Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[tikay]

^ The Tikay bit winning yes  

It would have been more gracious & decent if you'd at least given it a whole minute before spotting the tiny flaw in the plan......

[Woodsey]

^ The Tikay bit winning yes  

It would have been more gracious & decent if you'd at least given it a whole minute before spotting the tiny flaw in the plan......

 

[millidonk]

Even though I am completely pro caveat and firmly in the 'nobody is forcing you to buy' camp, this is just to give Dan another possibility.

Horse snap sells out @1.2 for 20 decent events, people who couldn't get in say they would have paid at a higher mark up etc.

Horse binks in the first event he plays. He buys back the chunks sold.

Say he just binked enough to buy them back, he could now re-sell at a higher mark up if those are still interested therefore +ev for horse.

If he binks big, He could then do a chunk in/ brick next 9 comps and decide to resell package which again is +ev for horse.

[bobAlike]

It's very naive thinking if you think this ambiguous caveat could never be abused.

They're running out of bullets folks, down to the personal stuff!

We can do this.

Feel free to find me a scenario where it is +EV for the horse to abuse the clause in some way

Naive and misguided lol

[DMorgan]

It's very naive thinking if you think this ambiguous caveat could never be abused.

They're running out of bullets folks, down to the personal stuff!

We can do this.

Feel free to find me a scenario where it is +EV for the horse to abuse the clause in some way

Horse puts a package of 20 wsop events with buy back clause.

Stakers buy package

Horse busts first 15 events

Horse buys 50% of tkay in seniors event

Tikays wins seniors

Horse exercising buyout clause

Horse wins bracelet in event 18 of package

Lots of pissed stakers.



You think this scenario is unrealistic?

This is exactly the same as him winning chunk at craps or whatever else - the horse has not indicated anywhere that money accumulated outside the package counts towards his buyout figure. He guarantees stakers a big return before he buys any action back.

Its not +EV for the horse to do it. If the investors thought he was too big a risk, the package wouldn't sell out so the markup would fall until it does sell out. The risk of the horse doing something irrational and taking off with the money isn't what we're discussing but this risk is factored into the markup - the stakers know that there is a flight risk with every horse. Sometimes they get it wrong and a guy that intends to roll the investors sells out at a high price and the investors get stung, investors will re-evaluate how much they factor flight risk into their buying decisions and will likely demand lower prices which as earlier they are not in a position to do - the scammer will just go to a different forum/marketplace to sell. Hence why its so important that scammers get the maximum exposure and can't sting other forums/marketplaces

[skolsuper]

I do wish people would stop putting words in my mouth. I''m not "going round telling people" this or that, and certainly haven't been telling people off because I think they're -EV. I decided to post in staking threads with OPs that don't contain enough information for people to assess and haven't commented on anyone's EV one way or the other, except maybe a little rant at jcgblack . For example in Sean's thread for cash games, which didn't look like going well at first, I just said he should probably include a graph of his results, he did and that improved the proposal so that people could judge how much it was likely to cost them and how much they were likely to make, and hey presto, he got some good interest.

In this thread, bobalike&camel raised a concern and I posted that I think the clause is a good idea to avoid problems down the line, in my opinion of course. Now, according to bobby1, I'm telling people to stop asking questions. After camel seemed to accept my point, lildave, Flushy and others had posted, and the discussion seemed to be progressing productively, mantis turns up quoting my post and having a massive go at me and Chris, taking a diametrically opposite view to the one he had just 2 months ago in the last major staking debate, with the sole intent of causing an argument. This is what mantis does, he is going to basically repeat the same concerns that camel and bobalike first had, without conceding any arguments to the contrary, until people go blue in the face trying to argue with him. If you engage with mantis on his level it will just lead to boredom and frustration, which I guess is what he wants for some reason. So I wanted him to admit he was posting for the sole purpose of causing an argument so that people wouldn't fall for it. Obviously judging from the last 14 pages or so it didn't work . The discussion hasn't even been moved forward, in my next post after the one mantis ripped into, I added that I would have concerns if the clause became standard that it would be open to abuse, and lildave reasoned that out fully a few posts later iirc. We're going round in circles now, and have been for 12 pages, and this is why greekstein rightly says mantis is a terrible poster.

But yeah, there is the James Keys that bobby1 and mantis see, that apparently goes around telling people he doesn't like that they can't post staking threads and they should just shut up and buy in his friends, and there is the James Keys in the real world outside their heads that has contributed sensibly to nearly every staking debate, would like issues to be discussed and for there to be transparency in OPs, has bought and sold in decent amounts in a large number of different staking threads without issue and just doesn't want to talk to mantis.

