blonde poker forum

Timex joins me for an interview on his new venture.

Dont want to buy on the staking boards anymore? If somebody sells out Timex will usually give you action.

I question him on the flaws of the plan and speak about it all in very much detail. Hope you enjoy and I speak about Blonde too.

Whats everybodies thoughts?

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13Hh_k8TksY

Love the part where he moans about "mediocre" regs selling to play EPTs so all the rich regs like him don't get to feast on the recs as much, just lol.

So just to get this straight, if someone sells out, Timex will offer you their package at a better rate and take the risks on himself?

So he's basically saying that everyone is charging at too high a markup.  And since he has the financial means to underwrite and short out of the money options then he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Seems very risky - he may be right, but it a bad start to his venture will hammer him.  He won't be diversified enough imo.

I'm confused.

So he's doing this because he's concerned about the poker economy, but he wishes that he knew everybody's true roi's so he could add 5% and make a million from said economy selling in everyone in the main, huh what ?

I'm normally a bit grouchy when I've just woke up so maybe being harsh but he seems like a complete dick.

Also if someone thinks they are worth 1.2 but Timex the genius can prove they're actually worth 1.15 then should that person really be labelled a scammer and have there reputation tarnished ?

I dont think he's going after the guys who're a couple of % either way, I think he's after the guys who are offering terrible investment opportunities that are wildly overpriced.

He has labelled them scammers?  I don't think he even goes that far with the ones that he thinks are massively overpriced.

If 2 plus 2 is pricing too high, then where does that put Blonde?

Mostly it was a good piece pleno, but Timex did let himself down by effectively moaning about people stealing his fish.  And good to see you not mentioning the muslims.  Surprised they aren't behind all this overpricing.

He said scam/scamming 10x+ ?

did he? lol, had it on in the background.  Will listen again later with better concentration.

Really impressed with your interviewing Pleno, was a good listen

+1 to Timex coming across as a massive tosser.

Hope he knocks it right in.

Seems like a bit of an arrogant bellend.  Wonder if he'll actually payout if someone binks the main event!

Timex will need to sell at a rate well below the offer of the player to compensate for credit risk.

All things being equal if you have 10% of someone who has won $10 million you are more likely to get it from the person than has that $10 million sitting in their account, as opposed to from someone who has just lost a $1 million punt. 

"I don't like Vegas"

when maths kills your life by Timex!

solid work on the interview Pleno1

Will he crossbook people? Can't wait for some o8 if so.

Haha, you make me laugh with these mini rants.

My purpose in life is to entertain.

You should follow me on Twitter.

18,000 mini rants so far, and counting.

I'm absolutely fucked but.

1- safer to bet with him than 99.9999% of people you want to buy action is as he has legit
Vouches

2- better price

3- lots of people police but he puts his money where his mouth is

I think it's going to get huge bough, so many people love to punt.

The main event is going to be some crazy exposure.

He is selling in Ivey at 2.0 for most events and people are buying.

He is selling at 1.28 for anybody in he supersonic.

Also if a player is going to be taxed normally on the winnings then much better To invest via timex.

So John sells at 50% 1.5 for a $1k, so $750 of action. Jim buys it all for $750.

Timex thinks John is only value at 1.2. What does he do? Not sure I get it.

Nice interview pleners.

John Black?

Wasn't this the same thing as you and Doobs last year Alex?

Think Trigg and Dubai did it first about 3 or 4 years ago

He would then offer the thread somewhere entered between 1.2 - 1.5.

That's exactly how it works.

He offers the same package for less, and he pays out the winnings should the package come in.

He's basically betting that he can still make money from the buyer selling at a lower price, and by doing so proves that the MU put on packages is too high.

So he offers it at 1.4, someone buys it all so pays him $700 for it, then he has to pay winnings out of his own pocket. Ah got it.

Assume he will approach people who w/l sold out packages too that he thinks are overpriced.

Yeh Doobs and I were gonna do something similar. I've always thought about stuff like this.

You have to email him the links to sold out packages and he will offer you a price I believe?

Theres different ways

1- you approach him and give him a link to a thread. He then gives you 0.5% of any profit he makes

2- he finds a thread which is sold out and he offers people the what he thinks is the true rate

3- you can message him and ask for a price on yourself.

He said he's willing to invest 10m with his friends and will take over 500k of action on the main event lol

Interesting stuff and good interview tekkers m8 :)

Think he's probably been a millionaire since about 18... I remember when Laddies first introduced 40k nl cash games on the site, he showed up and started smashing them up.

"1- safer to bet with him than 99.9999% of people you want to buy action is as he has legit
Vouches"

The vouches are irrelevant.  The fact is he is laying 10,000-1 shots which means he becomes a credit risk irrespective of his previous unblemished record.

Put it this way.  In the extreme example he sells 20% action in 9 Main Event runners and they all reach the final table, then Timex is bust.  If you've bought action off the players direct then all the investments are underwritten by the prize pool (although at this point we have to consider whether they will scam us, but the point is the funds are sitting there if they are paying out).

"Also if a player is going to be taxed normally on the winnings then much better To invest via timex."

This is indeed true.  But then you must evaluate if it negates the credit risk problem above.  As an aside if an American is selling at 1.5 for the Main Event he is really selling at 3 or whatever the number is once you gross up for tax.

I do follow you on twitter!

If he comes across as arrogant it's mainly because he's right (in the 'correct' sense of the word, not 'just').  Whilst it does seem like he is taking on huge risk with the main event, he has done this before with the Sunday Million so probably he's probably better placed to assess that risk than almost anybody else in the world.  However, I agree with his assessment in the podcast that the first few lays he's making are extremely low risk (relatively speaking), the sque451 thread @1.28 in the 200r etc, lfmagic at 1.3 in 20+ sunday hsmtts, phil ivey at 1.65 in the $5k (did I read this right??) and so on even I can see are going to be easy money spinners.  All this extra supply will probably mean the easy pickings won't last though.

he must have such a huge net worth to take all this on. like 10m +?

He offered 1.65 to anybody in the 5k plo I think. Tom Marchese bought 20% of himself and people bought a lot of Ivey.


Yeh pretty sick.

@dungbeetle, I don't see a problem with his credit risk. He said it himself that he will control it sensibly.

Very worst case scenario is that lets say there are 1000 buys in the main event and he somehow loses all 9 people then he doesnt lose 50% of 9 people. He generally will only offer 5-10% of people in the highest tournaments.

But that's the point Alex.  He doesn't have to stump up £10 million because these contracts are not legally enforceable.  If he lays a bunch of winners then he can just default on all the bets and there are no other consequences aside from a savaged reputation.

That is why the credit risk is higher, because his bets are not underwritten by the the prize pool the players are competing for like they are when you invest direct.

Think for those sums it'll be more than his reputation he'll be worrying about should he welch.

Agree that laying players in the main event is possibly a scandal waiting to happen. Perhaps though he would be able to "red out" with some of the remaining players if it's looking like he's grossly misjudged things on day 5/6.

"@dungbeetle, I don't see a problem with his credit risk. He said it himself that he will control it sensibly."

I'm sure he will - he seems a reasonable chap and very smart.  But the point remains he has the scope to leverage himself hugely on contracts that are not legally binding.  So in my book I'd want a much lower markup if I was doing a Timex bet, than on a direct investment that is underwritten by the prize pool.

On something like the Main Event he may only realise he is overleveraged when it is too late, if he gets an outlier set of result.s

Harsh that sykes made you settle the hat bet during interview.

Good work on this seriously.

A+

Like he said in the interview though he will likely get investment from others, close friends of his and probably pool a bankroll of around 10m which should be fine right? He will just take the first 500k at least of action himself.

I'd be worried about offending loads of people! Maybe he doesn't know many of them, but it seems like he does, and he's basically saying that they're offering bad investments. Either saying he believes they aren't as good as they think they are, OR that they are knowingly overpricing themselves.

But I'm sure he's fine with it if its in the name of making the market place fairer and making himself some money in the process. I'm sure the vast majority of mtt players regularly selling packages just overrate themselves or have unrealistic expectations of what's achievable in terms of ROI rather than deliberately overpricing themselves. Either way I'm sure plenty of people oversell for both reasons but when people are prepared to pay that much then you can see why and things don't seem like changing, markups aren't getting smaller and games aren't getting softer

its also going to make people wary when making a thread.

do you think many threads on blonde will get "timexed"?

I would say just about every poker player bar a few thinks they are better than they are, that's human nature and poker rolled into one.

I dunno, waiting for him to reply to my email.

if I staked anyone, id be happy if they believed they are better than they are, especially if that filled them full of confidence and they were walking on clouds going into the event.

"Like he said in the interview though he will likely get investment from others, close friends of his and probably pool a bankroll of around 10m which should be fine right? "

Guess so.  Ask Lehman Brothers ;)

Don't get taken in by this "doing it to make the marketplace fairer" bs.

