Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[MANTIS01]

People are free to name their own price for whatever they're selling.

But I don't think a sheriff should bowl around staking threads telling people what is and isn't 'perfectly acceptable' without being challenged. A decent lawman needs to be impartial. If I was sheriff I would say horses wishing to buy back their now hot action should do so at a higher premium. The price on them binking the next event has dropped at least. Why can they ride the rush and the buyer can't? More so a buyer investing his capital in a 20 comp wsop package might find himself out of action after just one event. The buyer should turn a profit on 100% of his wsop package investment if the player wants a buy back caveat added. The player can't aftertime and decide the rest of the investment is dead because 1/20 was profitable enough thankyou. Horses should set a schedule and retain a right to buy out at a premium if they want to. Just focking the buyer off 1st comp into a 20 comp investment at no cost seems dirty.

Anyway, in the end we didn't need a sheriff cos we had the three musketeers of Camel, bobby1 and bobAalike. And I am D'Artagnan, the most attractive one, and the one with the biggest sword.

[MANTIS01]

The reason I'm commenting is because it's a growing trend in poker and I don't agree with it. Like live streaming which I also spoke up about. I think casually throwing in a deal changing caveat at the bottom of a business proposal like it doesn't matter either way is not good business practise. The other habit I'm not liking is when people ask for thousands of dollars up front and add the caveat they might not even play the event because of 'partying' or 'cash action'. I think this is bullshit. It's a very casual approach to have to a business deal and to thousands of dollars of somebody else's money. As a horse you get a jolly to Vegas with the guarantee of buying into various events if you decide you want to, but meh, if you want to go out on the lash instead you retain the right to do so. Or if there happens to be a juicy cash game the investors can do one. Or if you bink a jackpot on the bandit the investors can do one. Wait, it's ok if there's no juicy cash action or no bandit bink, or you run bad, cos the investor picks up the tab, sweet. Best of both worlds imo.

Where is the professional commitment to the business proposal? If people want to be staked there should at least be a sense of obligation to investors and to the proposal. If people invested thousands of dollars in me I would play the events I said I would. I would turn up on time with a serious attitude and an appreciation that this is someone else's money. The comment that a pro would have an 'unhappy' attitude if he was 'forced' to play out the commitment HE proposed after a bink is pretty disrespectful imo. It's also patronising to suggest if the horse gets an early bink the investor should be thankful for this return and fuck off. Well the investor has paid for the potential of that return. Seems like horses want to pat the investor on the head and tell them to do one because they're not needed anymore, and that should be enough pocket money to be running along with. Remember, not one investor would cash out given the option.

Glad the thread was split. Oh and sorry for being a terrible poster.

A couple of years ago I requested staking for the EPT London.

The week before I played the WSOPE and happened to go really deep (brag obv) making it to day 5.

My day 1 for the EPT was the day after I got knocked out of the WSOPE.

I was mentally and physically exhausted after the WSOPE, and would not have played anywhere near my best.

I felt it was in my (and the stakers) best interests not to play the EPT so I withdrew and refunded the stake.

When I buy a share in someone, I trust them to make the optimal decision as what is the best course of action when an unforeseen decision arises.

If I had a share in someone in a similar situation to mine, I would rather they withdrew than played badly.

Phoning in sick is cool in any job Keith. But telling your boss/partners you're not coming to work so you can go drinking instead, or play golf, or don't need the money this week wouldn't be cool. If you get pissed up the night before work you absolutely should buy that action back at a premium cos you've cost investors money.

Sorry to hear I upset you. Prob only joking whatever it was.

[bobAlike]

I dont see why these caveats/ mark up discussions take place. Unless someone is blatantly taking the piss then let buyers but and sellers sell. If u are unhappy about mark up or other caveats simply don't buy.

One reason is this tho George, after the 70/30 posts started it bred a plethora of them from people that hadn't asked for staking before. It started the ball of bad practice rolling and then some others jumped on the 'play for free' bandwagon.

What Skol says is he doesn't want the Status Quo on these threads being disturbed because he might want to do similar at a later date, surely it is better to look thru it when it becomes an issue so people can make proper judgements and stake requests are better thought out?

