blonde poker forum

Maybe this has been said before but as I have the public eye at the moment thought i would say it again. I often view this board more for curiosity than any other reason. It always strikes me that markup's are too high and people over estimate their skill edge or are offering people deals that are too close to their ROI's. I think if you are asking for investment it means you are generally too short of money or playing a tournament which you are not rolled for (probably for a reason) so therefore you need help from investors. They should be rewarded for this and at the very least for example if your true ROI in a tournament is 50% i think the mark up should be maximum 1.25 to split the profit with the investor. This takes into account poker players being honest with themselves about how good they are which is going to be difficult as everyone tend to think they are better than they are (Not always a bad thing). Anyway rant over just bare in mind if people keep getting bad deals they wont invest in the future and where will you be then.

Rest

where's your opr links met

Few suggestions

I would like to see TK/Flushy/Tighty add a new rule to staking on here - ie stakers give a % their mark up to Blondepoker for advertising their services, or Blondepoker get a % in the player.

I also think stakers should publish their returns to investors over x period - maybe last 12 months, players showing -VE shouldn't be charging mark ups

Mark ups should reflect experience and success at the level staking is being offered Eg Players who have not cashed in an ept shouldn't be charging mark ups for an EPT

Cheers rob

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=58457.0

charging a % for blonde in whatever way would just lead to recreational people being punished and those looking to eek out ev moving stakes away from the forum and just keeping their personal contacts with people here.

12 months is nothing in poker, especially rofl live comps, just using recent results is a classicly live player results orientated method. It's very hard to not use examples, imagine player a who just open shoves blind, and player b who works endlessly on his game. A wins some allins in the last 12 months therefore has a profit, player b keeps getting rimmed, A is now valid for markup whilst B isn't even though by any fair definition no one should be paying markup for A whilst B figures to be a good +Ev investment.


again just because you haven't cashed an ept before doesn't mean you aren't better than the field, similarly just because you could afford to play some epts doesn't mean anything with regards to your skill level or likely roi.




I deffo think people need to be more steeley faced and take criticism/people pointing out that they don't think they are value at a certain price etc. rather than this muppety the markets will look after it, we/it are the market and therefore it's up to us to point this rubbish out.


so many people seem to not factor in their personal circumstances for the stake they are selling, a player who is selling 10-20% for sweats in the main but can play regardless can imo sell at a much higher rate compared to someone who HAS to sell 70% to play and is ontop of selling such a large amount adding a markup to utterly reduce their own personal outlay. they are being facilitated to play the event by the help from the stakers, tis utter shite to just say well i'm deffo really good so im charging the world and then go oh btw well it's not possible to ever get a longrun so i'll deffo overestimate my roi just to eek out as much money as possible because ldo i'm most likely not going to cash.

There's just so many flaws to this though.

Let's have player x and player y.

Player y is a live cash game player playi in London getting the lot. He sometimes plays online but just on Sunday's in very high variance fields and is break even over a non significant sample. He plays online and beats mid stakes pretty comfortably.

He has sold for 5 tournaments and has a -17% roi in those tournaments.

He post quite a bit on blonde mainly in PHA.

Player x is a live tournament player who has cashed 1/17 tournaments but the one he did cash he bunked for 120k. He doesn't play online because he think it is rigged and posts on the forum mainly in tikays blog.

Why should player x be allowed to charge a mark up and player y not.

Also what if I hae sold for 8 tournaments at dtd or for small stakes online, this now allows me to charge 1.5 in the main event.

The market decides itself fairly due to blonde contribution and past performance look at Mitch, Alex and Liam's threads for balance here.

The point about stakees having to pay blonde a fee or percentage seems ridiculous too. Is t a privilege to be a member of blonde? How does t work the other way? Per 100 pages of blog traffic do we get a percentage or a sun of money from blonde too?

The reason blonde works is because it's a community te community gets together and helps out, thy pay for Tighty to play a tournament, thy wear blonde bages in love tournaments when provided ad they try their very best to give blonde partners as much exposure and help out as much as possible.


The op is absolutely correct IMO, the markups are getting v large and if your true value is 1.5 then you should sell at 1.2 but the people selling at 1.5 think they are vale at 2.0 probably.

One thing that I think is important is that anybody who sells for a tournament puts up 30% of the money hems elves. So if the ornament is 10k they put up at least 3k if the tournament is 330 they put up at least 100 etc etc

If somebody was selling in an Ept without a markup then there I probably a reason why. There is a tonne of value and underselling yourself is not going to be shrewd.

Also like the points in the other threads about to referring to buy in those who buy in others rather than just sell.

Would also like the 'buy back' clause to be distinct but it's a free market to sell whatever you like so just choose not to buy into those packages instead.

And rob just to put this into context. Keys who hasbt won 1m in 14 months would have to sell at 1.0 whilst rasta would be able to sell at whatever he like, probaby over 2.0 if we have I just perky look at short term results (the last 20 tournaments basically)

If we ran this for online (last 20 tournaments) imagine how stupid that would seem?

Bit harsh to use Alex as an example imo

rofl woooomera

yeah, giving to blonde through mark up just becomes a tax and will just be added to any mark up desired, especially as it is usually an arbitrary figure anyway

Pete, you just won 375k mate, what are you doing even logged into blonde!

;tightend;

↑

What that man said

I really like plenos point about having to put in 30pc of the BI yourself.

Generally tho this board will police itself. Think the last few main event share threads have proved that

I'd like to see a picture of Pleno's £10,000 ornament.

Regards,

Yak.

Surprised no ones thought of doing an auction site where the market sets the price....

Well if they did they might have to guarantee winnings being paid.

this wasnt a suggestion for a rule, its an open board, but just something i see as a requirement when buying.

I don't know why it irks people so much to see stuff they don't want to buy.  Do you all write to Rolex and Omega to tell them you aren't buying their watches?

Don't actually hate giving blondepoker a tiny percentage for, say, a top three finish.

You';d rather give blonde 1% of 1 million of a fixed £20?

<3

1% was way more than I was thinking, 0.1 or 0.2 maybe.