He's doing it to try and make money.

Hope he does his bollocks.

True. I think it's easier for cash game players though as you can look at a reasonable sample of hands and have a much better idea of how they've performed. With mtt players its so easy for variance to make anyone look way better than they are, even over several thousand mtts online, making it much harder to be quantitative about it and fair about it rather than just, 'I've been winning lately, it might be a heater, it might be cos I'm playing good, who knows'

I personally tend to only buy based on what I know about someone's game (not that I buy often.) I'll try to make a judgement based on how good I think they (or other people I respect telling me how good they are.) For example, I'd happily pay bigger markups on Tom Langley's action than plenty of people who I know have better results online because I've either played or talked poker with them or seen them post and I think that's given me a much better idea of how good they are

Do you think it has a place in this community?

Toyed with the idea of referring tikay's thread, but I don't think that belongs. Am in the process of sending a link to Camel's Main Event thread now, Camel has sold out already anyway and after his posts in Fett's main event thread last year and his subsequent pricing this year, I think it deserves a mention :D

absolutely!

Almost every thread sells out and I've seen "sigh" posted dozens of times. The market place on blonde is also very high I would say so it may help control it.

1) You can go to timex and get a better price

2) People know people may post about it and thus be encouraged to put a price that wont make people go to the BankofTimex.

For the staking community its fantastic news.

now is your time.

this could be epic.

this is great fk shit markups.

I mean does it have a place in this community for one of us doing it, not timex?

absolutely if somebody wants to find their balls.

Alternatively a group of people could merge funds, create a bankroll and then offer the odds.

#BankofBlonde

So would I, but I wouldn't buy if their overconfidence meant they had overpriced themselves.

Interested.

I've toyed with the idea of selling % of people that aren't even selling.

Say X is overrated imo, selling him at 1.5 or whatever. Always seemed too harsh and those people would get offended if they weren't selling themselves at that price anyway.

yeh def goulder put monte carlo up at 1.5..................

it also gets people to have action of their "heroes"


for example the ispt last week, people would have loved to buy in trickett and others.

Lets say you charged 2.0 for trickett, that means 5% would be 300ish and exposure would be a maximum of 50k

For the tournament you could probably sell about 100 pieces at 1.5 on average.

so 225 x 100 with an exposure of 50k, but that would be in one of the most highest variance tournaments.

Lets say the dtd 300 would be a better point to start at.

Why are people that rely on the market wanting to kill/suppress the market

suicide itt

because there is this phrase 'it will regulate itself', yet it's assuming that many of the sellers AND buyers have an excellent knowledge of the concept. people clearly don't.

Would have been fun if someone had done this and sold pieces of plinton :)

lol @ The Camel ITT :)

just wrote a long post, but deleted

in short, this doesn't work in the long term due to market forces / manipulation and affecting ability of players to sell/play

the market will not adjust by players lowering mark-ups, I cant be bothered to point out why (id even go as far, in the long term to say the  exact opposite will happen)

Go on, give it a try, for the fans

If a guy/group of guys is going to piggyback off the back of a staker/stakee relationship on here that blonde facilitiates, then blonde will I think want to take a very close look at it

I think its fine for the staker/stakee relationship for us to sit there and put sellers/buyers together by letting one see the other, we're happy to host the boards for that but when that further layer of someone looking to make a turn out of that essentially private relationship, I am not sure that is in the community spirit of the aim of the boards. 

confirmed hero, pretty sure hes sending Timex busto, if Timex sells his 5k at 0.8 it may be the greatest thing of all time if Camel ships the lot.


confirmed fan!

Think he is making a couple of mistakes.  If someone is selling at 1.5, to cover variance and a small return they are effectively saying their underlying is 1.75.  To undercut Mr 1.5 you have to sell at 1.45 or similar.  If you are going to make a small return that is more than just compensation for that stinking main event variance, you'd have to believe Mr 1.5 is only worth 1.3 or so.  That seems a big old gap to me though dare say a couple of recent threads on Blonde have enough of an overprice to give him scope for a profit.

This brings me to his 2nd mistake, he isn't really selling action in the people that are bad value and overpriced, even though he is trying. He seems to be selling the best players in the World at what looks like close to fair prices.  

I wouldn't want to be taking on that risk at the prices he is charging and he deserves some respect for backing his judgement with hard cash.  But I think he is making similar mistakes as sellers, and getting his pricing wrong.


Edit phone grrr

All of this

if it makes him some money whilst at the same time making people actually think about wtf numbers they put after the 1.  then surely it's a good thing?

don't get all the hate.



durrrrrrrr

(http://www.wptmag.com/Images/ArticleImages/MikeMcdonald.jpg)

If you think that what Timex is offering is a mistake and -ev for him, then you should looking to buy as much action from him as possible.

False.

"the market will not adjust by players lowering mark-ups, I cant be bothered to point out why (id even go as far, in the long term to say the  exact opposite will happen)"

I think this is a really bad idea by Timex and even more so if people on here try to copy it.  But in the absence of any other factor I would say increased liquidity would result in greater price clarity and a more efficient market (even if it is effectively a derivative)?  If we take away the counterparty risk it should be similar to the CDS market operating off the back of the corporate bond market?

Would be interested to hear why you don't think the market would tighten.  You may be right, but my first instinct was the opposite.

I quite liked the geezer until I heard this interview.

Use of the word "scam" and "scammers" is clearly inappropriate.

Does he go to Sainsbury's and call them scammers because they sell a tin of Heinz beans for 10% more than Asda?

Also his keep all the fish for me and my mates is a horrible horrible attitude.

Scanned through his twitter page last night whilst finishing my session. Didn't look at all his offers but there is at least one which is for a package for the WSOP main selling at 1.3 that isn't even close to selling out yet. He came on and said he would sell for that at 1.29.

I think this is really quite shitty.

There is no market inefficiency here as this guy isn't even close to selling out yet as the package has only been online for one day. This intervention could cause this guy not to sell out and not to play the main. If Timex believes he is not good at poker, then I don't get how him not playing benefits 'the poker community' or anyone. It's just mean spirited to call someone out in this way. If he doesn't sell then he can react and adjust his price accordingly he doesn't need The Timex poker marketplace police force to help him do that.

oh ffs come on

do you try and play vs fish or world stars?


those comments seem 'somewhat' tongue in cheek.



it quite clearly is a form of scamming/douschebaggery, when a seller does not know their real value, so rather than trying to be fair they just go at the highest possible markup that will just about sell out.

Seems kinda weird why people give such a shit what another guy thinks he's worth. Don't think this dude is smart to risk his net worth proving somebody else is ambitious.

Good points by DungBeetle itt.

I reckon it almost always isn't on here

Sometimes your langauge is really un-necessarily inflammatory Andrew.

I put a thread up as a noob asking for staking for a 1k at 50/50 when I probably wouldn't have been good value for the Big 11, does that make me a scammer ?

Extreme example due to the lolness of that situation but... moron yes, scammer most certainly not.

IMO he's doing to it to humiliate the sellers.

Keys is sending my thread to him to do exactly the same I think.

No idea why Keys would do that, but he can please himself if it helps him to get his rocks off.

I don't understand how it works in detail. But I really liked your interview Pleno. Heard you do one of your sessions for a cash game too, and feel you explain things really well, and just come across very clear in general.

Because of what you wrote in Bobafetts M/E thread last year. He's backed by Keys, who obv doesn't agree with what u said at the time.

Said I was wrong and took it back.

But w/e.

wait what


is bankoftimex specifically aimed at blonde?

it's not right, yet we have had tonnes of threads on here discussing markups, and at no point have I been negative towards people of character who are brassic and selling at a higher rate than they would normally if they weren't so short of cash.

yet there are still some utterly ridiculous markups going about, both on 2+2 here and that prolific buyer facebook.


just because someone didn't specifically go out to scam people, if through their own ignorance of a topic (of which they claim to know lots) they sell a highly unprofitable set of stakes then there is clearly something amiss. and it needs to be pointed out. especially when very often the buyer may have little or no clue what's happening.


I don't understand why on a more community based board people wouldn't be more determined to get towards fairer markups rather than constantly saying lolz buyer beware.

Andrew

Someone might be unsophisticated in the pricing they use

Someone might be over-optimistic or over-rate themselves

Someone might be going for the max

but to use the words "a form of scamming/douschebaggery"

is really unhelpful in my opinion

Its just hyperbole and lazy language rather than choosing something more appropriate.

I am not a words person. apologies.

would say first two lines ignorant, 3rd unethical?  better?

titbeam has been using titty language for aaages, dont make the turd change!

So why don't some of the people who know so much about staking, say who these people that are selling too high are? Rather than pussy foot around all the time.

Every time I log on here, I see people write - The staking boards are getting ridiculous, the mark ups are too high, players are ripping investors off blah blah. Get to the point and say it out loud so the people in question might change there mark ups, or stop selling therefore no one gets 'scammed' or 'ripped off' as it were.

