Prose from a Poshboy

[smashedagain]

Lol. Great bants.

Lots of diarists are grinding to a halt ATM. When's the next foreign trip? (And give us some ping pong action)

[Doobs]

Why not just ask Keys instead of coming on here sick bragging you dumpling

This.

The main thing is as a staker you get 50% of the upswings and 100% of the downswings, so if you had 10 horses and 5 won and 5 lost in equal measure, you'd come out behind. Double that to 20 horses and you'd be losing twice as much.

2nd thing is if your horses are playing in the same comp as you or each other, they can't both come 1st, so it's not the same as playing identical comps sequentially. It might not seem like much but typically 20-25% of the prize money is in 1st place, so it is significant extra variance.

3rdly jakally makes a good point in that your own bankroll limitations are flexible, whereas I'd go as far as to say that dropping a horse in stakes after they run up makeup is actually immoral and the horse would be within their rights to leave if you did this. Imagine if a backer let you run up £100k of makeup in epts and then said "now I want you to grind it out in £100-300s". You can't get out, so you'd basically be working for free. So yeah, you need to allow enough bankroll to account for them playing the same level indefinitely, which is much more than you need to allow for yourself at the same stakes.

The 2nd thing can't be right.  Adding two players to one tournament is going to make barely any difference at all to long run variance compared to putting them in different tournaments.  Of course the variance in that particular tournament is going to be increased, but that is a strange way of looking at a long term staking operation.

I think jakally makes a good point.  I really think it is unrealistic of a horse to not suffer with his staker.  I think it would be fairly immoral for a stable of horses to insist they were still put in EPTs while their backer went bankrupt.  They are playing off borrowed money at the end of the day.  I'd say the arrangement should be clear on this.  It would be a clear problem if someone went from EPTs to £100ers, but don't see why the horse should have an issue with his max buy in dropping from £250 to £200 if Alex's bankroll suffered a nasty drop.     

Companies that want to survive do not carry on employing 50 people if there is only work for 20, and banks shouldn't carry on shovelling out tons of cash as their own supplies of credit dry up (bit too late for telling the banks this).  You can insulate employees from some downswings, but not if there is a fundamental change in your position. 

As it is I think Alex has plenty of money for the online staking.  Live only donkament staking is only ever going to be low volume, high variance, and have long downswings.   



     


 

[cambridgealex]

The next trip is actually on monday. We're going for a week here...



Try to collect some of these

Click to see full-size image.

It's the Eureka Poker Tour, an 1100euro main event with a 2k hiroller and a bunch of sides/ cash games. We're staying in the pokerstars hotel which are always really nice and there's supposed to be good night life there so think it's gonna be a sick trip.

The team is the usual suspects (minus stato because he's in centerparks ldo) - Keith, PJ, Mitch, Keys, me and special guest Sam Macdonald!

Oh and Tom High.

[George2Loose]

Gl boys. Bring home some Latvian flags

[skolsuper]

Why not just ask Keys instead of coming on here sick bragging you dumpling

This.

The main thing is as a staker you get 50% of the upswings and 100% of the downswings, so if you had 10 horses and 5 won and 5 lost in equal measure, you'd come out behind. Double that to 20 horses and you'd be losing twice as much.

2nd thing is if your horses are playing in the same comp as you or each other, they can't both come 1st, so it's not the same as playing identical comps sequentially. It might not seem like much but typically 20-25% of the prize money is in 1st place, so it is significant extra variance.

3rdly jakally makes a good point in that your own bankroll limitations are flexible, whereas I'd go as far as to say that dropping a horse in stakes after they run up makeup is actually immoral and the horse would be within their rights to leave if you did this. Imagine if a backer let you run up £100k of makeup in epts and then said "now I want you to grind it out in £100-300s". You can't get out, so you'd basically be working for free. So yeah, you need to allow enough bankroll to account for them playing the same level indefinitely, which is much more than you need to allow for yourself at the same stakes.

The 2nd thing can't be right.  Adding two players to one tournament is going to make barely any difference at all to long run variance compared to putting them in different tournaments.  Of course the variance in that particular tournament is going to be increased, but that is a strange way of looking at a long term staking operation.

I think jakally makes a good point.  I really think it is unrealistic of a horse to not suffer with his staker.  I think it would be fairly immoral for a stable of horses to insist they were still put in EPTs while their backer went bankrupt.  They are playing off borrowed money at the end of the day.  I'd say the arrangement should be clear on this.  It would be a clear problem if someone went from EPTs to £100ers, but don't see why the horse should have an issue with his max buy in dropping from £250 to £200 if Alex's bankroll suffered a nasty drop.     