Seems ridiculous to charge the same amount for £100 tournie at DTD at 1:1 and the WSOP main event @ 1.5.

no but I don't offer any products in the watch arena.

are you saying everyone should be selling at shitty prices trying to extract the most from the posters on here or from poker staking in general?


once you had done a binkage, you know the second.... you (who were already obviously a very good prospect) became even more 'hot property'. By definition more people wanted to now buy pieces allowing you to markup higher and which is why eventually you went for auction to maximise what you got in which is obviously best for you. however the effect it has had is for a bunch of people to put up awful proposals and over value themselves due to seeing other people sell out. the markets also then just become used to these joke high markups.


now people don't seem to think they have to put anything up themselves sometimes yet still expect that they can just say yeh long clock, punters, 1.95 yo.

people need to actually be berated for putting up bad threads rather than this oh my word don't put something negative on someone elses thread, whilst at the same time everyone just assumes the market will police itself even when the bulk of those involved may have only a little knowledge of the subject matter as a whole.

I get your point but still think that as a more community board people should be less reticent to call out shit for being shit. have to protect each other yo

I think Mr. Keys is right. The only exception should be to report discrepancies that weren't handled well and haven't been disclosed or something of that ilk. A thread that doesn't sell out is enough of a message that the stake/markup/overall environment were handled incorrectly. Sometimes the capital just isn't there a la A Rupert Elder EPT or the player isn't well known or thought highly enough to justify the markup. It is obviously possible a person could look extremely good value at a price to one person and terrible to another because of their knowledge. Unless someone is pulling the wool over someone's eyes then let the market decide.

If blonde charges the community will miss out on several investment opportunities on a whole, but I'm sure some financial arrangement would be achievable. 1-10% of markup would add up over the year but would lead to buyers getting screwed as markups would just increase. I think a tipping culture following big scores could work.

@what Beany just posted, markups are subjective though, and I'll be surprised to know if you or anyone could correctly rate every investment opportunity. I really haven't seen that many  awful proposals but definitely some I wouldn't invest in with infinite capital, but they are always my opinions. Also, what happens when I see someone sell incorrectly? Do i tell them they have hideously undervalued themselves? Or do i rub my hands and just jump in? Its a sellers market.

heard Peter Wigglesworth decided to give 10% of all of his markups paid over Facebook to the social network site for allowing him to offer his services there and has subsequently paid for the entire companies Chritstmas party to the moon.

also people DO give back to Blonde.

Alex doing commentary etc.

def agree with first two paragraphs, though think p1 is hopeful in that alot of people just have wool over their eyes anyway themselves and seem to have no clue, and yet justify with the old no one will ever truly know the rois phrase.


re p3 ,even if estimates don't have to be exact, they can at least be on the fair side to the stakees rather than trying to eek out as much as possible. surely it's clearly an awful investment if you wouldn't invest with infinite capital.

if someone sells themself lower than their true perceived value then they will sell out quickly and in larger chunks. similarly if they don't sell out they've clearly priced it wrong.


let's be V honest, a handful of us provide good value stakes knowingly, others provide borderline value knowingly and a whole bunch have no real idea and just follow the trends.

think the concept of marketplaces reaching equilibrium etc works better on 2+2 where it's all alot more commercial rather than such an interlinked initially friendly community such as blonde.

Thread makes me laugh.

I've always tried to make sure I'm in group one of the bold, because I sell mostly to friends. The problem I have with someone saying "Well he is wrong, thats a poor price" is the information to correctly assess the abilities of the player are rarely out there because of the nature of MTTs. It is too hard to police and I feel like it will ultimately come down to a popularity contest.

Also just because I think it is a -ev investment doesn't mean it actually is. For example, I thought I'd be good value in the 2.1k O8 Scoops. I spoke to people about the fields last year,  looked at final tables, other investors and decided to play. After playing I thought the field was a joke, but that doesn't mean Keys might think it is laughable I'm in a 2.1k scoop, and think it is a horrible investment. Next year I could have binked and want to sell 40 @ 1.15 but the forum decides that is unfair despite having absolutely no information at all. How can anyone fairly decide whether 1.15 is fair there, or whether 1.5 is fair for someone in the main. Ultimately, the only fair policing way is to let the market decide. Everyone has an extremely good information source for what is good value because of what other investors post. We can't be a nanny state, the variables just vary too much.

Why would any % given to blonde automatically come from the seller only?

what has that got to do with blonde?

we are in agreement rfqq w/e the feck your username is!

give him a break, first post in 5 years no spelling mistake (unless ofcourse he was randomly off topic rolling his head on keyboard and got lucky with those actual words that make sense).

I assume Blodne and DTD to just be one entity, especially due to the way the rail is. I'm not saying its a bad thing.

typo for titty.

It always amazes me that people are quite happy to let punters lose money by making -EV decisions at the poker table, or at the roulette wheel, but as soon as they make -EV decisions in buying stakes people are outraged- how could this be allowed to happen? Something must be done!

In my opinion, it's OK to flame other peoples staking proposals a bit (lightly toast them maybe?) but at the end of the day I don't see why people get their knickers in a twist when punter A stakes punter B at 1.3 when 0.5 is a fair price. That's what the gambling industry is built on, including professional gamblers.

well clearly not. Have you looked at the rail recently?

Confused, DTD threads dropped from the top, but ads in the sig and on the side of the page.  Hope everything is good still.

Everything is fine. The ispt threads were unstickied after the event. I was, clumsily, trying to make the point that there is much more to the rail than DTD threads. I know Patrick thinks the rail is weaker than it should be currently, but its not for want of,trying on my behalf

Honestly? No. I stopped Looking when there was 5-10 dtd threads st the top. I totally understand though that is the heart.. The bread and butter of the forum. If I was dtd sponsors a site that's exactly what I would do too.

I jus think blOnde and dtd are seen as the same. Isn't there a forum linked on dtd which sends you to blonde? The owners of the forum, or at least the most popular, active and managing admins Ktu dtd signature etc it just feels very all together.

Again don't see this as a bad thing. Everybody says how amazing dtd is so its only going to be positives.

I would say blonde and dtd are and should be inseparable for the foreseeable future anyway so probaby he reason why I just tag you together in the same bracket.

Markups are a difficult one because:

- All of us poker players believe we are better than we are. Therefore people will charge higher markups than they are worth.