Lot's of people on here won't say specific names, don't get the problem with it if people feel so strongly about it?

Don't see what's humiliating about it. You sold $2500 worth of action for $3750, meaning people were willing to pay a $1250 premium for you to play poker with their money for 1-8 days. Unless Timex offers your action at <1.0, which I sincerely doubt he will do, he is going to admit a substantial skill edge on your part in a $10000 buyin poker tournament. If he sells any action, it means even more people agree that yes, you are skilled enough to warrant a substantial premium.

Also, he offered a 0.5% of profit finders fee.

Lot's of people on here won't say specific names, don't get the problem with it if people feel so strongly about it?


Probably because , like most forum boards people are careful not to upset the 'clique' which is always the case,the majority may think something but depending who it involves will stay quiet

Are auctions unethical? I don't know

I know you are a fan of calling out people you think are looking for too high a mark up, and I agree that this is sometimes appropriate but generally I do think that markets find their own levels...just classic/supply and demand.

Should we or a group of opinionated users of the board look to accelerate that process by whether implicitly or explicitly saying these guys are scammers or douschebags, or even that they are ignorant?

I'd suggest not, this is a community forum and staking board not a Moroccan bazaar where we'll get there by at best barter and at worst by browbeating other members of the market, and that in simple terms that group of opinionated users (who are the main liquidity in the market) will see the market adjust of its own accord if they don't participate in the prices being offered and these don't sell

Which is happening currently. No one has had to call out too many people in terms that you use in this thread to see it happen either.

 

do you think its appropriate to pass on stuff from the blonde staking board, a non-profit facilitation service, and take a profit from it?

I'm not sure I am that happy about it (though I can't stop it)

Without wanting to put words in Timex's mouth, I think he thinks there has been a tectonic shift in the ROIs of players in the years since these markups were hammered out and generally accepted. At the same time, the actual markups have drifted the other way (upwards) because of the nature of tournament variance and selection/survivorship bias among other things. Because of that he thinks he's spotted a money making opportunity and is willing back his opinion with his money, and fair play to him imo.

Re: tighty's point about his possibly taking advantage of blonde, he has already had his "bank of timex" rejected from the 2p2 marketplace but is running the whole thing from twitter so I don't see that there's much that you can do tbh. Besides, I don't see how it is going to have a net-negative affect on blonde, if it affects it at all. Some people selling will lose out a little, but those that would've bought will be winners, net effect >=0 for the community imo.

Dreenie if fish A is selling at 1.2 for a comp AND punters are buying it,  world renowned reg B is now going to sell pieces, he's twice the player A is so 1.4 is now the minimum he will consider to charge. and then people want to have a sweat of world renowned reg C whos just won a bunch of stuff so now what does he charge.

2.0 on facebook?
lolz we haven't even yet considered anyones actual roi, the likely variance involved in the event/stake, any (if any) risk invovled in the transaction or the reasons for the player selling.

people have this idea that because they heard that markets regulate themselves, and that buyers can just not buy that everything will even out to being set perfectly, yet when there are people with a lesser knowledge of the system buying and a bunch of people with massive egos and little care for ethics or the people around them the system wont work.

when people are encouraged not to be negative it just lets everyone live in a little bubble.

take for instance, when keys started 'policing ops', ie he just posted if a OP had enough information in it, suddenly less utterly cack threads went up, people questioned themselves, went to some effort zomg, and yet he got a tonne of hassle, who are you, why should you have the right to do this, who says my op isn't good enough etc etc.  wtf is this bullying for etc.

it's in really good regs (and just popular/runhot regs) interests to not change this status quo because they can sell at joke joke high markups.


it's an open forum you cant stop people passing on links etc. although ofc soon posting a link will be illegal :p

Have listened to it all now. Very interesting and good interviewing skills, pleno; you made the other chap do all the talking by asking probing, open questions.

To the matter in-hand, to me, it is a political stunt for precisely the reasons Doobs has outlined. It isn't for commercial profit, aside from a little here and there because he'll need to waste a fair amount of time researching players whom he later decides are priced up closely enough to a fair price as not to make laying worthwhile.

Running a book at 110% or whatever it will be (I'm figuring 110 is generous) isn't a guaranteed winner over a small sample size. Bookies have horrible days like when the Irish favourite wins the Gold Cup. This will be a small sample market unless he invests a huge amount of time into the Research and Development. By the time he gets to 5,000 lays, he might have made a few quid but - if his main goal of reintroducing "nobility" to the market is realised - he'll have to call it a day because prices will be better. Equally, he might have done his stones due to MTT variance and still have to cut his losses.

Ethically, I don't have a huge problem in it, but then I'm not going to be the subject of a bet. It is currently a seller's market, so this is a catalyst to rebalancing that. I think Pleno's point about waiting for the player's market to sell out first is crucial to the integrity of the model, but only if he is doing it for commercial reasons. If not, he should simply post on the staking thread that he doesn't agree with the price and state his reasons. He might contact the seller directly first if he wants to play Florence Nightingale and not cause embarrassment.

Be interesting to see what shape this is in in a year's time.

turd is grateful.

sorrys I is bad with dem words.

Do you whole heartily buy pieces in players who you think justify there mark up, or at times is it because you like them as a person?

If X player was awesome and had good results to back it up and were selling at a reasonable price, but u didn't like them would you buy?

What if player Y was not as good, hadn't had nearly as many results as player X, and mark up was a bit over-priced, but you liked them a lot, would u buy then?

Think the Blonde staking boards stands for a much more 'community spirit' than 2+2 etc, and I think a lot of people buy for the sake of trying to help out fellow players rather than 'great investment'.

The reasons why I ask about the liking or non liking of certain players, is because I feel so many people on here won't name names, as to 'keep in with the crowd'. They don't want to upset the wrong person, because in poker you never know when it's your time to fall and how much u might need them people in the future, so best not to burn those bridges with your outspoken opinions.

But that's just my opinion.

Hmm, perhaps not. Any finders fee I do get (it seems like a long shot anyway, only really added that line in jest) will go to a charity of blonde's choice.

However, you have just defended people who profit from this free service unwittingly or just because they can due to market forces, what's the difference?

I think the highlighted part is a good idea. Also agree about people's ego's. Poker is very egotistical.

However - my personal opinion, I would rather someone come into my thread and say the staking proposal is bad and explain why, than have a bunch of people talking about it behind my back with there mates on Skype, but that's just me I guess.

Buying & selling within the poker market is a massive learning curve, same like studying the game, it takes different players longer to master the whole thing than others, so as a community I feel it is our duty to speak up and give advice to players who have a bad proposal.

No difference in principle.

I can wear two hats though, one that wants to see a thriving community based staking area that doesn't discourage recreational players from putting action up for fear of being made to look bad (as people call them out)

the other that says "look we could have set this up to make a turn, but true to the type of forum we have we set it up to host it only, now why is a third party/parties not involved in the stakes going to take the profit off our staking threads?"

I suspect 2p2 had many of the same notions when it came to BankofT's proposals

Why would it upset me?

Because if Timex says I am worth 1.2 or whatever according to Andrew I am a "scammer" and a "douchbag"

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt James Dempsey would buy $1750 of my action at 1.5 and say "1.5 is low imo" for purely altruistic reasons.

I can only remember ever buying pieces that I thought were +EV, although possibly in February 2011 I set the bar a bit lower than I do now.

Thinking about it, this 'community' aspect of blonde is a major part of the reason prices are so out of whack.  In order to protect the community, sellers are kept off the boards until they have 300 posts, and people making 300 posts to get in are usually harangued by the community until they contribute properly.  This throttling of supply, while at the same time the 300 posts for buyers rule goes unenforced, forces prices upwards for as long as blonde has an active buying community. Eventually buyers will run out of money though, and an equilibrium with a much quieter staking board will be reached.  Is that what people want?  I don't think so, we want a repeat of the mondatoo monte carlo run or that 700 page Eso Kral thread that never died.  One possible solution is to increase supply, which, if we can't do it with more sellers, can be done by making available more of the people that do sell, which Timex is doing, albeit entirely for his own benefit.

Personally I agree with Dungbeetle and Doobs though, he isn't going to be adequately compensated for the risk he's taking.  It's a fun talking point though.  WP pleno

Has he paid you yet?

What are you suggesting?

James, the 300 post rule for sellers (clumsy and arbitrary as it is) is to throttle a certain type of supply that is felt to have a bigger settlement/transaction risk than established members offers...ie flight risk, I suppose

I get the point though.

(the 300 post buyer rule is unenforceable as it essentially lies with those who offer stakes to police, and as they are getting money from that segment, why would they?)

:D nothing...

But we're in agreement that it's not me or Timex that's doing the humiliating, it's titbean? Oh and Timex a bit, but he's since said on twitter that "scammer" was the wrong word to use and he didn't mean it like that.

