blonde poker forum

There's something about this staking thread which doesn't sit well with me. It's clear you are a very talented player and I don't mean you any disrespect but there's one sentence in you OP which has got me thinking.


It just feels really cheeky, to me, that you're asking for backing, I imagine to try and iron out variance, but if you have a decent score early on you're pretty much saying thanks for the leg up, so long suckers.

Is this normal practice?

Again, I'm not having a dig, just wondering aloud really.

and obv if I could of had a slice I would have.

Good Luck in Vegas

Have to agree with Bobalike here.

I don't remember ever seeing this clause in a package before.

Let's say you make a ft early in the package and win, say 100k. You decide to buy out the investors who have made a small profit.

Then later on you win a bracelet and 500k.

I would be pretty pissed off as an investor.

Gotta take the rough with the smooth imo.

If the investors get a 100x return on the first 10% of their investment, I think they will be better off selling the other 90% back and booking the very large ROI rather than forcing an unhappy horse to grind away at the rest of the tournaments with very little equity and tens of thousands of beer tokens burning a hole in his back pocket. Perfectly acceptable clause imo, nobody's taking advantage, although as always if you don't like it don't buy it.

Good OP btw Chris.

This is true.

And the fact it is there in the OP rather than decided upon midway through the package means everything is open and above board.

All that being said, I still would be pretty pissed off if a horse I'd bought a share in binked a huge win and they had told me I had no action.

I can't see a way for Chris to bink a large enough return to buy back all the remaining shares without the backers also doing very well for themselves.

The only worry I might have, if this clause were to become standard, would be if a high value tournament (the main event for example) were included at the end of a large schedule and the horse planned to exercise his option to buy back the high value action even without making a decent return beforehand, including it only as a sweetener to encourage buyers.

i thought it was better to put this out there in the OP so everyone knew the score before we got underway.

the package is spread over 5 weeks with 23 events, each event will be a decent 6 figure score ftw. it is possible a lot can change in that time and i am an ambitious person. if i am to do well enough to be able to buy back my own action in the first place, the investors will have seen a good return themselves.

<3 the OP policeman :)

I see where you're coming from and it kind of makes sense but as Keith said I'd be pretty pissed off if this did happen.

I think it's great you poker pros give ordinary folk the opportunity to invest in these big tournies and I suppose as long as there's people willing to grab a slice, you will always be able to dictate what the terms are no matter how good or bad they are.

Supply and demand again innit. Chris being the stand up guy he is included the clause in the op so it's all out in the open.

Can't see what all the fuss is about because if he wins 100k early doors I'm pretty sure all his mates will make sure he spends his share of the winnings that same night on food, drink, club and women so leaving him in a position unable to buy you shares back. Don't panic :)

I think it's fine, had the issues a couple of times with Stuart Rutter, both times he bought back his own action at a small premium which was fine with me.

You'd probably not be so happy if the event he won was the 5k Omaha, or the 10k at the Venetian.  If the horse is running horrid, you get to keep.  It would be probably better to just do a package for the early ones and then pull out.   

But guess it must be still value as it sold out in 10 minutes.  GL sir

The thread is looking for investment in a wsop package and the thread title is 'big wsop package'. So as a staker you would rightly expect to be investing in a wsop package. The caveat makes it look like individual stakes disguised as a package in case the horse runs bad.

If the horse runs good and plays confident in the early events it's incentive enough for stakers to feel excited about the stake moving forwards. They have $$ and now it's time to freeroll further sweats and have some fun, as is the intention when staking. But wait, if the horse runs good early the deal is off? Nah, I don't get it either. I especially don't get that the horse would now be unhappy playing events he's taken ur money to play cos he's got beer tokens in his pocket. Don't get how that is a professional attitude from professional players to a business arrangement. Don't know why stakers shouldn't expect a committed attitude for their money when the pro goes to work.

Btw what if the staker runs bad and some unexpected bills pop up. Can they retain the right to get their money back?

Come on, it's obviously fine for him to have that caveat in there.  Having a piece of Chris in these events is an absolute steal.

Possibly would have been better to make one small package and then put up another if that ones blanks?

yawn.

trolling for the sake of it?


it's a clause designed for me, and if i want to use it i can. i put it in the op so everyone was aware of this before they bought.  
 
overall i think the proposal i have offered is more than fair and as has already been stated, if you do not like it, do not buy.

23 events i want to play. unless the packages sell to 1 or 2 investors it can be a real pain organising separate investors/payments with little notice. much easier/effiecient/less stressful organising it all well in advance

What the fuck are you banging on about Mantis?

integrity

2 things I don't get:

a) Why doesn't every pro who puts a +EV series package together include this super standard caveat? Seems they are happy to burn their own money after a bink. Don't get it.

b) If a horse goes to Vegas primarily because he has secured staking how can he then disassociate himself from the stake after a bink. The only reason he is there to bink is because of the stake. Hence he should feel obligated to continue the stake. But they don't because they now have beer tokens? Don't get it.

Must apologise for never getting the hang of which threads I can make general points on without causing offence. Seems ok to question mark up etc if the op is shit but can't say anything if op is good. Think I understand.

ok now you are questioning my integrity.

it's not very often a package is as big as this, both in number of events and size of each one. this has 23 events from the series where each is almost certain to be worth a decent 6 figure sum for the win. it is therefore unusual in itself and not a "super standard" proposal in the first place, as u mockingly referred to my clause as.

while it may not be super standard, it was put in the OP, from the beginning, before any action was sold. without naming names, i personally know of several examples of people cancelling action after binking. i'm sure there are loads more i do not know of. anyone worth their salt would want to buy back their action if they were now able to, unless they'd overpriced the markup in the first place.

not that it's any of your business but i'm not only going to vegas because of this stake. this is me trying to be a bit more sensible and subsidise my costs of what will be a huge summer. so whilst i obviously do appreciate the staking, it's not the only reason i am there, as you crudely put it.

Christopher Brammer is annoyed.

Think this proposal is fine fwiw, all clear from the off, and people have bought their % knowing the score.

glgl all.

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

Pretty much this. why are others people banging on about it. Just stfu really. Chris can do what he wants and the investors know whats what. WTF is the big issue, jeez!

No big issue, I just raised it because hadn't seen this caveat in a staking thread before. I don't particularly agree with it but as you say it's upto the individual to partake or not.

In no way was I questioning your integrity.

I use this staking board to both buy and sell action and I think it's important to discuss issues such as this as they affect future stakes.

I apologise if you think this was a personal attack, in no way was it meant as such.

GL in Vegas, win the lot.

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.

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.

you made a post talking about integrity and saying there where 2 things you didn't get, in my thread. i then replied answering these two things you didn't get. yes you ignore my posts replying to you, but you still spout drivel in my thread. kind of natural for me to assume you are talking about me.

and yes keith, healthy discussion is fine, i just think there are different ways of going about it.

This EXACTLY.
If bram didnt stipulate from the start regarding buying his action back, then i think its a different matter altogether. But as its clear in the OP that he does reserve the right to buy out of the package there is no issue what so ever.
People have their own minds and if they dont want to buy the package that is being offered they dont have to.

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

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

This:


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?

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

[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

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

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

Size matters, as deep down, we all know

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

I mean, I'm sure your post contains many fine reasons for someone to challenge Chris and post in this thread, but why you?

Why do you care?

If it's fine for someone to challenge the post, why not Mantis, Esp if it includes many fine reasons?

You've made a lot of assumptions there about the size of the bink being great but in all reality if Nig had a 120k bink he could turn around pay you guys off and be in a better off position. He hasn't stated the size of the bink needed for him to buy back.

Also you are being slightly hypocritical saying you would be annoyed if the ME event was included and subsequently withdrawn. A package is a package no matter what's included, and that's what you would have bought into.

weird how much attention one sentence from the op has received, yet seemingly everything i have said about it since seems to get completely ignored

I just wish I never asked. Lol

It is unfortunate and unfair that this debate has blown up in this thread.

I've heard rumours and bad mouthing against a multitude of players. Virtually everyone.

Yet, I have never heard one bad word about Chris. His reputation is spotless.

I think perhaps there should be a thread for discussing issues about staking, where things like this caveat, the 70/30 freeroll debate and anything else which might arise.

I post because I regularly buy and sell on this forum, it matters to me if Chris gets crucified for this because maybe I want to do it in future, or maybe I think it will put someone off posting a thread here that I could profit from.

Why is mantis posting? Here's why not: it takes time. Why is he spending time on this and not something in his own life?

If Bram wins bug early and decides to buy back the shares


Does he do it at a Mark up or the same price he sold the shares for?

Exactly, you don't want someone asking questions about the deal because you might want to do the same in the future. The staking board is for everyone's benefit, not just yours I'm afraid. The questions are perfectly acceptable and you certainly don't decide who raises them or who doesn't.

It's a thread on a forum, I notice some of the posters on here are the same ones that were giving stick to a guy last week because he was making a fool of himself in a HH thread, with the advice that he shouldn't post in the thread because he didn't play at those stakes. Yet those very people were popping up (and imo, getting levelled) in a HH from $25k buy in events this week.

Seems a few think they can throw around the who can and can't post on here but fail to take their own advice.

Me?

@the camel
yh actually kieth you make a gd point. Which i hadnt considered, that defo adds weight to the 'other side' of the discussion. perhaps adding more merit to the notion that shares should be purchased back at a small premium. certainly something to consider. perhaps factoring into the markup? I.e selling slihhtly cheaper because there is a even money buy-back option. all interesting...

@bobalike
yes im making assumptions, never claimed to be anything but assumptions, but i consider myself pretty well placed to make these assumptions. if im wrong and all bram needs is a $40k score and for his wallet to have survived 2trips to the rhino fir him to buy bsck then fairfair i was wrong, id be surprised if i am tho.
I dont thinks its hypocritical at all wat i said, i used the ME as an example; if there was one tourney in the bunch i specifically wanted action in, maybe the ME, maybe a $1500 shootout, then i would stipulate when buying that my action must stabd regardless in that event, or i wouldnt buy. nithing to stop any if the investors pm'img bram and saying 'i must keep my action in event X or im not buying' and him agreeing a private deal where that persons action stands regardless.