So what if he benefits? I don't see this but back clause as a pisstake and unless I'm mistaken no one had subsequently dropped out as a result of this debate. Mantis bangs on about business but surely the first rule of any contract is read it before I sign it

I think the problem is simply because lack of detail. Theoretically Nigdawg could bink event 1 for 50k, which is by no means a small amount of money, he then buys back the remainder 44.5k. He his now free rolling 50% of the tourney's for 100% of the action and nobody could say anything about it because the details are way to vague from the beginning.

i do not understand what this post is saying and i'm therefore not sure you understand how it works either.

using your example, binking 50k in event 1 win means i pay out 25k to investors and pocket 25k myself. if i then bought the remaining action (buyins * mark up * % sold) back, that costs me 28k to do so. the package would end after 1 event with 1% being worth $1,062 (cost price $600) booking investors a 77% return after 1 event. the package closed early, as was warned could happen in the op, and personally from here on out i have 100% of my own action to do with what i will.

i'm not "free rolling" anyone. it's true that in this example i have almost covered the cost of buying back the action with my share of the profit from event 1, but that's kind of irrelevant?

I fully understand but got my figures a bit wrong, your 2nd para sums up what I'm trying to say and yes you have been open about what your intentions may be but IMO it's a deal I wouldn't be happy with for the simple fact at no point do you say what the likely threshold is of your percieved bink before you'd buy back, and in your example here you havent denied that you wouldn't do this after a 'min' bink in the 1st., 2nd or whatever event leaving it open to abuse from you. As I've said previously I don't think for 1 minute that you'd do something as low as that but it is possible.

As I said the issue is one of clarity or the lack of it.

Maybe all staking requests should end up with 'buyer beware' at the end.

[outragous76]

"Maybe all staking requests should end up with 'buyer beware' at the end."


They do

[MANTIS01]

Oh and one more thing which really tilts me. I do not play £10 re-buys at Walsall. No, cos it's all this £15 Deep'n'Steep freeze-out bollocks these days. Man how I miss them £10 re-buys.

[bobAlike]

"Maybe all staking requests should end up with 'buyer beware' at the end."


They do

They do?

[bobAlike]

Oh and one more thing which really tilts me. I do not play £10 re-buys at Walsall. No, cos it's all this £15 Deep'n'Steep freeze-out bollocks these days. Man how I miss them £10 re-buys.

Not as much as the regs miss you

[NigDawG]

in case it wasn't obvious my last post was just using the mentioned example. truth is at this point i do not know how big the bink has to be before i buy it back. it's up to me at the time and that's why it's in the op. strictly speaking i do not think any $Xbuyout is "abusing" my investors, providing they have made profit on events played.

i have read all the discussion about it and whilst i can see why some people would not like it, nothing has changed my mind on the subject. i will most likely include the caveat in any future packages. anyone who does have a problem with it will obviously have to decide how much value it takes away from what i am offering.

[bobAlike]

in case it wasn't obvious my last post was just using the mentioned example. truth is at this point i do not know how big the bink has to be before i buy it back. it's up to me at the time and that's why it's in the op. strictly speaking i do not think any $Xbuyout is "abusing" my investors, providing they have made profit on events played.

i have read all the discussion about it and whilst i can see why some people would not like it, nothing has changed my mind on the subject. i will most likely include the caveat in any future packages. anyone who does have a problem with it will obviously have to decide how much value it takes away from what i am offering.

Whilst I'm not in agreement with you I sincerely hope you do a bink. Gl

[claypole]

It's my lunch break, a thread with seven pages of responses on a Friday morning - surely worth a read.....well that's 25 mins of my life I'll never get back.

I am really struggling with this thread.  We have an excellent player, with 100% reputation, who has made proposal that is fully transparent and his "customers" have all happily purchased their product fully aware of the T&Cs that apply.  What is the problem.  In many ways it's made worse by the fact many would not dream of being as open as Chris, they'd bink - be hungover for 4 days, ship refunds and say tough shit.

