blonde poker forum

As most of you know I am  an amiable quite unassuming chap, someone you would hardly notice in a card room or a public library etc.. a wall flower if you will.... so please be patient with me as a I write this shall we say observation about a tiny detail that was ever so slightly annoying last evening. I wanted to reply to the Camel's post describing the exit he made from the Epo (the fact that the bloke had the bare baboon arsed nerve to ask for peoples money is beyond me, but thats another story for another time) but alas it seems that if I haven't accrued 500 or so post's (I stand to be corrected?) then I cant add my views,ask for staking, offer to stake, or tell you how brilliantly I played but ultimately got sent home by some fish who was chasing a one outer made  on the river etc etc ad nauseum ad inifinitum.

So to the point: if I had posted 500 post's of absolute crap about me for example "going into the office" or being "stuck on the train" or "retiring for the 1000th time from poker" or what "Mrs BF or young BF might or might not be having for breakfast" or "Depending on whether my DSS giro clears on time  I may or may not  go " or "whether there is enough time in the day to write a load of bollox about how depressed I am on the one hand yet how good life is on the other hand." or writing in code something like "much lolage or cabbage or whatever the words are, I could go on but you get the picture.

So lets say I did make the  required amount of posts and was then able to ask for staking, what I ask did I or anyone else gain from waiting a day or two while I rattled off the said nonsense? Would anyone back anyone they didn't know or a least know something about? The Board bosse's already quite rightly state that all transactions are between the parties themselves and have nothing to do with Blonde, so what is the reason in denying me access to the staking forum because I dont have the required number of posts.

I have been around for a good many years and I can assure you all that if I was to stake someone they would get there money, and like I said if  was to ask for staking (about the same odds as drain posting something I would find interesting, or chumpy inviting me to be his best man ) then surely you would have the common sense to ignore the post or find out more.

Thanks very kindly for any sensible replies.

yours ever

Stephen

Much cabbage.

Is this meant to be funny? Feel like I am getting whooshed.

it's 300 posts Stephen, and it's there as a safety net (although obviously some bad apples will still get through, and some other reliable people won't be able to use the staking boards for some time).  There's never going to be a perfect solution, but personally I think the 300 posts measure is a reasonable one.  It's the only part of the forum where a minimum post count is required, although I can appreciate it might be frustrating if you want to post a reply to something specific on one of the threads there.  As you point out, staking deals are private arrangements between individuals, but I still think that some element of control over who uses those boards here is a good thing for the community, otherwise they would inevitably become clogged with posts from new members joining specifically to look for backing.  There are plenty of other forums/avenues available to individuals who want to get involved in staking arrangements outside of blonde.

Lol.

have i been wooshed?

Almost saves me posting a reply Stephen


For the record the 300 posts is an arbitrary limit. It's not designed to affect reasonable and reputable people like you, who've been around a long time but don't post very much, more to act as a safety net as Claw says. Of course there is no substitute for research by the stakee and nothing to say a poster with more than 300 posts might be unscrupulous, as we've found.

However what it does do is provide a cooling off period where newbies wanting to come on and get staked have 300 posts to form an impression, and potential stakers get to know them. Equally the mods can work out fairly easily which posters are posting nonsense to get to 300 posts pretty quickly

There is one other area where a post count requirement is needed and that's 10 posts to be able to use the PM service. This prevents well first time posters coming on an a) spammin commerical serives by PM or b) block PMing porn by PM, both of which have occurred in the past. 

I know Stephen that at some stage you were intending to post your views on staking, we discussed it face to face at Luton and you have strong views. That would be an interesting debate, given your long experiences in the field, if you wished to start that...
 

lolol

Personally the 300 post rule doesn't mean too much to me.

If someone has 30000 posts and I don't know them I won't stake them.

If they have 3 posts and I've known them for years I'll stake them.

You seem like a sensible person who is reasonably well known but I won't be staking you as I haven't got a clue who you are.