[The Camel]

It's very naive thinking if you think this ambiguous caveat could never be abused.

They're running out of bullets folks, down to the personal stuff!

We can do this.

Feel free to find me a scenario where it is +EV for the horse to abuse the clause in some way

Horse puts a package of 20 wsop events with buy back clause.

Stakers buy package

Horse busts first 15 events

Horse buys 50% of tkay in seniors event

Tikays wins seniors

Horse exercising buyout clause

Horse wins bracelet in event 18 of package

Lots of pissed stakers.



You think this scenario is unrealistic?

This is exactly the same as him winning chunk at craps or whatever else - the horse has not indicated anywhere that money accumulated outside the package counts towards his buyout figure. He guarantees stakers a big return before he buys any action back.

Its not +EV for the horse to do it. If the investors thought he was too big a risk, the package wouldn't sell out so the markup would fall until it does sell out. The risk of the horse doing something irrational and taking off with the money isn't what we're discussing but this risk is factored into the markup - the stakers know that there is a flight risk with every horse. Sometimes they get it wrong and a guy that intends to roll the investors sells out at a high price and the investors get stung, investors will re-evaluate how much they factor flight risk into their buying decisions and will likely demand lower prices which as earlier they are not in a position to do - the scammer will just go to a different forum/marketplace to sell. Hence why its so important that scammers get the maximum exposure and can't sting other forums/marketplaces

I missed the post where it was indicated that the bink had to be part of the stake in order for the buy back clause was to be exercised. There is certainly no mention in the OP. It may be implied, but it isn't explicited stated.

[millidonk]

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

Few people got some soul searching to do today I reckon. 

[jakally]

I missed the post where it was indicated that the bink had to be part of the stake in order for the buy back clause was to be exercised. There is certainly no mention in the OP. It may be implied, but it isn't explicited stated.

If this was the case, do you think the caveat would be ok, in most instances?

[The Camel]

I missed the post where it was indicated that the bink had to be part of the stake in order for the buy back clause was to be exercised. There is certainly no mention in the OP. It may be implied, but it isn't explicited stated.

If this was the case, do you think the caveat would be ok, in most instances?

I wouldn't buy a share if this caveat existed in a staking request, but I think it's much more acceptable.

[Girgy85]

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

Few people got some soul searching to do today I reckon. 

<3 Milligan

[smashedagain]

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

Few people got some soul searching to do today I reckon. 

Lol I told you I'm the garden with the kids. If I can get em to put their trunks back on I'll post a pic. Hey guess what Dave. Took em to the hair dressers for a trim yesterday and because I had my nephew the boys decided they wanted short hair.

[littlemissC]

So many heroes itt some comedy moments also some cringe worthy ones lol

Fwiw think both sides have put points across very well at times and been equally childish too(makes a good read though)

BOB for sure

More importantly gl to Bram in Vegas

[GreekStein]

However, just becuase we trust Chris not to do this, doesn't mean there aren't lots of players who wouldn't.

That is why this debate is so important imo.

So we don't agree that the horse has no incentive to do something shady like this? Pissing people off the relatively small field of investors for this size package is so so -EV for the horse and he's not even taking back money, its EV and he's likely to just do his money in anyway over the span of 20 big-field MTTs.

I just don't think that theres any way that a logically thinking horse would do this and if someone tried to sell who was deemed to be a risk to pull this, he wouldn't get through the checks and balances of the investors anyway.

This is very naive.

Almost 100% of grims are -ev for the person doing the dirty deed.

When a famous players stole 20k (or whatever it was) from the Vic, causing him to be banned from every casino in the land, do you think he thought through his actions thoroughly?

Yes, he was 20k better off, but his reputation was tarnished forever and his future earning capacity (if he's a winning player) has been undermined forever.

Poker players tend to do stuff which benefit them for the present, with little or no thought for the future.

That isn't correct Keith.

When it happened, the player was just banned from one group of casinos that didn't really have too much of an effect on his earning capacity.

At the time, it way more than doubled his bankroll. Yes his reputation was tarnished amongst those who don't know him but he's easily in the top 3 people in poker I trust. Might be loud and lairy but has been so awesome to me for many years.

Sometimes people have no option but to consider short term EV even if it can negatively affect long term EV.

[DMorgan]

Who the hell is banning it? No way to ban it, some are just saying they don't like it that's all.

They're not just saying that they don't like it - obviously that is their right to an opinion and whether its true or not is irrelevant.

They are saying that this clause is a step too far in the horses favour and is unfair on the stakers which surely means looking for ways to stop it?