Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[skolsuper]

Market forces will dictate the success of a proposal and hence comment simply doesn't need to be made about perceived value from anybody uninvolved in the process. I think it's quite rude actually.

Thirdly and finally whenever there is talk of poker community it makes me rofl.

Lol, same thread from which you dredged that quote of mine, no wonder you cut off the link...

[skolsuper]

I posted because I am part of the poker community and a member of the Blonde forum. I hope that has cleared up the mystery.

So it can't be deleted

[MANTIS01]

Catch up skolsuper. Yeah that's what I actually believe but you said people should speak up if they want. So I tried out your advice in this thread. Yet instead of the praise I was expecting you kept asking me why are you posting? Quite upsetting and confusing really. Look, you bin knocked out of the tournament so can you pls leave the cardroom now.

[cambridgealex]

I find this ganging up on Skol rather nasty to witness.

I think any comparisons of this thread to the Aaron thread are way off mark.

This has been a reasonably intelligent debate where no side as shown anywhere close to the level of arrogance and rudeness that Aaron showed.

Everybody tried to reason with him and help him at first, but then people got pissed off at his responses and told him so.

[SuuPRlim]

I have a question for you Suupr. Do you think that taking a stake into high buy in events means you have a responsibility to the people good enoough buy a share to play those events in the best of form. The reason I ask is I believe you didn't play an event in one of your staking packages last year and in your Vegas list for this year you have this at the bottom

''''Because my primary objective in the summer is to play the cash games, there is ALWAYS a small chance that I will miss an event, due to fatigue of long session, unreal cash action etc. I have set myself the objective of 5 tournaments this summer, which is reasonable and I am pretty sure I will play, however, the risk of me not playing IS there, if this makes you at all uncomfortable then please don't buy, there is nothing I can do about this unfortunately. In the event of this happening, I will refund everyone's money as I was paid it at the rate I was paid it.''''

Sorry I only just replying to this now, been on a tilting plane journey last 24 hours (thin think I know )

Apologies if I offended you with you any of my ccomments, certainly wasn't intentional and my impression is you have plenty thick enough skin for these debates anyways

R.E the point about me.  The points you've made are correct, but I see them from the other way round

If you are taking cash from people to play in tourneys surely your part of the deal should be to be in a prime position to do well in those tourneys, yet you are basically saying with this caveat that I might be in a good cash game or I might be tired from playing cash so will not keep my end of the deal if I do put myself in that kind of spot.

My end of the deal is, IMO to play these tournaments in the optimal state of mind, for some (people like Bram for e.g) he could prolly play a bracelet event and be a terrific proposition for a staker at 1.2 : 1 only on 75-80% of his concentration, I know that for me in tournaments, if I'm under 90% my chance of winning is practically 0%, when i'm unfocused I'm a truly terrible terrible poker player. If I wasn't in a state fit to play I wouldn't play my money, your money my great aunt's money or some money tikay dropped and didn't realise. Not only would it be a bad use of the money I would hate every minute of it

In the scheme of things do you not think your priority should be to the team of stakers you have acquired, meaning that you would not put yourself in the position of being fatigued, or wanting to stick to a cash game. The way it reads is I am going to Vegas to play cash with my money, but I would like people to buy a share of me in tourneys that I might not play coz I might not have prepared myself properly.

Remember I am putting up my own money as well. My priority is to make the best decisions for me, when good cash games run I will be playing them because it's my livelihood, the games I play in as well do require a decent amount of mental preparation. Also, I would have been going to Vegas with or without the staking, I play cash games, not tournaments and everyone who knows me knows this so my priority will be the cash games always, I don't think this is a bad attitude because when I do play a tournament, that someone has bought shares in then they can trust me 100% I will be perfectly ready to play that comp and it will have my complete focus for the duration. The downside to purchasing shares in me is that I might miss tournaments because of this, but I, myself, miss out along with everyone buying shares - prolly more so actually.

You could easily have just got in a spot like this and posted' was feeling ill , didnt want to waste everyones money when I couldn't play my best' so I think it's good that you added that but the message it sends about your part of the deal is not good imo.

See to me, I think it reads very reasonably, I guess this is a difference in our view on staking as a hole, my view is its business and it's flexible, to accommodate poker variant nature. I hope it doesn't read too badly as really my intention is to just tell people straight up "This is the deal with me, it's not viable financially for me to be any different but all my actions are honorable" 

I think as well, it's important to remember HOW BIG a difference to my EXPECTED$ in making sure I'm in the right games. I messed people around in L.A regrettably and ended up compensating out of my own pocket which I feel was correst, I just didn't want to do that again.