As for the "500 posts of absolute crap" thing. I don't think it makes a difference in getting staked. The people who stake on here aren't completely stupid.

People get staked either because they're well liked or because they're a +EV prospect.

I honestly can't see a problem with people who have 30 posts asking for staking. If people don't know them they won't get staked, simple as that.

I guess by restricting it in this way it stops the board getting cluttered by random beggars but other than that I don't think it's a great guide at all.

300 post is a good rule imo. If not we'd get so many people coming on begging to be staked, all the BBP crew etc. Atm there is some seriously +ev investments notably James Keys London (+Dublin) package and Keith Mfkin Hawkings 0.85:1 EPO package.

you don't need 300 posts to do that.

Can't post on the staking board without 300 posts Nick.

Oh....thought  just comments was OK.

Post the comments on hand analysis board then  :)

Thanks kindly for your replies:

POKERFAN nope sorry didn't understand a word of your well thought out and measured reply,something about leafy green vegetables from the family Brassicaceae, am I to assume your excited and  will be eating some any time soon?

LONGY again thank you but I have never knowingly "whooshed" anyone unless of course your including Alison carter on a school trip to the science museum in about 1971

CLAW75 Thanks very kindly for your reply it has made things a little clearer.

TIGHTEND likewise a very helpful reply, I do indeed have a serious point i wish to discuss about staking but where should one post it ? I would like those that use the staking forum to read it and comment.

EVILPIE thankyou for taking the time to reply I agree with you entirely.

PLENO1 in your opinion certainly not mine.

CLAW75 perhaps you could explain Whooshed to me, as you clearly think I may have done it to you?

Either carry on with this thread or start a new one in the 'Rail' section of the forum.  Once 'staking' is mentioned in the title they'll read it. 

Stephen...post your views on staking on this board please, or even this thread, if you wish. I know your views are trenchant and forthright so could be an interesting debate.


Alll those who use the staking forum will see it on this board.

I'm not sure if you just want to make an attack on The Camel or what you're reasons for posting are. Check "The Camel" on sharkscope if you have any doubt of his ability!

Pleno, Calm down, take some deep breaths, put your head between your legs, breath into a paper bag  or do whatever you were told  to do when your about to put 2 and 2 together to make 45, I am not attacking anyone and I am certainly not doubting keiths ability to play poker, its the staking bit I am interested in.

haha wasn't not calm, sorry for being incorrect on your intentions. Skim read your post at work and obviously got myself mixed up. Happy posting sir!

Who said El Sid was allowed 2 accounts?

In before 'why do winning players need to be staked?'

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.

Are the last three post's above this one directed at me because if so i don't understand any of them, you will need to elaborate please?

Steve, if you need to borrow some cash, PM me as it'll be a lot less embarrassing for both of us if you become my bitch in private

Glen that's not very reassuring as there is nothing private about the one you have now.

PS can you do a fiver until friday week?

Poor Greg won't like being thought of like this on the back of my staking. Now be nice and I'll bring the pelf next week

I would like an explanation why you chose to pick on me.

I offered to sell shares at less than face value for a tournament.

Lots of people, including someone who bought a significant share told me I was crazy, and should have sold at 1.25 or 1.3:1 in this tournament.

I could have posted nothing, I could have posted "iam out", I decided to post what happened to me on day 2 of the tournament. I said I made a bad call to lose most of my chips. I also said I got very unlucky to go out, this is what happened.

The staking forum is a great thing here imo. I have regularly bought and sold shares.

If you invested in me and were unhappy fair enough, I'll take criticism.

If you aren't stfu and mind your own business imo.

keith, Glad you popped bye I am not questioning who bought shares or how you spent them, I don't care what hand you went out on or what price you sold the shares at,but i am interested in the selling of shares in the first place.perhaps you could answer a question for me in advance of an upcoming topic the more sensible members of this board are about to have. The question is why do you feel its necassary to sell shares in yourself to play in a tournament. I am not picking on you per se its just that I found the last line of your exit post very interesting, the line after this one:

Gutted, best value tournament I've played in years."