I do understand tho that it would be quite tilting to srll action back in a tourney he wuns for 600

and i also agree that the discussion has been gd/productive. i disagree with what bob and mantis have said but think they were right to say it.

You've been completely unfair in this paragraph, you've sort-of quoted half my post and are then putting words in my mouth to boot. No, not "Exactly...", that isn't what I said, I'm not trying to stop anyone asking questions by asking for their motives. People have asked for my motive and as I've said twice already, I want to stop people jumping to the wrong (IMO) conclusions and ruining the staking board for me and everybody else, it's not part of some conspiracy or cover-up for me and my mates to rip off the forum, the suggestion is incredibly insulting. Also, the bolded part is just off-the-scale condescending. You could barely have caused more offence with this post.

And still nobody can tell me why mantis is posting here.

I don't understand any of this. I hope I'm not being bracketed in the "same ones who were giving stick in a PHA thread" group, because I wasn't, and to the best of my knowledge neither was anyone else in this thread, and if they were, why would it be relevant?

No offence ?Phil? but a lot of your posts read very much like you hold something of a grudge against some of the younger poker guys - I've never thought that of anything you said specifically directed towards me and you clearly know your stuff in the sports betting threads but that's just the impression I get.

Mantis is just such a terrible poster. This thread is a good example of why.

P.s. <3 brammer and hope he gets the lot in Vegas this year, on or off the stake.

I have split this debate off from the original staking thread. No Posts have been removed.

The Staking Thread itself is here.....

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57778.0

Agreed, & sorted.

There is plenty of controversial shit going down in the world, so why the need to stray so far from the truth? 

The reason I'm commenting is because it's a growing trend in poker and I don't agree with it. Like live streaming which I also spoke up about. I think casually throwing in a deal changing caveat at the bottom of a business proposal like it doesn't matter either way is not good business practise. The other habit I'm not liking is when people ask for thousands of dollars up front and add the caveat they might not even play the event because of 'partying' or 'cash action'. I think this is bullshit. It's a very casual approach to have to a business deal and to thousands of dollars of somebody else's money. As a horse you get a jolly to Vegas with the guarantee of buying into various events if you decide you want to, but meh, if you want to go out on the lash instead you retain the right to do so. Or if there happens to be a juicy cash game the investors can do one. Or if you bink a jackpot on the bandit the investors can do one. Wait, it's ok if there's no juicy cash action or no bandit bink, or you run bad, cos the investor picks up the tab, sweet. Best of both worlds imo.

Where is the professional commitment to the business proposal? If people want to be staked there should at least be a sense of obligation to investors and to the proposal. If people invested thousands of dollars in me I would play the events I said I would. I would turn up on time with a serious attitude and an appreciation that this is someone else's money. The comment that a pro would have an 'unhappy' attitude if he was 'forced' to play out the commitment HE proposed after a bink is pretty disrespectful imo. It's also patronising to suggest if the horse gets an early bink the investor should be thankful for this return and fuck off. Well the investor has paid for the potential of that return. Seems like horses want to pat the investor on the head and tell them to do one because they're not needed anymore, and that should be enough pocket money to be running along with. Remember, not one investor would cash out given the option.

Glad the thread was split. Oh and sorry for being a terrible poster.

...ps I thought bobby posts were good. That shit about the bolded part being off the scale condescending and insulting was ridic. Another growing trend I don't like is how pro poker players get all precious in the face of normal comment. Stops people having an adult debate. I challenge why caveats are being added to deals and not being visibly recognised in any sort of preferred selling rate. Pretty sensible topic. All I get from precious people is op is good guy, why are you posting? and I am terrible poster. Nh, wp.

Great thread, if I may make so bold.

this imo is the most relevant point in this entire thread and points out what I would see as the only real problem with caveats like this, their vagueness

would they perhaps be better written as something like this?

'in the event of the package returning $x then I reserve the right to buy back y shares at z price'

I was going to reply to your entire post Suuprlim but Mantis kinda nails half of it here. Tho I have to reply to this.

''''I don't understand any of this. I hope I'm not being bracketed in the "same ones who were giving stick in a PHA thread" group, because I wasn't, and to the best of my knowledge neither was anyone else in this thread, and if they were, why would it be relevant?

No offence ?Phil? but a lot of your posts read very much like you hold something of a grudge against some of the younger poker guys - I've never thought that of anything you said specifically directed towards me and you clearly know your stuff in the sports betting threads but that's just the impression I get''''

I need to make this clear first really, you abs were not one of the posters I had in mind and if I had to pick 5 posters on here to read daily you would be in it. One of the reasons for that is you post interesting and debate encouraging posts, just like Mantis does.

This is another thread that has a similar set of posters that ends up taking a shot at one guy because he saw something differently than another poster did. Just like the HH last week, which was nothing short of bullying of a guy in a bad place in the end.

The trend seems to be that a set of posters that know each other/ or want to be involved in the crowd fall into line with each others thinking prob for those two reason only. How is that fair/good for debate?

The fact that they are young or old makes no difference, let me put it this way, I don't know half of the people I am talking about, so how can age be a factor? You do see that is another example of a crowd that know each other backing up each tho, you know the age of these people and I don't, so I must be against young players is the assumption. So you feel you should back them up, as they are part of your crowd. Would that be fair it was becoming the tone in threads?

The last real post about staking by me was against the 70/30 deals that had become rife from people that wanted to play in events they didn't want to put their own money into. I know 2 of the people that debate was centred around and neither of them are young, I saw it differently to them even tho I am friendly with both of them. That's what a debate should be like, not simply posting a reply that agrees with someone you want to feel closer to so simply agree with the crowd.


Let me give you one last example, Skol is fake infuriated, how dare you, about a reply I posted towards him, Mantis covers this perfectly above but Greekstein has taken the time to read this thread and make one post which is

'Mantis is just such a terrible poster. This thread is a good example of why.'

That was all he could muster and is just a lame attempt at agreeing with the crowd he is/wants to be part of, yet neither you or Skol are infuriated about that post, maybe coz you know him so it's ok for him to do that in your mind?

As for the value of that particular staking deal, well opportunities to have a real top class player playing with part of your money is a great spot to be in and I know 100% that Chris is one of the straightest people in the game. That doesn't mean anyone that posts on here cannot have a view or ask questions, Skol seems to think he can question the motives of Mantis posting, when his motives are clear as day, which he agreed.

A couple of years ago I requested staking for the EPT London.

The week before I played the WSOPE and happened to go really deep (brag obv) making it to day 5.

My day 1 for the EPT was the day after I got knocked out of the WSOPE.

I was mentally and physically exhausted after the WSOPE, and would not have played anywhere near my best.

I felt it was in my (and the stakers) best interests not to play the EPT so I withdrew and refunded the stake.

When I buy a share in someone, I trust them to make the optimal decision as what is the best course of action when an unforeseen decision arises.

If I had a share in someone in a similar situation to mine, I would rather they withdrew than played badly.

Bullying bobby really? Some of ur posts have been pretty ridiculous recently.

Agreed, but not playing because of being too hungover is pretty ool imo, not because you should play anyway, but because going out and getting smashed the night before  your supposed to play a tournament with other peoples money is out of order imo.

And this is why I would never stake anyone I don't trust.

I trust them to turn up to play in the best possible mental state. Getting whacko the night before a big tournament just isn't on.

lol, you mean they disagree with your point of view, so they are ridiculous? Bullying was the perfect word for what happened on that thread and you were the person throwing around who can and cant't post posts too. Even having the abs bare face cheek of telling someone not to do exactly what you had done on another thread.

As for ridiculous posts, let me go find your fantasy Man Utd thread to see how high an opinion you have of your opinion.

Chill Guys....no need for aggro

Ok maybe I should have +1'd or elaborated on the points keys made but my post made it pretty clear that I thought Mantis' arguments were bad.

Are you going to be pulling up everyone who quotes a post and doesn't add much more? It happens only about 50 times a day on here. I don't know why you're blabbering on about crowd's. Keys is a good friend yes. I'm also on friendly terms with Brammer. Now the UK is not my home anymore, I doubt I will make many more friends from within poker for a long time if ever, but I'm very happy with those I have. I hope that clears up your rather irrelevant musing about my social life within poker, not that it's relevant.

Part of the reason for such a simple post is because me and Mantis have gotten into it several times on the forum. Ever since he threatened to punch keys in the face I basically decided he wasn't really worth too much time engaging with on the forum. Ok some nuthuggers seem to love him and that's fine. Horses for courses and all that but his arrogant and painfully long winded posting style, whether it's on PHA or anywhere else is annoying. You'll never see Mantis change his mind on something following discussion or say 'ahh I agree with what you're saying now' even when he's posting something fundamentally terrible on PHA and loads of good players (the people from the crowd I so desparately want to be part of) are all explaining why it's bad.

I didn't agree with the points he made here and didn't think there was any need for him to cause a hoo-har on Brammer's thread especially given that he isn't an active member of the marketplace - I've never seen him buy a share or even sell (though I know he's rolled for dem 10f's down at Walsall) and as painful as it may be, I think Keys' posts here are always likely to be much better than those of Mantis.

If mantis does sell for a 10 freeze out at Walsall can I reserve 2%?

There are certain cliques on blonde we can't deny that, but that is the same with any forum, it's just things like who you know irl, who you have more in common with etc etc, but as regards bullying I can confirm this statement to be 100% factually acurate! I have been bullied recently, all because I think Jessica Ennis looks like a man!

fwiw I do see bobby's pov where we do occasionally see certain groups of people kind of gang up on one individual, which in essence is bullying, but then again often that particular person is usually chatting shiz.

fwiw2 I do believe Mantis often posts with the sole intention of stirring stuff up. Sometimes its funny, sometimes its not.

So I dunno really. I just put it down to forum life.