It's easy to call people out for being a fat cat on the staking boards.  They usually don't like it, believing it to stunt their action.  Cue the flame wars... and an invitation to lay them a piece.

Ofc, the winner of that bet won't get proven right or wrong, but it is easy for the seller to use their leverage and invite the whistle blower to put their money where their mouth is.

Only trouble is... laying $50k to win a tenner aint a lot of fun.

This is what makes it so awkward/pointless to get involved in this threads as nobody believes anyone is capable of given an unbiased opinion due to what's self-beneficial to them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone that wishes to ever post in any thread I put up feel free.

It is the best of a number of imperfect options in my opinion too, was just pointing out some of the market distortion it causes and how that might be addressed by this new outside influence.

Fucking Ridiculous Comment as the data you supplied doesnt tell the whole story

Titanium made some very good points( be it in his style) but now for his efforts he gets you having a go

This is somebody who seldom asks for staking and yet is one of the biggest stakers on Blonde

Joke Post

<3

whilst people still have no understanding of sample size, variance/ how rois become big the idiocy will continue.


that is a very very good price for the STAKER for the main, I am certain of that.

I got alot of hassle from fellow pros who know my game and the poker economy wondering why I sold so low.  feel free to analyse those who have bought action in me and look at how many of those are making their living purely from poker esp as they weren't taking 0.5% pieces for friendship.


It's not like theres any variance in tournies, or if any number of pots had gone my way on a sunday that the account wouldn't be easily in the +'ve.  nor should anything be taken from the fact i've made my living from poker (specifically cash) for 5 years whilst at the same time running like a leper for every shot i've taken. well done not breaking it down to look at the different buyins/AFS and relative wrs.

I suppose you think rastafish is worth 2.8 in any dtd comp he plays right? he's the biggest money winner therefore he's the best amirite?




Obv most people wouldn't be able to respond to criticism like this (Ie direct and negative), when it's directly aimed at them and would potentially be reticent to post in the future, that is good, that is good for the market place and will make it more healthy. I am not against people questioning me/my markups, it just needs to become the standard thing to do, so that people actually take a moment before they post, rather than well if it sells at 1.5 it sells if not i'll try and flog it to some numpties elsewhere at 1.4.

Beaneh could prob put up a main thread at 1.5 and sell out in minutes.  Get it done Andy

Sorry titbean but you got owned there.  jjandellis wins by TKO

cheek has tongue in


edit also you had 5% at 1.25 wtf were you thinking mug!? :p

Spraggs selling on 2p2 at 1.35 v good established mtt player, kind of shows that 2p2 marketplace is actually not that bad.


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/184/staking-selling-shares-live/spraggs-wsop-main-event-shares-selling-50-a-1341210/

Eh? How's that?

Somebody who has claimed to win

I have amassed over $1.5million in Tournament earnings, winning many tournaments along the way, including;
The Stars Sunday Bigger $109,
The Stars $100rebuy (numerous times)
The Party Poker High Roller ($530)
The FTP $163 (T-Rex, Numerous times)
The 888 Sunday Major (100k gtd)
I've also Finalled the Party Sunday Major twice, the boss major, a SCOOP event, and many others that I won't bore you by listing.

My live experience/confidence was given a huge boost, when I went deep making the final few tables of my first EPT in Madrid finishing 19th last year. I also made a deep run in a $1500 WSOP event a few years ago finishing 34th.

Would likely sell out v quickly on here at 1.5 despite this marketplace being (100?) times smaller than that one.

surely it just shows that on a board with a higher proportion of 'picky' buyers the mus have to be lower rather than just these random, oh its live so 1.2, wsop 1.3, wsop me 1.5 etc

I'm not picking on Andy here this is just a general question, but if someone puts up a staking request at a premium and they show a bit of a loss on OPR I think its fair to question them. Sure some of their mates might say xyz about them, but it's hard to go against evidence on OPR v 'mates opinions'.

Think people have taken such huge offence to his "Mediocre regs playing EPTS and scraping my profit up" and using the word scammer, which were both inappropriate and badly worded points on his behalf (in an interview that, aside from those points he came across well in imo) that they've missed the points.

1) He's not claiming (as far as I can see) to be doing this for the "good of the poker economy" he's doing it because i) He thinks personally that mark-ups are too high, and it benefits him - who both buys action, and plays in the events the action is being sold for if the market is adjusted "correctly", and ii) He's prepared to put his money behind these opinions and make money from the fact that people sell at, and buy at too high of a price.

If the model he's presented IS a profitable one, then he'll prove beyond doubt that those opinions of his are CORRECT.

However, it's so high variance, the margins aren't that big and he doesn't have perfect information so it's going to be tough to ACTUALLY prove anything, but I think he's hoping that him, who carries quite a bit of wieght in the poker world stumping up his own cash like this will make enough of an impact.

I agree with him, on the mark-up fronts anyways, and think it's pretty ballsy of him to do this, also if you make a PUBLIC staking thread then you are, imo completely open to ANY criticism over the price, wherever it comes from. If you can't take that then you shouldn't put the thread up.

It's a good idea imo, and it will have a benefit for the staking community in general. MArk-ups are far too high atm, even on here, but much worse on 2+2 - people dream up huge ROI's when they are simply hugely misguided.  

and +1 excellent interview tekkers Pads, I listened to 2 of these now and I enjoyed them both.

i do not understand any of this really but is fascinating reading/observing

and a very good interview

nice work

Two things:

1. If the mediocre regs are inferior players to him, surely it benefits his ROI for as many of them to play as possible?

2. I have just broken my own PB for number of PMs received in a day. Going to crack open a beer to celebrate being so popular.

Nah, because they are still winning, so unless every "mediocre reg (say 15% ROI) " that comes into a 10k event unless they bring someone with them who loses 15% then money Timex could be winning goes to the "mediocre reg." Now Obviously the profit will be coming mostly from the weakest parts of the field than from the strongest but will still take a lil money away from him. If these guys can sell at higher mark-ups then more of them can play more events. Also if they were marked-up correctly then he could buy action and re-claim his lost profits that way.


I told you months ago you weren't a wanker!

You don't know what the pms say! ;)

Most of them are from people calling me a wanker tbh

Most of them are about number plates.

so player a has 15 tournies and shows a loss, player b has 0 tournies therefore he's a better prospect even though has none of the experience player a possibly has?

basically live poker is just joke results orientated. those who have achieved larger samples online have found there is a shocking amount of variance, with people like moorman going on brutal downswings whilst being one of the very best in the world.

with the payouts for mtts being so top heavy a couple of deep runs and some 9ths shows up as a poor roi whilst just 1 deep run to first projects the players roi up massively. it also skews it way past where it should be .


the whole point of judging someones ability means that you have to have an indepth knowledge of their game, not only that but an indepth knowledge or at least understanding of their finances/motivations. most people are pretty poor at assessing how good a player is, when you then ask them to assess themselves it becomes ridiculous how far away from reality that assessment can be. such that you often just have to go on your perception of them as a person and the amount/willingness to put alot of work in on their game and their temperament etc.


quite specifically woodsey I think you should go more on people you trusts opinions of the poster than on some arbitrary figures especially when the sample sizes are so small. (remembering that a sample size of 4k 9 man sngs is going to be alot more telling than a sample size of  4k 10k runner mtts).

as I said before and i'm not trying to be rude just using the dtd all time money list, would you think your were buying money buying a piece of rastafish in any dtd comp at a large markup rate, because over a sample of 5 tournaments he's managed to return a colossal roi?

Great post Titty

I know exactly what you are saying, so what would be a reasonable sample size to go by on OPR?

The problem with people opinions is its easy for a group of friends to big each other up on here and create a false impression of their abilities. Now I'm not saying that deffo happens but you get the general point it think.

I'm tempted to look through the OPRs of a bunch of 'top' players to see how many they have played and what their ROI is.

God help me, I agree with Woodsey

Is it possible that a winning player could play 4000 mtts of varying buyins with 3k avg field size with a negative ROI?  Absolutely.

Could that player sell action to another tournament and even include some markup?  Of course, and if people still want to buy then that's their prerogative and they may well have good reasons.

Could that player then, having sold with that markup, then go on to criticise others for their markup, using words like 'scammer' and 'douchebaggery'?  Well it's a little bit rich, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Is it a "Fucking Ridiculous Comment" and a "Joke Post" if someone comments on all of the above?  I think that's a bridge too far for me.  Titbean is a grown-up and he reaps what he sows when it comes to what he posts on the forum, as do all of us.  Good post from jjandellis imo, well I enjoyed it anyway :D

I get the devils advocate point, and wish more people were willing to accept criticism, talk openly so as to get the best discussion.