Companies that want to survive do not carry on employing 50 people if there is only work for 20, and banks shouldn't carry on shovelling out tons of cash as their own supplies of credit dry up (bit too late for telling the banks this).  You can insulate employees from some downswings, but not if there is a fundamental change in your position. 

As it is I think Alex has plenty of money for the online staking.  Live only donkament staking is only ever going to be low volume, high variance, and have long downswings.   

You're supposed to drop them before you go bankrupt. If you go bankrupt from staking then you have no-one to blame but yourself, same as if you go bankrupt from playing. If you say you're going to drop a horse and they decide to accept a lower max buyin out of the goodness of their heart/because they can't find another backer then fair enough.

[smashedagain]

The next trip is actually on monday. We're going for a week here...



Try to collect some of these

Click to see full-size image.

It's the Eureka Poker Tour, an 1100euro main event with a 2k hiroller and a bunch of sides/ cash games. We're staying in the pokerstars hotel which are always really nice and there's supposed to be good night life there so think it's gonna be a sick trip.

The team is the usual suspects (minus stato because he's in centerparks ldo) - Keith, PJ, Mitch, Keys, me and special guest Sam Macdonald!

Oh and Tom High.

oh brilliant. Sounds like another epic trip but disappointed you did not invite Tittybean this time. How many of the guys are free and single. Just thought that obv means that you guys miss the deepstack.

[cambridgealex]

Tittybean is always invited! Everyone is always invited!

Yeh we will miss deepstack

Bout half of us are free and single Herbie if you really want to know! Don't think you're our type though.

[skolsuper]

The 2nd thing can't be right.  Adding two players to one tournament is going to make barely any difference at all to long run variance compared to putting them in different tournaments.  Of course the variance in that particular tournament is going to be increased, but that is a strange way of looking at a long term staking operation.

Don't understand how that is strange, you're saying if the variance in a particular tournament is increased the variance overall isn't increased?

Yeah there won't be much difference with 2 horses in large field mtts like the WSOP main, but for us at least the effect is large enough that we have to account for it imo. Keith and I have staked 4-7 players over the past year and we've had 2 horses on a monte carlo final table, a deepstack final table and the 770 final table. Replace the other horse in that situation with a random from the field for each of them and their ROIs on those final tables would have been very significantly higher. Horses probably start affecting each other's ROI from as little as when they're only 1 in 50 in the field.

[cambridgealex]

The 2nd thing can't be right.  Adding two players to one tournament is going to make barely any difference at all to long run variance compared to putting them in different tournaments.  Of course the variance in that particular tournament is going to be increased, but that is a strange way of looking at a long term staking operation.

Don't understand how that is strange, you're saying if the variance in a particular tournament is increased the variance overall isn't increased?

Yeah there won't be much difference with 2 horses in large field mtts like the WSOP main, but for us at least the effect is large enough that we have to account for it imo. Keith and I have staked 4-7 players over the past year and we've had 2 horses on a monte carlo final table, a deepstack final table and the 770 final table. Replace the other horse in that situation with a random from the field for each of them and their ROIs on those final tables would have been very significantly higher. Horses probably start affecting each other's ROI from as little as when they're only 1 in 50 in the field.

yeh it certainly affected Mitch being on the same table as me and Stato for the hiroller on Saturday. He did not fair well  AT ALL

[George2Loose]

Hand history?

[Doobs]

Why not just ask Keys instead of coming on here sick bragging you dumpling

This.

The main thing is as a staker you get 50% of the upswings and 100% of the downswings, so if you had 10 horses and 5 won and 5 lost in equal measure, you'd come out behind. Double that to 20 horses and you'd be losing twice as much.

2nd thing is if your horses are playing in the same comp as you or each other, they can't both come 1st, so it's not the same as playing identical comps sequentially. It might not seem like much but typically 20-25% of the prize money is in 1st place, so it is significant extra variance.

3rdly jakally makes a good point in that your own bankroll limitations are flexible, whereas I'd go as far as to say that dropping a horse in stakes after they run up makeup is actually immoral and the horse would be within their rights to leave if you did this. Imagine if a backer let you run up £100k of makeup in epts and then said "now I want you to grind it out in £100-300s". You can't get out, so you'd basically be working for free. So yeah, you need to allow enough bankroll to account for them playing the same level indefinitely, which is much more than you need to allow for yourself at the same stakes.

The 2nd thing can't be right.  Adding two players to one tournament is going to make barely any difference at all to long run variance compared to putting them in different tournaments.  Of course the variance in that particular tournament is going to be increased, but that is a strange way of looking at a long term staking operation.