#WhyCan'tWeAllBeFriends? (#wcwabf for short)

I have a question for you Suupr. Do you think that taking a stake into high buy in events means you have a responsibility to the people good enoough buy a share to play those events in the best of form. The reason I ask is I believe you didn't play an event in one of your staking packages last year and in your Vegas list for this year you have this at the bottom

''''Because my primary objective in the summer is to play the cash games, there is ALWAYS a small chance that I will miss an event, due to fatigue of long session, unreal cash action etc. I have set myself the objective of 5 tournaments this summer, which is reasonable and I am pretty sure I will play, however, the risk of me not playing IS there, if this makes you at all uncomfortable then please don't buy, there is nothing I can do about this unfortunately. In the event of this happening, I will refund everyone's money as I was paid it at the rate I was paid it.''''

If you are taking cash from people to play in tourneys surely your part of the deal should be to be in a prime position to do well in those tourneys, yet you are basically saying with this caveat that I might be in a good cash game or I might be tired from playing cash so will not keep my end of the deal if I do put myself in that kind of spot.

In the scheme of things do you not think your priority should be to the team of stakers you have acquired, meaning that you would not put yourself in the position of being fatigued, or wanting to stick to a cash game. The way it reads is I am going to Vegas to play cash with my money, but I would like people to buy a share of me in tourneys that I might not play coz I might not have prepared myself properly.

You could easily have just got in a spot like this and posted' was feeling ill , didnt want to waste everyones money when I couldn't play my best' so I think it's good that you added that but the message it sends about your part of the deal is not good imo.

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

Disagree massively George.

I have never seen this clause in a stake, and would be put off buying action if it became standard.

Best for stakers and buyers to have a discussion over stuff like this than let it slide imo.

That was a good post Greek until this bit.

'''I didn't agree with the points he made here and didn't think there was any need for him to cause a hoo-har on Brammer's thread especially given that he isn't an active member of the marketplace - I've never seen him buy a share or even sell (though I know he's rolled for dem 10f's down at Walsall) and as painful as it may be, I think Keys' posts here are always likely to be much better than those of Mantis'''

What you are saying is you are always going to disagree with Mantis, there was no need to post on your friends thread, and coz he plays 10 freezeouts his opinion isn't relevant.

You do see what you did there?

I'm firmly in this camp.

One reason is this tho George, after the 70/30 posts started it bred a plethora of them from people that hadn't asked for staking before. It started the ball of bad practice rolling and then some others jumped on the 'play for free' bandwagon.

What Skol says is he doesn't want the Status Quo on these threads being disturbed because he might want to do similar at a later date, surely it is better to look thru it when it becomes an issue so people can make proper judgements and stake requests are better thought out?

So basically Phil, you're saying that someone who is selling something isn't free to name his price or set out the terms of his sale?

A yes or no answer will suffice.  ;)

So what if he benefits? I don't see this but back clause as a pisstake and unless I'm mistaken no one had subsequently dropped out as a result of this debate. Mantis bangs on about business but surely the first rule of any contract is read it before I sign it

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57887.0

wiii i can post.

there's huge huge difference between my and aarons posts. I say what I think AND GIVE REASONING (usually detailed) whilst he says fact and laughs at op. I never said something along the lines on "lol dave shallow a5, a rag, donkey raise, donkey call"

I may be incorrect, out of place or anything else, but I more than often give detailed reasons behind my opinions, he stated facts and then when everybody disagreed he continued to treat his statements as facts and didnt give reasoning. I actually spent time writing in detail why I disagreed with him and thus was trying to engage in a positive discussion.

I disagree with people every day it doesn't mean I call them ridiculous, you calling people bullys who actually do the opposite (help people out and give advice) is totally ool and be a reason why people stop contributing in pha.

I want to buy 10% of Bobby1's argument action at 1.3.

But if he tries to buy it back after totally nailing some other argument elsewhere he can GTFO.

This could also be argued to be incorrect.

Where one man sees a piss take another man sees value

oh and these are not contracts fwiw, they are gentlemans agreements

in before JohnMW  posts "if there is offer, acceptance and consderation its a contract"

I'm all for the simple life but I have to disagree.

Rightly so, stakers have a choice to buy or not buy, but horses have a responsibility to be open and honest when asking for staking. Nigdawg stated he reserves the right to buy back iof he binks early. I applaud his honesty but it's way too ambiguos. He should have stated what size bink would be needed to buy back his action. Whether or not that bink came as a result of the original stake or from an outside source etc.. Clarity is definately needed in these situations and should been defined at the time of the proposal.

Now I know and appreciate that Nigdawg only had the best intentions and that his integrity is not being questioned here, but it certainly feels like there's been a lot of arrogance in this thread for totally the wrong reasons and a lot of that arrogance seems to come from the other side of the camp just because Nigdawg is a friend.

BTW I think this far worse than the 70/30 thread simply because the other thread was simple with nothing hidden.

NO I DIDNT SAY THAT.

I said I was LIKELY to disagree with Mantis.

Yes my jab was childish. I couldn't help it.

I think the problem is simply because lack of detail. Theoretically Nigdawg could bink event 1 for 50k, which is by no means a small amount of money, he then buys back the remainder 44.5k. He his now free rolling 50% of the tourney's for 100% of the action and nobody could say anything about it because the details are way to vague from the beginning.

I am in the same camp. I am mostly likely to disagree with any given Mantis post.

In fact, he has posted the only thing I've ever been genuinely angry about on Blondepoker.

However, I have to say the vast majority of his points in this thread are spot on imo.

well a yes or no won't really cover it Tom. When people that have never sold before suddenly start selling at an unfair rate then it raises the cost price of the market for people that don't think it thru properly. By having the discussion it makes it better al round, this started as a point made by Bob and Keith regarding the wording of the OP request, it turned when people that could benefit from nothing being said started being nasty towards other posters.

You are obv going to agree with the caveat emptor approach as you were one of 70/30 sellers. That doesn't mean we all will tho.

Im not taking sides here as there are plenty of good points raised but you cant deny that whether you like the buy back clause or not

Chris was 100% open in his opening post so potential investors had the option to decide to buy or not

As its been pointed out ....if the buy back clause was implemented it would suggest a big cash had been made so surely everybody would be happy plus the fact he may then not cash in the refunded events so maybe monies would be saved ...That said there is still a (greedy maybe ) part of me that feels it would be nice to stay loyal to the investor but of course I cant complain knowing the "terms of the contract "

I actually think some of the points raised by Mantis are quite valid and I actually enjoy reading most of his threads ,but his abrasive posting style both on this and other issues do not do himself any favours but one thing he does do is stimulate healthy debate so credit to him for that.

Good Luck to all In Vegas

Neither do I George but it is a pretty unclear approach and the original posters that questioned it were dealt with fairly, then Mantis started to get  unfair treatment and it became unfair.

But if you go back to my question and answer yes or no, I promise to agree with you.

It already is Pleno, you create some really good HH but it gets replies from a limited amount of people because posters cannot go from treating a guy in the way of Aaron on that thread then expect people to reply on their next hand.

On that thread a group of people were ripping one guy to pieces, that was unfair and you advised him not to post on threads above his game level but did the same on a different thread. Not only do you not have any say in who posts on which thread, you also ignored your own advice.

Surely if Chris bought back a percentage of himself he'd post on the thread (or otherwise inform all his stakers) exactly what percentage anyone has BEFORE the event starts?

If that's the case, everyone knows where they are and Chris has said from the off that the stakes for some of the events might be returned - which sounds fair enough to me.

thats total bollocks.

The point I'm trying to make is there is there is nothing stopping him buying back all the stakes after 1 bink no matter how good or bad it is for the stakers.

I'm confused, what's bollocks?

(http://belljarblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dogs-bollocks.jpg)

i do not understand what this post is saying and i'm therefore not sure you understand how it works either.

using your example, binking 50k in event 1 win means i pay out 25k to investors and pocket 25k myself. if i then bought the remaining action (buyins * mark up * % sold) back, that costs me 28k to do so. the package would end after 1 event with 1% being worth $1,062 (cost price $600) booking investors a 77% return after 1 event. the package closed early, as was warned could happen in the op, and personally from here on out i have 100% of my own action to do with what i will.

i'm not "free rolling" anyone. it's true that in this example i have almost covered the cost of buying back the action with my share of the profit from event 1, but that's kind of irrelevant?

People are free to name their own price for whatever they're selling.

But I don't think a sheriff should bowl around staking threads telling people what is and isn't 'perfectly acceptable' without being challenged. A decent lawman needs to be impartial. If I was sheriff I would say horses wishing to buy back their now hot action should do so at a higher premium. The price on them binking the next event has dropped at least. Why can they ride the rush and the buyer can't? More so a buyer investing his capital in a 20 comp wsop package might find himself out of action after just one event. The buyer should turn a profit on 100% of his wsop package investment if the player wants a buy back caveat added. The player can't aftertime and decide the rest of the investment is dead because 1/20 was profitable enough thankyou. Horses should set a schedule and retain a right to buy out at a premium if they want to. Just focking the buyer off 1st comp into a 20 comp investment at no cost seems dirty.

Anyway, in the end we didn't need a sheriff cos we had the three musketeers of Camel, bobby1 and bobAalike. And I am D'Artagnan, the most attractive one, and the one with the biggest sword.

Phoning in sick is cool in any job Keith. But telling your boss/partners you're not coming to work so you can go drinking instead, or play golf, or don't need the money this week wouldn't be cool. If you get pissed up the night before work you absolutely should buy that action back at a premium cos you've cost investors money.

Sorry to hear I upset you. Prob only joking whatever it was.

I fully understand but got my figures a bit wrong, your 2nd para sums up what I'm trying to say and yes you have been open about what your intentions may be but IMO it's a deal I wouldn't be happy with for the simple fact at no point do you say what the likely threshold is of your percieved bink before you'd buy back, and in your example here you havent denied that you wouldn't do this after a 'min' bink in the 1st., 2nd or whatever event leaving it open to abuse from you. As I've said previously I don't think for 1 minute that you'd do something as low as that but it is possible.

As I said the issue is one of clarity or the lack of it.

Maybe all staking requests should end up with 'buyer beware' at the end.

"Maybe all staking requests should end up with 'buyer beware' at the end."


They do

Oh and one more thing which really tilts me. I do not play £10 re-buys at Walsall. No, cos it's all this £15 Deep'n'Steep freeze-out bollocks these days. Man how I miss them £10 re-buys.