The figures themselves are not the things that I specifically use to advertise the services, I like to think that my supreme good looks and marvelous integrity make people lean more towards taking a piece than not before any considerations of schedule, player ability, variance, markup come into it. I specifically include the figures because I feel I understand mtt variance quite well (i've just always assumed that I and everyone underestimate it by factors of millions) and want to show what experience I have, what justification I feel I have to charge a markup, and always try to explain my other experience and the levels of work i've put in on my game over the years. Also think advertising is somewhat wrong, would rather use the phrase transparency. I feel like the threads I put up have merit and should sell out at the rate I put them up without me having to do a hard sell or spam the shit out of a load of randoms in a desperate attempt to sell out. In general all my threads have sold out quickly, a couple of which have been 10-15k outlays, which is hardly a small amount of money it's just the weird world of poker people seem to find these figures normal. By the speed which they've sold out at current marketplace standard I should have upped the markup to try and suck more out of people. Yet I would rather provide good value to my stakers, feel good in myself of the value i've provided. I would much rather be considered someone who undersells themself rather than a piss taker.


Can people stop using the word scammer, timex said it then said he wished he'd used another word, I used it because w/e that was what was being used and in my head it doesn't quite have the same horrific vileness that people seem to be getting offended by it's usage. Obviously my knowledge of synonyms wasn't good enough to better choose a word, I used douschebaggery to try to imply that I wasn't really sure scammer was the right word but it's all relatively similar.

it's definitely a case of if you know my ROI in whatever comp is 150%. fair markup is then subjective, at current mindsets we'd be finding 1.5 fine even though it provides no value just variance to the buyer. it's such an ethical/moral issue where you draw the line, and given everyone uses the old excuse of we'll never know our rois it lets people get away with ridiculous markups.




that's the thing, does a small sample size of winning show more than a small sample size of losing?


the reasonable sample size question has gone on for years on 2+2 etc, essentially the bigger the variance the bigger the sample for you to get reasonably close to expectation, the more and more tournament winrates reduce the higher and higher the variance will get and the larger and larger the sample size required is.

if you look at the results of player A. and he has won 10k from 1 215 mtt online, he's really good right? even though you wont see any of the hands histories of how he played or how he won. it's for that reason that I would rather have the opinion of someone I respected who had knowledge of the persons game as opposed to just going off a small sample size.

similarly if we assume A a winning player, what is his roi? is it that figure he achieved from one tournament or are we going to be sensible and say this figure is skewed we go further down?  at what point are we just making shit up?!

I should have just posted the link to noah sds mtt variance blog post again as it covers all this sort of stuff much better than I ever can.



Sorry for not having egggselent english skills Keys. I will use a thesaurus next time and try and find words that dont rub people up the wrong way (remembering that timex was the one to use the scammer phrase and that douschebaggery is obv a well cool word even if I just made it up).

most people wouldn't agree about the grown up part rofl

15-1 brah, no variance in mtts.

When I was 9, someone broke a school window during break time playing football.

The headmaster went into every class saying "I want the person who did this to put their hand up or I'll keep everyone in during break for a month".

Even though I didn't do it, I had an uncontrollable urge to put my hand up and admit it.

Think I've got some sort of persecution complex going on somehow.

cliffs for you: Monda is a scammer, beaneh is shite at pokerz, keys has lost the plot and started agreeing with woodsey, and Keith is a wanker.

fyp

your version>>>>> my version

:)

anyway since when did Herbie get in control of tightys account?


Marrackesh you say?

I imagine Dubai tells a similar story, where he took everyone's dinner money to take the blame, then dobbed the kid in who actually did it during his detention, telling the furious perpetrator he'd made a palpable error so the bet was void.

ty

Lol.

everyone has completely lost their heads ITT.

And I am sober too. I kinda get what Timex is saying. He did say unintentionally scamming their mates later on. He would probably like to do that interview again.

Anyway you boys should be charging a premium as UK citizens for tax reasons. Which where it gets complicated. Surprised the yanks even make 1.0 tbh? Or have I missed something?

Aaaand it's over:

(http://imageupload.co.uk/files/k9my8r7rnfgudf7pnc10.png)

He could do exactly the same thing with a notional 1,000,000 point roll and laying 100-1000 points against a fictional punter. He could tweet the results and achieve the same - noble - goal.

That is unless he was trying to make money.

Wouldn't really influence the market that way though, which was his (stated) goal.

I bet it would

(Poor choice of phrase but you know what I mean)

If there were a high profile guy making a notional 10% ROI laying stakees throughout the poker world, it would make poker news.

So this guy identifies an opportunity in the staking world which he states is definitely +$EV. But isn't going to pursuit it due to the fact it's not +LifeEV. So in other words he is now looking at the bigger picture and making free decisions on what to do in the staking world based on factors other than +$EV. Kinda like when people freely buy pieces with a high mark for their own reasons. The dude is attacking supply when that only exists due to demand, but in order to attack demand he has to convince people they should only make +$EV decisions in the staking world. And in trying to prove this point he chooses not to make +$EV decisions in the staking world. What a completely fruitless exercise.

So a determined and aggresive attempt to suppress a market place has failed, and there is still and demand for the product (given that threads rarely fail to sell, you could almost argue an under supply) ............................. I wonder what a potential outcome of this could be in both the short and long term (ceteris paribus)

Still want to listen James, or maybe counter?

Pretty sure the reason why he chose not to go ahead publicly is that he is risking arrest in the US for acting as a bookmaker. I'd imagine he might carry on doing this privately on a small scale.

I wait with baited breath...

wont be wasting my breath on a troll like you james

waste it on this troll then?



we're all still waiting, you're clearly the only one in the know. enlighten us.

Well James inferred that Timex's intervention would only lead to falling mark ups (lets call them prices)

Its fair to say Timex has failed (other than possibly in the very immediate short term when his scheme existed, although not much evidence to suggest this is the case).

So the market has been trending upwards as there is a demand for a market, and given that most threads sell out you could argue an under supply.

So sellers were recently faced with what was an attempt to undercut the market place (very aggressively). Not only has this failed (spectacularly), but there is nothing to suggest it will affect either supply or demand in the market place.

Ergo, supply is short (they sell out), demand is there , so the prices will at the minimum remain constant, but should continue to rise and possibly (as a reaction to Timex) rise faster, as people will now wish to maximise profits (if this was a true market place)

I believe my original comment was


Pretty sure im not wrong

can we (those in this post) keep it civil please?

interesting debate without having to resort to calling each other out

I din't think skolsuper is trolling at all, fwiw, so no idea where that one came from

Of course not tighty, it was a perfectly normal response on page 5 of this thread! Uh-hu

i've read every post on the thread, nothing wrong with any of them

no need to call someone a troll, really, just antagonistic.

And James' post wasn't! Ok wp

no I didn't think so. think you are being too sensitive. thanks for the wp, i try my best ;-)

Can we have a definition of trolling as still don't know what the term means. In fact I don't think anybody really knows what it means, it's like a phantom term. What I do know is a mod branded me a troll on the Thatcher thread and nobody chastised him for being antagonistic.

From the forum guidelines

Trolling
There are many definitions of what constitutes a 'troll' post but as a general rule we consider it to be a post which is inflammatory, rude, offensive and intended to annoy and antagonize or disrupt the general flow of discussion.  Troll posts do not necessarily come from 'troll members'.  In fact, we have seen many examples of posts which we consider to be trolling from otherwise well-respected members.

Trolling is considered by the Moderators to be a serious issue on the forums, and one which has increased in frequency as the forum has grown and developed.  Consequently, we have recently taken a more pro-active stance against this and will continue to do so, including a more liberal use of temporary suspensions as a method to deal with this.


I don't think there has been any trolling in this thread.

Demand may well rise going forward, and may well fall.  The same could happen to supply. 

One thing I am pretty sure about is that you haven't established a causal relationship between the existence of the bank of Timex and long term prices in the market. 

He's not talking about "fish", he's talking about in his words "mediocre" regs (still winning players) that are overcharging themselves (worth 1.1 not 1.3 for example, NOT the ones worth 0.8 not 1.3), sucking money out the economy AND reducing his winrates in the tournaments in the process.

Maybe not, but the point is that one man with an agenda was never going to impact the market substantially, and whether he failed like him did or just fizzled out, he would never have succeeded.

James was suggesting with his involvement the market would only trend downwards, I was merely pointing out that this IMO wasn't the case.

We will never have perfect information on the market so to suggest that you or I could prove otherwise is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The simple fact is, he has had and will have no impact on the market place. However generation of fear in the supply chain of it doing so could easily make sellers inflate prices now to get it whilst they still can.  This is fairly obvious.