- The community spirit of blonde means people will buy/invest/help out other long time posters at these higher markups.

- A bad precedent has been set and it's made it very much a sellers market. Sellers can go onto the silly side of markups because they will likely sell out.

- Too many people pussyfoot around in these threads for not wanting to upset someone and don't say what they think when it's appropriate to do so.


The discussions of high markups and blonde's biggest buyers like Tikay voting with their feet is a good thing to bring back the market as it should be.

Here here!

Jus checked te rail and looks awesome Tighty!

Let's have a well.

a) there will be stickied DTD threads..it went a bit nuts with the ISPT I know, but I will try and strike the right balance. DTD don't want 10 stickied threads at the top either.

b) I'm constantly trying to keep the rail fresh with new content. the more people that do that, the better

c) Wells. Yes. Been trying to pin down Sam Grafton for one for ages, for example. Probably post Vegas I think

d) blonde and DTD are close. Rob often gives opinions to me about blonde! His post in here is something I have heard from him face to face but it does not imply that blonde is about to introduce charges etc etc. We do though, as mods, admins and with any interested party talk it all through constantly


I broadly agree with Cos' post above. We can all see the staking market on here is frothy. Equally we can all see that there are some early steps towards that returning to some sort of equiibrium as volume buyers are currently choosing to absent themselves from expressing interest at the prices being asked. Logically supply of capital will move to meet demand for capital at a lower equiibrium price, and discussions such as this help speed that up.

I'm waffling again.

cliffs. talk to improve the staking knowledge base is good

just to give one example

"blondepoker: the home of staking at spot"

was one concept pushed to me hard, by someone with a big interest in blonde doing well. ie no mark ups, provide something very different in the staking marketplace....

It is a direction we could go in, the opposite of a free market.


So far, blonde has chosen to provide the boards, but keep our involvement at arms length. We don't charge fees, we don't get involved in disputes and we haven't to date tinkered with any different concepts

Becomes a very different animal if blonde is less arms length and takes it down more commercial avenues. Not least in our potential liability if thin gs go wrong......

It would certainly be very different.

Nobody would use it.

I potentially would even be open or that of I want to become a big buyer again as the money I lose from sell at 1.0 is made up by the amount of packages I would buy at spot.

What does flushy think about this as an active 1.3+er?

1.0 for mod people on blonde WOULD be a good thing, tokay, woodsey, titty, myself, honey badger  a whoever likes to punt mainly because of the sweat and community run good.

If there was a general acceptance that everybody sells at 1.0 and most people who sell buy often too then cool Lego.

In my circle of friends we never sell at markup to each other and we never will either. We sell at a similar frequency and we buy at a similar frequency.

Lego.

Who does the 1.0 rule not work for?

1. Those who don't buy mug
2. Those who believe they are of superior ability.

As Greeky said we all think we are better than we are so 2 is v questionable anyway.

3. Those who want to buy in good players who now try to sell on Facebook/twitter.

if it means there is 5 threads instead of 13 for Vegas thats not necessairly a bad thing, it stabilizes the economy and stops a huge chunk being taken out of it, whilst those who will sell and buy will generally be motivated to because of the lower variance of buying and selling at 1.0 so if a few people who come 1-2 times a year and sell huge high vaiance packages dont sell its not necessarily a really bad thing for the market.

Some people will only buy and never sell. How isn't this the same as the current situation? What about the people who never play or play recreationally and have no need to sell?

Its rare for people to sell at spot because most would rather not play or take all their own action. And noone will admit they can't afford to take all their own action because who the f is rolled for 5-10ks and who wants their finances in the open.

but people who only buy shouldn't really be punished right?

"how dare you never take money form the staking economy and help people play in events they are under-rolled for"

i dont think in 95% of the cases people would rather not play than sell at spot or in over 50% of the cases would rather take all their own action than sell at spot.

im just arguing black is white ofc but I think tis definitely a potential resolution with not that many negatives and a lot of positives.

Although I'm sure others have reasons why they think there are negatives so obv post itt.

Pete Mfkin Linton, what a boss.

It takes a special level of economics fail to think that people who only sell are the reason prices are too high.

<3

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

great post, finally agree with Doobs.

All of what doobs said.

People are overestimating their ability, some having not played in the event  before, it is at times silly

You said you sell between other players at spot and this doesnt work when the other party don't play.

And the other group I meant were people who would stop selling on blonde and continue to buy. My point was saying well if we all sell at spot it evens out when some people would consciously decide to go elsewhere but still buy- and this would cause issues.

I think you've missed a very important point here. Mark up for the same person should certainly not decrease with an increase in field size, it should most certainly increase if that person has an edge in the first place.

I could explain this with some maths but I sense people would just find it boring

Would have thought the Main Event at the WSOP was the lowest variance tournament of the year.

Definitely the lowest variance tourny of £1000 or more

These are both extremely false statements also. Might be true if every tournament had 6000 runners. Im pretty sure it must be the biggest variance live tournament every single year

Why is this "extremely false"?

Percentage paid is the same (if not higher) as any tournament and you're much more likely to cash in this than any other tournament.

That makes it low variance as far as I can see.

this is a must listen for everyone in this thread

It is sheets (eric haber) on the 2+2 pokercast talking staking, and he balances both sides of the discussion really well

Starts 2hrs 12 mins in - lasts for circa 30 mins

I am really, really struggling with this debate - and to be fair the OP here; I understand the point made as a valid opinion of that individual, but what's the point?  We seem to be having continual debates that serve no purpose and go round in circles. In fact for that reason I nearly didn't post, but I am like am I missing something. Ad I think I can say that as one of the most frequent buyers and occasional seller on here.

It's so simple it's ridiculous. Every Individual has a choice; I choose to invest in Person A and I choose not to invest in Person B. However much we discuss the relative ROIs, peoples self awareness of capability, their twelve month record - it remains the choice of the individual and impossible to assign an accurate value equation scientifically, it has to be a market driven proce. If PeteL (and not picking on Pete, congrats) or any other member thinks a staking proposal is priced wrong don't buy. If its someone you like, give them the feedback and reasons why - help them, maybe in private.

If we really believe it's an "issue" - what were really saying is the members haven't got the intellect, knowledge or ability to take ownership for their decision and the "community" has a role to play in their decision making.