They do?

Not as much as the regs miss you :)

in case it wasn't obvious my last post was just using the mentioned example. truth is at this point i do not know how big the bink has to be before i buy it back. it's up to me at the time and that's why it's in the op. strictly speaking i do not think any $Xbuyout is "abusing" my investors, providing they have made profit on events played.

i have read all the discussion about it and whilst i can see why some people would not like it, nothing has changed my mind on the subject. i will most likely include the caveat in any future packages. anyone who does have a problem with it will obviously have to decide how much value it takes away from what i am offering.

Whilst I'm not in agreement with you I sincerely hope you do a bink. Gl

It's my lunch break, a thread with seven pages of responses on a Friday morning - surely worth a read.....well that's 25 mins of my life I'll never get back.

I am really struggling with this thread.  We have an excellent player, with 100% reputation, who has made proposal that is fully transparent and his "customers" have all happily purchased their product fully aware of the T&Cs that apply.  What is the problem.  In many ways it's made worse by the fact many would not dream of being as open as Chris, they'd bink - be hungover for 4 days, ship refunds and say tough shit.

Its important to understand we are talking about staking; if we were talking about a regulated market, the discussion points may be valid in defining the regulations and creating the regulatory or statutory framework.  I guess it's similar to shops displaying "No refunds" as a clause, and they can't due to Sale of Goods Act.  However, this is poker staking - so no regulation, pointless debate, staker handles himself impeccably in this instance, buyers have a choice. Buy or do not.

I am a regular staker here, so IMHO I am cool with such clauses - simple choice invest or dont. if anyone wants to drop out I will take it.  And - despite being old and not one of the young Internet clique, I wish Christopher Brammer every success in Vegas - I absolutely believe no intent to discredit, however anyone who's met him knows top bloke, top player and can't help but feeling this thread is a bit pointless - its like the discussion won't achieve anything anyway

In a vacuum (so we don't know the staker and stakee) any hint of a buy back clause without specific buy back criteria is bad news.

One kind of bink could be the stakee receiving better offers for his action after doing a win. Theoretically, he could buy back action at x and re-sell action at x + 1. Is this acceptable providing a buy back caveat is in the offer ?

tbf, mantis is always bullied and I think it's pretty much forum protocol now. So, mantis, I think you should just shut it and if we need to fight then just know, my nickname at Luton is 'carpark'.

As Shaun crisply points out though, this isn't a regulated market so it's all a bag of bollocks and conjecture anyway. That is my final word

Regards

The original staking sherriff

I think you have gone a long way to clarifying your original post here.  In the original it wasn't clear that the investors had to make a profit before you bought back.  If you go back to page 1 that was my main objection.  There was a lack of clarity which meant you could bink 100k elsewhere, pay no return and then bink 500k on the original stake.

When I originally read the proposal this really put me off.  

As it is I think buying out is fine if you have made a profit for investors and/or you pay a premium. The premium is there for the loan of the money/default risk etc.  

I think it is probably a good thing to let people keep a small stake for karma purposes. If someone bought 10% say and you want to buy out, maybe it is good to let them keep a couple.  That way you still have 90% and they won't be too unhappy when you bink the 500k later.  

Anyway GL in it all, hope all is well in the world, hope we have done our little bit to stop those Chinese mass suicides

Interesting thread although I don't really understand why everyone is throwing insults around.  I am a bit torn here.  I think any poster should be able to add whatever caveat they want....it is a free marketplace and they will either sell or not on that basis but I think a debate about whether it should affect whether someone buys is perfectly reasonable and the thought that someone should or shouldn't be allowed to participate seems a bit elitist.

Fwiw I wouldn't buy a stake with this caveat.  Whenever I buy a stake, or have a bet, I do it having thought about what I think my long term expectation for that 'investment' is.  In order to realise that long term expectation I need the investment to play out in full whether it returns me a profit or not.  I have a (very small) chance to make a very large return on my money and whilst, in terms of the probability of that happening it is unlikely it does make up a part of my expectation.   If I am buying at 1.2 I am doing so because i believe it is worth 1.35 or something so selling it back is a negative expectation proposition and I don't really want to do that.  I think this is solved if either the orginal markup is low enough to make up for this or the seller pays a premium to buy back his action but that would have to be a figure both parties were happy with.

Think you should know I threatened to punch somebody a few years back. Be afraid my friend.

LOOOOL!

So many comedy hero's itt. It just keeps on giving.

PS- Glen, Please tell the car park story in your own words. I promise to laugh.

One day Tom :-)

It involved a 20 st, singularly aggresssive, brick shithouse from oop North, repeatedly following up my remarks with things like

 "Dithee 'ave a death wish, does 'eeeeee have a deathwish"

in the kind of way only true psychopaths do - kinda crying a bit while they speak cause they know they're about to break one of the ten commandments.

Despite the fact he terrified me, I continued chirping and didn't cry once much

 :respect:

Three musketeers line :)

+1. so incred

<3 mantis

needs love.

<3

Remember I am old, is that good or bad?

I forget.

Old people forget stuff.  Problem solved.

Pmsl. Do you guys realise how nice it's been outside today. Anyone posting between 9am and 5 pm on this thread  needs to have a serious word with themselves.  :)

Or a proper job  :-X

Have you not heard of mobile internet Jase? It's the internet but it's mobile, you should try it.

These threads are com, you pretty much know in advance who is going to stick up for who and be on who's side  :D

Lol. Yeah I only have my phone To access blonde ATM so been laying in the garden most of the day.  The day I need to get a job a drawing ever closer :(

Noooooooooooooo! You don't wanna do that.

Yeah damm right I don't. Big life change starting with a shave n haircut :)

I've got some old .....doggy clippers if you want them!

Jase is right as usual, anyone posting during daylight hours in this thread needs to take a long hard look at their life.

Bobby1 it would be nice if you could read some of my posts before you judge that I only ever post in my own self-interest. This (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57713.msg1565266#msg1565266), this (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57897.msg1570347#msg1570347) and this (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57738.msg1566729#msg1566729) were my last 3 relevant posts in staking boards that I think you might be alluding to, although this is just a guess as it would make no sense to say what you've said if you'd actually read any of them. But anyway, in my personal opinion, if nobody were to step up and challenge people posting new threads, we could expect threads like this (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57496.msg1553009#msg1553009) and this (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57492.msg1552794#msg1552794) to keep cropping up indefinitely, since they mostly sell out anyway.

Also, you dodged mine and dave's question as to who you're talking about when you say "some people...". It's fine, it's just that some people use the "some people" line to make vague accusations that support their argument and then they can back out of it later if those accusations turn out to have no foundation in the truth. I'm sure you're not one of those though. By all means reply without reading this, but I then I probably won't read your replies either and the whole thing will be totally pointless.

FWIW I never said anyone can or can't post (although it doesn't seem to have stopped bobby1 from saying so), I just wanted to know why mantis is posting here, and I guess I'll still have to wonder into the indefinite future since mantis is so secretive as to his reasons for doing anything. As far as I can tell, since it could have no effect on his life whatsoever, so long as he continues to neither buy or sell on this forum, there are only 2 possible reasons for him to post here:

1) He is here to defend hapless blonde members from being defrauded by the nasty professionals posting here.
2) He just wants to start an argument.

It would be nice to know, just for future reference, which it is. That is all.

My life is fine, actually it's great with a brilliant work life balance which gives me plenty of time throughout the day to comment on threads as and when I see fit. But thanks for trying to belittle me and others who posted today.

Congratulations on directing your latest piece of patronising at half the people that post on here.

I can't speak for Mantis really but I can stick up for the guy when someone takes off at him for no reason than he happened to be the guy next to you in the post list. Is it the new Joey Barton tactic that's catching on?

Why does it matter especially that Mantis posts on this thread, why did you choose to take off on him and not anyone else asking questions?

I am not alluding to any previous staking posts you made, you are just clutching at straws really, what I am challenging you about is your idea that you can just get stuck into someone for no real reason but fawn all very upset when you get a post directed at you in return.

I posted because I am part of the poker community and a member of the Blonde forum. I hope that has cleared up the mystery.

Let's go back to the recent Staking deals and Markup thread because it was a general staking discussion most of us poker enthusiasts were involved in. Here are your words sheriff skolsuper...


All good advice unless it's your mate's thread right? Then suddenly ur not so forward with the praise. It's all this why are you posting bollocks instead. And really in that you have the essence of why I get involved in this stuff. Like I said I find it quite difficult to see bullshit and not respond. Hi-Yo silver and away.

lol, that's a good read. At least we are consistent in our thinking, and polite with it too.

So it is purely altruism and a sense of community that makes you start arguments all over the place? Truly Mantis you are not the hero this forum wants, but the hero it needs.

Point out the contradiction, or the impoliteness, in any one of my posts in this thread. You aren't reading what I'm saying bobby1, just what you think I'm saying.

gg skolsuper u had a good run

gg MANTIS01. One last thing before you go, how do we contact you if we need you again? Shine a big mantis-shaped-stencil light into the sky?

Are you just trolling now fella?

The contradiction is in your post on the thread Mantis just copied in and your current seemingly change of heart. Its your need for the status quo to remain in staking requests so you can pick and choose the most likely to get thru judging by the success of other staking request. You said yourself, the reason you want to know why he is posting is because you might want to use a similar plan in future and don't want anyone getting put off.

Chris probably made a mistake in a genuine but slightly ambiguous opening post, the conversation from respected posters was fine until you decided to take off in Mantis' direction.

The impoliteness was you talking down to Mantis like he had no right to post in the thread, you then had the front to claim indignation when you were told it was unfair.

As the big man said in the previous thread about 70/30 deals, this isn't a market place, it is a forum. The forum isn't run to give you the best spot to sell your stakes.

One other thing, stop sending me PM's please, you are just making yourself look a little silly really.

Makes me laugh thou how it's praise for Boss Hogg Dubai and Rosco P Coltrane Trigg but I get patronising 'yawn' cos I'm that lowly mechanic one, think his name was Cooter. Yo, then you accuse me of starting the argument. Drawing dead imo. gg.