I not going to spend hours debating simple economic principles.

and as for "gaming laws", more like "inbox is full, cba with this"

a couple of misconceptions in this thread as far as I'm aware,

Firstly, the notion that a fair and free economic market (with or without external influence) will develop in the most economically efficient way is totally false, so saying that because mark-ups are increasing in this market, over the past 2 years is a result of that being the correct economic direction for this market to go in is NOT correct (It could be correct, but it isn't proof enough in itself)

The reasons mark-ups have increased IMO is because necessity to sell increased (a combination of more people having less money, and more people wanting to take shots in bigger buyin events) and as this happened demand wasn't instantly affected, in a stnd market, when supply increases the natural reaction is for there to be a dip in demand (more options, people can chose) as this wasn't the short-term reaction to this increased supply (demand didn't falter) then prices in the short term have risen, eventually we'll find an equilibrium point (this could be higher, or lower than it currently is, but evidence of several informed people predicting it will be lower suggest that is likely what will happen) but saying that because it's risen and not slaughtered demand that the equilibrium is higher is defo not a given.

Timex's efforts certainly haven't "failed" I mean in a sense they have as he was attempting to influence the market by reducing demand, forcing supply to reduce or for prices to fall - by fulfilling a large portion of demand himself - he hasn't achieved that, but the only way we could prove his plan a "failure" was if we could prove the model he was using was not profitable, as for his model to be a losing one mark-ups would have to be currently at or below equilibrium in terms of pricing.

My opinion, is that mark-ups are too high, people will LOSE money buying pieces over time and more and more people will stop (or reduce) the action they buy - this will drive the whole "generic" mark=up down and will even force people who sell at reasonable prices to sell at reduced mark-ups.  However I may well be wrong, or I may well be right but the market will continue to operate imperfectly for a long time.

This example isn't what Timex was talking about it was people who should be 1.1 selling at 1.4.  Somebody who sold at 1.5m but is 1.1 in a tournament will still reduce both Timex's and the other rec's EV long run, Dmitar wouldn't.

Timex wouldn't post encouraging people to buy Dmitar, as he would soon find himself the subject of a thread on 2 plus 2 where several people would line up to call him a bellend and a tosser, and one on Blonde where people take their time explaining the problems with the backing arrangement he is suggesting.  

Well I'd normally expect it to be that way around!

Also Canadian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isai_Scheinberg

Indian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anurag_Dikshit

The vast majority of poker players are recreational and thus generate their income from outside of poker. That income is sustainable in itself so I don't see how money is sucked out of the poker economy to any great extent, esp if their is a strong supply waiting to fill the void. If hardly any staking threads sold out I'd be more inclined to agree with the notion that the economy is being sucked dry. Therefore the cake is being over-egged for some other reason.

Think this is purely ego driven really. It's like the different colour belts in karate. When I first started doing Tae Kwon Do I skulked around like a peasant with my white belt on whereas all the black belts strutted around like peacocks. The black belt was a badge that showed everyone else what they were worth in terms of ability. Before one lesson I found a black belt on the floor and put it on to see what it looked like. All the peacocks saw me and went ape shit saying I lacked respect and needed to know my place. People need this order of things you see, a proper visible hierarchy, and people are generally desperate for status/recognition.

Have to say I liked the Bulgarian pig farmer story.

I think Dave made a very good post earlier in this thread explaining why it's still bad for Timex having "mediocre" regs in the field, because they are still profitable in the field, and suck some of the value from the losing players that Timex was happy feasting on himself.

To use an analogy, 10 lions feasting on 40 zebras are going to get 4 zebras each. Throw 10 more lions in there, even if they're weaker than the first 10, they'll still eat some zebras.

Lee you seem to be totally missing the fact that these players are still PROFITING from them playing.

Spose a £10k event with 100 runners and Timex has a 200% Roi.

Prizepool is £1,000,000 and £30,000 of this is Timex's expectation. Now a "mediocre reg" who wouldn't be playing if he hadn't managed to sell 50% at 1.3 is now in the field, his actual ROI is 25% so of the £1,000,010 in the prize pool £12,500 of that is the reg's expectation. There is now £2,500 less which will be taken from EVERYONE in the field, those who are winners will win a little less and those who are losers will lose a little more.

If Someone came along as a result of selling at a inflated MU with a -20% ROI then timex (and other winners) would now be winning a little more as there is an additional £2,000 to carve up.

It may or may not have been a drive of ego to start the project but everyone is missing the point - IF his model is profitable, then he IS right.

lions and zebras tho

much preferred the lion+zebra analogy, didn't see it till after I'd posted!

Good work that man :)

The marvel that is theory vs reality!

Reminds me of my favourite ever Contractor response in a site meeting I attended

Architect: There is nothing in theory that says this design cant be built

Contractor: You fucking build it then!

Who you calling a zebra?  >:(  :D

"So sellers were recently faced with what was an attempt to undercut the market place (very aggressively). Not only has this failed (spectacularly), but there is nothing to suggest it will affect either supply or demand in the market place.

Ergo, supply is short (they sell out), demand is there , so the prices will at the minimum remain constant, but should continue to rise and possibly (as a reaction to Timex) rise faster, as people will now wish to maximise profits (if this was a true market place)"

But none of this changes the fact that if Timex's scheme went ahead he is, via his derivatives, effectively flooding the market with sellers which would result in a lower price.

When you say "there is nothing to suggest it will affect either supply or demand in the market place" in my opinion it's factually incorrect.

ha, yh I get that.

Economics is pretty subjective and almost any data can be manipulated into the bandwidth of one person's opinion. Staking markets a pretty easy example.

Several informed people say "mark-ups too high, this will change" however mark-ups are still rising and at the very least showing little signs of reducing person A says "markets are just operating in "short-term" inefficiency, person b says "No, this is a clear demonstration that we are still behind equilibrium, prices will rise further" Person C says "Looks like we're finally reaching a happy equilibrium here, prices have risen and only now are there echoes of them being too high so we must be somewhere near"

A, B, or C, with enough fancy words and the same piece of evidence could make a pretty compelling argument for each of their points I shouldn't wonder.

Everyone has their opinions and as long as you don't use personal interjections "he's just being a tosser" etc or facts that incorrect or un-true then it's quite hard to REALLY disagree with anyone.

Did he? Don't think so

I don't agree with the assertion that he/this has failed spectacularly Guy.  The reason he has knocked it on the head is a legal problem in relation to taking 'bets' from American punters; if he were only accepting Europeans' money, or perhaps if he had kept a lower profile, it would have been fine.

As for how it was going to affect the marketplace, I could just quote my earlier post (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=61414.msg1790986#msg1790986) with my thoughts, in summary I think that, without something like this, the long term future of the board is a slow decline in activity due to buyers losing money, which doesn't sound to me like a desirable outcome for blonde as a community.

If Timex had a little more PR-savvy about him, he would have said something like "Bank of Timex provides investors with a choice", rather than going on about "scammers" and "high markups not being good for the mtt community".  By providing more volume to buy in threads that sell out, and by offering prices on players that aren't selling, he introduces more competition for punters' money that sellers will have to compete with, thus lowering prices.  Without it, supply is limited to what players want to sell, which drives prices up.  For example when there was a brief fad for auctions Alex took full advantage of by auctioning 15% of himself for GUKPT Luton iirc.  Imagine if there had been someone to say "there is another 50% available with me if people want it", what would the price have been then?

"The simple fact is, he has had and will have no impact on the market place. However generation of fear in the supply chain of it doing so could easily make sellers inflate prices now to get it whilst they still can.  This is fairly obvious.

I not going to spend hours debating simple economic principles. "

You contradict yourself in this post.  If you think a supply chain will panic and raise prices in the short term, then it is because they know that if the Timex operation if successful would deflate prices as supply is increased.   So the behaviour you predict merely shows that a Timex operation WOULD reduce prices if it was run correctly.

"Did he? Don't think so"

He didn't fail because he didn't think he'd make money.  He failed, I think, because he realised that he needed far too much collateral to underwrite the venture sufficiently, and that collateral can be better deployed elsewhere (if he even has enough in the first place).

The fact remains that, this issue aside, if someone decided to do it then they would increase supply significantly, which would reduce price.

If you press the "quote" button it quotes the post you are copying (genuinely trying to help)

As for your point see my theory vs reality post above

The simple reality is Billy big bollocks came in and failed, failed for lots of reasons im sure, but definitely failed. He did succeed in raising awareness though, so maybe he is due that credit

Guy! How did he fail? It would be a step too far to suggest that he "succeeded" but there really is nothing to suggest he failed.

Well what has his goal? To adjust the market downwards, to what HE believed was a fair price, and ALSO to make money in the process

His venture hasn't taken off, and he hasn't adjusted the market (or isn't likely to).

Therefore, if they were his 2 goals, then he didn't achieve them. Whether you consider that failure I guess could be opinion

aaron on guys account though?

Pretty tough to believe that a smart guy would set this all up and then realise his liabiliites might be quite high and call it off.

I have to at least give him enough credit to be able to work out in advance what laying longshots to large stakes feels like as a portfolio.

I'm guessing that he took tax advice as indicated and decided on a U-turn.