Its important to understand we are talking about staking; if we were talking about a regulated market, the discussion points may be valid in defining the regulations and creating the regulatory or statutory framework.  I guess it's similar to shops displaying "No refunds" as a clause, and they can't due to Sale of Goods Act.  However, this is poker staking - so no regulation, pointless debate, staker handles himself impeccably in this instance, buyers have a choice. Buy or do not.

I am a regular staker here, so IMHO I am cool with such clauses - simple choice invest or dont. if anyone wants to drop out I will take it.  And - despite being old and not one of the young Internet clique, I wish Christopher Brammer every success in Vegas - I absolutely believe no intent to discredit, however anyone who's met him knows top bloke, top player and can't help but feeling this thread is a bit pointless - its like the discussion won't achieve anything anyway

[nirvana]

In a vacuum (so we don't know the staker and stakee) any hint of a buy back clause without specific buy back criteria is bad news.

One kind of bink could be the stakee receiving better offers for his action after doing a win. Theoretically, he could buy back action at x and re-sell action at x + 1. Is this acceptable providing a buy back caveat is in the offer ?

tbf, mantis is always bullied and I think it's pretty much forum protocol now. So, mantis, I think you should just shut it and if we need to fight then just know, my nickname at Luton is 'carpark'.

[nirvana]

As Shaun crisply points out though, this isn't a regulated market so it's all a bag of bollocks and conjecture anyway. That is my final word

Regards

The original staking sherriff

[Doobs]

in case it wasn't obvious my last post was just using the mentioned example. truth is at this point i do not know how big the bink has to be before i buy it back. it's up to me at the time and that's why it's in the op. strictly speaking i do not think any $Xbuyout is "abusing" my investors, providing they have made profit on events played.

i have read all the discussion about it and whilst i can see why some people would not like it, nothing has changed my mind on the subject. i will most likely include the caveat in any future packages. anyone who does have a problem with it will obviously have to decide how much value it takes away from what i am offering.

I think you have gone a long way to clarifying your original post here.  In the original it wasn't clear that the investors had to make a profit before you bought back.  If you go back to page 1 that was my main objection.  There was a lack of clarity which meant you could bink 100k elsewhere, pay no return and then bink 500k on the original stake.

When I originally read the proposal this really put me off.  

As it is I think buying out is fine if you have made a profit for investors and/or you pay a premium. The premium is there for the loan of the money/default risk etc.  

I think it is probably a good thing to let people keep a small stake for karma purposes. If someone bought 10% say and you want to buy out, maybe it is good to let them keep a couple.  That way you still have 90% and they won't be too unhappy when you bink the 500k later.  

Anyway GL in it all, hope all is well in the world, hope we have done our little bit to stop those Chinese mass suicides

[redarmi]

Interesting thread although I don't really understand why everyone is throwing insults around.  I am a bit torn here.  I think any poster should be able to add whatever caveat they want....it is a free marketplace and they will either sell or not on that basis but I think a debate about whether it should affect whether someone buys is perfectly reasonable and the thought that someone should or shouldn't be allowed to participate seems a bit elitist.

Fwiw I wouldn't buy a stake with this caveat.  Whenever I buy a stake, or have a bet, I do it having thought about what I think my long term expectation for that 'investment' is.  In order to realise that long term expectation I need the investment to play out in full whether it returns me a profit or not.  I have a (very small) chance to make a very large return on my money and whilst, in terms of the probability of that happening it is unlikely it does make up a part of my expectation.   If I am buying at 1.2 I am doing so because i believe it is worth 1.35 or something so selling it back is a negative expectation proposition and I don't really want to do that.  I think this is solved if either the orginal markup is low enough to make up for this or the seller pays a premium to buy back his action but that would have to be a figure both parties were happy with.

[MANTIS01]

In a vacuum (so we don't know the staker and stakee) any hint of a buy back clause without specific buy back criteria is bad news.

One kind of bink could be the stakee receiving better offers for his action after doing a win. Theoretically, he could buy back action at x and re-sell action at x + 1. Is this acceptable providing a buy back caveat is in the offer ?

tbf, mantis is always bullied and I think it's pretty much forum protocol now. So, mantis, I think you should just shut it and if we need to fight then just know, my nickname at Luton is 'carpark'.

Think you should know I threatened to punch somebody a few years back. Be afraid my friend.