Lol, same thread from which you dredged that quote of mine, no wonder you cut off the link...

So it can't be deleted

Catch up skolsuper. Yeah that's what I actually believe but you said people should speak up if they want. So I tried out your advice in this thread. Yet instead of the praise I was expecting you kept asking me why are you posting? Quite upsetting and confusing really. Look, you bin knocked out of the tournament so can you pls leave the cardroom now.

I find this ganging up on Skol rather nasty to witness.

I think any comparisons of this thread to the Aaron thread are way off mark.

This has been a reasonably intelligent debate where no side as shown anywhere close to the level of arrogance and rudeness that Aaron showed.

Everybody tried to reason with him and help him at first, but then people got pissed off at his responses and told him so.

Sorry I only just replying to this now, been on a tilting plane journey last 24 hours (thin think I know :D )

Apologies if I offended you with you any of my ccomments, certainly wasn't intentional and my impression is you have plenty thick enough skin for these debates anyways :)

R.E the point about me.  The points you've made are correct, but I see them from the other way round


My end of the deal is, IMO to play these tournaments in the optimal state of mind, for some (people like Bram for e.g) he could prolly play a bracelet event and be a terrific proposition for a staker at 1.2 : 1 only on 75-80% of his concentration, I know that for me in tournaments, if I'm under 90% my chance of winning is practically 0%, when i'm unfocused I'm a truly terrible terrible poker player. If I wasn't in a state fit to play I wouldn't play my money, your money my great aunt's money or some money tikay dropped and didn't realise. Not only would it be a bad use of the money I would hate every minute of it


Remember I am putting up my own money as well. My priority is to make the best decisions for me, when good cash games run I will be playing them because it's my livelihood, the games I play in as well do require a decent amount of mental preparation. Also, I would have been going to Vegas with or without the staking, I play cash games, not tournaments and everyone who knows me knows this so my priority will be the cash games always, I don't think this is a bad attitude because when I do play a tournament, that someone has bought shares in then they can trust me 100% I will be perfectly ready to play that comp and it will have my complete focus for the duration. The downside to purchasing shares in me is that I might miss tournaments because of this, but I, myself, miss out along with everyone buying shares - prolly more so actually.


See to me, I think it reads very reasonably, I guess this is a difference in our view on staking as a hole, my view is its business and it's flexible, to accommodate poker variant nature. I hope it doesn't read too badly as really my intention is to just tell people straight up "This is the deal with me, it's not viable financially for me to be any different but all my actions are honorable" 

I think as well, it's important to remember HOW BIG a difference to my EXPECTED$ in making sure I'm in the right games. I messed people around in L.A regrettably and ended up compensating out of my own pocket which I feel was correst, I just didn't want to do that again.

Hope this gives you some insight into my motives. Have taken the point on board though and will certainly consider it for the future, would be interested to hear more views on my caveat?

Think you will find mantis bought Here (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=57496.msg1553009#msg1553009)

:O

This thread has started to turn a bit nasty now. I don't think it's a problem for ANY person posting on a forum, asking a question and giving there opinion on the matter in hand. I honestly don't think 'bobalike' was trying to tarnish Chris's name in any way, I can see it for what it is, and that being he was curious about this part of a staking agreement.

In a way I can see where Bobby1 and Mantis01 are coming from, but on this occasion have to disagree with some of the things that are being put out there.

This is not because both Chris and James are very good players, it is because IMHO they are both honorable and decent people in this poker community, which IMHO again, is very rare to find.

I don't care what stakes you play, and this should have nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with whether your intentions are honorable and not just trying to look out for yourself at every given opportunity. I don't see a problem with Chris buying back his action if he binks big in the first few tourney's, yes it would be nice to still keep some of the %'s for the Main as this is what excites everybody about Vegas and gives a great sweat for the staker's and a real chance to make some life changing money. In all honestly he is a professional and his decisions would be based on a considerable win early on in order for him to change the terms of this staking agreement imo.  On the flip side all the staker's that have invested would be in a considerable amount of profit for there %, so I really don't see a problem?

Being professional also means thinking about the future, being realistic, and giving everybody the chance to profit on the stake that has been made. So I can't see Chris taking all his action back, being snobby with people that have invested, as he will most likely want to sell again at some stage.

I think in every walk of life you get people that want to be everybody's friend and just go along with what all the 'respected/well known' people are saying, but that is life and you can't just say that happens in poker, it happens all over, in sport, showbiz, music industry etc. It's just what people do and you cannot control what people do or what they think in there own mind, we all have choices in life, and it's up to us to make the correct ones, hence why if certain people don't like this idea, then they are in no obligation to buy.

I personally think that Chris is A) a fantastic player, good role model for this game, with the amount of hours and dedication he puts in and a very genuine and honorable person, so until I see otherwise, I choose to believe these things are true, regardless of where he is ranked in the world, or how much money he has in his bank accounts.

B) James is also all of those things, I can only see from all his posts on both here and other threads, that he is standing up for his beliefs and what he thinks is right. He is a genuine guy, I have played with him a few times, and he has been a pleasure to play with. I remember there was one time in the WSOPE he was standing around, and he came walking over to me saying hi, how r u etc etc, he didn't need to do this, I'm not anyone special to him, or classed as his 'best buddy', but he took the time to ask how I was and talk a bit about poker, so being arrogant and 'just talking to all the great players etc' is totally wrong IMO.

I also remember when he sold a package for a bunch of tourney's on here, things didn't go to plan for whatever reason and he ended up chopping and changing his mind on things he was going to play, he took a bit of stick from it, but the way he handled everybody's opinion's on the matter was very professional, and I feel he has learnt that much over posting his own staking threads, that I honestly think he is just looking out for people's best interests when they are buying.

They are both good for the game IMO, respectable, honest, and honorable people, so feel they don't deserve some of the things that are being dished out here.

I can see both sides of the debate, but let's remember this is a debate, and although debates sometimes get heated, I think that we need to keep it both respectful and ON TOPIC as to what was originally posted, and lose some of the personal attacks.

FWIW, I have not wrote anything about bobby1 or Mantis01 as I don't personally know them, have never spoke to them, either on-line or live, so would be wrong for me to start making up stuff, but I'm sure you are both decent people.

Sorry this is waffle, I am terrible at writing down what I want to say.

Jase only so many of us can be window cleaners or house husbands! Some of us work in these things called offices Mon - Fri, 9-5 and play poker at nights/weekends. Please don't try and claim you are a professional poker player.  :D


Normally I <3 Keys, but clearly this is the biggest level itt and the second part doesn't even warrant a response.

Some sayings which I find apt for this particular thread:

'Arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics.... even if you win you are still special.'
'Opinions are like belly buttons, we all have one, but they don't hold much water'
'Arguing on the internet is like sitting on a rocking horse, it gives you something to do but you don't get anywhere'

No side will concede and it will undoubtedly just end in character assassinations and people taking sides..

All that said..

If a staking OP declares a caveat, you read it and you buy accordingly.
If its not clear enough = don't buy or ask for clarification of terms.
If it is clear = buy/don't buy
If you don't agree with caveat = don't buy

In short people can dictate whatever terms they like beforehand, however clear or concise they deem fit, there is nothing forcing anyone to buy! When caveats are added half way through or people change their mind after people have staked is when it all gets messy. But this clearly isn't the case here.

IMO there is no need for all this, far too much spoon feeding going on and it has just turned nasty.

#grouphugs

James, I've removed the post where you were quoting the PMs of another member. It's not something we allow on the forum unless both parties explicitly agree to it.

Anyway, back to the debate...

Lol, thats one of the funniest yet, ganging up? Ive never met Mantis, dont know his name nor how old he is, we just happened to be two different people disagreeing with one other person at a time of day when nobody else was posting inbetween.

If you want to see a thread where people are ganging up on one poster the read the aaron thread, what you mean is in that thread the ones doing it are your mates so its no big deal.

Didnt someone post the guys real name, or his twitter account or his hendon mob page at some stage, maybe ironside can remind me which it was as I think he was monitoring the thread at the time, obv all fine to do over a hand of poker in your world the Alex?

So just because u don't know mantis u can't be bullying skol together? Think reasoned argument has gone out of the window and ur both just reading what u want to read and now seemingly picking at every clause someone has put in their staking thread. If u don't like- don't buy.

Less hand wringing about peoples motivations and 'why oh why, wailing' and more direct confrontations please, this thread is dying

Quite Incredible Writing    :)

Only surpassed by this  :)

Thanks for replying Dave, abs no offense taken at all. As i see it there is a v thin line between players wanting vegas staking to give friends and posters a chance to share in a big bink and ones that want a jolly up for a few weeks with their mates. they have worked out that getting others to buy a piece means they can do that when they may not be able to otherwise.

As a caveat it is v honest, it would put me off a little but the fact that you understand that and write it up so well makes me sure you are in the former staking category not the latter which would counteract my initial feeling.

Skol was right too, by using a saying like 'some people' makes the words that followapplicable to nobody so I would just reiterate abs none of them in the earlier post had you in mind.

Thanks

George, I agree with you that reasoned argument has gone out of the window but hold on a sec mate.I am not picking at any old clause someone has written, the only one I asked about was by Dave, if the polite question and answer aren't what you are looking for then what is?

Laughable that you are trying to paint Skol as being victimised, the guy was strutting round the thread telling people to go do something more important than post on it 2 nights ago.it was a v reasonable thread until then.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Never eat yellow snow. Be prepared.

BOB imo.

Bag of bollocks?

 :D

Lol mantis, you are a ridiculous human being.

All I set out to prove, and I think I got there pretty conclusively in the end* although it got a little messy along the way, was that you were only posting on this thread to start an argument. You are trolling, and the sooner the mods start treating your posts as such the better imo.