Keys says "If Timex had a little more PR-savvy about him" he would have achieved better results in this project or at least people would have been more receptive to his proposal. So superior skills in areas such as PR have value cos they get you better results. Let's say a horse is a mofo PR master and produces a staking proposal which attracts punters who just like the way he rolls. My question is why shouldn't he ask for a higher mark-up to reward him for that skill set in order to get better results in his own project? To say that his mark-up should purely reflect OPR is to put no value on such attributes. And not putting value on such attributes is the reason Timex made a faux pas. 

This isn't a faux pas on Timex's behalf at all.

A person's PR ability has no reflection on his value in a staking package.

It does however affect his ability to OVER-SELL himself.

lildave tho

Yo, calling everyone scammers is not a faux pas? Think you just did a faux pas ;)

ok yea to clarify, PR adds value to the horse not the package. But why shouldn't he be allowed to over-sell and add that value to himself? because he has a skill set advantage over rivals with equal ROI so it gives him greater selling power. You think that is worth nothing in business? And you shouldn't exploit your strengths/advantages in business to max returns?

The only reason I bought cadbury's caramel was because of that sexy bunny in the advert..."why you rushing around...oooo....relax and have a cadbury's caramel". There was prob better value chocs in the shop tho.

He sold 70% at spot, but could have probably got 1.2 for his attire alone :D

Ok agree the scammers comment WAS a faux pas (although that's not what you said in your post lol)

I'm not saying horses shouldn't be allowed to use their slinky PR skillz to increase their mark-ups, but that's not the point of the thread the discussion currently on-going is how and if market imperfections are creating a bad buying environment . A general trend has emerged in increasing mark-ups and if you think it's solely down to the PR abilities of the sellers then I'd have to disagree with that, although I would agree that average quality proposals will have sold out quicker than higher value ones based purely on the quality of the porposal and would also agree that that is perfectly acceptable.

Also agree that the bunny is incred, from my recent visit to cadbury's world (children look away)...

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/562621_10201133960251340_1686009059_n.jpg)

How many concurrent arguments can there be in one thread?

Can't reason with those attracted to cartoon animals. Any others? Minnie Mouse? Ursula from the Little Mermaid? Dot from the Animaniacs? Bunch of weirdos

 :D

What about Toodles Galore?

She was that floozy cat that used to turn up periodically and flirt with Tom in Tom and Jerry.

The cadbury's caramel bunny was a cartoon advert rabbit. The product was shaped like a dairy milk but had caramel in it iirc.

Sex sells. Maybe Timex should have thought about that.

"Phil Ivey is selling at 1.65. I'm selling at 1.5 but with a password to some encrypted videos on my website"

I mean the discussion has become so cyclical, this point isn't one I really agree with or think was hugely relevant in his interview, it's just the point of "why wouldn't timex want more worse players than him playing" I dont think the intention of his BankOfTimex plan was to stop "mediocre regs" playing tourneys they are under-rolled for, just a response to PAtricks question of "why do you care."

The bolded bit is a huge over-reaction he said or implied nothing of the sort in the interview.

all my posts ITT come across very defensive of him, my intention isn't really to defend him (I happen to agree with the main point he made) but people are making statements ITT that are drawn from gross misconceptions of what he actually said in the interview.

He said he hopes his scheme causes the markets to correct themselves and people got on a bandwagon and accused him of pretending to act in the greater good of society hidden behind a desire to profit. Then he explained a reason why it affects him personally that people are over-selling and poeple have jumped on a bandwagon of "Timex trying to exclude people from poker tournaments so he can win more." He called out a few people who he felt had put up bad value PUBLIC packages and everyone jumped on him saying he's just an ego-maniac trying to prove he's better than anyone else.

As a result everyone has totally missed his point, or doesn't care about the point, one of the two.

Wow best post ever lil'd

Nailed it

whilst I don't disagree with your points dave, he also did it through ego. Im Timex, one of the best NLHE players and ill decide what the market should do, and who should sell at what.

He quickly realised that he couldn't face the exposure, couldn't spend time dealing with all the PMs (and im sure 50% were probably people having a laugh) and then mysteriously there was a "tax" issue. For a smart guy setting up a business proposition its something of a school boy oversight, and not one I believe for a second (nor the gaming commission stuff).

He comes across as very arrogant in the interview, and slip ups aside with phraseology (scammers) he still came across as a prick

Ive no doubt he came into this thinking "ill change the market and this is how", as much as he did "this is a great way to make money".

Why is it for Timex to decide if the market is over priced? It  certainly isn't down to him. Although you suggest earlier the market isn't perfect, it doesn't need to be perfect. If everyone started selling at 5.0 the market would disappear overnight. Therefore, the market works just fine. So just like 10 years ago when the market was "mate to mate" and Ill buy you in for 50% share, it has adjusted down over the years due to availability of information and an expanding market place (selling on forums).  if you ran the market for 100 years and plotted results on a graph I guarantee you it should show corrections

wtf? i did this years ago, albeit on a smaller scale. fish and chip paper now

I just don't get why people have taken such personal insult to his attempts. From my perception of it he said "I think the market's WRONG, and I'm going to prove it" he then proposehow he was going to prove it, by making money from the gap between current price and market equilibrium. If he CAN profit from that, then market's wrong and there isn't much room to dispute that, as a perfect market has no room for a middle man.

AFAIK he will be breaking american gambling laws - as you may or may not know the "wire act" makes it illegal for people to gamble "in proxy" in america.  So he's had to abandon his plans, not like this was a company he was gonna launch on the stock market or anything it was a practical exercise designed to make a point. If anything I thought he deserved a bit of credit for stumping up his own money to try prove a point he's made publically on numerous occasions. I've made the some point (albeit less vocally) but you won't find me putting my cash behind the opinion (for a couple of reasons)


Who's job is it? Surely it's the task of whoever operates within the market, and he falls into that category.

I just don't understand what he did to cause such controversy.

If I put up a staking thread at 1.4 and Key's comes along and said "this is bad value at 1.4 you have done nothing to justify this markup" I came back and reeled off a huge list of reasons why I'm worth 1.4, and have a 100% ROI and he replied with "OK. Buy 20% of yourself of me 1.25" and I refused what does that tell you about my confidence in that mark-up?

Obviously that example is purely hypothetical and wouldn't be a practical determining factor for numerous reasons.

The "scraping up my ROI" quote did it for me.

Read this earlier, great interview pleno  :)up

Actually thought Mike 'timex' seemed ok, he was willing to put his money on he line so fairplay to him

Also could be seen as a marketing/PR stunt but i generally don't think it was.

Great thread too alot of knowledge, great read thanks all

So we're annoyed at his choice of phrase. No problem with the point he was making?

its the markets job, not his

is it ethical if he forces down prices then starts buying at increased frequency?

"the market" = the people who trade within it. If he tries to push the market in an in-correct direction then he'll either do his bollocks or get VERY lucky and make a ton of money. Markets are driven by their most influential participants, Microsoft and Apple hold huge influence of the computer market, I'm sure they use their market influence to drive the markets in the direction they think will be ultimately beneficial to them, and no-one would say "who are apple to be saying what the computer market should do"

No problem with the point in general.

Big problem with "outing" individual players as it looks very much like bullying to me.

we're only specifically talking about you keith, and your 1.5 :p

That's not his point though...

But it's the way he proved his point.

To sell JJ Lui's action at 0.9 is just plain mean. Especially as she has never sold action (afaik)

if shes never sold action then deffo that's a bit untoward, but I honestly don't think he's trying to be mean or pick on anyone specifically, he's just trying to point out the hubris in alot of sellers.


dave makes a v good point of if you are charging 1.4 markup and you get offered  to buy yourself at 1.2 and you don't want to max out on it then you don't understand what's going on and don't deserve to be charging markup.

Basically it's like showing his Pokerstars notes on players in public.

It really really wasn't though. The way he attempted to prove his point was to demonstrate a gap in the market between optimal buying prices and selling prices buy exploiting that gap profitably.

It's really not like that (maybe the JJ Lui example is him being a bit of a dick) but saying "this package isn't good value" "this package is over priced" is completely different to saying FlushEntity 3b/folds of 18bb stacks in strong spots, or w/e note you might have.

People really have gone completely bonkers ITT.

as if flushentity ever folds rofl.

No, I'm sorry, you are wrong.

Picking someone out and basically saying "you are not as good as poker as you think you are" and hundreds of fan boys laughing along and pointing definitely is bullying.

The problem with so many young players is they have no empathy.

Put yourself in the shoes of the player outed by his peers.

I felt extremely angry at Keys yesterday, he had no interest in buying any of my action, he purely asked for Timex's price so he could humiliate me.

The whole thing is fine in theory, but it's real peoples feelings he would be hurting.

it's very obvious why his proposal was unpopular. Fundamental free market principles dictate that one individual shouldn't be trying to 'fix' the market, so in the first place a universally unpopular notion. And who will really be pumped about the revelations? The horse trying to make hay while the sun shines? The buyer who now feels like a mug? No, only really a very small % of internet scientists. It works on paper but not in the real world so overall it is a fail just like communism (but let's not start another concurrent argument.)