Really can't see the need for this at all.Do you think Jake had the nerve to to ask for people's money when he binked 250k and made his stakers a huge return or when Dubai asked for staking and made 600k with $120 becoming $6000,not a bad return eh ?

Sensible according to who's criteria? Yours?

Do you consider deliberate rudeness sensible?

The simple answer as to why I was selling shares is that its none of your effing business.

But the more polite version is there are approximately 20 grands worth of tournaments I would like to play in the next month. If I paid with my own shilling and blanked out, Mrs Camel would not be very happy, so in an attempt to reduce variance I decided to sell some shares.

Some of the best players poker players in Britain have bought shares in me in the past, I won't embarress them by naming them, but I am sometimes quite surprised how highly some players rate my game. I reguarly offer shares in big buyin events at 1.1 or 1.15 sometimes 1.2. The choice is in the court of the buyer, if they don't think it's value, they don't buy. I have never badgered or begged people to buy, I have just put up my proposal and seen if there is any interest. And all except once, I have sold out.

And what exactly was the line after "Gutted, best value tournament I've played in years.".

 I don't see one?

Fair enough end of chat I shall withdraw from the subject.

Just tell me what you meant by the line after "Gutted, best value tournament I've played in years.".

I think you owe me an explanation for the unwarranted personal abuse.

You Dont see a line Keith because there isn't one. Thanks for your Answer though and if Im reading it correctly the bottom line is you would rather risk other peoples money than your own, so mrs camel doesn't get on your case?

What line would you have liked me to have written?

I was just saying the EPO was the best value big buyin I think I have ever played (WSOP included) and the stakers were unlucky not to get a return.

you dont play poker right?


not every one has the bankrolls to constantly be playing 5k+ tournies. those that can still hope to have a skill edge over the majority of the field are able to v easily sell out pieces of their action to other plays, those players can either also be underrolled for those games, unable to play for whatever reason, or fancy a punt.

Keith provides good value staking offers + gives you reasonable and honest responses. be less of a dousche if you can pls.

I'm surprised someone so self-righteous and opinionated as yourself would risk commenting on something your so clearly pretty clueless on.

This

What's your point Birdforum?

I dont really see a problem with staking, I am not a staker or a stakee but i can see where it will suit all parties as  Keith says playing 20k this month in London with no draw will rapidly show in your B/R and many players some you would not even think about are staked into many events.
IMO staking gives the player receiving a chance to beat the variance in the game and also the staker/s get an interest and hope of a decent return on a small outlay mostly in an event that they probably would not be playing or even if they are playing its like swapping a % with someone.
Its up to the staker if they feel the deal is good enough or if the player is +ev

what i am trying to understand is why people who are capable of putting themselves into a reasonably priced tournament ask for help? Is it because they want to spread a little money and happiness to the backers if they win? or is it because they dont really trust there ability to risk there own money or is it because they really cant afford it? I dont see a problem with it and i have been known to back a few horses myself, however there is a debate to be had on it and I am truly interested in peoples opinions on it.

Using keith as an example with hindsite was a bad idea and i apologise unreservedly for any offence I may have caused him.

Titanium bean your right I dont play poker.

It is quite ironic, bordering on funny that Birdforum chose to pick on my selling shares at 0.85:1 for the EPO as an example of "babboon faced cheek".

Putting any modesty aside, I really think this was pretty amazing value.

i would guesstimate my ROI in this field to be over 200%.

Now if he had chosen to attack me selling in the WSOPE at 1.1 he might have had a point...

Keith you are missing the point, its not about how much you sold them for or even who sold them the question is WHY, which you have answered.

Then why sell shares?

what did "Baboon faced cheek" and "Stupid members" have to do with the point please?

Apology accepted.

The truth is, it's neither of those things you say.

I am offerung a business proposal to people I know. They buy a share in my action and get a % of the winnings. I get to spread my variance the stakers get some fucking action and hopefully a financial return.

