300k?

What if he stuck $100 in wheel of fortune and won 500k?

this imo is the most relevant point in this entire thread and points out what I would see as the only real problem with caveats like this, their vagueness

would they perhaps be better written as something like this?

'in the event of the package returning $x then I reserve the right to buy back y shares at z price'

[bobby1]

...ps I thought bobby posts were good. That shit about the bolded part being off the scale condescending and insulting was ridic. Another growing trend I don't like is how pro poker players get all precious in the face of normal comment. Stops people having an adult debate. I challenge why caveats are being added to deals and not being visibly recognised in any sort of preferred selling rate. Pretty sensible topic. All I get from precious people is op is good guy, why are you posting? and I am terrible poster. Nh, wp.

I was going to reply to your entire post Suuprlim but Mantis kinda nails half of it here. Tho I have to reply to this.

''''I don't understand any of this. I hope I'm not being bracketed in the "same ones who were giving stick in a PHA thread" group, because I wasn't, and to the best of my knowledge neither was anyone else in this thread, and if they were, why would it be relevant?

No offence ?Phil? but a lot of your posts read very much like you hold something of a grudge against some of the younger poker guys - I've never thought that of anything you said specifically directed towards me and you clearly know your stuff in the sports betting threads but that's just the impression I get''''

I need to make this clear first really, you abs were not one of the posters I had in mind and if I had to pick 5 posters on here to read daily you would be in it. One of the reasons for that is you post interesting and debate encouraging posts, just like Mantis does.

This is another thread that has a similar set of posters that ends up taking a shot at one guy because he saw something differently than another poster did. Just like the HH last week, which was nothing short of bullying of a guy in a bad place in the end.

The trend seems to be that a set of posters that know each other/ or want to be involved in the crowd fall into line with each others thinking prob for those two reason only. How is that fair/good for debate?

The fact that they are young or old makes no difference, let me put it this way, I don't know half of the people I am talking about, so how can age be a factor? You do see that is another example of a crowd that know each other backing up each tho, you know the age of these people and I don't, so I must be against young players is the assumption. So you feel you should back them up, as they are part of your crowd. Would that be fair it was becoming the tone in threads?

The last real post about staking by me was against the 70/30 deals that had become rife from people that wanted to play in events they didn't want to put their own money into. I know 2 of the people that debate was centred around and neither of them are young, I saw it differently to them even tho I am friendly with both of them. That's what a debate should be like, not simply posting a reply that agrees with someone you want to feel closer to so simply agree with the crowd.


Let me give you one last example, Skol is fake infuriated, how dare you, about a reply I posted towards him, Mantis covers this perfectly above but Greekstein has taken the time to read this thread and make one post which is

'Mantis is just such a terrible poster. This thread is a good example of why.'

That was all he could muster and is just a lame attempt at agreeing with the crowd he is/wants to be part of, yet neither you or Skol are infuriated about that post, maybe coz you know him so it's ok for him to do that in your mind?

As for the value of that particular staking deal, well opportunities to have a real top class player playing with part of your money is a great spot to be in and I know 100% that Chris is one of the straightest people in the game. That doesn't mean anyone that posts on here cannot have a view or ask questions, Skol seems to think he can question the motives of Mantis posting, when his motives are clear as day, which he agreed.

[The Camel]

The reason I'm commenting is because it's a growing trend in poker and I don't agree with it. Like live streaming which I also spoke up about. I think casually throwing in a deal changing caveat at the bottom of a business proposal like it doesn't matter either way is not good business practise. The other habit I'm not liking is when people ask for thousands of dollars up front and add the caveat they might not even play the event because of 'partying' or 'cash action'. I think this is bullshit. It's a very casual approach to have to a business deal and to thousands of dollars of somebody else's money. As a horse you get a jolly to Vegas with the guarantee of buying into various events if you decide you want to, but meh, if you want to go out on the lash instead you retain the right to do so. Or if there happens to be a juicy cash game the investors can do one. Or if you bink a jackpot on the bandit the investors can do one. Wait, it's ok if there's no juicy cash action or no bandit bink, or you run bad, cos the investor picks up the tab, sweet. Best of both worlds imo.

