Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[DMorgan]

You'll never shift a penny of it with that ridiculous clause

Trolls gunna troll etc, obv the market is gunna let you know whether its a deal breaker or not.

glgl, lets see some more shoebombs

[skolsuper]

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

When you chime in with views about the mark up in other people’s threads I wonder why you care? The terms are clear before people decide to buy aren’t they?

My remarks were to add balance to your post stating this type of caveat is perfectly acceptable. More so to express my disapproval of the notion that a professional player would adopt an unhappy attitude if he was forced to honour a staking agreement. After asking for people’s money I think that would be unprofessional and would lack integrity. Don’t get why pro poker players think it’s ok to pick and choose which obligations to take seriously based on the amount of beer tokens in their pocket?

However, when we make general comments in staking threads the op will usually take the point personally. In this thread I don’t quote op and I use deliberate objective terms like ‘the horse’ and yet op has still taken things personally (op if I wanted to question your integrity I would quote you and do it directly). Sorry for any offence caused but we can either pass comment on general issues like caveats and value in staking threads or we can’t.

This:

Keys is an active buyer in blonde marketplace and it is in his interests for it to be in a healthy state, im not sure if you've ever bought before, but keys caring and you caring are two different things imo.

So I'll ask again, why do you care? Why have you chosen to challenge this particular injustice in the world, instead of making yourself much more useful, for example commenting on some youtube videos? Surely some people there are saying/doing far worse, and are more relevant to you?

[nirvana]

Would reactions be different if this was from a small player with a small package ?

[smashedagain]

[X] Show proof you are one of the best players on the planet
[X] Post an open and honest thread.
[X] Chuck the people of blonde a bone and allow them to profit from your ability
[X] Get abuse for your efforts by guys who don't have to invest.
 
As if having to deal with having ginger hair was not bad enough

[paulhouk03]

Would reactions be different if this was from a small player with a small package ?

if the player stated in the op what his intensions are what difference does it make?

[cambridgealex]

Would reactions be different if this was from a small player with a small package ?

if the player stated in the op what his intensions are what difference does it make?

it shouldn't but, it (wrongly) probably would

[smashedagain]

Would reactions be different if this was from a small player with a small package ?

if the player stated in the op what his intensions are what difference does it make?

it shouldn't but, it (wrongly) probably would

Must just be me who thought Glen was having a joke about small players with small packages

[MANTIS01]

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

When you chime in with views about the mark up in other people’s threads I wonder why you care? The terms are clear before people decide to buy aren’t they?

My remarks were to add balance to your post stating this type of caveat is perfectly acceptable. More so to express my disapproval of the notion that a professional player would adopt an unhappy attitude if he was forced to honour a staking agreement. After asking for people’s money I think that would be unprofessional and would lack integrity. Don’t get why pro poker players think it’s ok to pick and choose which obligations to take seriously based on the amount of beer tokens in their pocket?

However, when we make general comments in staking threads the op will usually take the point personally. In this thread I don’t quote op and I use deliberate objective terms like ‘the horse’ and yet op has still taken things personally (op if I wanted to question your integrity I would quote you and do it directly). Sorry for any offence caused but we can either pass comment on general issues like caveats and value in staking threads or we can’t.

This:

Keys is an active buyer in blonde marketplace and it is in his interests for it to be in a healthy state, im not sure if you've ever bought before, but keys caring and you caring are two different things imo.

So I'll ask again, why do you care? Why have you chosen to challenge this particular injustice in the world, instead of making yourself much more useful, for example commenting on some youtube videos? Surely some people there are saying/doing far worse, and are more relevant to you?

Yeah, perhaps I shouldn’t have posted in this thread. But I do find it quite hard to read bullshit and not respond. You said the caveat was perfectly acceptable. Here’s why it’s not. And I reckon as the sheriff of this here town you should listen up. A staking arrangement is a business deal not some jolly for one of your mates. So let’s start looking at it like a business deal with some degree of neutrality. The caveat presents the following deviations from standard

- Investors have their capital tied up for an indefinite period without any assurance of action.
- The horse has the luxury of using the investment when he’s running bad and can abandon investors if he finds form. Before the package starts investors are gambling their horse will run good.
- There is potential the investor will see his horse scoop the world and have to confront negative emotions/feeling cheated.