I think jakally makes a good point.  I really think it is unrealistic of a horse to not suffer with his staker.  I think it would be fairly immoral for a stable of horses to insist they were still put in EPTs while their backer went bankrupt.  They are playing off borrowed money at the end of the day.  I'd say the arrangement should be clear on this.  It would be a clear problem if someone went from EPTs to £100ers, but don't see why the horse should have an issue with his max buy in dropping from £250 to £200 if Alex's bankroll suffered a nasty drop.     

Companies that want to survive do not carry on employing 50 people if there is only work for 20, and banks shouldn't carry on shovelling out tons of cash as their own supplies of credit dry up (bit too late for telling the banks this).  You can insulate employees from some downswings, but not if there is a fundamental change in your position. 

As it is I think Alex has plenty of money for the online staking.  Live only donkament staking is only ever going to be low volume, high variance, and have long downswings.   

You're supposed to drop them before you go bankrupt. If you go bankrupt from staking then you have no-one to blame but yourself, same as if you go bankrupt from playing. If you say you're going to drop a horse and they decide to accept a lower max buyin out of the goodness of their heart/because they can't find another backer then fair enough.

In your view.  It seems very black and white.  I go through life assuming that things can and will change and though I have every intention to employ person A to do job X for the forseeable, things can and do change.  If I ran a staking operation, I would be very clear that if things change, I reserve the right to change max buy ins, games they are staked for etc.  If we are succesful, they will go up, if we aren't, they go down.  

I am not sure why you think dropping people is the right thing to do, but dropping their limits by 20% is somehow morally repugnant.  


 

[cambridgealex]

Hand history?

Nah, you'll just moan that I run good, and won't realise that whilst it appears on the surface I was rather fortunate, it was utter pwnage.

[George2Loose]

Hand history?

Nah, you'll just moan that I run good, and won't realise that whilst it appears on the surface I was rather fortunate, it was utter pwnage.

Lol so u just got there again. #wpsir

[Doobs]

The 2nd thing can't be right.  Adding two players to one tournament is going to make barely any difference at all to long run variance compared to putting them in different tournaments.  Of course the variance in that particular tournament is going to be increased, but that is a strange way of looking at a long term staking operation.

Don't understand how that is strange, you're saying if the variance in a particular tournament is increased the variance overall isn't increased?

Yeah there won't be much difference with 2 horses in large field mtts like the WSOP main, but for us at least the effect is large enough that we have to account for it imo. Keith and I have staked 4-7 players over the past year and we've had 2 horses on a monte carlo final table, a deepstack final table and the 770 final table. Replace the other horse in that situation with a random from the field for each of them and their ROIs on those final tables would have been very significantly higher. Horses probably start affecting each other's ROI from as little as when they're only 1 in 50 in the field.

Assuming you are going to be putting a horse in hundreds of tournaments, then you will see barely any difference in variance over those hundreds of tournaments if you put another horse in the same tournaments.   

There is going to be barely any difference in ROI too.  Take a tournament with 200 players in that you expect to get 2 x your buy in back on average.  The average expectation of the rest of teh field will be something like 0.9 x buy in because of entry fees.  If we believe you are still playing in 2007 (or in France, or on sky poker) and are all 2.0 x buy in players.  Adding in another 2.0 player would mean your expectation had dropped by 1.1/200 or from 2.0 to 1.995 [1.1 is the difference between a 2.0 player and a 0.9 Mr average].  If you put 4 horses in the effect would be to reduce your ROI to 1.985.  This would reduce your expected return from the tournament by less than 1%.  Assuming your horses are 2.0 players, then your overall return from this tournament should more than compensate from this small drop.  And this is before you even consider soft playing and colluding!

Of course this 1% difference won't be consistent over all tournaments, you could play 5 and see no effect and then consider you have been robbed of 10% ROI in the next.  Of course the upset over the big drop in ROI should be compensated by the fact you and your horse must have binked pretty huge for that to happen.

[cambridgealex]

Hand history?

Nah, you'll just moan that I run good, and won't realise that whilst it appears on the surface I was rather fortunate, it was utter pwnage.

Lol so u just got there again. #wpsir

No. I late regged and was sat in between the largest men in the room - stato on my right, Mitch on my left - marv. At least the chips will be easy I thought.

Mitch had already done off 2/3s of his stack to Stato before I arrived. The first hand I played it folded round to Mitch who moved allin for about 20bbs (which seemed rather rash at the time, perhaps tilted or trying to get into an all-in conflict to avoid playing postflop).

It was on me in the big blind, and I let Stato squeeze my cards with me.

"Ooooo"

"oooooo, call!"

Didn't feel like slowrolling the poor chap. Did feel like announcing "Seat open Mitch Johnson"

Which for split second I thought I might regret, but the flop came Ace high and I rivered quads

#wpsir