Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[bobby1]

Thanks for replying Dave, abs no offense taken at all. As i see it there is a v thin line between players wanting vegas staking to give friends and posters a chance to share in a big bink and ones that want a jolly up for a few weeks with their mates. they have worked out that getting others to buy a piece means they can do that when they may not be able to otherwise.

As a caveat it is v honest, it would put me off a little but the fact that you understand that and write it up so well makes me sure you are in the former staking category not the latter which would counteract my initial feeling.

Skol was right too, by using a saying like 'some people' makes the words that followapplicable to nobody so I would just reiterate abs none of them in the earlier post had you in mind.

Thanks

[bobby1]

So just because u don't know mantis u can't be bullying skol together? Think reasoned argument has gone out of the window and ur both just reading what u want to read and now seemingly picking at every clause someone has put in their staking thread. If u don't like- don't buy.

George, I agree with you that reasoned argument has gone out of the window but hold on a sec mate.I am not picking at any old clause someone has written, the only one I asked about was by Dave, if the polite question and answer aren't what you are looking for then what is?

Laughable that you are trying to paint Skol as being victimised, the guy was strutting round the thread telling people to go do something more important than post on it 2 nights ago.it was a v reasonable thread until then.

[George2Loose]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Never eat yellow snow. Be prepared.

[RED-DOG]

BOB imo.

[Doobs]

BOB imo.

Bag of bollocks?

[Woodsey]

BOB imo.

Bag of bollocks?

 

[skolsuper]

Lol mantis, you are a ridiculous human being.

All I set out to prove, and I think I got there pretty conclusively in the end* although it got a little messy along the way, was that you were only posting on this thread to start an argument. You are trolling, and the sooner the mods start treating your posts as such the better imo.

*

Market forces will dictate the success of a proposal and hence comment simply doesn't need to be made about perceived value from anybody uninvolved in the process. I think it's quite rude actually.

Thirdly and finally whenever there is talk of poker community it makes me rofl.

I posted because I am part of the poker community and a member of the Blonde forum. I hope that has cleared up the mystery.

@Bobby1, you have misquoted me again, for about the 20th time itt. If you're going to start a sentence with "skol says" or "skol thinks" at least use an actual quote so that the following statement might actually resemble something I do think or have said. I keep trying to tell you I've not said the things you're outraged about, I've asked about 6 times for you to tell me where I said this or that that you've accused me of saying itt, and you still haven't posted anything real. Go back to that Aaron thread, I posted once at the beginning, before aaron got involved, and that was it iirc. Here, I never said anyone can or can't post and never said anything was right or wrong without the qualifier that it was my opinion. If you think I was mean to mantis, it was only because I know he is just trolling and wanted people (maybe even some mods) to realise this, but I don't even think I did say anything mean and you haven't been able to find a post where I did, despite filling in the blanks behind the phrase "skol says" with your own words several times.

@ kinboshi, those were my sent pms, I got my permission first, but never mind.

@ dreenie, ty for taking the time to actually read what I am saying and ty for your kind words

[DMorgan]

The collective of players that sell action on this forum give you the opportunity to take a slice of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of expected value that they will generate. Please try to keep this in mind whenever posting on the subject.

Pretty much all of the players putting up these big packages (and therefore providing the most EV for the buyers) could just as easily sell their action on other platforms. Blonde is absolutely not in any position to regulate the market. It is a complete negative freeroll for regular users of the staking boards to try to do so because people will either shrug their shoulders and carry on as usual or they will decide that its too much hassle to take on the defenders of the universe and just post on 2p2 or facebook instead. You could argue that you are raising the issue to stop people from being exploited by buying bad value packages, but this is a $60k package. The people buying these type of packages are very likely to be highly experienced buyers that do not require a second opinion to see when a clause devalues the package to the point where they should not buy. Who do you think you are serving by taking on this crusade in the face of a market that is clearly telling you that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the buyers.

That the defenders do not realise this; clearly shows their lack of experience in staking, the structure of the overall market and how buyers and sellers fit into it.

I suppose it isn't strictly a negative freeroll - would be remiss of me to neglect the warm fuzzy feeling that the defenders get inside from (a) the belief that they are helping their community and (b) starting an argument.

It didn't work out very well for James but alas I will attempt to close with a question

To anyone that objects to the buy back clause: Who in your opinion benefits from banning such clauses? This would be the next logical step as transparency on the sellers part seems not to have satisfied you all both of you.

[sovietsong]

/thread

[The Camel]

The collective of players that sell action on this forum give you the opportunity to take a slice of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of expected value that they will generate. Please try to keep this in mind whenever posting on the subject.