To think the addition of this caveat has no bearing on a deal is delusional. If I were negotiating a business deal I would expect some movement from the other side to recognise and absorb some of the risk associated with the addition of this caveat. Not one investor would cash in given the choice after the first bink remember. So selling at a standard rate after introducing such a caveat isn’t correct. I’m not saying anything against op and it's not 'abuse' ffs. But if something is very different it’s not ‘perfectly acceptable’ to say it’s the same. A more attractive rate than standard should be offered with every caveat attached, especially deals involving hundreds of thousands.

Btw bless you for caring x

[nirvana]

Would reactions be different if this was from a small player with a small package ?

if the player stated in the op what his intensions are what difference does it make?

it shouldn't but, it (wrongly) probably would

Must just be me who thought Glen was having a joke about small players with small packages

Size matters, as deep down, we all know

[DMorgan]

- There is potential the investor will see his horse scoop the world and have to confront negative emotions/feeling cheated.

I'm sure we could do a whip round and sort a shrink for Flushy if bram wins event 1

[Rupert]

- Investors have their capital tied up for an indefinite period without any assurance of action.
- The horse has the luxury of using the investment when he’s running bad and can abandon investors if he finds form. Before the package starts investors are gambling their horse will run good.
- There is potential the investor will see his horse scoop the world and have to confront negative emotions/feeling cheated.

These are all good reasons why it's very good that Chris included the caveat in his OP rather than just buying back his own action without saying anything before hand.

[NigDawG]

If I were negotiating a business deal I would expect some movement from the other side to recognise and absorb some of the risk associated with the addition of this caveat.

yeh and i actually already did this by charging a relatively low mark up, include pretty much all of the very softest events i.e. 1ks and 1.5ks, and include a main event free roll % if i bricked.

you might think the clause removes more value than this, but honestly i cannot see why.


there is an instance in which the clause could be extremely detrimental:

selling a package for the $10k 6 max and $10k main event together, selling at 1.5. reserve the right to cancel after the 6 max.

now it might well still be value, but it should be pretty clear that used in this context, it removes A LOT of value from the package and is open for abuse.

[SuuPRlim]

is everyone forgetting that is the caveat is enforced, chris will have returned investors a great profit?

So he's not saying - I want to use your money if I run bad, and not if I run good, he's saying "I want to use your money, then after we've run good I wanna 10x+ your money then cancel all your risk for the rest of the summer" don't forget, once he buys the action back, he's taking the same risks you took when you bought, as in the liklihood that he'll do it in.

It's just not an issue at all honestly. If I had a piece of chris I would praying to god I wouldn't have his action for the last 1/2 of the package, cos it'll mean I'll have done sick good from the deal. I think as well you're all underestimating what kind of bink he would need to cancel the deal, $120k would only 2x the package, so prolly needs to be ATT LEAST $200k and depending on the situ maybe not evven then, basically I think you're looking at $400k+ before he is a lock to want to buy his action back when every 1% has made a profit of $3,600.

I agree if the main event was included I'd be a bit more reticent as an investor (because a MASSIVE draw of the package would be to have BRam's action in that event) to the clause but as it stands right now I think it's 100% legitimate, even more so by the fact it's stated up front. And if the ME was included and I was adament I wanted the action regardless I would either stipulate when I bought that my ME action MUST stand, or insist he pays a premium purchasing it back, if he didn't want to do either I wouldn't buy but this isn't the case in this specific scenario.

Also I don't think it's a case of "good player gets X, bad player gets Y" I think it's a case of A PLAYER, putting in a non-stnd, but perfectly reasonable stipulation in a staking agreement. It defo isn't stnd btw, but out of line, it defo isn't, imo

[The Camel]

is everyone forgetting that is the caveat is enforced, chris will have returned investors a great profit?

So he's not saying - I want to use your money if I run bad, and not if I run good, he's saying "I want to use your money, then after we've run good I wanna 10x+ your money then cancel all your risk for the rest of the summer" don't forget, once he buys the action back, he's taking the same risks you took when you bought, as in the liklihood that he'll do it in.

