The Best In The Business

[pokerfan]

100%

[mulhuzz]

Plenofacking1 a.k.a "The Quizmaster"

 

imo its paradox

orly, Ingi?

serious question for you (since there's always a question): where is my cake?

[skolsuper]

As the owner of probably the most successful blonde staking thread of all time (tm), this seems like a good subject upon which to make my 1000th and final ever post (at least until I get to do an 'in the well').

Personally, when I sell action I charge significantly below what the market can bear (imo), for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when I decide to play a tournament I need to make plans regarding travel and accommodation based on the assumption that I definitely will play, sometimes involving flights to the other side of the world etc. To book everything and incur all these expenses and then not get to actually play the tournament is nothing short of an equity disaster, so I see taking a .05 hit on the markup I could charge as insurance against the possibility of not being able to sell.

Secondly, by keeping it 'in the family' and only dealing with people I know and trust, that is some insurance against the possibility of nonpayment; if I were to charge a bit more and price some of my regular buyers out then I would have to deal with unknowns and that carries with it slightly higher risk and much more admin, so again for the sake of .05 here or there I see that as a worthwhile investment.

Finally there is a slight altruistic element, I'm not sure how much of a factor this is to be perfectly honest, but ideally I would like people to do well out of backing me so I tend to look at charging less than the square root of what I estimate my real edge to be, so that both parties make the same return (on the sold portion) on average. I suppose keeping the backers afloat is good for the community in the long term, and I know how much Flushy must do off in the petrol station so I'm thinking of him really.

My opinion on the question of whether non-buyers should be allowed to comment is that I think everyone should be allowed to say what they like and if someone is just trolling it should be easy for the stakee to justify their markup if it isn't actually too high. FWIW I don't think a genuine buyer would ever be put off by replies from other people, if the value is there and the horse stands their ground then a sensible buyer isn't going to leave money on the table.

I was meandering towards a conclusion there but have reminded myself of an interesting thread on facebook where lildave tried to sell at 1.4 for the WSOP main and basically flushy completely undermined this attempt by saying he would buy it but only at 1.25*. Smelling blood, the other ballers in the thread all said the same and Dave ended up not playing, although ostensibly for a different reason. Shamefully I found this absolutely hilarious at the time, but it does raise the interesting possibility of the major buyers on a forum effectively forming a cartel to keep prices down, but that could be countered by shopping around to other forums, if this did happen then blonde would be recognised as a bad place to sell action and horses will go elsewhere and the backers on blonde will eventually find themselves missing out on profitable opportunities.

*In fairness, at the time Dave had no live record and no online mtt record to speak of, or at least didn't include these in the thread, so the price was on shaky ground really.

[tikay]

Excellent Post by kindle man himself, the Rt Hon Keys.

[mondatoo]

As the owner of probably the most successful blonde staking thread of all time (tm), this seems like a good subject upon which to make my 1000th and final ever post (at least until I get to do an 'in the well').

Personally, when I sell action I charge significantly below what the market can bear (imo), for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when I decide to play a tournament I need to make plans regarding travel and accommodation based on the assumption that I definitely will play, sometimes involving flights to the other side of the world etc. To book everything and incur all these expenses and then not get to actually play the tournament is nothing short of an equity disaster, so I see taking a .05 hit on the markup I could charge as insurance against the possibility of not being able to sell.

Secondly, by keeping it 'in the family' and only dealing with people I know and trust, that is some insurance against the possibility of nonpayment; if I were to charge a bit more and price some of my regular buyers out then I would have to deal with unknowns and that carries with it slightly higher risk and much more admin, so again for the sake of .05 here or there I see that as a worthwhile investment.

Finally there is a slight altruistic element, I'm not sure how much of a factor this is to be perfectly honest, but ideally I would like people to do well out of backing me so I tend to look at charging less than the square root of what I estimate my real edge to be, so that both parties make the same return (on the sold portion) on average. I suppose keeping the backers afloat is good for the community in the long term, and I know how much Flushy must do off in the petrol station so I'm thinking of him really.

My opinion on the question of whether non-buyers should be allowed to comment is that I think everyone should be allowed to say what they like and if someone is just trolling it should be easy for the stakee to justify their markup if it isn't actually too high. FWIW I don't think a genuine buyer would ever be put off by replies from other people, if the value is there and the horse stands their ground then a sensible buyer isn't going to leave money on the table.

I was meandering towards a conclusion there but have reminded myself of an interesting thread on facebook where lildave tried to sell at 1.4 for the WSOP main and basically flushy completely undermined this attempt by saying he would buy it but only at 1.25*. Smelling blood, the other ballers in the thread all said the same and Dave ended up not playing, although ostensibly for a different reason. Shamefully I found this absolutely hilarious at the time, but it does raise the interesting possibility of the major buyers on a forum effectively forming a cartel to keep prices down, but that could be countered by shopping around to other forums, if this did happen then blonde would be recognised as a bad place to sell action and horses will go elsewhere and the backers on blonde will eventually find themselves missing out on profitable opportunities.

*In fairness, at the time Dave had no live record and no online mtt record to speak of, or at least didn't include these in the thread, so the price was on shaky ground really.

WTF ?? 

[pleno1]

James Keys retiring in my thread? Jesus fuckign Christ!

Such a classy post James. Don;t think anybody can argue too much with anything said there.

Thanks again, helped me make my mind up too.

[mulhuzz]

great post keysie, agree 100% but why you retiring?

[GreekStein]

wtf Keys? why last post?

Guess he cant say why now if that was his last post!

[pokerfan]

wtf Keys? why last post?

Guess he cant say why now if that was his last post!

Ask him in the well.

[celtic]

Reveal on the answer pleno?

[mondatoo]

Reveal on the answer pleno?

Seems I'm not the only one who doesn't understand English.

[Mitch]

I think i can shed some light on Keys 'last post' quote.

When we were in Greece, as a sponsored pro by his favourite site, he was recognised in the halllways, by the hot Betfair rep, geeks wanna talk to him, people want to jizz over his car etc etc.

He comes home, and its like hes a nobody again, they take this piss out of his nose, say hes lanky and he continually loses in £1/£2 games.

All this could have been prevented if he was offered the chance to do a well after his fantastic win valliant second place in Australia.

Hes just looking for a little repect. and fame. and a new bird. and a magazine cover. and something to get the bird shit stains out the paintwork on his car.

Thats all.

[redarmi]

Given the ego of most poker players I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they don't like their markups being criticised but I don't really see what the issue is with it.  Dubai has already said in the thread that he would charge as much as he thought he could get away with so if he is willing to sell at a price that is -EV for backers why shouldn't someone be able to say that it is -EV?  I accept trolling is out of order but a legitimate discussion about the markup a player is charging is fair enough imo.  The only time I would consider it a bit distasteful is if it was suggested that spot/par was out of order as that is a bit of an insult.

[pokerfan]

Given the ego of most poker players I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they don't like their markups being criticised but I don't really see what the issue is with it.  Dubai has already said in the thread that he would charge as much as he thought he could get away with so if he is willing to sell at a price that is -EV for backers why shouldn't someone be able to say that it is -EV?  I accept trolling is out of order but a legitimate discussion about the markup a player is charging is fair enough imo.  The only time I would consider it a bit distasteful is if it was suggested that spot/par was out of order as that is a bit of an insult.

Doesn't mean its -ev , its just what he thinks he can sell at.

[redarmi]

No it doesn't mean that but the implication was that he would sell at whatever he could in order to maximise his EV even if that meant it was -EV for the buyer.  Which is fine, caveat emptor etc but people should be able to comment on that if they wish.