Hope this gives you some insight into my motives. Have taken the point on board though and will certainly consider it for the future, would be interested to hear more views on my caveat?

[Girgy85]

Jase is right as usual, anyone posting during daylight hours in this thread needs to take a long hard look at their life.

Bobby1 it would be nice if you could read some of my posts before you judge that I only ever post in my own self-interest. This, this and this were my last 3 relevant posts in staking boards that I think you might be alluding to, although this is just a guess as it would make no sense to say what you've said if you'd actually read any of them. But anyway, in my personal opinion, if nobody were to step up and challenge people posting new threads, we could expect threads like this and this to keep cropping up indefinitely, since they mostly sell out anyway.

Also, you dodged mine and dave's question as to who you're talking about when you say "some people...". It's fine, it's just that some people use the "some people" line to make vague accusations that support their argument and then they can back out of it later if those accusations turn out to have no foundation in the truth. I'm sure you're not one of those though. By all means reply without reading this, but I then I probably won't read your replies either and the whole thing will be totally pointless.

FWIW I never said anyone can or can't post (although it doesn't seem to have stopped bobby1 from saying so), I just wanted to know why mantis is posting here, and I guess I'll still have to wonder into the indefinite future since mantis is so secretive as to his reasons for doing anything. As far as I can tell, since it could have no effect on his life whatsoever, so long as he continues to neither buy or sell on this forum, there are only 2 possible reasons for him to post here:

1) He is here to defend hapless blonde members from being defrauded by the nasty professionals posting here.
2) He just wants to start an argument.

It would be nice to know, just for future reference, which it is. That is all.

Think you will find mantis bought Here

[Boba Fett]

Agreed, but not playing because of being too hungover is pretty ool imo, not because you should play anyway, but because going out and getting smashed the night before  your supposed to play a tournament with other peoples money is out of order imo.

Getting whacko the night before a big tournament just isn't on.

:O

[dreenie]

This thread has started to turn a bit nasty now. I don't think it's a problem for ANY person posting on a forum, asking a question and giving there opinion on the matter in hand. I honestly don't think 'bobalike' was trying to tarnish Chris's name in any way, I can see it for what it is, and that being he was curious about this part of a staking agreement.

In a way I can see where Bobby1 and Mantis01 are coming from, but on this occasion have to disagree with some of the things that are being put out there.

This is not because both Chris and James are very good players, it is because IMHO they are both honorable and decent people in this poker community, which IMHO again, is very rare to find.

I don't care what stakes you play, and this should have nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with whether your intentions are honorable and not just trying to look out for yourself at every given opportunity. I don't see a problem with Chris buying back his action if he binks big in the first few tourney's, yes it would be nice to still keep some of the %'s for the Main as this is what excites everybody about Vegas and gives a great sweat for the staker's and a real chance to make some life changing money. In all honestly he is a professional and his decisions would be based on a considerable win early on in order for him to change the terms of this staking agreement imo.  On the flip side all the staker's that have invested would be in a considerable amount of profit for there %, so I really don't see a problem?

Being professional also means thinking about the future, being realistic, and giving everybody the chance to profit on the stake that has been made. So I can't see Chris taking all his action back, being snobby with people that have invested, as he will most likely want to sell again at some stage.

I think in every walk of life you get people that want to be everybody's friend and just go along with what all the 'respected/well known' people are saying, but that is life and you can't just say that happens in poker, it happens all over, in sport, showbiz, music industry etc. It's just what people do and you cannot control what people do or what they think in there own mind, we all have choices in life, and it's up to us to make the correct ones, hence why if certain people don't like this idea, then they are in no obligation to buy.

I personally think that Chris is A) a fantastic player, good role model for this game, with the amount of hours and dedication he puts in and a very genuine and honorable person, so until I see otherwise, I choose to believe these things are true, regardless of where he is ranked in the world, or how much money he has in his bank accounts.

B) James is also all of those things, I can only see from all his posts on both here and other threads, that he is standing up for his beliefs and what he thinks is right. He is a genuine guy, I have played with him a few times, and he has been a pleasure to play with. I remember there was one time in the WSOPE he was standing around, and he came walking over to me saying hi, how r u etc etc, he didn't need to do this, I'm not anyone special to him, or classed as his 'best buddy', but he took the time to ask how I was and talk a bit about poker, so being arrogant and 'just talking to all the great players etc' is totally wrong IMO.