One suggestion; if we think the community thing is important and really believe there are some issues (which I don't) - why don't we get someone to do a "Hints and Tips; things to consider when investing". Personally I don't feel it's necessary, however as we continually keep getting threads saying it wrong, the only thing we can do is educate the buyers to consider all the right things before they buy - then its their call.

Spot thing; think it will effect traffic and we wouldn't get Flushy, Trigg, Alex, Keys, Shallow selling prices. Bad idea IMO.

Quite like the 30% own money idea - but again, I would rarely buy in someone who has than that and if I did it would be for a specific person and for a reason I have considered.

Anyway, non of that probably makes sense; guess what I am saying is in summary. It's a free market and works. It's the buyers choice. If we think the community hasn't got the knowledge or I intellect make informed buying decisions I think the only role of the forum is generic education. If we think a threads miles off help that individual, preferably privately.

Fair enough, but I'm of the view that more this is discussed and people are questioned about what they are charging, the better it is for us buyers, so I like seeing threads about it. It will probably make buyers think a little more before buying and hopefully premiums will drop a little bit as a result.

I just voted with my feet.

I do think having these discussions is a very good idea though.

Yes that's fair comment - I guess it's education by discussion, and will make sellers think more for next proposal - however reality is thing that makes them think most is they don't sell. They have to reassess then and do something different or give up.  I guess danger is it stops people trying and we lose market place.  I think the recent examples of the 1.5 70% prove that, they just didn't sell.

I also totally agree people should think about it; I know I certainly do and then often see something like Trigg selling at 1.3 for ISPT and think I shouldn't be selling at 1.1 for something as I'll never be as good as him.

I doubt you'll be able to put the maths of this situation over my head.

If you had two tournaments with the same mix of players and the same structure, yet one with more people than the other, then if you just look at straight EV your statement looks like it should be true.

If you are talking about an investment, then it is also correct that you should pay less for the same investment with a bigger variance.

So immediately you have two things that conflict.

Then to make your statement you have to assume that tournaments are the same and the balance of good to bad players remain the same throughout, but I don't think you can be confident that the day 5 field in the main is going to be easier than the final table of a GUKPT, or that the final 3 tables of the main have a similar mix to the final 3 in a $1000 WSOP event.  There seems to be far more opportunity to get rid of the chaff in the main than in a shorter tournament, and like I said, the main is going to have a larger number of exceptional players at the start than any other tournament.

FWIW I think you are one of the very best online MTT players, so it is likely you will have an edge for a longer time in the main, and maybe still at the final table.  I just don't think that holds for most people here, and not at all convinced it does for me.  I'd be far more convinced I an likely to have an edge at a typical GUKPT final table, or in a DTD deepstack final table.

I think this is exactly where the underlying assumptions fail, and don't think you can show my fears aren't realistic with some basic maths.  I think if you tried to model something like this properly and made allowance for a field that gets tougher as you progress, it will get pretty nasty.  

For now, I am going to remain fairly sceptical that you can use "most certainly" with any confidence.

  

It is because the prize you get is very variable.  The first prize in the main is a bigger percentage of your buy in that in your average tournament.  The lower the number of entrants then the lower the multiple and lower multiples mean lower variance as a rule.

I could prove your statement is false just by comparing the variance in a heads up sit and go, or an STT for example.

Can someone put a link up please?  Thanks

http://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/listen_and_browse.php?episode=271

thought I had - sorry

Ok. I'm thick

Why is there more variance in a tournament paying a min cash of 1.5x your buyin for 13% of the field of 6000 than exactly the same payout structure for a field of 100?

As far as can see you are equally likely to cash in each if the field has the same % of excellent/good/average/poor/terrible players.

(And I would obviously argue the WSOP main event has the biggest % of terrible players of any tournament in the world of £1000+)

Plus in a 100 runner field when you get near the bubble you are much more likely to be facing the excellent players.

I really cannot see how playing in a 6000 runner field with a structure which will be more likely to provide a bigger edge for the better players can be higher variance.

But maths isn't my strong point, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Ah, saw the red part, but not the rest.

Thanks, got it.

Although a top3 finish is incredibly unlikely, the win you will get from 100 runner field (25x buyin) is much more likely in the WSOP main than, say a GUKPT.

If I finish in the top 1% of a GUKPT I can get something  like 30x and 80x my initial stake depending which one I play.  If I finish in the top 1% of the main I get between 10x and 850x.  

Is my last statement true?

I sell at 1.2 in a 100 runner GUKPT event.

Assuming that to be correct I am 80/1 to win it (I would back myself at 80s, but not 50s)

I would need to make the last 4/5 tables of the WSOP main event to make 25x plus on my $10k investment.

I certainly would back myself at 50/1 to make the last 5 tables.

I retract my previous statement about thread,..the last few posts are very interesting from Doobs, Stato and Keith....although I don't think it will affect my decision to buy - its is fascinating stuff.

I've gotten pretty ticked off with the mark-ups people are charging lately - but I don't mind at all, I just but in single comps when i fancy a punt or "feel" someone might win anyways so I just buy less. 1.3 is now the "stnd" for live comps, when last year 1.2 was everyone's default Mark-up, with it only increasing in special circumstances, every selling for WSOP events now at 1.3 and 1.35, not saying people are bad value, just saying it can't really be GREAT value in most circumstances.

for the last 12 months I've had a policy of "no mark-up" I don't ever sell at mark up, even the main event and the $5k 6m plo (my specialst event) I've sold at spot. I've stopped selling action on blonde because I can't sell action at spot to people who would charge me a mark-up, which is a shame cos i liked having blonde sweats but that's what it is.

I feel like if people really believed in the mark-ups they were charging they'd sell less action. If you're ROI in the main is 300% (like people are suggesting) then you make $30k by entering, so if clicking the reg btn meant $30k equity I'd be working as hard as i could to ensure I had as much action as possible, as it only happens once a year.

Actually you should sell on here, but exclude those buying who charge mark ups just to make a point.

Keith, yeah was all meant to be in red - sorry.