I think I am +ev in nearly every poker tournament I enter, I offer shares at usually a small markup, less than the ev I believe I am.

The stakers decide if that is value or not.

End of story.

I nearly bought shares in Dubai for the WCOOP hi rollers, I decided the markup was too high and didn't buy. At 1.1 or less I would have snapped bought. I'm still kicking myself I didn't. And the bastard didn't even buy me a beer tonight. :D

so tilting

Because I didn't know in advance how soft the field was LDO.

If I had, I probably would have sold a small portion to the guys who have bought shares in me in the past because I know (by experience) how tilting it is to see someone you've staked in the past scoop big without having any of the action.

But wouldn't have offered shares on the forum.

PS. For avoidance of doubt, I am not including Mr James Dempsey in the category "One of the best players in Britain".

Ty.

Take the GUKPT circuit i think it must cost 2-2.5k including expenses if you play the main event and 2 sides which is 30k per year or basically a second place with the number of runners this year. How many of the players do you think can sustain that? So players will always try to sell a bit of themselves as there can only be 20 players who finish first or second in the main event.
Other players are maybe  +ev in the pokerz but have other degen activities that influence their B/R so ppl will always have a stake in them if the deal is right.
I dont have 300 posts so could not stake but at .85 : 1 i thought this was a great deal, as i would have thought a deal at less that 1 : 1 would only be seen from less exp players

Mondatoo are you sure I know nothing about this subject?

Red Dog where have I written "stupid members"

Keith thanks for your reasoning and answers. Im still not sure getting staked if you can afford to buy in yourself is a good thing in poker, I understand fully the reasoning behind those that cant afford to buy in but I can think of numerous examples of friendships going tits up because of staking.

That's how you come across.Tbh you tilted me loads and I think as you've now said yourself you where out of order in your OP.

Blatch being the prime example of "friendships going tits up" I guess.

But being the character he was/is I guess even if it wasn't for the Betfair thing Neil would have screwed his friends in other ways if that opportunity hadn't existed.

I always used 3 criteria before staking someone (in order of importance) 1. I trust them. 2. I like them. 3. I rate their playing ability as +ev in the event being staked.

If people stick to those rules, I doubt many friendships will get ruined by staking.

I can't think of many poker tournaments I couldn't afford to buy into, but the chances of me buying in to £20k poker tournaments in one month without staking is zero.  DUCY?

Doobs, so its about not risking your own money for you?

Mr Birdforum, what are your personal views on staking as a whole? Not thoughts about other people's choice to receive/give staking, just your views on the subject. I've seen a few references in this thread that you have some strong views on this subject yet you don't appear to have posted them.

You haven't, but you implied it here.



Also, you didn't answer my question. or the one about "Baboon faced cheek"

LOL someone quote my original post, I just knew it was coming....

Birdforum, I will spell it out in words of one syllable.

It has nowt to do with not risking my own money.

It is about playing within my roll.

I could afford to play all these events if I wanted to.

I decided I did not want to lose 20k in one month, so I gave the chance for others to buy a % of me.

If they chose not to, I would either cut back my schedule or pay out of my own pocket.

I would probably have swerved the wsope and played the EPO and the EPT if I couldn't get backing...

Ok?

Sharplea good question. I dont have any problem with people in general asking for staking, a person will look at what he/she is being asked to stake and make a decision based on several factors.

What amazes me is people who can patently afford to buy into lets say a £1500 tourny selling shares or asking for staking?

For the avoidance of doubt I have staked £$£$£$000s over the years to people who genuinly couldn't afford the buy in.

Red dog do yourself a favour and don't misquote me.

Do myself a favour, what does that mean?

CLIFFS
Birdforum declares been looking around site for a while but not posted much
Starts posting a thread about staking
Annoys The Camel (legendary staker/stakee)
By Weds 15th September reaches 300 posts on the subject
Asks for staking into WSOPE main event

It means Red dog that you have misquoted me twice,and it would be a bit daft of you to make it a treble.