*


@Bobby1, you have misquoted me again, for about the 20th time itt. If you're going to start a sentence with "skol says" or "skol thinks" at least use an actual quote so that the following statement might actually resemble something I do think or have said. I keep trying to tell you I've not said the things you're outraged about, I've asked about 6 times for you to tell me where I said this or that that you've accused me of saying itt, and you still haven't posted anything real. Go back to that Aaron thread, I posted once at the beginning, before aaron got involved, and that was it iirc. Here, I never said anyone can or can't post and never said anything was right or wrong without the qualifier that it was my opinion. If you think I was mean to mantis, it was only because I know he is just trolling and wanted people (maybe even some mods) to realise this, but I don't even think I did say anything mean and you haven't been able to find a post where I did, despite filling in the blanks behind the phrase "skol says" with your own words several times.

@ kinboshi, those were my sent pms, I got my permission first, but never mind.

@ dreenie, ty for taking the time to actually read what I am saying and ty for your kind words :)

The collective of players that sell action on this forum give you the opportunity to take a slice of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of expected value that they will generate. Please try to keep this in mind whenever posting on the subject.

Pretty much all of the players putting up these big packages (and therefore providing the most EV for the buyers) could just as easily sell their action on other platforms. Blonde is absolutely not in any position to regulate the market. It is a complete negative freeroll for regular users of the staking boards to try to do so because people will either shrug their shoulders and carry on as usual or they will decide that its too much hassle to take on the defenders of the universe and just post on 2p2 or facebook instead. You could argue that you are raising the issue to stop people from being exploited by buying bad value packages, but this is a $60k package. The people buying these type of packages are very likely to be highly experienced buyers that do not require a second opinion to see when a clause devalues the package to the point where they should not buy. Who do you think you are serving by taking on this crusade in the face of a market that is clearly telling you that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the buyers.

That the defenders do not realise this; clearly shows their lack of experience in staking, the structure of the overall market and how buyers and sellers fit into it.

I suppose it isn't strictly a negative freeroll - would be remiss of me to neglect the warm fuzzy feeling that the defenders get inside from (a) the belief that they are helping their community and (b) starting an argument.

It didn't work out very well for James but alas I will attempt to close with a question

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.

/thread

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.

Exactly Keith. You would exercise your right not to buy what the seller was offering.

Simples.

Sorry skolsuper. thought you said if people want an argument on the internet this is a good issue to start one over. Not so keen of a sudden? But if it was Boss Hogg Dubai ur nose would be seven shades of brown. If that wasn't enough hypocrisy for one day it is YOU who actually starts the argument in this thread. With your usual condescending ways. Think you should turn in your sheriff's badge and keep ur nose out of other people's staking threads from now on, don't you?

Btw you bin knocked out of the comp for hours now and ur still hanging around. Can someone get security pls.

Forgot to add that IMO the negative freeroll logic applies to James policing staking threads too, though to a much lesser extent. I've only seen James to militant in one thread and that was the staking proposal from John Black which as I think we'd all agree didn't ever resemble a viable proposal. I don't read every single thread though so could be off on this. James is an experienced staker & stakee so he's going to be right most of the time when he posts that a proposal is -EV for whatever reason. Objections in these threads are targeted at the potential stakee and are not general assertions. Even if the stakee decides not to post other threads which they might have done otherwise; the overall negative affect on the market is pretty small. I still object to the critiquing though.

The difference is that threads like this begin to jeopardise people posting big packages. Losing just one of these can wipe tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of EV from the staking board which is bad for the buyers since they have fewer opportunities to do a bink and is therefore bad for those just loving their community as they have less to rail in.

This equation kinda changes if the lobby against these clauses for the most part took no part in the buying of shares and maybe even has an irrational dislike for the buying community....but that is a discussion for another day I think

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?

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?

<3

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.

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.

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?

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:


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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

would you like to be spiderman George?

Doctor who pls

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.  


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?

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

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

+1

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

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

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.


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.


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.

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

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.

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.

cliffs?

Who the hell is banning it? No way to ban it, some are just saying they don't like it that's all.

This is getting ludicrous.  Nobody was proposing a ban on the clause, we were having a discussion.  You're assertion that this clause didn't make any less likely people would invest was wrong.  I stated up the thread that this clause was enough to put me off.    

As a prospective buyer, I am perfectly entitled to ask for information, and I guess he is perfectly entitled to refuse it.  As it is we got a bit of clarification higher up the thread.

Likewise, nobody has asked for a sicknote and for people to sign a register before they play.  I just kind of expect the basic courtesies:  Just let me know if you can't play, then pay me back pretty sharpish when you can't play/do a win.  Just let me know when you are out etc.  I don't need a 10 page trip report etc, though it would be nice to get an update of sorts.

You also stated that the sellers could just go elsewhere, so having discussions like this was bad for buyers, as "we" could lose tens of thousands of EV through a discussion.  I don't know where you have been, but if the average recent proposal has been +EV, never mind +tens of thousand of EV, I'd be massively surprised.  

To me the board has tipped too far in the direction of the sellers, and this kind of clause isn't going to make it better.   Options have a value, and the more they are tipped towards the seller, then the bigger value they have.  I do this much of the day in my day job, and much of the rest of the time is sorting out the mess caused by people who didn't realise these options had a value.

Anyway, discussing it any further isn't the best way to react to this, there are always plenty of other ways I can spend my money.  My wife will be pleased.

Doobs

Just answer this one as you asked, and I don't think anyone responded.  Your original post did put me off investing. 

I don't mind people pulling out if they are sick, but nobody wants to be the back up option.  I don't think the LA thing was good all round.

I invested anyway obviously, but not as much as I would have done.

Doobs

i think a few intangible and immeasurable things have been left out of this discussion. The sweat the staker gets and the enjoyment of rooting on a player, that this caveat negates possibly. Also whether bramms chances increase in the next tournament after a big bink.
Also, i think bramm has factored the caveat into his mark up. I snap said to bramm he should have sold at 1.4, so maybe he has lowered the quote due to this. Personally i would never buy with this caveat just because im a gambling junkie and i love the sweat too much and id be on route the the train tracks if i missed out on a huge payday after bramm bought his action back.

+1 to all this.

It is simple economics. When investors demand more information this lowers the price of the package because the horse now can't choose when to invoke the clause and that is actually a negative freeroll for the horse.

With forced disclosure of information, either:

A) The horse cashes for less than the figure that the investors require to buy back his action
B) The horse cashes for more than the magic number and buys back his action, everyone has won chunk
C) The horse cashes for more than the magic number but does in half his share playing cash games. He now doesn't think he can afford to buy back the action - investors realised it was a silly clause say thats fine, they get to keep the rest of the package because its +EV for them to have the horse keep playing

Without forced disclosure, either:
A) The horse cashes for less than the figure that he had in mind to buy back his action
B) The horse cashes for more than the figure that he had in mind to buy back his action, everyone wins chunk
C) The horse cashes for more than the magic number but does in half his share playing cash games. He decides to stay on the stake, as above

You see how it changes nothing? There is no increase EV for the transaction. The only possible other outcome is that the horse refuses to drop the price by disclosing and instead sells elsewhere, hence the investors lose a chunk of EV.

Negative freeroll
Negative freeroll
Negative freeroll
Negative freeroll
Negative freeroll
Negative freeroll
Negative freeroll

http://vimeo.com/1697471

But I've already proved that it wouldn't. If you ban the clause then the horse will just increase the markup to equate the loss. In this case his previous suggests that he will still sell out and EV would still be maximised, same as before. The price of the package won't change. He either sells out on Blonde as before or he sells elsewhere and the forum loses so its a negative freeroll.

So we don't agree that the horse has no incentive to do something shady like this? Pissing people off the relatively small field of investors for this size package is so so -EV for the horse and he's not even taking back money, its EV and he's likely to just do his money in anyway over the span of 20 big-field MTTs.

I just don't think that theres any way that a logically thinking horse would do this and if someone tried to sell who was deemed to be a risk to pull this, he wouldn't get through the checks and balances of the investors anyway.

Again its just an unenforceable rule. Either we keep the status quo or we ban the clause, people realise that actually theres nothing they can do to stop the horse sending them a chunk of money and not sending %ages of future cashes, realise that the rule is unenforceable and scrap it - a net loss in wasted time and effort but mainly the people that decide to post elsewhere because of the forced lowering of prices which is banning this clause.

If you ban the clause, the horse just increases the markup to make up the difference and the price remains the same and sot here is no EV shift towards the buyer.

They're running out of bullets folks, down to the personal stuff!

We can do this.

Feel free to find me a scenario where it is +EV for the horse to abuse the clause in some way

This is very naive.

Almost 100% of grims are -ev for the person doing the dirty deed.

When a famous players stole 20k (or whatever it was) from the Vic, causing him to be banned from every casino in the land, do you think he thought through his actions thoroughly?

Yes, he was 20k better off, but his reputation was tarnished forever and his future earning capacity (if he's a winning player) has been undermined forever.

Poker players tend to do stuff which benefit them for the present, with little or no thought for the future.

Horse puts a package of 20 wsop events with buy back clause.

Stakers buy package

Horse busts first 15 events

Horse buys 50% of tkay in seniors event

Tikays wins seniors

Horse exercising buyout clause

Horse wins bracelet in event 18 of package

Lots of pissed stakers.



You think this scenario is unrealistic?

^ The Tikay bit winning yes  :D

Problem with longterm +EV stats in tournament staking is they only show what a buyer can expect over a long period of time. The horse is already using those stats to convince the buyer to take a short term gamble over a few weeks during the wsop. Does variance even out in poker over a coupla weeks? But sure enough, if those stats are good it will encourage buyers to take on the gamble. But in fact when the horse realises the deck is hitting him in the face he will be gone. So the buyer has gambled a short term rush will happen when in fact that is never going to happen, not for the buyer at least. It's a series of individual comps dressed up as a package. So why call it a package?

It would have been more gracious & decent if you'd at least given it a whole minute before spotting the tiny flaw in the plan......

 :P

Even though I am completely pro caveat and firmly in the 'nobody is forcing you to buy' camp, this is just to give Dan another possibility.

Horse snap sells out @1.2 for 20 decent events, people who couldn't get in say they would have paid at a higher mark up etc.

Horse binks in the first event he plays. He buys back the chunks sold.

Say he just binked enough to buy them back, he could now re-sell at a higher mark up if those are still interested therefore +ev for horse.