I'm getting pretty annoyed by  this to be honest, not because I dont find it interesting, I do, but because I have it very clear in my own mind, but am finding it very difficult to articulate anywhere near concisely in words for some reason. Not usually something I struggle too much, but my explanations have been pretty crap in what I'm trying to say to both Doobs and Keith.

The edge a winning player has around the bubble of the WSOP Main goes off the charts.

Couldn't compare it with any other tournament.

I remember a friend who was the same table as Lee Watkinson, the year he ft'ed. He had 4x average at the bubble and when it went down to 10ish to go to the money he just shoved blind EVERY hand. And never got called.

There isn't another tournament you could do that.

I'm not equipped with the tools to debate the maths of this argument, but my experience tells me that my edge in this event is way way higher than every other tournament I have played.

Yeah I'm sure that this is correct. (Not through experience but I have no reason to disbelieve it)

Still higher variance though ;)

I'll take your word for it!

this is a market, if people dont think there is value; they wont buy. Its that simple. I recently tried to sell at a pretty high markup and didnt sell. Am i concerned? no.

let it be, its pretty fair and upto individuals to look at specific punts on merit.

Its a great place to buyers and sellers as it is, if the margins close and the market dips, so be it.

Are people not just buying for the sake of is Alex? Rather than value?

Eg, thinking its a high MU, but take a smaller % anyways?

Im working on a post trying to explain it properly. It's taking a while!

@Aaron, there is possibly an element of that for sure, not sure why you've singled out Alex though as it's the same for everyone. I actually think if you asked people who this thread is aimed at, not many of them would say Alex, since I think most do think it represents value.

I don't understand what you are saying? I haven't singled out Alex?

im with you brother

Can save anyone the trouble of listening to half an hour of Sheets.....

oops, you were referring to Alex who posted before, and typod "is" instead of "it" and I misinterpreted your post, realised now. Apologies

I do think there is an element of that yes.

fwiw i'm sure you could do it in most tournaments.... but it'd still be an awful idea. Seems unlikely he actually did this? Just waiting for mr X on your table with 2x avg to wake up with TT+ and take half your stack...

I've given up basically. The way I'm approaching it is too long winded and I can't think of another. Stumbled across this though which is pretty interesting:

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/WSOP2011.pdf

He did, I was railing my friend through to the $$$.

A guy open folded KK. My friend folded QQ.

To be honest, if was buying in someone one who's true value is say 1.3, I would be very uncomfortable buying at 1.0, just because I'm a mod.

I don't really see why it has to change. No one is forced to buy or sell on blonde, or anywhere for that matter.

I've missed a few pages of tis thread, so apologies if this has already been said.

Do you feel uncomfortable when buying shopping that's on offer? Seems same?

I only buy in players who have undersold or about right with MU, now you make me feel slighty bad.... :)

I don't feel bad buying things that are on offer, but I would feel bad buying the same thing as you, for a cheaper price, just because some loonies think I'm fit to mod the forum.

And what stop me buying on behalf of someone? Seems ridiculous.

Cheers for that Guy, interesting listen.

Clear to me how it works but I hear the maths and makeup mark ups everyday, see if what I say helps anyone's way of thinking

10000 runner main event or any event ROIs are going to be bigger than a GUKPT timbuktu 100 runner as the amount of buyins one person can win in that tournament is a great deal higher than in the 100 runner. Yet you can only lose a maximum of 1 buyin.

However the variance is going to be much more severe in the 10000 as the percentage of the prize pool is locked up in 1st 2nd 3rd place is so high in both tournaments.

Yet reaching the top 3 in a 100 runner is a lot easier and happens a lot more often due to the field size than the 10000 runner.

You can reach the top 3 in 100 runner as much as you can the top 300 of the 10000 but you can't win the same percentage of the prize pool in the top 300 of the 10000 than that of the top 3 of the 100.


Therefore if you were to play millions of times you would be winning the 10000 a great deal less than the 100 and your overall winnings and roi are affected by how many top 3s you get, not by how many min cashes you can crawl into. The extreme scale of the main event makes the variance much higher




The above could be completely wrong I'm v tired and had a few beers and haven't proof read it, I will tomorrow and if it's wrong delete it to avoid confusion

Well obviously a player is far far less likely to get a top 3 finish in the WSOP main event than win a GUKPT even is his edge is far smaller.

But no one has explained my point.

I believe you are FAR more likely to win a prize of 25x your buyin in the WSOP ME than win a GUKPT.

Why doesn't that mean there's less variance?

because Keith there is a mugh higher possibility of losing your buyin in the main event than in the 100 runner GUKPT, variance isn't about how much you can win, it's about how likely you are to lose. It's fair to say more often than not your main event result will be -$10,000.

Ofc when you do make the money you'll often make quite a lot of it, which is why it's such a good tournament.

I don't agree there is more chance of losing my buyin.

I would argue a good player is far more likely to cash in the WSOP ME than a GUKPT.

Obviously we lose more when we don't cash - is the part I'm misunderstanding? If we played 6 GUKPTs (or however many it is to equal one WSOP ME entry) we are more likely to get some return than one WSOP ME.

Variance is the square of standard deviation, the average difference between each result and the mean. In the main event your roi and the buyin are both larger, so if your roi is say 300% when you don't cash the difference between your result and your expectation is $40k. In the gukpt where your roi is more like 30% and the buyin is £1k the difference is £1300. Equally on the upside your results go way further from the mean in the main event,  both in relative and absolute terms.

K perfect, even I understand this (apart from the first sentence)

Thanks.

Read through all this thread and this is the post which makes the most sense. Let the market decide - if you don't wanna buy, don't. Surely that should be /thread. No idea why people are screwing over this at all.

haha it meant to say mod not most Vinny.

Most not mod... surely?

yeh fml lol.

Keith

You keep going on about the ME being uber soft etc etc... yet in your own staking thread you say you only cashed once in 12 attempts ? is that a ratio that indicates its soft.. i dont mean to be rude and i know you are an excellent player so am i missing something ?

I do a fair bit of staking on here myself but to be honest I get a littled miffed when someone with little track record wants to play a 10k event for 1K cost to themself for 40% equity.. to me thats just taking the piss...

As long as stakers pay these kind of mark ups, players will continue to ask for them.

i didnt...........