It's just not an issue at all honestly. If I had a piece of chris I would praying to god I wouldn't have his action for the last 1/2 of the package, cos it'll mean I'll have done sick good from the deal. I think as well you're all underestimating what kind of bink he would need to cancel the deal, $120k would only 2x the package, so prolly needs to be ATT LEAST $200k and depending on the situ maybe not evven then, basically I think you're looking at $400k+ before he is a lock to want to buy his action back when every 1% has made a profit of $3,600.

I agree if the main event was included I'd be a bit more reticent as an investor (because a MASSIVE draw of the package would be to have BRam's action in that event) to the clause but as it stands right now I think it's 100% legitimate, even more so by the fact it's stated up front. And if the ME was included and I was adament I wanted the action regardless I would either stipulate when I bought that my ME action MUST stand, or insist he pays a premium purchasing it back, if he didn't want to do either I wouldn't buy but this isn't the case in this specific scenario.

Also I don't think it's a case of "good player gets X, bad player gets Y" I think it's a case of A PLAYER, putting in a non-stnd, but perfectly reasonable stipulation in a staking agreement. It defo isn't stnd btw, but out of line, it defo isn't, imo

It's implied that the "big score" is a tournament win.

How about if the big score isn't in this package?

What if Chris bought 50% of a bracelet winner and binked 300k?

What if he stuck $100 in wheel of fortune and won 500k?

[skolsuper]

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

When you chime in with views about the mark up in other people’s threads I wonder why you care? The terms are clear before people decide to buy aren’t they?

My remarks were to add balance to your post stating this type of caveat is perfectly acceptable. More so to express my disapproval of the notion that a professional player would adopt an unhappy attitude if he was forced to honour a staking agreement. After asking for people’s money I think that would be unprofessional and would lack integrity. Don’t get why pro poker players think it’s ok to pick and choose which obligations to take seriously based on the amount of beer tokens in their pocket?

However, when we make general comments in staking threads the op will usually take the point personally. In this thread I don’t quote op and I use deliberate objective terms like ‘the horse’ and yet op has still taken things personally (op if I wanted to question your integrity I would quote you and do it directly). Sorry for any offence caused but we can either pass comment on general issues like caveats and value in staking threads or we can’t.

This:

Keys is an active buyer in blonde marketplace and it is in his interests for it to be in a healthy state, im not sure if you've ever bought before, but keys caring and you caring are two different things imo.

So I'll ask again, why do you care? Why have you chosen to challenge this particular injustice in the world, instead of making yourself much more useful, for example commenting on some youtube videos? Surely some people there are saying/doing far worse, and are more relevant to you?

Yeah, perhaps I shouldn’t have posted in this thread. But I do find it quite hard to read bullshit and not respond. You said the caveat was perfectly acceptable. Here’s why it’s not. And I reckon as the sheriff of this here town you should listen up. A staking arrangement is a business deal not some jolly for one of your mates. So let’s start looking at it like a business deal with some degree of neutrality. The caveat presents the following deviations from standard

- Investors have their capital tied up for an indefinite period without any assurance of action.
- The horse has the luxury of using the investment when he’s running bad and can abandon investors if he finds form. Before the package starts investors are gambling their horse will run good.
- There is potential the investor will see his horse scoop the world and have to confront negative emotions/feeling cheated.

To think the addition of this caveat has no bearing on a deal is delusional. If I were negotiating a business deal I would expect some movement from the other side to recognise and absorb some of the risk associated with the addition of this caveat. Not one investor would cash in given the choice after the first bink remember. So selling at a standard rate after introducing such a caveat isn’t correct. I’m not saying anything against op and it's not 'abuse' ffs. But if something is very different it’s not ‘perfectly acceptable’ to say it’s the same. A more attractive rate than standard should be offered with every caveat attached, especially deals involving hundreds of thousands.

Btw bless you for caring x

All very waffly and fascinating I'm sure, but why do you care? You're never buying any of this, so why do you feel the need to "add balance"? There's all sorts of controversial shit going down in the world at the minute, like apple employees in china committing mass suicide, child labour making half the world's trainers, lads in Africa raising child armies and raping and slaughtering whole communities, why dont you go confront some of those inequities. Basically what I want to know is what made you post in this thread? Why here?