If he binks big, He could then do a chunk in/ brick next 9 comps and decide to resell package which again is +ev for horse.

Naive and misguided lol

This is exactly the same as him winning chunk at craps or whatever else - the horse has not indicated anywhere that money accumulated outside the package counts towards his buyout figure. He guarantees stakers a big return before he buys any action back.

Its not +EV for the horse to do it. If the investors thought he was too big a risk, the package wouldn't sell out so the markup would fall until it does sell out. The risk of the horse doing something irrational and taking off with the money isn't what we're discussing but this risk is factored into the markup - the stakers know that there is a flight risk with every horse. Sometimes they get it wrong and a guy that intends to roll the investors sells out at a high price and the investors get stung, investors will re-evaluate how much they factor flight risk into their buying decisions and will likely demand lower prices which as earlier they are not in a position to do - the scammer will just go to a different forum/marketplace to sell. Hence why its so important that scammers get the maximum exposure and can't sting other forums/marketplaces

I do wish people would stop putting words in my mouth. I''m not "going round telling people" this or that, and certainly haven't been telling people off because I think they're -EV. I decided to post in staking threads with OPs that don't contain enough information for people to assess and haven't commented on anyone's EV one way or the other, except maybe a little rant at jcgblack :). For example in Sean's thread for cash games, which didn't look like going well at first, I just said he should probably include a graph of his results, he did and that improved the proposal so that people could judge how much it was likely to cost them and how much they were likely to make, and hey presto, he got some good interest.

In this thread, bobalike&camel raised a concern and I posted that I think the clause is a good idea to avoid problems down the line, in my opinion of course. Now, according to bobby1, I'm telling people to stop asking questions. After camel seemed to accept my point, lildave, Flushy and others had posted, and the discussion seemed to be progressing productively, mantis turns up quoting my post and having a massive go at me and Chris, taking a diametrically opposite view to the one he had just 2 months ago in the last major staking debate, with the sole intent of causing an argument. This is what mantis does, he is going to basically repeat the same concerns that camel and bobalike first had, without conceding any arguments to the contrary, until people go blue in the face trying to argue with him. If you engage with mantis on his level it will just lead to boredom and frustration, which I guess is what he wants for some reason. So I wanted him to admit he was posting for the sole purpose of causing an argument so that people wouldn't fall for it. Obviously judging from the last 14 pages or so it didn't work :(. The discussion hasn't even been moved forward, in my next post after the one mantis ripped into, I added that I would have concerns if the clause became standard that it would be open to abuse, and lildave reasoned that out fully a few posts later iirc. We're going round in circles now, and have been for 12 pages, and this is why greekstein rightly says mantis is a terrible poster.

But yeah, there is the James Keys that bobby1 and mantis see, that apparently goes around telling people he doesn't like that they can't post staking threads and they should just shut up and buy in his friends, and there is the James Keys in the real world outside their heads that has contributed sensibly to nearly every staking debate, would like issues to be discussed and for there to be transparency in OPs, has bought and sold in decent amounts in a large number of different staking threads without issue and just doesn't want to talk to mantis.

I missed the post where it was indicated that the bink had to be part of the stake in order for the buy back clause was to be exercised. There is certainly no mention in the OP. It may be implied, but it isn't explicited stated.

Few people got some soul searching to do today I reckon.  :)

If this was the case, do you think the caveat would be ok, in most instances?

I wouldn't buy a share if this caveat existed in a staking request, but I think it's much more acceptable.

<3 Milligan

Lol I told you I'm the garden with the kids. If I can get em to put their trunks back on I'll post a pic. Hey guess what Dave. Took em to the hair dressers for a trim yesterday and because I had my nephew the boys decided they wanted short hair.

So many heroes itt some comedy moments also some cringe worthy ones lol

Fwiw think both sides have put points across very well at times and been equally childish too(makes a good read though)

BOB for sure

More importantly gl to Bram in Vegas

That isn't correct Keith.

When it happened, the player was just banned from one group of casinos that didn't really have too much of an effect on his earning capacity.

At the time, it way more than doubled his bankroll. Yes his reputation was tarnished amongst those who don't know him but he's easily in the top 3 people in poker I trust. Might be loud and lairy but has been so awesome to me for many years.

Sometimes people have no option but to consider short term EV even if it can negatively affect long term EV.

They're not just saying that they don't like it - obviously that is their right to an opinion and whether its true or not is irrelevant.

They are saying that this clause is a step too far in the horses favour and is unfair on the stakers which surely means looking for ways to stop it?

There is no way to stop it, they are just hoping by expressing their views people will think twice before putting it in requests.

Lol Jase, it's about time. Im guessing the Bieber tribute band has been disbanded now then? I went shopping first thing, bought some flowers, dug up some grass, then just been letting the Missus plant em while I chill on the sun lounger, reading blonde and sucking on ice lollies. We really need to calm it down!

If my bankroll was zero, I still wouldn't steal 20 grand froma casino.

You know him better than I ever will, and I believe what you say about him.

But if he put up a staking request on here, I wouldn't buy a piece.

lol I know I shouldn't reply to the more trolly posts but this is a short one


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy#Reverse_fallacy


Your most informed post in this thread


Less admin, same result for the horse and it still snap sells out so theres obviously excess demand

Read my opening post which you tearfully describe as "having a massive go at me and Chris". I mean wtf is your drama queen behaviour all about James? Complaining people are putting words in your mouth is pretty ironic. Just like posting at this time of day when you should be seriously contemplating getting a life instead. I've made a series of sensible and coherent points in this discussion but it's clear you are the one looking for an argument. Look at your intial response. Look at ur lack of contribution about staking caveats itt. I can't deny my side action was to see how you would respond if I followed your great speak up advice. Did me no favours I can tell you.

Btw I think DMorgan is doing a good job battling away on his own. Seriously mean that.

They're just separate packages. Once the horse buys back his action thats it, package over enjoy your money. The re-sell is still +EV for backers and while you may not like it as an investor in the original package that misses out on the second one he knows he's for sure going to sell out because people have already committed to it at the higher price.

If an investor chooses to retain an emotional attachment to a tournament that they no longer have action in thats up to them. Not really any reason for the horse to care now that he has a bunch of names that will buy at a higher price anyway.


That isn't to say that its not somewhat scummy. I wouldn't do it personally but thats a bankroll management decision - I would never commit to buying back unless I could afford to. Obviously not everyone takes that approach and some will fall foul of this situation but imo its still absolutely fine to re-sell your action. It seems pretty standard for people to give their original investors first refusal on taking the same piece again and I definitely think that the horse should do this to minimise the risk of future put off investors.

Yea, good point, so it wouldn't be abusing the clause, as due to the caveat being in place they just become two individual packages, if it wasn't in place then the horse wouldn't necessarily be able to buy back their action and thus wouldn't be able to make more on a separate package, so it just re-affirming how the clause is +ev for the horse to have from the start but not an indication of how they could abuse it. I know that's just how it is, but I'm pretty sure a lot of investors would be upset.

I agree that it would be pretty scummy to do and I don't think there are many around who would do it tbh.

You done with me now or anything else you want to share?

Actually before you go can I have an answer for this one?

Np. Having a discussion about something and deciding about something are different DMorgan.

What are you going to do if you don't ban it? Ask nicely?

I never said that the inclusion of a buy back clause would not put off investors. This clause increases the price of the package which decreases demand. Of course you are allowed to ask the standard questions, but asking questions that de-value that package is -EV for everyone. Copied from a few pages ago, explanation of why forcing the horse to provide a $ amount at which he buys back shares is a negative freeroll for investors.

I completely agree with you that horses should respect their investors money and play well, turn up on time and no hungover etc. but not sure how this discussion is relevant to whether or not we should be looking to avoid a situation where buy back clauses become standard.



Just off the top of my head I can think of quite a few that probably had an EV > $10k. There were tons of SCOOP schedules, couple of WSOP packages, a few Aussie Millions packages, Dubai in Monte Carlo, Alex in Campione, lildave in LA and there are probably more.

As for the market having tipped too far in the direction of the sellers -  that is all of blondes making. There are just so many buyers now that prices can only go up. One day this natural market process will see a very respected player not sell out a package because the markup is too high. Only then can sellers start making demands that lower the value of the package. Otherwise they will just sell elsewhere.

(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1619/whiteflagn.jpg)

gg wp ul

"As for the market having tipped too far in the direction of the sellers -  that is all of blondes making."

Nope, blonde doesn't interfere in the marketplace, its a function of market forces...numbers of buyers on here and quality of players asking for staking

Until such time as supply of and demand for staking money from quality soruces equalises I would suppose staking package prices will trend upwards across, irrespective of caveats. 

By all of blondes making I mean the buyers on the forum. Lots of people wanting to buy hence rising prices.

I'm trying to keep the market free!

Yes, and you also have the UK's No 1 Online player, major live and Online title winners etc all asking to be staked on here so plenty of cash meets plenty of opportunities

Plus huge successes at WPT Dublin, Aussie Millions, DTD Monte Carlos etc from staking on here

The odd grim (very few compared to total stakes offered), but a very successful resource.

So times are pretty good for horses on Blonde right now being able to snap sell out. How would some huge controversy kicking off affect the buoyancy of the seller's market DMorgan? Some buyers coming on saying they feel cheated or didn't read the last sentence of an op. Thinking they were paying for a package but in reality are left with no action after one comp and horse scooping the world. All very well saying read that last sentence down the bottom you mugs. Don't think that would be +EV for buyers or players ref the future value of the market.

Yea but mantis if the horse binks after first comp you still get a good return on your money before they sack off the package.

lolol fckin love you Girgy

Feeling is mutual xx

<3 dmorgan

Oh and this

Was Chris' caveat ambiguous?

Yes, a little perhaps, however, misleading it is NOT, it says that he reserves the right to buy his action back.

Should it become form, if caveats like this were to become more frequent, for slightly more information to be provided with it?