If we go by traditional tournament bankrolls then, people need 100-200 x the buy in. Using your example, The Camel (for the tournament he posted a staking request for) would need £5k x 100-200, meaning his poker bankroll would be somewhere in the region of £500,000 to £1,000,000. Now I don't know the details of The Camel's personal bankroll, but I doubt it's that much.

Approximately 90% of players who play £1500 tourneys don't have the bankroll to play them. They're either "taking a shot", playing way out of their roll or they're staked to reduce variance. If they're staked, then to them it could be a £750 tourney dependent on how much they sell. They might have a bankroll for £750 tourneys.

I think the staking thread is great on here. Getting Ironside into the wsope PLO event was legendary.

I would love it if Red Dog would put up a staking thread for the wsop main event. The event is tailor made for him and it would be a way of posters on here to say thankyou for his invaluable contribution to blondepoker over the last several years.

yes, there has been a couple of disappointments, but on the whole the staking forum is one the best features of blondepoker.

imo of course.

Great thread. WP everyone.

What are your thoughts on swapping percentages in tournaments Birders? Is this a good idea iyo?

I lol'ed.

(but didn't post a smiley :o )

Sharplea are you serious about 90% of poker players not affording the £1500?

Keith I agree the staking forum is fabulous value.

Red dog Its a deal.

Depends who with chumpy, on the whole I think its a good idea but beware there is the occasional childish girly poofter who sends schoolgirl texts to alleged friends and pisses them off .
I'll let you know if i see such a person.

FYP

I think there is a good debate to be had, as to whether staking is a sensible thing to be involved in.
It seems to have exploded within the poker community, in the last 2 - 3 years.

In truth, most staking that takes place is either -ev, or not as +ev as the staker (and stakee) believes.
(Even if a player is a winning player, by selling at 1.2, he is locking up the profit for himself, and the buyer can be purchasing at neutral ev).

Some of the staking that is on a larger scale basis, seems to be more ego driven - i.e. to have a 'stable' that you 'own'.

There are clearly instances which are more attractive - Camel, Jake Cody etc... by consensus seem to be good buys.

Well, it's been a tough day. I lost about £700 of James Dempsey's money in the wsope £2500 six max tournament.

But at least I seem to have won you over Birdforum.

Really. it's a win win win.

This is a good post.

I think our staking forum is alot more sensible and rational than the one at 2+2.

Everyone seems to think they are winning players and able to sell at 1.3+

Every time I look there I make myself remember only about 5% of poker players are winners.. tough to believe from some of the proposals.

I can from experience give you an example of a bitter pill swallowed by stakers including myself, its when you have staked an individual for a few k in several comps and they win one when you haven't staked them

Boy oh boy they have short memories.

Birdforum, can I ask what your motive in making the original post was?

It still isn't exactly clear.

You thought I was out of order asking for staking when I could afford the buyin myself?

And the staking forum should be only used by players who couldn't afford to play?

Correct?

Sounds like they have very good memories - they remembered which tourneys they were staked for and didn't pay out on the wrong ones.

In one deft move Andrew effortlessly beats off TightEnd's impudent attempt to usurp him as the funniest poster on blonde.

Not quite keith, I did think you asking for staking was (without wanting to upset you again) a little odd because I thought you could afford it and was then trying to square away in my head why you would want to give away your hard fought winnings to stakers when IMHO there is no point?

As for your second point NO absolutely not it should of course be available for anyone to post in,its interesting to read peoples requests for staking.

But you'd need a genuine reason not to go through with such a deal isn't it? Should said deal ever reap binkage?

Birdforum,

I'm confused.

Your view seems to be that you only stake those that cant afford it, yes?

surely thats loosing a lot of ev?

People who can afford it have built up the money by winning, most probably, so in general would be a better bet to back.

Am I wrong?

Chumpy I have only done it a few times,mostly successfully, you do though in life find things dont always work out the way one would of hoped for, or indeed wished had happened differently, life as they say is too short.

