Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[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 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?

yawn.

[NigDawG]

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?

trolling for the sake of it?


it's a clause designed for me, and if i want to use it i can. i put it in the op so everyone was aware of this before they bought.  
 
overall i think the proposal i have offered is more than fair and as has already been stated, if you do not like it, do not buy.

[NigDawG]

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?

23 events i want to play. unless the packages sell to 1 or 2 investors it can be a real pain organising separate investors/payments with little notice. much easier/effiecient/less stressful organising it all well in advance

[EvilPie]

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?

What the fuck are you banging on about Mantis?

[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?

What the fuck are you banging on about Mantis?

integrity

2 things I don't get:

a) Why doesn't every pro who puts a +EV series package together include this super standard caveat? Seems they are happy to burn their own money after a bink. Don't get it.

b) If a horse goes to Vegas primarily because he has secured staking how can he then disassociate himself from the stake after a bink. The only reason he is there to bink is because of the stake. Hence he should feel obligated to continue the stake. But they don't because they now have beer tokens? Don't get it.

Must apologise for never getting the hang of which threads I can make general points on without causing offence. Seems ok to question mark up etc if the op is shit but can't say anything if op is good. Think I understand.

[NigDawG]

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?

What the fuck are you banging on about Mantis?

integrity

2 things I don't get:

a) Why doesn't every pro who puts a +EV series package together include this super standard caveat? Seems they are happy to burn their own money after a bink. Don't get it.

b) If a horse goes to Vegas primarily because he has secured staking how can he then disassociate himself from the stake after a bink. The only reason he is there to bink is because of the stake. Hence he should feel obligated to continue the stake. But they don't because they now have beer tokens? Don't get it.

Must apologise for never getting the hang of which threads I can make general points on without causing offence. Seems ok to question mark up etc if the op is shit but can't say anything if op is good. Think I understand.

ok now you are questioning my integrity.

it's not very often a package is as big as this, both in number of events and size of each one. this has 23 events from the series where each is almost certain to be worth a decent 6 figure sum for the win. it is therefore unusual in itself and not a "super standard" proposal in the first place, as u mockingly referred to my clause as.

while it may not be super standard, it was put in the OP, from the beginning, before any action was sold. without naming names, i personally know of several examples of people cancelling action after binking. i'm sure there are loads more i do not know of. anyone worth their salt would want to buy back their action if they were now able to, unless they'd overpriced the markup in the first place.

not that it's any of your business but i'm not only going to vegas because of this stake. this is me trying to be a bit more sensible and subsidise my costs of what will be a huge summer. so whilst i obviously do appreciate the staking, it's not the only reason i am there, as you crudely put it.

[celtic]

Christopher Brammer is annoyed.

Think this proposal is fine fwiw, all clear from the off, and people have bought their % knowing the score.

glgl all.

[skolsuper]

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

[Amatay]

Christopher Brammer is annoyed.

Think this proposal is fine fwiw, all clear from the off, and people have bought their % knowing the score.

glgl all.

Pretty much this. why are others people banging on about it. Just stfu really. Chris can do what he wants and the investors know whats what. WTF is the big issue, jeez!

[bobAlike]

Christopher Brammer is annoyed.

Think this proposal is fine fwiw, all clear from the off, and people have bought their % knowing the score.

glgl all.

Pretty much this. why are others people banging on about it. Just stfu really. Chris can do what he wants and the investors know whats what. WTF is the big issue, jeez!

No big issue, I just raised it because hadn't seen this caveat in a staking thread before. I don't particularly agree with it but as you say it's upto the individual to partake or not.

[The Camel]

In no way was I questioning your integrity.

I use this staking board to both buy and sell action and I think it's important to discuss issues such as this as they affect future stakes.

I apologise if you think this was a personal attack, in no way was it meant as such.

GL in Vegas, win the lot.

[MANTIS01]

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

When you chime in with views about the mark up in other people’s threads I wonder why you care? The terms are clear before people decide to buy aren’t they?

My remarks were to add balance to your post stating this type of caveat is perfectly acceptable. More so to express my disapproval of the notion that a professional player would adopt an unhappy attitude if he was forced to honour a staking agreement. After asking for people’s money I think that would be unprofessional and would lack integrity. Don’t get why pro poker players think it’s ok to pick and choose which obligations to take seriously based on the amount of beer tokens in their pocket?

However, when we make general comments in staking threads the op will usually take the point personally. In this thread I don’t quote op and I use deliberate objective terms like ‘the horse’ and yet op has still taken things personally (op if I wanted to question your integrity I would quote you and do it directly). Sorry for any offence caused but we can either pass comment on general issues like caveats and value in staking threads or we can’t.

[pleno1]

Keys is an active buyer in blonde marketplace and it is in his interests for it to be in a healthy state, im not sure if you've ever bought before, but keys caring and you caring are two different things imo.

[NigDawG]

Serious question Mantis: Why do you care?

When you chime in with views about the mark up in other people’s threads I wonder why you care? The terms are clear before people decide to buy aren’t they?

My remarks were to add balance to your post stating this type of caveat is perfectly acceptable. More so to express my disapproval of the notion that a professional player would adopt an unhappy attitude if he was forced to honour a staking agreement. After asking for people’s money I think that would be unprofessional and would lack integrity. Don’t get why pro poker players think it’s ok to pick and choose which obligations to take seriously based on the amount of beer tokens in their pocket?

However, when we make general comments in staking threads the op will usually take the point personally. In this thread I don’t quote op and I use deliberate objective terms like ‘the horse’ and yet op has still taken things personally (op if I wanted to question your integrity I would quote you and do it directly). Sorry for any offence caused but we can either pass comment on general issues like caveats and value in staking threads or we can’t.

you made a post talking about integrity and saying there where 2 things you didn't get, in my thread. i then replied answering these two things you didn't get. yes you ignore my posts replying to you, but you still spout drivel in my thread. kind of natural for me to assume you are talking about me.

and yes keith, healthy discussion is fine, i just think there are different ways of going about it.

[railtard1]

Christopher Brammer is annoyed.

Think this proposal is fine fwiw, all clear from the off, and people have bought their % knowing the score.

glgl all.

Pretty much this. why are others people banging on about it. Just stfu really. Chris can do what he wants and the investors know whats what. WTF is the big issue, jeez!

This EXACTLY.
If bram didnt stipulate from the start regarding buying his action back, then i think its a different matter altogether. But as its clear in the OP that he does reserve the right to buy out of the package there is no issue what so ever.
People have their own minds and if they dont want to buy the package that is being offered they dont have to.