What pisses me off with all these high markups is the assumption that just because something is super soft we can charge more because were presumed of going to go deep in the event.
Try going deep in the $1 rebuys especially the 7.15pm stars one. Plays about the same as the main event in terms of runners standard. : )

Ok dont buy if you dont like the rate, but pretty much most of what ive seen on the staking boards is just degen gambling at any price/runner.
There has been a few genuinely good investments ,but not many.

However what i would say is that I wouldn't like to see it changed at all. It provides plenty of debate,fun and degen spin ups : ) 

For my 50p's worth, the staking board works imo.

And if it aint broke...

Perhaps counterintuitively, I find some of the staking requests with no mark up more distressing than those with.

Usually, but not always, the marked up ones justify some kind of mark-up. So then we're just discussing the fairness of the amount.

Some of the no mark up threads read like 'I'm going to play poker, I have no track record, I'd like to lose less than I'm planning to buy in for, can you help ?'

I know this is not specially insightful or anything but they do vex me

;D

There's a lot of emphasis on value coming from the usual shrewd punters of this world. This seems more relevant over a longterm staking deal compared to a one off punt in a donkathon like the ME. Obv it's still important but the reality is most of us are mug punters. In that Tips for Tikay thread the quest for value has become like science but the fact remains that most people who gambol just like to have a punt. How many bets on the Grand National are shrewd value investments?

This is the captive audience sellers market to and it's a place where you can quickly sell out of horse shit sandwiches and stripper money. There shouldn't be any restrictions on this free market and if somebody comes up with a creative marketing strategy then fair play to them. If you can create a product people want to buy in this world then good luck. The focus on who's worth what is kinda senseless ego talk and it's based solely on ROI when other things can have value too. For eg a seller who goes to vegas for business with the right attitude has more value imo than somebody who includes the caveat 'will cancel stake if I have a rough night'. I think the value of an imaginative op shouldn't be underestimated either.

This constant hunt for value is like how my mum operates around Tesco. I mean she could prob prove to me that the own brand coco pops are better value but meh I still prefer to buy regular coco pops.

I have to say coming from someone who has probably sold stuff at far too high MU in the past that a lot of people just don't realise what a fair mark-up should be. On top of this, everyone has an edge much lower than they think they actually do.

I think it will all even out eventually, by this I mean people who sell stuff at too high MU will just not sell their action. This is why threads like these are made- it helps with awareness.

100% threads sold at 1.0 since start of this thread. Who will break the trend?

Now who's using ridiculous sample sizes?

:D

I feel the 30/70 after stake back is a bad idea. Although I have sold a few like these, I have not sold out, therefore it is obvious they are no good for the backer. I don't believe in having to put up a certain amount of %. If you sell at spot and only play for 10-30% I don't see the problem. Although some of my staking requests have been bad, I don't think I take the biscuit, purely because when I do sell with my own money I sell at spot, so I feel it evens itself out over the long term, but won't be putting the 30/70 packages anymore.

I don't agree with selling at a high mark up for online tournaments. At the end of the day you are sitting in your own house playing poker on a computer, trying to beat thousands upon thousands runners in each tournament, surely there is not a massive edge in these games to justify such mark ups. I would only ever pay higher than 1.2 in wcoops/scoops etc for literally 3/4 people I know of in the UK - Brammer, Grafton, Lewis, Trigg. For normal Sunday's I just don't see the need.

Live tournament staking baffles me somewhat. If you have never played an EPT for example, how can you possibly justify a mark up?. You have no idea how the fields play, (just hearsay), you have never played for these sums of money of money before, and I think it is ludicrous to suggest you have X Y Z edge over the field if you have no experience within that tournament.

I personally have never sold in a live tournament over 1.2 (not sure if I sold that high before), but the bottom line why players ask for live/online backing is because they want to reduce their variance and do not want to put up the full amount of money themselves. Like Dave said, if they were actually that good, they would keep more action for themselves. By putting high mark ups on the said tournament, it allows the player to sell a small % but still lower their variance, hence I can see why people think it is a p**s take.

WSOP Main IMO, is a different kettle of fish altogether. Although I've never played it, I would consider this to be a unique 'once a year' tournament. Yes it has thousands of runners, yes there are some real sickos in the field, but the structure is 2nd to none, that's why I agree with what Flushy said in Keith's thread. Ofc as a buyer, you are looking for someone that can be patient, grind, not let anything affect them throughout, and someone who can stay focused for day's on end. There is no other tournament in the world that plays like this over that many day's for that sort of money for the buy in it is, hence it being unique and I feel players do have a right to charge higher than what they usually would on that particular tournament.

@ Sicilian - Regards to Keith, if he has played 12 times and only cashed once. He may well be losing over that period on that tournament, but 12 times is very small sample to use. I would imagine Keith has played hundreds of EPTS, WCOOPS, GUKPT'S, etc etc, all with long structures and multiple day's, he has the experience, and the right temperament to succeed in this tournament, I would put a large amount of money on, that if you judged him over 25 years, he would be in profit just in WSOP Main alone.

Dreenie, I'd have thought your recent staking threads are kind of what Blonde is about. A well liked, well known member who is a good player and under it. So people are happy to shelve notions of exact value and stake you play to the games in the expectation they have a good chance of a return and cause they like you.

Keep going imo

True dat

Dont agree with your 1st paragraph at all.  EPT is just a brand, ok it will have some differences in size/structure/buyin than other tournaments but if someone is winning at mid/high stakes online MTTs, against the majority of the players in EPT fields, has played several WSOP/WPT and any other worldwide event of similar buyin or against the same fields that EPT attract but that player doesnt play an EPT for a while, how can he or she then not justify markup in that tournament because they havent played that particular brand before?

If a multiple EPT winner played a WPT event for the 1st time would they not be able to charge markup because they havent specifically played in a WPT event before?  Of course not! 

When you pay markup for someone in a tournament, you're not paying for their previous record in the tournament, you're paying for their current ability going into the tournament.  People will just judge players on their previous record in tournaments when making decisions and rather than considering their current ability in the tournament.

Saying the main event is different in that respect just contradicts the point you were making IMO.  There is obviously differences between the WSOP main and an EPT Main event but do these difference allow 1st time participants to justify selling at markup in WSOP and not EPT?

