Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[George2Loose]

If mantis does sell for a 10 freeze out at Walsall can I reserve 2%?

[millidonk]

There are certain cliques on blonde we can't deny that, but that is the same with any forum, it's just things like who you know irl, who you have more in common with etc etc, but as regards bullying I can confirm this statement to be 100% factually acurate! I have been bullied recently, all because I think Jessica Ennis looks like a man!

fwiw I do see bobby's pov where we do occasionally see certain groups of people kind of gang up on one individual, which in essence is bullying, but then again often that particular person is usually chatting shiz.

fwiw2 I do believe Mantis often posts with the sole intention of stirring stuff up. Sometimes its funny, sometimes its not.

So I dunno really. I just put it down to forum life.

#WhyCan'tWeAllBeFriends? (#wcwabf for short)

[bobby1]

I have a question for you Suupr. Do you think that taking a stake into high buy in events means you have a responsibility to the people good enoough buy a share to play those events in the best of form. The reason I ask is I believe you didn't play an event in one of your staking packages last year and in your Vegas list for this year you have this at the bottom

''''Because my primary objective in the summer is to play the cash games, there is ALWAYS a small chance that I will miss an event, due to fatigue of long session, unreal cash action etc. I have set myself the objective of 5 tournaments this summer, which is reasonable and I am pretty sure I will play, however, the risk of me not playing IS there, if this makes you at all uncomfortable then please don't buy, there is nothing I can do about this unfortunately. In the event of this happening, I will refund everyone's money as I was paid it at the rate I was paid it.''''

If you are taking cash from people to play in tourneys surely your part of the deal should be to be in a prime position to do well in those tourneys, yet you are basically saying with this caveat that I might be in a good cash game or I might be tired from playing cash so will not keep my end of the deal if I do put myself in that kind of spot.

In the scheme of things do you not think your priority should be to the team of stakers you have acquired, meaning that you would not put yourself in the position of being fatigued, or wanting to stick to a cash game. The way it reads is I am going to Vegas to play cash with my money, but I would like people to buy a share of me in tourneys that I might not play coz I might not have prepared myself properly.

You could easily have just got in a spot like this and posted' was feeling ill , didnt want to waste everyones money when I couldn't play my best' so I think it's good that you added that but the message it sends about your part of the deal is not good imo.

[George2Loose]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

[The Camel]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

Disagree massively George.

I have never seen this clause in a stake, and would be put off buying action if it became standard.

Best for stakers and buyers to have a discussion over stuff like this than let it slide imo.

[bobby1]

That was a good post Greek until this bit.

'''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'''

What you are saying is you are always going to disagree with Mantis, there was no need to post on your friends thread, and coz he plays 10 freezeouts his opinion isn't relevant.

You do see what you did there?

[RED-DOG]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

I'm firmly in this camp.

[bobby1]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

One reason is this tho George, after the 70/30 posts started it bred a plethora of them from people that hadn't asked for staking before. It started the ball of bad practice rolling and then some others jumped on the 'play for free' bandwagon.

What Skol says is he doesn't want the Status Quo on these threads being disturbed because he might want to do similar at a later date, surely it is better to look thru it when it becomes an issue so people can make proper judgements and stake requests are better thought out?

[RED-DOG]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

One reason is this tho George, after the 70/30 posts started it bred a plethora of them from people that hadn't asked for staking before. I started the ball of bad practice rolling and the some others jumped on the 'play for free' bandwagon.

What Skol says is he doesn't want the Status Quo on these threads being disturbed because he might want to do similar at a later date, surely it is better to look thru it when it becomes an issue so people can make proper judgements and stake request are more thought out?

So basically Phil, you're saying that someone who is selling something isn't free to name his price or set out the terms of his sale?

A yes or no answer will suffice. 

[George2Loose]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

One reason is this tho George, after the 70/30 posts started it bred a plethora of them from people that hadn't asked for staking before. It started the ball of bad practice rolling and then some others jumped on the 'play for free' bandwagon.

What Skol says is he doesn't want the Status Quo on these threads being disturbed because he might want to do similar at a later date, surely it is better to look thru it when it becomes an issue so people can make proper judgements and stake requests are better thought out?

So what if he benefits? I don't see this but back clause as a pisstake and unless I'm mistaken no one had subsequently dropped out as a result of this debate. Mantis bangs on about business but surely the first rule of any contract is read it before I sign it

[pleno1]

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.

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57887.0

wiii i can post.

there's huge huge difference between my and aarons posts. I say what I think AND GIVE REASONING (usually detailed) whilst he says fact and laughs at op. I never said something along the lines on "lol dave shallow a5, a rag, donkey raise, donkey call"

I may be incorrect, out of place or anything else, but I more than often give detailed reasons behind my opinions, he stated facts and then when everybody disagreed he continued to treat his statements as facts and didnt give reasoning. I actually spent time writing in detail why I disagreed with him and thus was trying to engage in a positive discussion.

I disagree with people every day it doesn't mean I call them ridiculous, you calling people bullys who actually do the opposite (help people out and give advice) is totally ool and be a reason why people stop contributing in pha.

[AndrewT]

I want to buy 10% of Bobby1's argument action at 1.3.

But if he tries to buy it back after totally nailing some other argument elsewhere he can GTFO.

[outragous76]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

I'm firmly in this camp.

This could also be argued to be incorrect.

Where one man sees a piss take another man sees value

[outragous76]

oh and these are not contracts fwiw, they are gentlemans agreements

[outragous76]

oh and these are not contracts fwiw, they are gentlemans agreements

in before JohnMW  posts "if there is offer, acceptance and consderation its a contract"