Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[DMorgan]

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.

Clearly your assertions about EV are all true but buyers should be fine with that because of their market position and its repercussions of not being fine with that as explained above.  

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.

Can you explain how so? IMO increasing the value of the board and therefore the prosperity of both buyers and sellers is the whole point of the board existing?

[MC]

Are you guys purposely trying to tilt the crap out of everyone?

Fwiw, it's worked incredibly well on me, so well done.

[bobAlike]

Are you guys purposely trying to tilt the crap out of everyone?

Fwiw, it's worked incredibly well on me, so well done.

+1

[The Camel]

Are you guys purposely trying to tilt the crap out of everyone?

Fwiw, it's worked incredibly well on me, so well done.

I've read hundreds of staking requests on here and 2+2 and elsewhere. I've bought shares in well over 100.

I have never seen this caveat before in any staking request.

I don't want this this caveat to become standard. Others obviously don't agree.

I think it's worthy of a full debate.

Sorry if this tilts you James, I suggest you stop reading the thread.

[DMorgan]

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.

As above - prospective buyers are not in a position to demand such information

Given that the OP is exactly what Chris posted - the action has sold therefore total EV for the partnership has been maximised. It is perfectly efficient. There is no better outcome. Chris could have marked up the package a little more or made more stringent demands but he can do that too until the package stops selling out. At that point we have a problem because total EV isn't being maximised and at that point it is on the seller to back down and meet the buyers demands but we are not at that point or anywhere near it, hence it is still a negative freeroll for blonde to drive sellers away with policies such as a ban on a buy back clause.

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.

Still haven't had an answer to this

[bobAlike]

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.

As above - prospective buyers are not in a position to demand such information

Given that the OP is exactly what Chris posted - the action has sold therefore total EV for the partnership has been maximised. It is perfectly efficient. There is no better outcome. Chris could have marked up the package a little more or made more stringent demands but he can do that too until the package stops selling out. At that point we have a problem because total EV isn't being maximised and at that point it is on the seller to back down and meet the buyers demands but we are not at that point or anywhere near it, hence it is still a negative freeroll for blonde to drive sellers away with policies such as a ban on a buy back clause.

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.

Still haven't had an answer to this

I think that is the most laughable statement I've ever read on Blonde. So you think it's ok to say come and buy my stock but you can't ask what I'm going to do with it? I like your post normally but this made me smile

[The Camel]

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.

As above - prospective buyers are not in a position to demand such information

Given that the OP is exactly what Chris posted - the action has sold therefore total EV for the partnership has been maximised. It is perfectly efficient. There is no better outcome. Chris could have marked up the package a little more or made more stringent demands but he can do that too until the package stops selling out. At that point we have a problem because total EV isn't being maximised and at that point it is on the seller to back down and meet the buyers demands but we are not at that point or anywhere near it, hence it is still a negative freeroll for blonde to drive sellers away with policies such as a ban on a buy back clause.

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.

Still haven't had an answer to this

Obviously it would be in the stakers interest for buying back to be banned.

But, from a purely neutral point of view (I didn't buy a share in this package, so I have no axe to grind) I think this clause is unfairly weighted to the horse. The horse will only be buying back action if he's playing well, confident and in form - hence the package value has gone up.

If he's playing tez, there will be no chance for the staker to get out of it.

[DMorgan]

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.

But as I said earlier your point is moot because this isn't open to abuse. With the calibre, trustworthiness etc. of the horse you just aren't gunna see these guys rolling the investors with craps spinups etc. Reputation amongst high stakes MTTers is huge. Every financial transaction becomes a whole lot harder to complete and its just not worth the EV and they would gain to pull something like that. Its not even for actual money!

If Chris binked $200k on his premium bonds this month I think he's 0% to show up here demanding all the action back.

[The Camel]

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.

But as I said earlier your point is moot because this isn't open to abuse. With the calibre, trustworthiness etc. of the horse you just aren't gunna see these guys rolling the investors with craps spinups etc. Reputation amongst high stakes MTTers is huge. Every financial transaction becomes a whole lot harder to complete and its just not worth the EV and they would gain to pull something like that. Its not even for actual money!

If Chris binked $200k on his premium bonds this month I think he's 0% to show up here demanding all the action back.

This is true and this why it's very unfortunate that this is has blown up from from Chris's initial staking thread.

However, just becuase we trust Chris not to do this, doesn't mean there aren't lots of players who wouldn't.

That is why this debate is so important imo.

[bobAlike]

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.

But as I said earlier your point is moot because this isn't open to abuse. With the calibre, trustworthiness etc. of the horse you just aren't gunna see these guys rolling the investors with craps spinups etc. Reputation amongst high stakes MTTers is huge. Every financial transaction becomes a whole lot harder to complete and its just not worth the EV and they would gain to pull something like that. Its not even for actual money!

If Chris binked $200k on his premium bonds this month I think he's 0% to show up here demanding all the action back.

It's very naive thinking if you think this ambiguous caveat could never be abused.

[DMorgan]

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.

This infers that because you've been around for a long time you should have some sort of right to demand more information than other players? When your money becomes more valuable than anyone elses you can demand that, but not before because you'll just be forced out of the market.

@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?

Yes the balance of power is with the players on this board but it will always be that way until the staking board gets more requests than 2p2 or facebook.

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.

Its just standard Economics though. The seller raises the price (by adding -EV caveats or retaining the right to go on the lash) until he hits an equilibrium and there is no excess demand. Due to the nature of staking proposals you can't change the price mid game (at least you couldn't pre-auctions, they just speed up the process and allow the seller to find his max price faster) so the sellers trying to maximise EV will just mark up each proposal at a higher rate, or push for some other clauses. A quick glance back at requests from 2008 shows that very few percentages were sold at markup. Price of poker is goooooooin' up.

[DMorgan]

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

But my point was that it would never be worth it for the horse to do that for reasons in post #202

[MANTIS01]

If a staking request has a long list of 23 comps included in a 'series package' and there's stuff about how exicted the horse is about smashing the series up etc investors are buying into that. Because that is the product the horse appears to be selling. Then if there's just one sentence right at the bottom of a long op as a kinda foot note containing this new caveat which experienced backers like Camel have never seen before then it should be challenged imo. So who is sheriff to snap at people wanting to discuss it? If nothing else it highlights an issue that could realistically be missed by potential buyers. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.

[DMorgan]

Are you guys purposely trying to tilt the crap out of everyone?

Fwiw, it's worked incredibly well on me, so well done.

I've read hundreds of staking requests on here and 2+2 and elsewhere. I've bought shares in well over 100.

I have never seen this caveat before in any staking request.

I don't want this this caveat to become standard. Others obviously don't agree.

I think it's worthy of a full debate.

Sorry if this tilts you James, I suggest you stop reading the thread.

I've already proven that its a negative freeroll for Blonde to have this full debate because as the market is right now everyone is maximising EV and it is perfectly efficient. If blonde enforces the ban and Chris has to at a lower price (by taking out the caveat) then he loses EV but equally if buyers don't buy because of the clause they are passing up EV.

You are arguing that banning these caveats would increase total EV for the forum  but its already maximised within the parameters of Chris' post because it sold out. Removing the caveat from the package decreases its price which shifts EV from the seller to the buyer but total EV cannot increase.

Under your proposals the forum gets negatively freerolled because either the horse will accept the caveat being taken out (EV is still maximised because the package sold out) or he will go and sell elsewhere and the forum loses a chunk of EV.

[AlexMartin]

cliffs?