Pretty much all of the players putting up these big packages (and therefore providing the most EV for the buyers) could just as easily sell their action on other platforms. Blonde is absolutely not in any position to regulate the market. It is a complete negative freeroll for regular users of the staking boards to try to do so because people will either shrug their shoulders and carry on as usual or they will decide that its too much hassle to take on the defenders of the universe and just post on 2p2 or facebook instead. You could argue that you are raising the issue to stop people from being exploited by buying bad value packages, but this is a $60k package. The people buying these type of packages are very likely to be highly experienced buyers that do not require a second opinion to see when a clause devalues the package to the point where they should not buy. Who do you think you are serving by taking on this crusade in the face of a market that is clearly telling you that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the buyers.

That the defenders do not realise this; clearly shows their lack of experience in staking, the structure of the overall market and how buyers and sellers fit into it.

I suppose it isn't strictly a negative freeroll - would be remiss of me to neglect the warm fuzzy feeling that the defenders get inside from (a) the belief that they are helping their community and (b) starting an argument.

It didn't work out very well for James but alas I will attempt to close with a question

To anyone that objects to the buy back clause: Who in your opinion benefits from banning such clauses? This would be the next logical step as transparency on the sellers part seems not to have satisfied you all both of you.

Umm clearly not true.

I have bought more shares and backed more people than I care to remember.

If this clause became "standard" I would simply stop buying action.

I am simply not going to buy shares in someone and be unsure if my stake is active or not until the tournament begins.

[RED-DOG]

Exactly Keith. You would exercise your right not to buy what the seller was offering.

Simples.

[MANTIS01]

Lol mantis, you are a ridiculous human being.

All I set out to prove, and I think I got there pretty conclusively in the end* although it got a little messy along the way, was that you were only posting on this thread to start an argument. You are trolling, and the sooner the mods start treating your posts as such the better imo.

*

Market forces will dictate the success of a proposal and hence comment simply doesn't need to be made about perceived value from anybody uninvolved in the process. I think it's quite rude actually.

Thirdly and finally whenever there is talk of poker community it makes me rofl.

I posted because I am part of the poker community and a member of the Blonde forum. I hope that has cleared up the mystery.

@Bobby1, you have misquoted me again, for about the 20th time itt. If you're going to start a sentence with "skol says" or "skol thinks" at least use an actual quote so that the following statement might actually resemble something I do think or have said. I keep trying to tell you I've not said the things you're outraged about, I've asked about 6 times for you to tell me where I said this or that that you've accused me of saying itt, and you still haven't posted anything real. Go back to that Aaron thread, I posted once at the beginning, before aaron got involved, and that was it iirc. Here, I never said anyone can or can't post and never said anything was right or wrong without the qualifier that it was my opinion. If you think I was mean to mantis, it was only because I know he is just trolling and wanted people (maybe even some mods) to realise this, but I don't even think I did say anything mean and you haven't been able to find a post where I did, despite filling in the blanks behind the phrase "skol says" with your own words several times.

@ kinboshi, those were my sent pms, I got my permission first, but never mind.

@ dreenie, ty for taking the time to actually read what I am saying and ty for your kind words

Sorry skolsuper. thought you said if people want an argument on the internet this is a good issue to start one over. Not so keen of a sudden? But if it was Boss Hogg Dubai ur nose would be seven shades of brown. If that wasn't enough hypocrisy for one day it is YOU who actually starts the argument in this thread. With your usual condescending ways. Think you should turn in your sheriff's badge and keep ur nose out of other people's staking threads from now on, don't you?

Btw you bin knocked out of the comp for hours now and ur still hanging around. Can someone get security pls.

[DMorgan]

Forgot to add that IMO the negative freeroll logic applies to James policing staking threads too, though to a much lesser extent. I've only seen James to militant in one thread and that was the staking proposal from John Black which as I think we'd all agree didn't ever resemble a viable proposal. I don't read every single thread though so could be off on this. James is an experienced staker & stakee so he's going to be right most of the time when he posts that a proposal is -EV for whatever reason. Objections in these threads are targeted at the potential stakee and are not general assertions. Even if the stakee decides not to post other threads which they might have done otherwise; the overall negative affect on the market is pretty small. I still object to the critiquing though.

The difference is that threads like this begin to jeopardise people posting big packages. Losing just one of these can wipe tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of EV from the staking board which is bad for the buyers since they have fewer opportunities to do a bink and is therefore bad for those just loving their community as they have less to rail in.

This equation kinda changes if the lobby against these clauses for the most part took no part in the buying of shares and maybe even has an irrational dislike for the buying community....but that is a discussion for another day I think

[The Camel]

If the clause had not been in the original post and Chris contacted the stakers half way through the package and said "I've just won 200k playing dice and I'm going to buy my action back".

Would you think think this was acceptable?

[DMorgan]

Umm clearly not true.

I have bought more shares and backed more people than I care to remember.

If this clause became "standard" I would simply stop buying action.

I am simply not going to buy shares in someone and be unsure if my stake is active or not until the tournament begins.

The inexperience in staking part doesn't apply to you but I think is a valid observation give the range of market activity of your peers on the banning side of the argument.

Do you disagree with my logic though on why it is bad for the buyers that this uproar occurred?