What you think somebody's worth is prob overall an opinion to keep to yourself, like if you're at a party and don't like the host's dress.

Just from reading this page I think I get what he's doing.

Basically if someone is selling themselves at 1.3 and he thinks they're bad value at that he'll sell that same person at 1.2 or whatever he thinks appropriate?

If that person wins something he pays out whatever %% you've bought.

In theory if he has the money he can sell over 100% of someone as long as he can afford to pay out.

Pretty sure Trigg did something very similar a couple of years ago. In fact I'm 100% sure as I bought some of myself in GUKPT Blackpool.

So for example if Keith is selling at 1.5 for something can I contact Timex and he'll sell me some of the Camel at whatever he thinks he's worth effectively ruining Keith's chances of selling at anything higher than Timex thinks he should sell at?

EDIT: Typed this out before seeing Keith's post above. Assume this has already been done. No rubbing/humiliating intended here, was just using Keith as an example because he's posting ITT.

I mean I agree with you, except I don't think that was what was happening, and I think if you put up a public thread, selling yourself and someone doesn't think your product is good value then you should be willing to accept that critism, as long as it is proper and tastefully constructed. If it's personal and nasty like you suggest "You're shit haha" then I agree that's bullying and out of order.

As far as I'm aware he handled it all pretty politely no?

Surely this shouldn't affect sellers at all assuming they 100% 'HAVE' to sell in order to play?

If they sell at 1.5 but Timex offers 1.1 then nobody's going to buy off the actual horse.

If Timex has an unlimited bankroll he can offer as much action on that person as stakers want. If the horse can't sell they can't play so Timex doesn't get his action anyway.

If he doesn't have an unlimited roll then at some point people are forced to go to the horse and pay whatever the horse wants. If they aren't prepared to pay more then the horse doesn't sell so doesn't play.

All seems great in theory but ultimately kind of pointless.

Couldn't be a more irrelevant analogy imo

He might have handled it ok - apart from the JJ Lui quote and the scraping ROI thing - but it wouldn't take someone to possess a triple digit IQ to guess the reaction of the poker playing masses, would it?

Wrong on two counts lildave!

First it is not a real analogy it is a classic mantic, in both examples 'it's real people's feelings you would be hurting'.

Second the cadbury's caramel bunny was more irrelevant

Fascinating thread this one.

His idea simply cannot happen due to law and taxes. All your swaps/stakes/backing arrangements are personal deals like an online handshake and that is all. Nothing more.

He popped that up on twitter and shit his pants with the response, got some tax advice and soon took it down.

I was thinking yesterday he is either the dumbest bloke ever or he was trying to make a point. Or a humongous grim would of been funny.

Isnt this exactly what you did to me last year in my main event thread?  Im pretty sure we also hadnt even played a hand against each other online or live at the time or met in person yet you came in and said I wasnt worth 1.5 and was maybe worth 1.1

This was also very quickly after I had started the thread and hadnt sold out yet, which probably put a lot off blondes off buying afterwards, especially considering you bought in a 1.6 thread, bid 1.55 in an auction and didnt comment at all on the 3 other players selling at 1.5 at the time.

So were you trying to bully and humiliate me?  Or is it completely different one year later?

I was wrong.

I believe I apologised but if I didn't then I do now.

I'm sorry

You're right, I coined the phrase "A MANTIS" as well so should have been sharper my bad!

Disagree the cadbury's bunny was irrelevant though, felt the thread was desperately in need of some sex in the midst of some extremely geeky economics discussions! Expertly judged I thought ;)

You are pretty chit though to be fair.

this is why I happily buy a piece of evilpie if I get the chance, hero <3

Arguably the moment I peaked as a blonde poster.



 

As a UK player we have tax free gambling ,as in theory,the gam com registered layer pays the punters tax in the form of gross profits tax. In poker the same happens with rake, it's taxed. Too much live and not enough online but that's another matter.

The very moment you ever charge more than 1.0 you have stopped gambling and are charging for a service. I would all stop now if I were you. Easy targets for the taxman. And it's all here in black and white.

This has been taken a bit out of context.  He was asked to quote for her, it isn't like he just chose her as an example.  I'd say it would be correct to point the finger at the person who asked for a quote, but not at Timex.

Just ignore the request then?

True, someone asked for himself & her.  He replied with 1.45 for the guy and 0.93 for JJ, no malice whatsoever.

I'm not saying it's malicious, I'm saying it shows zero empathy.

PM the quote, text it. Do whatever you like.

Just don't humiliate her by saying you think she's a losing player in front of thousands of readers.

I really don't get the problem? I'm a losing player at approx $20+ buy in and a winner below that, I don't care if anyone says that, its the truth who cares? Are we all turning into pussies that can't deal with the truth?

From a cynical point of view "don't tap the glass" springs to mind.

From a human point of view I would guess 99% of poker players (especially pros) wouldn't like it broadcast to the world that they are losing players. It's no ones business except hers.

You are one of kind Woodsey.

I can kinda understand this view in this situation but what if she had tried to sell action which is what he is doing in most cases?  Surely then the player is fair game?  I really don't get the issue in general.  If you put yourself at the vagaries of the market then surely it is a bit thinskinned if the market, albeit in a different form, judges you poorly.

Yeh I think that's a bit mean of him tbh. Pm the quote is fine.

The whole thing is a tiny bit mean. There's almost no-one in this community id feel comfortable doing this for.

Yeh it's defo different if she's put herself out there and sold action (even if it was at spot)

Weren't u going to do this for DTD comps?

the whole thing cant be that mean. 99% of the cases he tells people they are profitable at nl tournaments.

No I was going to sell action in day two sweats

Still don't like it, it is after all just one guys opinion.

It is just his opinion has a disproportionate amount of weight attached to it because he happens to have a great deal of money (or more likely, rich friends)

I agree. however this doesn't mean he isn't making a good point and a very interesting and potentially big statement for the future of the marketplace.

The discussion of those points has been pretty much buried ITT though.

I don't really disagree with the principal of anything anyone's said though... Just think we've missed the most relevant points.

Is she really going to be that upset that one person thinks she is around average* at the WSOP?  Surely she can cope with that?  I probably get labelled useless several times a month and it is years since I ever did anything other than smirk at the person doing it.  

It isn't like he got personal and called her a tosser either, just quoted a price to someone who asked.

I sat at her table a few years ago, and from what I remember she played OK.  She also has a Herbie Mob that most players would be proud of, so doubt she'll be that bothered that someone from the younger generation thinks she is no longer any good.  I am sure there must be plenty of players out there who think the same about me, and I probably have a raft of incorrect notes on people just because they once massacred one hand, or had a bad hour.  

I really can't see how other people at the table thinking you are terrible is anything other than a good thing for her either.  It is definitely the image I try to project at live tables when I sit down.    

* and most people are going to be around average, no matter what we read on the staking boards.

As I said earlier, it's the undue amount of weight which is attached his view.

It's not like me sitting at the hooker bar having a beer with Lil Dave and saying "God, that Doobs is a terrible player"

It's like Timex's opinion has suddenly become the official ranking of how good a player is.

I'm not being a fanboy, but he is pretty well placed to judge, given his experience and place in the MTT community.

He doesnt automatically become the arbiter though.  Others are welcome to join the same market and create a different equilibrium price.  That is the beauty of markets they will eventually settle at the correct price assuming they are allowed to work unencumbered.

Would anybody be bothered if a bookmaker offered odds on players making the money/making the final table/winning in a poker tournament?
Isn't this essentially what he was doing albeit for a (very) small percentage of the field?

Pleno has made sure people check the rail section every single day , he said it needed to happen.

Timex releases spreadsheet with his views on peoples ROIs in the main.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsoTQ8Y70cQodDRGZG9PV3gzbVdJNEx2eEZMTXVOYVE#gid=0

any odds on tikay?

Not sure about Jessie Sylvia 2.8 and Ben Wilnofsky 2.4. And I'm sure Galen Hall needed someone else to inflate his ego a touch further, 4.2 seems v.big. Pius Heinz = Ben Lamb just has to be wrong too.

Bar is set far too high imo 6 for Ivey??

surely 3 would be max, to pay 6 x % for one player seems ridic in a tourney which is going to have 8000 runners

Seems a bit extreme line to me

Why who's better iyo? Seem about the same to me.

the more players the higher a possible roi can be. that mu assumes that he has a hedge over a great proportion of runners in the field at all stages.

I don't know as much about Heinz tbf, but I rate Ben Lamb a lot, and he has had a lot of success for many many years. I just checked their HerbieMobs (RIP) and Lamb's is a mile long. Maybe more of an Omaha player so that's why.

Need to get some of the odds I laid at on Betfair for some realism in the thread.  Loads of players better than Flushy.  Perfect markets yo.

Ta beaneh, i sort of get they are saying they are 6 x the average field just seems high still although maybe im looking at it wrong.