Dunno if you are reading the replies.  I am a decent winning MTT player with a sharkfin on every site I play.  

I have two 49 game losing streaks on st ars.  If I played £5k tournaments, this would have cost me £250k.  I have seen very well known internet pros with bigger losing streaks than I have managed.  Hence playing these tournaments regularly with a £500K roll is probably imprudent.

So contrary to the OPs implication, even with staking Keith there seems a reasonable chance Keith is playing outside his roll.

Though I rarely stake people, I'd far rather stake someone who can "afford" the entry rather than one that can't.  It is just common sense to me.

Delboy,I stake people who genuinly cant afford the buy in, this doesnt mean i wouldnt stake someone who could afford it,as I have said I am interested in the situation the poker world finds itself in which is why someone who can patently afford to buy in would rather risk a bit of someones elses money in a tourny rather than all there own?

Is it unreasonable to ask this question?

Not Unreasonable at all.

So why not just ask it in the op, rather than insulting the blonde community, and The Camel in particular?

It was the tone of your original post which riled me.

If you had civilly asked the question you wanted answered, I would glad have done so, in full.

Delboy I apologised to keith did I not? and who in the blonde community have I insulted, odds are a lot of people who are reading this know me personally and wont take offence, If you think this is insulting you might want to get out more?

For what it's worth, I think it's, insulting, and I get out a lot.

You're right not insulting the community at all! It conversations like these that help form a community.

PS. I don't need to get out more, my wife would kill me! (-ev see)

Well Red Dog, your just spoiling for an argument with me well you lucked out, i'm not in the mood,so your going to have to be disappointed, you could of course ban me but i dont think that would satisfy your burning need to take Steve kirk on in public, so as i said your out of luck and will have to find someone else for your entertainment.

Do you know there was a time that I would of taken the bait, how times change.

Before you reply red dog notice the non lack of tolerence from the other mods, as I said look for a fight elsewhere.

Look here, Glenn Henderson, is really not happy wtih all this nonsense and glenn will put a stop to it if he has to

Glenn for Moderator ;D

I actually came back to buy you a beer Keith but you seem to have got distracted!!


OP is obv old school and has no idea about poker currently

Too depressed to drink.

I thought United were a lay at 1.2ish and Bushy talked me out of it.

You can buy me one later in the series, if it's ok with Birdforum, us drinking away Flushy's money.

Believe it or not, I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm just giving my honest opinion.

I have no wish to ban you, take you on on public, (Regardless of your name) or to have any further conversation with you.

I personally have staked quite a few people and also received staking a few times myself.

The amount i've spent on staking is significantly more than the amount received for staking so where does that leave me?

I guess if I'd never staked anyone I could've used that money to put myself in to tournaments. Does that make me stupid?

I've paid more than 1:1 for stakes in people before but only ever charge 1:1. Why is this? Well I like to have a bit of a gamble occasionally and if someone's selling a few shares I'd rather do this than go to the bookies. If they're charging a premium I have the choice whether to pay it or not. Personally I don't think anybody deserves a markup as poker is a game of about 1% skill and 99% luck but if I want a bit of a sweat I have to pay what they ask or use my free will and opt out.

My reason for never charging a markup myself is that I don't think I deserve to. Whilst I think that I'm better than most players I play against I don't see why people should be charged for having a slice of me. I want people to stake me not only to hopefully make a bit of money but also to have a bit of fun on the thread and maybe a few rubz if I lose and happy times if I win.

If you take a look at my latest staking thread there isn't any seriousness to it at all. I don't want people to stake me if they're going to get upset if I lose. I also wouldn't stake anyone if I got upset when they lost. Every time I've asked for staking I could easily have afforded to pay for myself anyway but I still chose to get backed if people were willing to part with their cash.

To me staking is just a bit of fun. I understand that for others it will be very different but for the sake of the thread and discussion that's my take on it.

Enjoy the debate ladies and gents. It's interesting stuff so far.

