blonde poker forum

Seems to have disappeared? Why does everyone seem to thing they are worth more than others?

I have lost my bollocks on staking threads over the years, I take it as a punt and nothing else, but have stopped staking as a result of premiums.

Is it because the stakee's have enough mugs willing to punt? I'm guessing so.......

Maybe its time we should start to say no to premiums? Just throwing it out there...  ;whistle;

I always have/will sold at 1.0, can't see it changing really unless I turn into phil Ivey overnight and win the lot everywhere I go.

Fwiw I don't mind people selling for a premium rate, you're paying for a service after all. Some are worth more than others, that's why it's your choice whether to buy or not

Don't see the problem.

You want to invest in somebody, you invest. You don't, you don't.

This.

As long as terms are stated clearly it is the buyers choice.

There are plenty worse players selling for a much higher mark up elsewhere and there are plenty of stakes at 1.0 on here. Although i think some of the mark-ups are too steep for some of the bigger stuff and i steer clear of the auction stuff, the "market" seems pretty fair all-in-all on here.

[06/05/2013 19:17:56] mannyol: can i ask why so low mu and why not on 2+2
[06/05/2013 19:18:04] mannyol: on 2+2 u cna get away with higher
[06/05/2013 19:18:06] Patrick Leonard: I always sell on blonde


as bulldozer said, the market here is actually really fair compared to some packages elsewhere, facebook included.

Almost every thread sells out, even the ones at 1.5 or something, however when a thread doesn't represent good value, it doesn't usually sell out, which we also see semi often too.

Some people are taking the piss still. Although hat off to those who offer decent rate and I'm happy to punt it in

1 - rounding up. Add on extra marks to the mark up to round up

2 - auctions. Trying to get every last penny they can out of the community.

10 years from now when we say the game has moved on again, what will the mu's be?

Woodsey, the arsene wenger of staking threads. *smileyface*

It's simply supply and demand.

Hate the game not the playa

Word

Same old thread. It's been done to death. The answer will always be the same.

This, obviously.


Ridiculous suggestion if serious.

You can say no to premiums Woodsey, but for non premiums you'll have to wait until Matt goes on the piss again, or until I head over to Vegas :D

Markup is something that I think is somewhat misunderstood at times by some people, in that the value of a staking proposition is not absolute based on markup is some people seem to suggest/imply, different tournaments have very different attainable ROIs due to factors such as field strength, structure, etc. This is not a blonde specific issue although you definitely see it manifest here (anyone who ever dealt with the huge Russian staking funds on 2p2 will remember that they had some strange ideas about appropriate markups)

The WSOP Main Event always provides the best example of this, the nature of that tournament (incredible structure, field filled with recreational players, huge potential returns) means that realistic ROIs for good players in that tournament are far higher than many people understand, this means when good players sell the ME at 1.5/1.6, they are often providing a far better deal to investors than will often be provided when the same player sells a tough online 1k at 1.1 and yet many people will dismiss the former out of hand because the markup is 'too high' based on this strangely prevalent ideal that all markups should be within a very narrow range.

Why does this matter? I think that basically people are misunderstanding the issue when they say something like 'markups are too high', the real problem is markups are often being charged with little thought as too the relative value of the tournaments being played and also, frankly with little regard to the skill differences between the players charging the markups and how this with impact prospective ROIs.

Yeh there's wayyy too much "1.2 good 1.5 bad" sort of thinking on blonde.

;whistle;

The market will find it's own level at some point. My own view is that the general price is too high (there are ofc good value and poor value to be had) ~ However, it may take quite a long time for this to happen as every single binkk prolongs the reduction in markup.

Those selling at a markup can't be doing it as a fun sweat for the community by definition... so that's ruled out.

Those selling at a markup because they want to reduce variance or just can't afford it.. I think should factor in some value that the buyer gives them in return... the buyer is actually providing the seller with a service too.

Those selling at a markup to cover expenses when those expenses are already a sunk cost (i.e. out in Vegas, suddenly decides to sell for the main event at short notice) I find irritating, if not entirely logical to do so.

Those selling at a markup are generally trying to extract the full value of their self-perceived worth (i.e. I'm 1.4 -v- the field so I will charge 1.4)

Those selling via auction aren't sucking every last penny tbf as they are typically selling at the cut-off price, not selling at varying markups as per the individual bids.

Those buying as a punt are free to do so.  £200 in, shot at £20k back, what's not to like?  It is unlikely that anyone will reach a big enough sample size to be able to prove if they are getting value or not.  However, quite a few are coming to the conclusion that the effect of said markup is starting to bite.