I think everyone is overreacting, if people don't sell here at markup they will sell it elsewhere.  If you dont wanna buy it, dont buy it.  If people are continually selling too high they will stop selling out and will be forced to drop their markups.

30% for no equity is fine for an 'alms package' to help someone on stony ground, but it should be chok-full of $3R type tournys... putting $200+ mtts in the schedule is a bit rich.

What I meant to say was 'how can u justify a high mark up' - Obviously no problem at people selling for EPT's etc, even with a mark up, but I do think for you to say 'people are selling a mark up depending what form they are in' Is not true, I don't see many threads state this fact, all they seem to bang on about is how soft the field is?

If some guy plays <$200 tournaments Online and <£500 comps live, would u buy a piece of his 1st ever EPT tournament at 1.25+, just because he had shipped a £200 freeze-out 2 weeks ago?

Out of respect more than anything, you should charge spot for 1st time surely? If you were that good battling the sort of players at EPT then why not keep all your action?

Don't agree with the your statement that wsop & ept are In the same group either. How comes on every EPT the majority of winners have had very good Online/Live records, you hardly ever see a 'random' shipping one. But take WSOP, Darvin Moon, Jamie Gold, just to name a couple...

Yes I 100% agree, I said this to myself the last time actually. It was cheeky asking for other people for $$ to play 100-300 dollar tournaments when I had no funds to put in myself.

agree with you little dave, and sadly pheno aswell

A lot of people saying let the market decide or if you are not happy dont buy.

But what about those who get their MU totally wrong and change their MU? Perhaps been angling for biggest MU possible, but happy to re-post if not going to plan?

Whilst also curious to see why people are using auctions? Are people genuinely trying to gamble via this to gain a bigger MU?

I don't get what point you are making, what about those people?  It's a clear example of the market speaking and the seller can either choose to keep the action or lower it to meet their supply and demand equilibrium. People weren't happy, they didn't buy, they were offered a new price the might have been more happy with

Ignoring " the under it " bit this is what influences my decision to buy a % of somebody

agree with Nirvana, if someone struggling and is i) a person I like, and ii) feel like they'd give me a go in reversal of situations then I'd happily give them a spin, at a price that is way in their favour.

There have been a lot of mentions of the market deciding, but you have already nailed your colours to the mast when you set a rate. It's not a dynamic market where the price comes down a bit if people are not buying, then goes back up if there is demand and keeps adjusting to an equilibrium. You set a price and you're more or less stuck with it, unless you take it all down and reset, at which point you're stuck with that one.

How can you know the best price to set, especially if you are new to it?

If you price at 1.1 and sell out, how do you know whether you could have sold at 1.2, or 1.3? You don't, so far as I can see. If you don't sell at 1.3, you have no indication of whether you should have set at 1.2, 1.1 or 1.0. You might get some narrative feedback, but that opinion  could be misleading in relation to what the market would accept.

I sold for the SCOOP, possibly a bit lighter than I could have, and it sold out. Could I have sold for more? Maybe - I don't know. Had a few deep runs, but no big cashes, though most of the stakers said they would have another go. Could I now sell for more? Probably, I guess. What price should I set the next time? No idea - presumably I could go a bit higher. I haven't seen an auction in action on here, but they seem to get a bad press. Would that be a way of someone like me to discover what level I should price at?

Lots of people thinking about if they could. Not many thinking about if they should.

If you sell out at 1.1 and binkkk, you could reason that you will easily get 1.2 next time.  Or, you could be grateful that everyone helped you into the event allowing you to bink, and as a consequence, let the same investors in at spot next time in thanks.
Someone selling a 20k package at 1.2 selling 50% just got 2k in juice, difficult to think that isn't unreasonable contribution to flight and hotel...

I think the market does seem to have some deciding force in the long term actually MintTrav.

I've started 20 staking threads here, and all have sold out except one, so you get a pretty good idea of what the market thinks is a fair price by how quickly they sell out. So you increase/decrease the price for your next thread. When threads don't sell out, that person gets given a pretty massive indicator that they've priced it too high and they will readjust for next time. When threads sell out in 10 minutes, it's pretty clear that they could've been priced higher.

It's kind of hard to predict because the market seems irrational to be frank. It's very much a case of 4 LEGS GOOD 2 LEGS BAD - 1.2 GOOD, 1.5 BAD. There's plenty of good value threads at 1.3, 1.5 that people turn their noses up at, yet because Joe Bloggs is under it and selling at 1.0 they they that must be better value.

I almost never buy a package that is at 1.0, quite simply because if the person doesn't believe that are value at higher, or doesn't have results to justify selling at markup, then it's likely to be a -EV investment. Of course there's many humble people that chose not to sell higher, or undervalue themselves, yet are plenty good value, and I never hesitate to buy in those.

The staking board is very much a business for me, I buy and sell with a higher frequency than almost anybody, and it's all pretty down to whether something is +EV or -EV whether I buy or don't buy.

Whilst I value the community aspect of blonde immensely, I chose to show that in other ways, by doing commentary for free, giving to DTD's charity, running charity sweepstakes, posting loads in PHA, advertising blonde and DTD on my blog, twitter etc, and just generally being very active in the community.

So I don't feel bad that I charge high markups, and I'm aware they are on the high side, because I know I give back plenty to the community AND I believe they are good value investments anyway, and have the results to back it up.

Trying not to be too defensive as I know no-one's specifically called me out, but it's natural to be paranoid about these things, so just wanted to say how I view the market.

I feel that you're overstating the community aspect as though it's almost a justification within figuring a market price. I may well be wrong but I don't get why you'd mention it so much

Sorry Cos, could you explain that a bit further please, not really sure what you're getting at.

This is true and similar to boozing! I was "under it" in dec jan feb but my main boozing partner took me out on a bender once a week to keep my liver in shape!

Yeah I didn't express it very well and I possibly misread your post.

It looked like you were alluding to part of your markups being worthwhile because of your contributions to the forum.

People are just selling their variance, because they can.

What do people think of this:

Blonde has 10 people that see staking applications first. These would be well respected blondes that know a lot about staking. Off the top of my head I would suggest: Keys, Rupert, Camel, Simon Galloway (captain!), Flushy, Trigg, MC, Dubai, AndrewT and LilDave.