Where is the professional commitment to the business proposal? If people want to be staked there should at least be a sense of obligation to investors and to the proposal. If people invested thousands of dollars in me I would play the events I said I would. I would turn up on time with a serious attitude and an appreciation that this is someone else's money. The comment that a pro would have an 'unhappy' attitude if he was 'forced' to play out the commitment HE proposed after a bink is pretty disrespectful imo. It's also patronising to suggest if the horse gets an early bink the investor should be thankful for this return and fuck off. Well the investor has paid for the potential of that return. Seems like horses want to pat the investor on the head and tell them to do one because they're not needed anymore, and that should be enough pocket money to be running along with. Remember, not one investor would cash out given the option.

Glad the thread was split. Oh and sorry for being a terrible poster.

A couple of years ago I requested staking for the EPT London.

The week before I played the WSOPE and happened to go really deep (brag obv) making it to day 5.

My day 1 for the EPT was the day after I got knocked out of the WSOPE.

I was mentally and physically exhausted after the WSOPE, and would not have played anywhere near my best.

I felt it was in my (and the stakers) best interests not to play the EPT so I withdrew and refunded the stake.

When I buy a share in someone, I trust them to make the optimal decision as what is the best course of action when an unforeseen decision arises.

If I had a share in someone in a similar situation to mine, I would rather they withdrew than played badly.

[pleno1]

Bullying bobby really? Some of ur posts have been pretty ridiculous recently.

[cambridgealex]

Agreed, but not playing because of being too hungover is pretty ool imo, not because you should play anyway, but because going out and getting smashed the night before  your supposed to play a tournament with other peoples money is out of order imo.

[The Camel]

Agreed, but not playing because of being too hungover is pretty ool imo, not because you should play anyway, but because going out and getting smashed the night before  your supposed to play a tournament with other peoples money is out of order imo.

And this is why I would never stake anyone I don't trust.

I trust them to turn up to play in the best possible mental state. Getting whacko the night before a big tournament just isn't on.

[bobby1]

Bullying bobby really? Some of ur posts have been pretty ridiculous recently.

lol, you mean they disagree with your point of view, so they are ridiculous? Bullying was the perfect word for what happened on that thread and you were the person throwing around who can and cant't post posts too. Even having the abs bare face cheek of telling someone not to do exactly what you had done on another thread.

As for ridiculous posts, let me go find your fantasy Man Utd thread to see how high an opinion you have of your opinion.

[FUN4FRASER]

Chill Guys....no need for aggro

[GreekStein]

Let me give you one last example, Skol is fake infuriated, how dare you, about a reply I posted towards him, Mantis covers this perfectly above but Greekstein has taken the time to read this thread and make one post which is

'Mantis is just such a terrible poster. This thread is a good example of why.'

That was all he could muster and is just a lame attempt at agreeing with the crowd he is/wants to be part of, yet neither you or Skol are infuriated about that post, maybe coz you know him so it's ok for him to do that in your mind?

Ok maybe I should have +1'd or elaborated on the points keys made but my post made it pretty clear that I thought Mantis' arguments were bad.

Are you going to be pulling up everyone who quotes a post and doesn't add much more? It happens only about 50 times a day on here. I don't know why you're blabbering on about crowd's. Keys is a good friend yes. I'm also on friendly terms with Brammer. Now the UK is not my home anymore, I doubt I will make many more friends from within poker for a long time if ever, but I'm very happy with those I have. I hope that clears up your rather irrelevant musing about my social life within poker, not that it's relevant.

Part of the reason for such a simple post is because me and Mantis have gotten into it several times on the forum. Ever since he threatened to punch keys in the face I basically decided he wasn't really worth too much time engaging with on the forum. Ok some nuthuggers seem to love him and that's fine. Horses for courses and all that but his arrogant and painfully long winded posting style, whether it's on PHA or anywhere else is annoying. You'll never see Mantis change his mind on something following discussion or say 'ahh I agree with what you're saying now' even when he's posting something fundamentally terrible on PHA and loads of good players (the people from the crowd I so desparately want to be part of) are all explaining why it's bad.

I didn't agree with the points he made here and didn't think there was any need for him to cause a hoo-har on Brammer's thread especially given that he isn't an active member of the marketplace - I've never seen him buy a share or even sell (though I know he's rolled for dem 10f's down at Walsall) and as painful as it may be, I think Keys' posts here are always likely to be much better than those of Mantis.