Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[Woodsey]

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?

There is no way to stop it, they are just hoping by expressing their views people will think twice before putting it in requests.

[millidonk]

Lol Jase, it's about time. Im guessing the Bieber tribute band has been disbanded now then? I went shopping first thing, bought some flowers, dug up some grass, then just been letting the Missus plant em while I chill on the sun lounger, reading blonde and sucking on ice lollies. We really need to calm it down!

[The Camel]

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.

If my bankroll was zero, I still wouldn't steal 20 grand froma casino.

You know him better than I ever will, and I believe what you say about him.

But if he put up a staking request on here, I wouldn't buy a piece.

[DMorgan]

lol I know I shouldn't reply to the more trolly posts but this is a short one

Problem with longterm +EV stats in tournament staking is they only show what a buyer can expect over a long period of time. The horse is already using those stats to convince the buyer to take a short term gamble over a few weeks during the wsop. Does variance even out in poker over a coupla weeks? But sure enough, if those stats are good it will encourage buyers to take on the gamble. But in fact when the horse realises the deck is hitting him in the face he will be gone. So the buyer has gambled a short term rush will happen when in fact that is never going to happen, not for the buyer at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy#Reverse_fallacy

It's a series of individual comps dressed up as a package.

Your most informed post in this thread

So why call it a package?

Less admin, same result for the horse and it still snap sells out so theres obviously excess demand

[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?

yawn.

Read my opening post which you tearfully describe as "having a massive go at me and Chris". I mean wtf is your drama queen behaviour all about James? Complaining people are putting words in your mouth is pretty ironic. Just like posting at this time of day when you should be seriously contemplating getting a life instead. I've made a series of sensible and coherent points in this discussion but it's clear you are the one looking for an argument. Look at your intial response. Look at ur lack of contribution about staking caveats itt. I can't deny my side action was to see how you would respond if I followed your great speak up advice. Did me no favours I can tell you.

[MANTIS01]

Btw I think DMorgan is doing a good job battling away on his own. Seriously mean that.

[DMorgan]

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.

They're just separate packages. Once the horse buys back his action thats it, package over enjoy your money. The re-sell is still +EV for backers and while you may not like it as an investor in the original package that misses out on the second one he knows he's for sure going to sell out because people have already committed to it at the higher price.

If an investor chooses to retain an emotional attachment to a tournament that they no longer have action in thats up to them. Not really any reason for the horse to care now that he has a bunch of names that will buy at a higher price anyway.


That isn't to say that its not somewhat scummy. I wouldn't do it personally but thats a bankroll management decision - I would never commit to buying back unless I could afford to. Obviously not everyone takes that approach and some will fall foul of this situation but imo its still absolutely fine to re-sell your action. It seems pretty standard for people to give their original investors first refusal on taking the same piece again and I definitely think that the horse should do this to minimise the risk of future put off investors.

[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.

They're just separate packages. Once the horse buys back his action thats it, package over enjoy your money. The re-sell is still +EV for backers and while you may not like it as an investor in the original package that misses out on the second one he knows he's for sure going to sell out because people have already committed to it at the higher price.

If an investor chooses to retain an emotional attachment to a tournament that they no longer have action in thats up to them. Not really any reason for the horse to care now that he has a bunch of names that will buy at a higher price anyway.


That isn't to say that its not somewhat scummy. I wouldn't do it personally but thats a bankroll management decision - I would never commit to buying back unless I could afford to. Obviously not everyone takes that approach and some will fall foul of this situation but imo its still absolutely fine to re-sell your action. It seems pretty standard for people to give their original investors first refusal on taking the same piece again and I definitely think that the horse should do this to minimise the risk of future put off investors.

Yea, good point, so it wouldn't be abusing the clause, as due to the caveat being in place they just become two individual packages, if it wasn't in place then the horse wouldn't necessarily be able to buy back their action and thus wouldn't be able to make more on a separate package, so it just re-affirming how the clause is +ev for the horse to have from the start but not an indication of how they could abuse it. I know that's just how it is, but I'm pretty sure a lot of investors would be upset.

I agree that it would be pretty scummy to do and I don't think there are many around who would do it tbh.

[DMorgan]

Btw I think DMorgan is doing a good job battling away on his own. Seriously mean that.

You done with me now or anything else you want to share?

[DMorgan]

Not being allowed to have a discussion in case value is lost from the board or whatever is like somebody picking up their football and flouncing home.

Can you explain how so? IMO increasing the value of the board and therefore the prosperity of both buyers and sellers is the whole point of the board existing?

Actually before you go can I have an answer for this one?

[MANTIS01]

Not being allowed to have a discussion in case value is lost from the board or whatever is like somebody picking up their football and flouncing home.