Before a staking request can be put up, it should be sent to these guys in a pm. They must agree to not discuss it amongst each other and they send back what they think a fair rate would be to someone like Tighty. The average of the first 5 responses back is the rate that their staking package can go up at.

Like it or lump it.

No that's the opposite of what I was saying. I was saying I don't feel the need to charge lower markups than I think I'm worth because blonde is a community - because I do my bit in other areas, if that makes sense.

I'm not calling you out here Alex.

I'm not nearly as active on the staking boards as I used to be but either people's estimation of their ROI is way off or people just sell their variance because they can.

We seem to have these threads pop up regularly, yet the staking board works. If people are marking up too high they won't get staked. Seems overly beauracratic to me

My post here was more aimed at the sellers rather than the buyers who sometimes are exploiting friends when we should be trying to help each other. It's not all about extracting the maximum from every situation perhaps some generosity would go a long way in this world.

I like it but not as a beauracratic measure and a process. I think it's a sensible idea to get someone else to look a proposal - I actually got Keys to look at mine this time for Vegas and asked Dubais advice first time I ever put a thread up.

Not sure how it works as a "you must" - I'd rather people just talk and seek input

Doubt people would sell on here if this happened.

Shaun, don't be silly, we are not communists.

Greeky's idea must be the nut tez idea I've seen for a while

What we need more of is direct feedback on peoples staking request threads but we all pussyfoot around.

There's a couple at the mo where I want to say:

'You barely post, you have no record, you're taking the piss at more than spot' ... but I'm too polite

Dont see how it can ever be completely fair tho imo. How can the people you listed (or anyone for that matter) know what rate is "fair" unless they have played extensively with the person putting up the proposal and also have played the schedule / tourny the person is selling for. I understand this is why you said use the average rate but this can also be distorted based on who pm's  back quickest. Also (something that is pretty important and something that makes your idea completely impractical) everyone has "favourites" (even mods) and people they like more than others so i dont see how ANYONE could give a completely unbiased view of a staking proposal.
Also what happens if a mod, or a person listed above tries to put up a package?

For example; player A wants to sell 50% for a $1050 comp in january which is part of a deepstack series at venetian. The player has say 500 posts, is semi well known to some on blonde and is a winning player online, but has no live results (due to lack of volume or whatever). His proposal has him selling at 1.25, and his main selling point is that vegas is soft and he is a winning player online. Player A isnt actually known to 4 members of the 10 you listed and them 4 happen to message back first saying 1.1 is a fair price.
Yet player B who has been on a massive losing run online, maybe stretching over 18 months (maybe variance, lack of volume, games caught up with his/her level of ability), wants to sell for the same torny at 1.25, yet because he is good friends with maybe 5 of the 10 listed and at least knows 4 of the other 5, his 1.25 is agreed upon.

Like some have said, it is just sometimes the case that selling at 1.3+ is a fair price and still means the buyer IS getting value. It will also be the case that somebody selling at 1.1 may indeed not be a good buy in the particular torny they are selling for BUT because there popular on blonde / have alot of friends on the site they will instantly sell out for a £300 comp at DTD.

I have sold action on blonde before (many times) and bought action on blonde (small amount of times) and however simple it may sound, if people wasnt happy with what i was proposing, they can obviously just click off the page, the same as if i saw a really bad value package / proposal, i wouldnt buy.
The problem with mod's choosing wich packages are ok and which arent, is that its going to be so hard for people to be completely unbiased on a site such as blonde when there is obviously a community feel to it.
The people talking about buying and selling as "favors" because people are "under it" or need a break is obviously fine and a good aspect of blonde, but on the same hand it shouldnt mean that people who are selling packages with a mark up arent value or are indeed doing something wrong.
This thread is good because there is NO right or wrong answer and just about every post has had some merit.

Let's set up a panel who can decide who needs direct feedback and who doesn't.

Off the top of my head:

Greekstein, nirvana, Aaron, Mantis (c), herbie

grow a pair and do it then

What does the (c) stand for George? :)

haha ok not my best idea ever

lol, no

Let people hang themselves, IMO

sorry to drag this up again but it’s been on mind a lot lately.

a good friend of mine buys 10% of my tournament action...i view it as insurance to help flatten out the variance a little.

as he was a friend we started on spot & about 6 months ago, on his suggestion, we agreed to up it to 1.1; i sold a further 10% at 1.1 for my vegas trip to tony, someone who's always been there if i needed to sell a piece or two.

for the record, behind all the smoke & mirrors & despite what my hendon mob might say i’m far from rolling in it & the point i want to make is that i am & always have been very grateful that folk are happy to have a share of me; yes it would be lovely to get another 0.2% on top & in my pocket but i just think i’d be taking the piss & abusing our friendship.

yes i’m an old fart now but it wasn’t so long ago that there was no such thing as mark-up, you were just happy that someone had faith enough in your game to give you a £100 towards a £1000 comp for 10%...you’re the one who gets to play, gets the experience, gets the opportunity to make a name for yourself; to me, of late, it just seems that folk forget this.

it just seems that players want too much too soon these days...if you ain't rolled adequately maybe you shouldn't be expecting to play such big events; i guarantee they'll still be there next year.


ps, i realise i’ve been incredibly fortunate over my career with sponsorship dollars so fair enough if you think i should gtfo

I think that's an excellent perspective & nice to hear

Gtfo Julian. You are old news. Ever heard of nick hicks? He's the only one we love now.

x

 ;tightend; ;tightend; ;applause;

+1

YES GTFO THIS THREAD PADDY BOY

one word; do1

[ ] one word

winner!

Julian.disgraced himself in this thread imo. Multiple fails.

surprised he didn't use a curse word. horrible person

He's no Nick Hicks.

Totally understand what you're saying Julian, but on the flip side, you are putting a lot of hard work in (I guess I may get called out on "hard work" but live poker tournaments can certainly be gruelling) and the person with a % doesn't have to do a thing.

If you think funking is "not doing a thing" you ain't funking properly.

:P

Yeah this to some degree I played 9 hours of Monte Carlo grinding a shortstack when a lot of people might have made some marginal shoves. However, I don't think I'll charge markup for many comps for a long time.