Yes. Maybe a slight reduction in the mark-up to accommodate the clause, so for example if 1% was $582 not $600 then Bram would be in effect PAYING (if he believes the correct price to be $600) for the privilege of having this clause in the package. Other fair options might be to say he will reserve the right to buy back at $630 for 1% - gt'ing the investors a 5% return risk free. Or to stipulate a more detailed analysis of when he would activate the clause - when 1% is worth $1,500 he reserves the right to buy back at the price he sold? This is all plcked out of thin air. I personally don't think bram's clause was in any way poor form, as I have said, but I defo see that making it "good common practice" for something like these ideas for these spots could be a good idea.

What do people have most issue with? The caveat it'self or the implementation of it?

I can't work the answer out to this

Who benefits from this caveat? (As DM asked)

The player benefits in the example with Bram, I personally think that's fine but I guess that is one of the biggest issues

[Is it a nagative freeroll for the buyers/b]

It is NOT, having the action in itself is (if you believe so) a positive investment, the risk of it being taken away does NOT affect the immediate EV, if you might or might not have 5% in a $1,500 it is still a good deal. It does however affect the overall EV of the package, this cannot be disputed, as MANTIS did actually nail (been quite a lot of waffle MANTIS, no ooffence) when he said that having 10% of 20 tourneys makes MORE MONEY IN EXPECTED RETURN, than having 10% of a shedule that on average will have 16 (accounting for the time he buys back) so this is why the caveat does DAMAGE the EV of purchasing the package, and prolly why it's ambiguity has caused this argument.

Dont forget though, that when Bram buys back, he is taking risks the same as you when you bought them,

Is Keys bossy?

I don't think so at all, He puts a lot of time into his posts not just spew words at the screen like me, so massive props for that. It is worth nting tho that he is extremely tall, whether or not this is relevant :D

Yeah no offence, don't mind the waffling tag as it is true.

Fwiw I'm pretty sorry this Bram kid was dragged in. I never mentioned him or quoted him and took time to state a few times that I was talking about objective 'horses' and not him. Think it's like a twist of fate that this new caveat happened to be highlighted on his thread when it could just as easily have been the next one. It's kinda obvious this caveat is being talked about and considered by sellers so op was the victim of current fashion himself rather than having any dishonorable intent. Think people should stop mentioning the kid when talking about this caveat tbh. Is why I genuinely believe comment should be avoided in staking threads.

Btw I don't want to argue with anyone and pretty much stay away from PHA now to avoid this shit. But clearly I have an unhealthy willingness to do battle if needs be. Sorry for inconvenience. Having said that even thou it was a bloody conflict there was some incred laughs. "Sack off the package" is still making me lol.

find it strange you've never seen it before in any staking request. il admit i can't remember seeing it on blonde, but it is fairly common to see "reserve the right to cancel" for packages on 2p2. i just worded it differently to imply i'd only do so after making profit on the package. apparently not enough for some people itt lol.

i just wanted to have the option open if it came to it lol. 18 pages later it still just boils down to buy/do not buy

If you had said you might cancel only if the stakers had made a decent profit I doubt I would have got embroiled in this thread at all.

All I kept imagining was buying a stake in someone, losing 3/4 of my money, them cancelling the final 1/4 of the stake and then doing a massive bink.

You can see how tilting that would be for a staker, can't you?

yhyh ofcourse. oversight on my behalf for not realising it could be construed that way i guess.

 
good luck in the tournaments you are playing in.

he's playing tournaments?

Most tilting thread ever IMHO. Good luck Bramm, win the world.

It was the blatant double standards that was tilting for me.

However, now there's a seperate thread for these discussions there should be no need to comment in individual staking threads.

Double standards like these?


If one post from someone uninvolved in the process is "quite rude", how rude is 7? I stopped counting after page 8 btw, I'm sure there were at least as many more.

Coincidentally, the first quote where you say people shouldn't comment came in a thread a few hours after I posted saying people should, so I think it's reasonable that I should want to know if you are only posting for the sole purpose of trying to start an argument with me, given that you are prepared to contradict your own principals in order to disagree with different things I say in different threads. For the record, saying "I think people should comment on staking threads" and "I think this clause is perfectly acceptable" is not contradictory and therefore not "double standards", no idea what you're on about with all this 'gg' stuff. Despite your assertions, I never said you couldn't post itt, I just wanted to know why you were posting, a question you dodged several times before eventually lying:


I think that both these blatant contradictions prove you are only ever posting in the staking section in order to start an argument, making you just an annoying troll. Hopefully that is pretty clear to everyone now and people will realise that replying to you is like talking to a brick wall, a total waste of time. Why the mods haven't banned you for trolling I will never know, but given that they didn't ban you for threatening to smash my face in last year I'm not holding out much hope for action now.

If you want to continue arguing with me, you can come out from behind your keyboard and actually carry out your threat to come to DTD. We're done here.

I wouldn't draw the curtains back if Chisora and Haye were fighting in my back garden.

Gus and Theo had a boxing match, let's have a Blondepoker version!

I'd pay alot of money for a ringside seat to witness a Keys v Mantis tear up.

Keys could just jab out a points victory, sure he would have the reach advantage unless Mantis is some 9 foot Orangutan.

I've met Mantis IRL, he's pretty fkn tall too

Mantis 1/20
Keys 10/1

Yeh doesn't mantis run a gym too? Probs hard as nails.

Keys has the anger though.

Get a room

Are you actually offering these odds girgy......?

girgy 4/9
george 7/4

Don't think I've ever been so insulted

Mortgage job.

Just when I thought it was safe to come back in...
 ;popcorn;

lol had MMA in my head for some reason not boxing.

assume MMA. Girgs does some sort of boxing with his trainer and i presume has a huge weight advantage, so path to victory is take down and ground n pound. i know nothing about george but assuming he's not a ninja

what should the odds be then?

Whats your record in fights? Let's shave Girgys head and call him butter bean

:D

Could have a whole card.

Dreenie v Railtard would be a corker.

Tighty v Rookie would have to top the bill though.

i would like to fight somebody please, ideally chiprich.  ty

Definitely missing the obvious here.

Cos needs a opponent!

Royal rumble?

He's offered around 18 people out

He could be in the second ring, like a prize fighter, taking on anyone who wants a shot.

Racist IMO just because he's Greek.
;)

Skolsuper you were gg’d so often in this thread it made my head spin.

This is what you say about staking threads:


So check it out, in this thread I am the voice of reason you wanted. Why did I figure you wouldn’t be so happy about that? Oh yeah, it’s because your quote is merely an attempt to justify your own intrusion into other people’s business. I mean even your friends are calling you the op policeman. I’m afraid Blonde is a democratic community where you don’t get to decide who patrols the staking boards and who makes the rules. Everybody can have a go. Who elected you to speak on everybody’s behalf? gg

In this thread you kicked off by saying the op was perfectly acceptable. Many people thought it was ambiguous and not perfectly acceptable. And at the end of the thread we have LilDave agreeing the caveat clearly affects overall EV and op himself saying he made an oversight. If you refer back to your quote it would be difficult to think I don’t fill the criteria you called out for. Yet you keep on asking why I got involved. Because you can't police very well. gg

The difference in class between you and me as policemen is clear. I make fair comment in a sold out thread whereas you sabotage live threads with vulgar language. In the jgcblack thread you tell us the op is insulting and the first reply should have been what the fuck is this shit? Who are YOU to make that sort of comment? You have the power to influence the thoughts of others who read your words, and that is how you wield the power. gg

In this thread you have continued your insulting ways calling me a ridiculous human being and chastising every member who posted during times that weren’t to your liking. When you faced objections you became a yawn drama queen with the mock outrage people are starting to see through. gg

We saw the quote where you were applauding Boss Hogg and Roscoe for raising objections in staking threads and urging people to do the same. Adding that if the op gets offended well that’s the risk they take. But when I try out that advice you suddenly forget your own words and become negative that I would dare do this. Just because op is a friend of yours. gg

You come up with some weird strategy to out me as somebody who is happy to argue. Anybody would tell you that is the case without any need for investigations. I am always happy to argue with you because it is clear you are biased. You change your words and behaviour dependant on who you’re speaking to. gg

By definition I am part of the poker community yet at the same time I think the notion of poker and community together makes me laugh. Poker players aren’t the most community spirited of people. The community spirit during this thread alone has me rofl, yet I am part of it. But you call me a liar and confidently state you know my intentions gg

You came on PHA and told me to fuck off the board if I couldn’t prove my worth. I don’t think professional players telling amateur players to fuck off from the poker learning section of the forum is acceptable or good for Blonde. It definitely puts other people off posting their thoughts. So I kinda think you were lucky not to get banned yourself, but carry on with your drama queen ways. gg

Amusingly enough all the posts like 'terms are clear in op' from you and ur bumchums could be cut and pasted to criticise your own words in any staking thread you have barged into. gg

What are your motives for driving down staking rates and trying to wave through new caveats as perfectly acceptable? Health of the market? lolol. DMorgan showed us market forces will find their level without your interference thanks.

Lastly, look at all those gg’s. We were done here time ago.

ps sorry about the waffle everyone

Carpark!

Mantis, cmon mate. There is no need for that word when friends would have been enough

When Pez was going to the boxing thing, I was definitely up for fighting someone.

Think any non-Evilpie opponent would be great.

Happy to take on bobalike in a fight, even if I lose, I can say I won. No one would know the difference :)

Looooooooool

Lol. Now that would really cause the end of the time continuum.

This thread just keeps giving lol

IMO the clause is valid, better said up front than not, if the reduction in markup is less than the cost of the clause then don't buy.

I thought there was only one thread that policed people out of the discussion - even is you wanted to make a scientific point on the MMR thread you couldnt if you didn't have a kid.

How would people feel if a horse bought back action then resold to another investor? I think this caveat is fine. Mantis makes a point but as long as it is in the open then no big deal.

How does a horse feel if an investor re-sells the action?

Good point, happened to me once and I had no problem, slightly different situation though. Does a horse have a right to buy his action back at anytime? What if he just refuses to play, not much you can do. A lot of clauses require a deeper level of trust but it is a part of staking.

As far as policing posts is concerned, I believe no member has a right to say what is acceptable unless they believe a scam is taking place. If they link it is poor value deal they shouldn't. The marketplace should decide