Can you explain how so? IMO increasing the value of the board and therefore the prosperity of both buyers and sellers is the whole point of the board existing?

Actually before you go can I have an answer for this one?

Np. Having a discussion about something and deciding about something are different DMorgan.

[DMorgan]

This is getting ludicrous.  Nobody was proposing a ban on the clause, we were having a discussion.  You're assertion that this clause didn't make any less likely people would invest was wrong.  I stated up the thread that this clause was enough to put me off.    

As a prospective buyer, I am perfectly entitled to ask for information, and I guess he is perfectly entitled to refuse it.  As it is we got a bit of clarification higher up the thread.

Likewise, nobody has asked for a sicknote and for people to sign a register before they play.  I just kind of expect the basic courtesies:  Just let me know if you can't play, then pay me back pretty sharpish when you can't play/do a win.  Just let me know when you are out etc.  I don't need a 10 page trip report etc, though it would be nice to get an update of sorts.

You also stated that the sellers could just go elsewhere, so having discussions like this was bad for buyers, as "we" could lose tens of thousands of EV through a discussion.  I don't know where you have been, but if the average recent proposal has been +EV, never mind +tens of thousand of EV, I'd be massively surprised.  

To me the board has tipped too far in the direction of the sellers, and this kind of clause isn't going to make it better.   Options have a value, and the more they are tipped towards the seller, then the bigger value they have.  I do this much of the day in my day job, and much of the rest of the time is sorting out the mess caused by people who didn't realise these options had a value.

Anyway, discussing it any further isn't the best way to react to this, there are always plenty of other ways I can spend my money.  My wife will be pleased.

Doobs

What are you going to do if you don't ban it? Ask nicely?

I never said that the inclusion of a buy back clause would not put off investors. This clause increases the price of the package which decreases demand. Of course you are allowed to ask the standard questions, but asking questions that de-value that package is -EV for everyone. Copied from a few pages ago, explanation of why forcing the horse to provide a $ amount at which he buys back shares is a negative freeroll for investors.

I completely agree with you that horses should respect their investors money and play well, turn up on time and no hungover etc. but not sure how this discussion is relevant to whether or not we should be looking to avoid a situation where buy back clauses become standard.

It is simple economics. When investors demand more information this lowers the price of the package because the horse now can't choose when to invoke the clause and that is actually a negative freeroll for the horse.


With forced disclosure of information, either:

A) The horse cashes for less than the figure that the investors require to buy back his action
B) The horse cashes for more than the magic number and buys back his action, everyone has won chunk
C) The horse cashes for more than the magic number but does in half his share playing cash games. He now doesn't think he can afford to buy back the action - investors realised it was a silly clause say thats fine, they get to keep the rest of the package because its +EV for them to have the horse keep playing

Without forced disclosure, either:
A) The horse cashes for less than the figure that he had in mind to buy back his action
B) The horse cashes for more than the figure that he had in mind to buy back his action, everyone wins chunk
C) The horse cashes for more than the magic number but does in half his share playing cash games. He decides to stay on the stake, as above

You see how it changes nothing? There is no increase EV for the transaction. The only possible other outcome is that the horse refuses to drop the price by disclosing and instead sells elsewhere, hence the investors lose a chunk of EV.

Just off the top of my head I can think of quite a few that probably had an EV > $10k. There were tons of SCOOP schedules, couple of WSOP packages, a few Aussie Millions packages, Dubai in Monte Carlo, Alex in Campione, lildave in LA and there are probably more.

As for the market having tipped too far in the direction of the sellers -  that is all of blondes making. There are just so many buyers now that prices can only go up. One day this natural market process will see a very respected player not sell out a package because the markup is too high. Only then can sellers start making demands that lower the value of the package. Otherwise they will just sell elsewhere.

[DMorgan]

Not being allowed to have a discussion in case value is lost from the board or whatever is like somebody picking up their football and flouncing home.

Can you explain how so? IMO increasing the value of the board and therefore the prosperity of both buyers and sellers is the whole point of the board existing?

Actually before you go can I have an answer for this one?

Np. Having a discussion about something and deciding about something are different DMorgan.

gg wp ul

[TightEnd]

"As for the market having tipped too far in the direction of the sellers -  that is all of blondes making."

Nope, blonde doesn't interfere in the marketplace, its a function of market forces...numbers of buyers on here and quality of players asking for staking

Until such time as supply of and demand for staking money from quality soruces equalises I would suppose staking package prices will trend upwards across, irrespective of caveats. 

[DMorgan]

By all of blondes making I mean the buyers on the forum. Lots of people wanting to buy hence rising prices.

I'm trying to keep the market free!