Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[bobAlike]

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

i am also going to reserve the right to buy back my own action, if i want to, after hitting a big score early.

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

Is this normal practice?

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

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

Good Luck in Vegas

[The Camel]

Have to agree with Bobalike here.

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

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

Then later on you win a bracelet and 500k.

I would be pretty pissed off as an investor.

Gotta take the rough with the smooth imo.

[skolsuper]

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

Good OP btw Chris.

[The Camel]

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

Good OP btw Chris.

This is true.

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

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

[skolsuper]

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

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

[NigDawG]

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

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

[cambridgealex]

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

Good OP btw Chris.

<3 the OP policeman

[bobAlike]

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

Good OP btw Chris.

This is true.

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

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

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

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

[smashedagain]

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

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

[Royal Flush]

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

[Doobs]

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

Good OP btw Chris.

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

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

[SuuPRlim]

It just feels really cheeky, to me, that you're asking for backing, I imagine to try and iron out variance, but if you have a decent score early on you're pretty much saying thanks for the leg up, so long suckers here is $275,000 to split between you

[MANTIS01]

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

Good OP btw Chris.

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

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

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

[Rupert]

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

[The Camel]

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

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