I also remember when he sold a package for a bunch of tourney's on here, things didn't go to plan for whatever reason and he ended up chopping and changing his mind on things he was going to play, he took a bit of stick from it, but the way he handled everybody's opinion's on the matter was very professional, and I feel he has learnt that much over posting his own staking threads, that I honestly think he is just looking out for people's best interests when they are buying.

They are both good for the game IMO, respectable, honest, and honorable people, so feel they don't deserve some of the things that are being dished out here.

I can see both sides of the debate, but let's remember this is a debate, and although debates sometimes get heated, I think that we need to keep it both respectful and ON TOPIC as to what was originally posted, and lose some of the personal attacks.

FWIW, I have not wrote anything about bobby1 or Mantis01 as I don't personally know them, have never spoke to them, either on-line or live, so would be wrong for me to start making up stuff, but I'm sure you are both decent people.

Sorry this is waffle, I am terrible at writing down what I want to say.

[millidonk]

Pmsl. Do you guys realise how nice it's been outside today. Anyone posting between 9am and 5 pm on this thread  needs to have a serious word with themselves. 

Jase only so many of us can be window cleaners or house husbands! Some of us work in these things called offices Mon - Fri, 9-5 and play poker at nights/weekends. Please don't try and claim you are a professional poker player. 

Jase is right as usual, anyone posting during daylight hours in this thread needs to take a long hard look at their life.

Normally I <3 Keys, but clearly this is the biggest level itt and the second part doesn't even warrant a response.

Some sayings which I find apt for this particular thread:

'Arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics.... even if you win you are still special.'
'Opinions are like belly buttons, we all have one, but they don't hold much water'
'Arguing on the internet is like sitting on a rocking horse, it gives you something to do but you don't get anywhere'

No side will concede and it will undoubtedly just end in character assassinations and people taking sides..

All that said..

If a staking OP declares a caveat, you read it and you buy accordingly.
If its not clear enough = don't buy or ask for clarification of terms.
If it is clear = buy/don't buy
If you don't agree with caveat = don't buy

In short people can dictate whatever terms they like beforehand, however clear or concise they deem fit, there is nothing forcing anyone to buy! When caveats are added half way through or people change their mind after people have staked is when it all gets messy. But this clearly isn't the case here.

IMO there is no need for all this, far too much spoon feeding going on and it has just turned nasty.

#grouphugs

[kinboshi]

James, I've removed the post where you were quoting the PMs of another member. It's not something we allow on the forum unless both parties explicitly agree to it.

Anyway, back to the debate...

[bobby1]

I find this ganging up on Skol rather nasty to witness.

I think any comparisons of this thread to the Aaron thread are way off mark.

This has been a reasonably intelligent debate where no side as shown anywhere close to the level of arrogance and rudeness that Aaron showed.

Everybody tried to reason with him and help him at first, but then people got pissed off at his responses and told him so.

Lol, thats one of the funniest yet, ganging up? Ive never met Mantis, dont know his name nor how old he is, we just happened to be two different people disagreeing with one other person at a time of day when nobody else was posting inbetween.

If you want to see a thread where people are ganging up on one poster the read the aaron thread, what you mean is in that thread the ones doing it are your mates so its no big deal.

Didnt someone post the guys real name, or his twitter account or his hendon mob page at some stage, maybe ironside can remind me which it was as I think he was monitoring the thread at the time, obv all fine to do over a hand of poker in your world the Alex?

[George2Loose]

So just because u don't know mantis u can't be bullying skol together? Think reasoned argument has gone out of the window and ur both just reading what u want to read and now seemingly picking at every clause someone has put in their staking thread. If u don't like- don't buy.

[nirvana]

Less hand wringing about peoples motivations and 'why oh why, wailing' and more direct confrontations please, this thread is dying

[FUN4FRASER]

Makes me laugh thou how it's praise for Boss Hogg Dubai and Rosco P Coltrane Trigg but I get patronising 'yawn' cos I'm that lowly mechanic one, think his name was Cooter. Yo, then you accuse me of starting the argument. Drawing dead imo. gg.

Quite Incredible Writing   

[FUN4FRASER]

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.

Only surpassed by this