Nps tried to lay Spurs at 2-0 during meal but they all wanted to check updates first. Marvellous

I have an "honest opinion" on chess but there's a very good reason I don't go on chess forums to post it

Mr Birdforum.

If you want a debate on staking you'll find that I have quite a few useful things to add.

I'm quite willing to join in a sensible debate with you regarding staking but if you keep up this shit I'll go elsewhere and leave you alone.

My only chess fact:

Did you know Nigel Short's nickname is Nosher?

 It's because his name is an anagram of Nosher L Git.

He absolutely hates it, but he is so detested by chess people they keep calling him Nosher.

Is there a backstory to Red and Birdforum?

Red has been alot more restrained than I would be in his dealings with Mr Bird during this thread.

Evil pie fire away, no one else seems to have an opinion on it?

It's also an anagram of "longer shit" so I think he should be thankful.

I've already fired a few posts earlier. It's someone elses turn now.

To me poker is a hobby, and as such should be fun. I choose to play within my bankroll and therefore only play tournies at £100 or less, or cash games at .50/£1.00 or 1/2 every now and again. I have no great desire to play higher, however I understand those that do.

If I was to stake someone, I ask myself one question: Will it be fun? if the answer is yes, I do it, If no not. The same applies if I was to look for staking, which I haven't.

If you can't afford to lose the money, or get tilted when they win on their own dime, best not get involved imo.

Pretty tilted with my table draw if Camel is calling this the best value tournament ever (unless he just means because he got a cheap seat?)

No

It might be considered unreasonable that you've already decided that the answer is something to do with the 'situation the poker world finds itself in' and then ignore any answers people are giving you that don't directly relate to that.

I reckon there's reasons to offer the odd bit of yourself even if you can afford hundreds of buy-ins. You wouldn't like any of them though so I won't waste your time.

Would agree in so far as viewing the poker ecomony as a whole and seeing more staking activity; it's reasonable to see this as a symptom of tougher gamez/tougher timez.

Wrong to assume that an individual offering a chunk of himself says anything about anything though.

Would think of enlightning anology to illustrate my point but I has to go to bedz.

Tank, it's Paphitis.

vnh tho

I think what you are completely missing here Birdforum, is the sick variance in poker especially high stakes mtts.

People like The Camel are simply reducing the variance by offering pieces of themselves, just because Keith might have x amount of pounds in the bank it doesn't mean that he should put a significant % of it on 4 or 5 high variance tourns. He is simply exercising good bankroll management, as a pro poker player good BRM is a massive thing. The poker world is full of bustos who could beat the game but did the lot not following BRM.

I think there are plenty of issue with staking in the poker world but this isn't one of them. If we start talking about people over selling themselves, being constantly staked because they are too degen to hold onto any winning or the various dishonest strokes being pulled then we might have a "sensible" constructive conversation.

nh

Welcome back arbboy

In regards to online poker staking, why do people sell percentages to play in higher buyin mtt's when they can play lower buyin one's with more donks on 100% of their own money and still win the same amounts?

e.g I sell 80% of a $1000 mtt package, say 10 $100 mtt's, isn't this the same as playing ten $20 mtt's on 100% my own money but with more donks therefore greater +ev and I would still win same amount if I win?

20% of a $100 mtt win or 100% of a $20 mtt win, can't be much difference in the prizes, only in opponents skill levels.

Get me?

I have been backed into a few things, but allways with people I know very well. I am quite thick, therefore wanted to know about the selling shares etc, like 1.2/1.3 etc etc, could someone please elaborate. Each time I have been staked into a tourney, it has been for like 50/50/ 60/40 or 70/30 in there favour I don't understand the selling shares thing.

I think that is a good idea to sell % of yourself in high buy in comps - take Jake Cody for example, he sold shares in the WPT ,yet won an EPT, but IMO, this was a very sensible thing to do, and for everyone who had bought a share, it was profitable.

