Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[bobAlike]

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.

I'm all for the simple life but I have to disagree.

Rightly so, stakers have a choice to buy or not buy, but horses have a responsibility to be open and honest when asking for staking. Nigdawg stated he reserves the right to buy back iof he binks early. I applaud his honesty but it's way too ambiguos. He should have stated what size bink would be needed to buy back his action. Whether or not that bink came as a result of the original stake or from an outside source etc.. Clarity is definately needed in these situations and should been defined at the time of the proposal.

Now I know and appreciate that Nigdawg only had the best intentions and that his integrity is not being questioned here, but it certainly feels like there's been a lot of arrogance in this thread for totally the wrong reasons and a lot of that arrogance seems to come from the other side of the camp just because Nigdawg is a friend.

BTW I think this far worse than the 70/30 thread simply because the other thread was simple with nothing hidden.

[GreekStein]

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?

NO I DIDNT SAY THAT.

I said I was LIKELY to disagree with Mantis.

Yes my jab was childish. I couldn't help it.

[bobAlike]

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

I think the problem is simply because lack of detail. Theoretically Nigdawg could bink event 1 for 50k, which is by no means a small amount of money, he then buys back the remainder 44.5k. He his now free rolling 50% of the tourney's for 100% of the action and nobody could say anything about it because the details are way to vague from the beginning.

[The Camel]

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?

NO I DIDNT SAY THAT.

I said I was LIKELY to disagree with Mantis.

Yes my jab was childish. I couldn't help it.

I am in the same camp. I am mostly likely to disagree with any given Mantis post.

In fact, he has posted the only thing I've ever been genuinely angry about on Blondepoker.

However, I have to say the vast majority of his points in this thread are spot on imo.

[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. 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. 

well a yes or no won't really cover it Tom. When people that have never sold before suddenly start selling at an unfair rate then it raises the cost price of the market for people that don't think it thru properly. By having the discussion it makes it better al round, this started as a point made by Bob and Keith regarding the wording of the OP request, it turned when people that could benefit from nothing being said started being nasty towards other posters.

You are obv going to agree with the caveat emptor approach as you were one of 70/30 sellers. That doesn't mean we all will tho.

[FUN4FRASER]

Im not taking sides here as there are plenty of good points raised but you cant deny that whether you like the buy back clause or not

Chris was 100% open in his opening post so potential investors had the option to decide to buy or not

As its been pointed out ....if the buy back clause was implemented it would suggest a big cash had been made so surely everybody would be happy plus the fact he may then not cash in the refunded events so maybe monies would be saved ...That said there is still a (greedy maybe ) part of me that feels it would be nice to stay loyal to the investor but of course I cant complain knowing the "terms of the contract "

I actually think some of the points raised by Mantis are quite valid and I actually enjoy reading most of his threads ,but his abrasive posting style both on this and other issues do not do himself any favours but one thing he does do is stimulate healthy debate so credit to him for that.

Good Luck to all In Vegas

[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?

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

Neither do I George but it is a pretty unclear approach and the original posters that questioned it were dealt with fairly, then Mantis started to get  unfair treatment and it became unfair.

[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. 

well a yes or no won't really cover it Tom. When people that have never sold before suddenly start selling at an unfair rate then it raises the cost price of the market for people that don't think it thru properly. By having the discussion it makes it better al round, this started as a point made by Bob and Keith regarding the wording of the OP request, it turned when people that could benefit from nothing being said started being nasty towards other posters.

You are obv going to agree with the caveat emptor approach as you were one of 70/30 sellers. That doesn't mean we all will tho.

But if you go back to my question and answer yes or no, I promise to agree with you.

[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.

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.

It already is Pleno, you create some really good HH but it gets replies from a limited amount of people because posters cannot go from treating a guy in the way of Aaron on that thread then expect people to reply on their next hand.

On that thread a group of people were ripping one guy to pieces, that was unfair and you advised him not to post on threads above his game level but did the same on a different thread. Not only do you not have any say in who posts on which thread, you also ignored your own advice.

[kinboshi]

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

I think the problem is simply because lack of detail. Theoretically Nigdawg could bink event 1 for 50k, which is by no means a small amount of money, he then buys back the remainder 44.5k. He his now free rolling 50% of the tourney's for 100% of the action and nobody could say anything about it because the details are way to vague from the beginning.

Surely if Chris bought back a percentage of himself he'd post on the thread (or otherwise inform all his stakers) exactly what percentage anyone has BEFORE the event starts?

If that's the case, everyone knows where they are and Chris has said from the off that the stakes for some of the events might be returned - which sounds fair enough to me.

[pleno1]

thats total bollocks.

[bobAlike]

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

I think the problem is simply because lack of detail. Theoretically Nigdawg could bink event 1 for 50k, which is by no means a small amount of money, he then buys back the remainder 44.5k. He his now free rolling 50% of the tourney's for 100% of the action and nobody could say anything about it because the details are way to vague from the beginning.

Surely if Chris bought back a percentage of himself he'd post on the thread (or otherwise inform all his stakers) exactly what percentage anyone has BEFORE the event starts?

If that's the case, everyone knows where they are and Chris has said from the off that the stakes for some of the events might be returned - which sounds fair enough to me.

The point I'm trying to make is there is there is nothing stopping him buying back all the stakes after 1 bink no matter how good or bad it is for the stakers.

[bobAlike]

thats total bollocks.

I'm confused, what's bollocks?

[millidonk]

thats total bollocks.

I'm confused, what's bollocks?

[NigDawG]

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

I think the problem is simply because lack of detail. Theoretically Nigdawg could bink event 1 for 50k, which is by no means a small amount of money, he then buys back the remainder 44.5k. He his now free rolling 50% of the tourney's for 100% of the action and nobody could say anything about it because the details are way to vague from the beginning.

i do not understand what this post is saying and i'm therefore not sure you understand how it works either.

using your example, binking 50k in event 1 win means i pay out 25k to investors and pocket 25k myself. if i then bought the remaining action (buyins * mark up * % sold) back, that costs me 28k to do so. the package would end after 1 event with 1% being worth $1,062 (cost price $600) booking investors a 77% return after 1 event. the package closed early, as was warned could happen in the op, and personally from here on out i have 100% of my own action to do with what i will.

i'm not "free rolling" anyone. it's true that in this example i have almost covered the cost of buying back the action with my share of the profit from event 1, but that's kind of irrelevant?