Those buying should also factor in the chances of things going wrong and effectively ending up backing a NR ante post.  This includes flat out being rolled, excruciatingly slow paybacks, ITIN mayhem, FX ice-creamery, D-game and unlimited other ways that a stakee could act in ways that are not in your best interest as a backer.

That's a long winded way of agreeing that no one forces you to buy a piece!

Great post, agree with all of this. This saves me the time to post a worst version of what you said!

Also, one player with no mark up can easily be worse value than another player with a mark up so I don't really see how the no mark up thing helps

Love the NR ante-post analogy.

Simon Galloway in thread crushing shocker...

Results orientated IMO. How much better off would you really be if the stakes you bought were at lower mu or no mu? Surely not the difference between small loss/breakeven and doing your bollocks?

Of course I'm results orientated, don't you want to win instead of do your bollocks? lol  ;D

What Paul's saying is that you would have done your bollocks at a lower mark-up.  So it doesn't matter what the mark-up is if the player doesn't cash as 1.0 x 0 = 1.5 x 0.  In fact, maybe backing players with the higher mark-up might have provided a greater ROI.

Kinda feel obliged to post since this went up just after I put two threads up :)

Basically I'd rather not sell and play what I can on my own dime than sell @ spot for both those threads because I think I'm worth more than that. Who's to say what I'm truly worth though, for live tournaments especially we'll never now, it's such a fickle business since everyone's results orientated, which is fair enough I guess, to an extent, since backers don't have much else to go on. Basically, as said, if you don't think I'm worth it which there's certainly people who don't and that's fine, simples, don't buy.

Everyone is ofc going to get pretty defensive when it comes down to this, and I find this part of your OP pretty offensive if this was aimed at me "Is it because the stakee's have enough mugs willing to punt? I'm guessing so.......". I certainly don't treat people on here like mugs. A few people asked me why I sold so low for the Monte Carlo, also my last live staking thread was put up at 3am, not the busiest time of the forum, it was sold out by 4am. I've now put another live thread up and I'd say these Day1s will be softer than the one I sold for last time and since that had sold out as quickly as it had if I was trying to mug people off I may well have been able to sell at a slightly higher mark up than what I did previously and still sell out, I'm not looking to eek out as much value for myself as possible though, I very much appreciate the fact people invest in me and thus want to put up decent threads.

Ray mate, none of it was aimed at anyone in particular. I was semi pissed when I wrote it hence the language lol.

Its just a general observation that just about everyone is selling at a premium, yeah I know supply and demand and all that, but I've basically stopped buying them because of it out of principle to be honest. I really don't like the idea of premiums, my view is we are doing the players a favour by buying them.

Anyway, I expect lots of people to disagree with me, and I have no problem with that.

Yeah, no offence was took,  I assumed by the time you posted you may've had a few, just felt like I should post itt.

 :cheers:

discuss...

Don't take a piece of anyone that you think doesn't have the character to apply themselves 100% even if having a minority holding.

Excellent point imo, I recently bought a piece in a big tub o lard, well known in the poker & Blonde community, no names or anything but to say he didn't apply himself is, in fact, it just is, an understatement.

I know about caveat emptor and all that but I was really pissed about it, shoulda looked for a vouch I guess

I've been working on my weight issues recently Glen so next time you buy a slice it'll be in a 'big tub o hard!!'.

Also I'd happily vouch for myself so next time you're well covered.

A very pleasing nick, just need to find an av to go with it :-)

Alex, please post your most earnest reply again, it's why I breathe :-)

No Matt got there first. I can't look like a mug too many times in one day.

Depends on the field/expected roi/variance involved.

I'd expect 60% @ 1.2 to be used far more.

I think many poker players mark tournaments up badly and will continue to do so whilst the market is inefficient. For the most part enough money exists from people happy to punt, and therefore too many packages sell at too high a rate. This certainly seems to be the case on 2+2 where the markups and morals of the stakers are vastly different. Blonde is extremely well policed, more reliable and much better value imo. Markup is a misunderstood topic, Redarmi had a fantastic post showing just how big Alex's roi needed to be for the MC for investors to achieve the same value as Alex. I believe this was 184% with the markup rate at 1.5. That is a lot and it can definitely be argued about what amount of value backers deserve, and I'd argue with an roi of ~100% 1.5 is value, but expensive and closer to the line despite the high roi. Didn't mean to pick on AL here, because if I had infinite £ 1.5 is a clear buy, so no offence is meant.

Fizix87's post earlier was fantastic.

i'd rather 60% at 1.2 but ofc this is dependant on the person being actually being good enough to justify 1.2

If they aren't then i'd rather not buy

i'd rather back people whos percentage I didn't have to worry about and who I knew would be playing their best (had some perception of what I think there best is). Similarly think it shows more respect to sell 80 at face than 60 at 1.2 'nearly regardless' of who it is.