I think if someone wants to sell % of themselves in touneys, then it's entirley up to others if they choose to buy a piece or not, If you don't like the idea, or you don't think the person can play, then you don't have to get involved or read the post, simples :-)

Dreenie I explained the difference on your gutshot staking request

I'll have a crack at explaining it for you Dreenie:

One way of staking is to buy a set amount yourself and sell the rest to backers. You pay for a certain amount of the entry yourself and then sell the rest at a markup of your choosing. Personally I don't mark up but that is entirely up to you to decide.

Say you play a £500 comp and sell half of your action:

You pay £250 yourself and get the rest from stakers. If you sell at even money 1:1 you just get the other £250 off them.

If you sell at 1.1:1 you charge them £1.10 for every £1 they buy. The £250 you sell will therefore cost stakers £275 total. This obviously means that there's only £225 left to pay so you save yourself £25. The more you mark up the less you pay yourself.



When you have 100% staking for a set amount of equity you can work out the effective mark up as follows:

Say the comp is £1000

You sell 100% for 70% equity. This means that any winnings go 70% to the staker and 30% to you.

This means that effectively they are only buying 70% of you which is £700 worth but it's costing them £1000

If you divide 1000 by 700 this will show you the mark up, in this case 1.43

To work out the mark up of set equity you just have to invert the actual percentage expressed as a decimal if that makes sense?

50% = 0.5 = 2:1
60% = 0.6 = 1.67:1
70% = 0.7 = 1.43:1
80% = 0.8 = 1.25:1
90% = 0.9 = 1.11:1

Other things alter this such as offering stake back first before splitting profits and obviously being on a long term make up deal makes a huge difference.

One off stakes can be worked out as above though and are generally very bad for the staker and require a lot of luck to work out well.



Generally speaking if you put some of the money up yourself and don't charge a markup you have a good chance of selling. You are taking a risk yourself so backers know you'll be trying your best.

If you ask for 100% of the money you are taking on no risk at all yourself so it becomes harder to sell unless you are extremely good or are well liked and can sell to friends.

If you ask for 100% staking for 50% equity you're very unlikely to sell except to friends. The odd $10 comp would be fair enough but a biggy would be very poor value for the staker. A £1000 comp for example the staker is effectively paying £1000 to put you in to a comp where the prizes they stand to win are equivalent to a £500 comp. Obviously when staking a friend value isn't priority number one so it's still possible.

Hope that helps a bit.

tl;dr

















(actually a bloody good post Matt)

Can a mod please C+P that post from Matt and make it a sticky in the staking forums?

  ;iagree; ;iagree;

hate to admit it


Regards

M

Absolutely amazing post an to be quite frank i feel really really proud that without alchohol you can be a completely differant character with inteligence , poise an maturity beyond your years! Congratulations on a fabalous post.

Absolutely amazing post an to be quite frank i feel really really proud that without alchohol you can be a completely differant character with inteligence , poise an maturity beyond your years! Congratulations on a fabalous post.

good spelling charra.

Dreenie, I think what Matt is trying to say is, will you go out with him?

Are you trying to say that when I'm pissed I'm a completely differant character without inteligence , poise an maturity beyond my years?

Thanks for the congrats on my fabalous post.

I love you Pete.

PS: Great night out btw :)

Ok - thanks, that helps a lot, I think personally I need to get out more, and learn more, as I don't get all this 1.42.1 sort of stuff, but I think in time I will learn it all. Thank you forur time on this and trying to explain it best you can :-)

Erm... where did u draw this conclusion from?

I am too old for all this now, my time has past etc etc "sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

If you are selling at 1.4 you better be Phil Ivey or David Shallow.

What are you trying to say?

loll

if you're selling at 1.75 you better be err god?

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=43412.0

Just ridic good at game selection

Birdforum

if you are genuinely interested - ad not just trying to be controversial, then you're welcome to PM me

I dont want to say anything more on here because if it put me in the line for personal attack id be pretty tilted

I have to agree. top post  :goodpost: