Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[MC]

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.

<3

[The Camel]

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?

I think it's about 1000 times better to have this discussion BEFORE a situation where a stakee binks a million dollars in a tournament where he has sold action and subsequently bought it back rather than sorting it out after it has happened.

I think if it was in Chris's mind he wanted to buy back his action, he shouldn't have put up such a big package. It sold out in about 15 minutes, so even though it might be a little bit of a ball ache, it would still have been better to try to sell the first 8 or so only, rather than adding this caveat imo.

I hope and trust Chris will not be deterred from selling action on Blonde because this has debate has taken place in the aftermath of his staking thread.

[MANTIS01]

If a horse buys back the rest of a stake in a +EV package at the same rate he bought it for, esp after a bink, that is a -EV situation for the buyer. It is +EV for the player to buy back his own action and -EV for the buyer to lose it. Why do you think buyers should just go uh ok to that? If the answer is the terms are clearly stated in op then cool, but why comment on -EV spots in other threads. Not being allowed to have a discussion in case value is lost from the board or whatever is like somebody picking up their football and flouncing home.

[bobAlike]

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.

<3

I think you'll find it's the ambiguity which hasn't satisfied us. Even the right honourable Chris Brammer hasn't yet decided at what point he would break the stake.

[MC]

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.

<3

I think you'll find it's the ambiguity which hasn't satisfied us. Even the right honourable Chris Brammer hasn't yet decided at what point he would break the stake.

Are you an investor? If not, why do you need to be satisfied by this question?

[DMorgan]

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?

No I don't think that this would be acceptable but it isn't something that the market can regulate because it isn't enforceable.

Again it is something that would only apply to big packages that would only sell out if they are from reputable posters at those stakes. I think the buyers of these packages are plenty savvy and just wouldn't buy from someone where this would be a risk - especially given the number of times blonde has been bitten with stakees going AWOL.

Going back to my first post on this page and how the relationship is a one way street (blonde needs the sellers but the sellers don't need blonde) I think that this sentence pretty much tells the whole story:

i am also going to reserve the right to buy back my own action, if i want to, after hitting a big score early.

Nowhere does Chris infer that he is talking about anything outside the staking proposal and actually in Chris' position I would be pretty insulted at the suggestion that I would buy back the action with no return to my backers.  I think this clause shows that Chris is treating the people that buy pieces of this package with the right amount of appreciation and respect.

I can see how my posts could come across as sort of 'who cares about the stakers, its all about the sellers' but I do agree with Mantis that horses should turn up to tournaments on time, not take jollys off without good reason and should treat their backers in professional manner which is a standard that I always try to hold myself to when I am staked. I can't claim to be perfect - I was monster hungover for the start of one of the sides in Marbella but I think a more tempered approach would be better to be in line with the casual nature of posting on a semi-public forum for staking into a poker tournament.

If you want your horse to sign a contract, clock in 30 minutes before every tournament and emailing doctors notes when they miss a tournament then thats cool, there are these people out there and feel free to buy. You're not going to find these people putting up +EV staking proposals in major evens though because everyone that is capable of doing that has realised that their time is too valuable to be spending in pandering to stakers whose methods reduce the efficiency of the transaction.

[bobAlike]

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.

<3

I think you'll find it's the ambiguity which hasn't satisfied us. Even the right honourable Chris Brammer hasn't yet decided at what point he would break the stake.

Are you an investor? If not, why do you need to be satisfied by this question?

I am not an investor in this particular proposal and I respect your question irrespective of whether you are an investor or not. The reason I am interested is that as an investor in other proposals I would hate to see this caveat become the norm. I can respect the fact that proposers put this caveat in their proposals but not when it's left so ambiguous that it's open to abuse.

I would consider in investing in a proposal with this caveat if the terms were open and transparent.

Anymore questions about my interest?

[MANTIS01]

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.

<3

I think you'll find it's the ambiguity which hasn't satisfied us. Even the right honourable Chris Brammer hasn't yet decided at what point he would break the stake.

Are you an investor? If not, why do you need to be satisfied by this question?

Dude I've been playing poker for a decade, and bobAlike looks a damn site older than me so he's obv been playing for a lot longer. Many people like us have staked people, been ripped off, swapped % and all the other things that happen when ur involved in poker over a number of years. So general trends in poker affect all of us and thus we all have a right to be satisfied by such questions.

@DMorgan I think ur right. The balance of power is with the player at the moment. Do you think that is a good thing or do you think we should strive for a fair balance between the two? Seems that because the power is with the players they can now liberally add -EV caveats or retain the right to go out on the lash. Think that's kinda exploiting the balance of power really.

[bobAlike]

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.

<3

I think you'll find it's the ambiguity which hasn't satisfied us. Even the right honourable Chris Brammer hasn't yet decided at what point he would break the stake.

Are you an investor? If not, why do you need to be satisfied by this question?

Dude I've been playing poker for a decade, and bobAlike looks a damn site older than me so he's obv been playing for a lot longer. Many people like us have staked people, been ripped off, swapped % and all the other things that happen when ur involved in poker over a number of years. So general trends in poker affect all of us and thus we all have a right to be satisfied by such questions.

@DMorgan I think ur right. The balance of power is with the player at the moment. Do you think that is a good thing or do you think we should strive for a fair balance between the two? Seems that because the power is with the players they can now liberally add -EV caveats or retain the right to go out on the lash. Think that's kinda exploiting the balance of power really.

@MANTIS With age comes wisdom this why I see ourselves as the Marvel Avengers. Camel I see as Thor, you as a cocky Ironman, Bobby as either Nick Fury or Captain America (I'll let him decide) and myself as the Hulk, obv

[DMorgan]

I think it's about 1000 times better to have this discussion BEFORE a situation where a stakee binks a million dollars in a tournament where he has sold action and subsequently bought it back rather than sorting it out after it has happened.

I think if it was in Chris's mind he wanted to buy back his action, he shouldn't have put up such a big package. It sold out in about 15 minutes, so even though it might be a little bit of a ball ache, it would still have been better to try to sell the first 8 or so only, rather than adding this caveat imo.

I hope and trust Chris will not be deterred from selling action on Blonde because this has debate has taken place in the aftermath of his staking thread.

But my point is that yours is completely moot Keith because its unenforceable. If the guy wants to buy his action back after a million dollar score then he's just gunna send you a big chunk of money and not send if he cashes the next one and there isn't anything you can do about it. If this were somehow enforceable and the horse agreed do it then I agree that it would be sensible to discuss a plan of action for the big bink scenario.

Choosing to put up the package like this rather than a few smaller packages would be silly on Chris' part when his previous sellout packages snap sold. Previous sales indicate that doing so would be a negative freeroll for him (more admin, playing up to 7 tournaments that he'd want to buy back his action for) so its -EV for buyers to demand that from such a weak market position when Chris could just sell elsewhere.

[George2Loose]

Lol these metaphors are just getting more and more ridiculous. Like ur some sort of staking regulators saving poor investors from being ripped off by the bad guys. Get real

[The Camel]

I think it's about 1000 times better to have this discussion BEFORE a situation where a stakee binks a million dollars in a tournament where he has sold action and subsequently bought it back rather than sorting it out after it has happened.

I think if it was in Chris's mind he wanted to buy back his action, he shouldn't have put up such a big package. It sold out in about 15 minutes, so even though it might be a little bit of a ball ache, it would still have been better to try to sell the first 8 or so only, rather than adding this caveat imo.

I hope and trust Chris will not be deterred from selling action on Blonde because this has debate has taken place in the aftermath of his staking thread.

But my point is that yours is completely moot Keith because its unenforceable. If the guy wants to buy his action back after a million dollar score then he's just gunna send you a big chunk of money and not send if he cashes the next one and there isn't anything you can do about it. If this were somehow enforceable and the horse agreed do it then I agree that it would be sensible to discuss a plan of action for the big bink scenario.

Choosing to put up the package like this rather than a few smaller packages would be silly on Chris' part when his previous sellout packages snap sold. Previous sales indicate that doing so would be a negative freeroll for him (more admin, playing up to 7 tournaments that he'd want to buy back his action for) so its -EV for buyers to demand that from such a weak market position when Chris could just sell elsewhere.

It's sending the money back BEFORE a million dollar score which would cause controversy, not after!

[bobAlike]

Lol these metaphors are just getting more and more ridiculous. Like ur some sort of staking regulators saving poor investors from being ripped off by the bad guys. Get real

If you can't see that my post is meant to be tongue in cheek then I think you need to get real.

[MANTIS01]

Lol these metaphors are just getting more and more ridiculous. Like ur some sort of staking regulators saving poor investors from being ripped off by the bad guys. Get real

would you like to be spiderman George?

[George2Loose]

Lol these metaphors are just getting more and more ridiculous. Like ur some sort of staking regulators saving poor investors from being ripped off by the bad guys. Get real

would you like to be spiderman George?

Doctor who pls