Staking Thread caveats - debate thread.

[TightEnd]

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!

Yes, and you also have the UK's No 1 Online player, major live and Online title winners etc all asking to be staked on here so plenty of cash meets plenty of opportunities

Plus huge successes at WPT Dublin, Aussie Millions, DTD Monte Carlos etc from staking on here

The odd grim (very few compared to total stakes offered), but a very successful resource.

[MANTIS01]

So times are pretty good for horses on Blonde right now being able to snap sell out. How would some huge controversy kicking off affect the buoyancy of the seller's market DMorgan? Some buyers coming on saying they feel cheated or didn't read the last sentence of an op. Thinking they were paying for a package but in reality are left with no action after one comp and horse scooping the world. All very well saying read that last sentence down the bottom you mugs. Don't think that would be +EV for buyers or players ref the future value of the market.

[Girgy85]

So times are pretty good for horses on Blonde right now being able to snap sell out. How would some huge controversy kicking off affect the buoyancy of the seller's market DMorgan? Some buyers coming on saying they feel cheated or didn't read the last sentence of an op. Thinking they were paying for a package but in reality are left with no action after one comp and horse scooping the world. All very well saying read that last sentence down the bottom you mugs. Don't think that would be +EV for buyers or players ref the future value of the market.

Yea but mantis if the horse binks after first comp you still get a good return on your money before they sack off the package.

[MANTIS01]

lolol fckin love you Girgy

[Girgy85]

lolol fckin love you Girgy

Feeling is mutual xx

[outragous76]

<3 dmorgan

Oh and this

I think that there is another way of looking at this.

Just because everyone says call, including one of the best MTT grinders in the country, I'm not so sure. What we need to remember is that each of these chips has an inherent value, and we can happily wait for a better spot where we have our opponents crushed and get a far better price, rather than, "calling off in a spot where we need to hit to win". A good friend once told me, "you cant spend equity".

I mean, personally, what I would do in this spot, is take a wholly irrelevant life example and draw the thinnest possible comparison, to never quite commit either way, but have fools think that I have.  So here for example, its like when you are enjoying a beautiful steak from you favourite restaurant. You are quite full, but this is the best steak you have ever had, and you have 3 mouthfulls  left. You could force it all in, thereby reducing your equity (or utility), of the overall meal, but having made sure you got it all. You could on the other hand just leave it, feeling contented right now with your position, waiting say 10 minutes, and then realising you have room for desert too. OK there was lost equity with the steak, but now we are going to devour our favourite cheesecake in a much better spot than the last bit of steak, thereby increasing our overall utility from the experience.

I am definitely a cheesecake man myself. Don't get me wrong, i like steak, but i prefer to get it all in with cheesecake, knowing that once its all in, we can enjoy the result more and the extra on the bill doesn't hurt at all. You could say the cheesecake paid for itself.

[SuuPRlim]

Was Chris' caveat ambiguous?

Yes, a little perhaps, however, misleading it is NOT, it says that he reserves the right to buy his action back.

Should it become form, if caveats like this were to become more frequent, for slightly more information to be provided with it?

Yes. Maybe a slight reduction in the mark-up to accommodate the clause, so for example if 1% was $582 not $600 then Bram would be in effect PAYING (if he believes the correct price to be $600) for the privilege of having this clause in the package. Other fair options might be to say he will reserve the right to buy back at $630 for 1% - gt'ing the investors a 5% return risk free. Or to stipulate a more detailed analysis of when he would activate the clause - when 1% is worth $1,500 he reserves the right to buy back at the price he sold? This is all plcked out of thin air. I personally don't think bram's clause was in any way poor form, as I have said, but I defo see that making it "good common practice" for something like these ideas for these spots could be a good idea.

What do people have most issue with? The caveat it'self or the implementation of it?

I can't work the answer out to this

Who benefits from this caveat? (As DM asked)

The player benefits in the example with Bram, I personally think that's fine but I guess that is one of the biggest issues

[Is it a nagative freeroll for the buyers/b]

It is NOT, having the action in itself is (if you believe so) a positive investment, the risk of it being taken away does NOT affect the immediate EV, if you might or might not have 5% in a $1,500 it is still a good deal. It does however affect the overall EV of the package, this cannot be disputed, as MANTIS did actually nail (been quite a lot of waffle MANTIS, no ooffence) when he said that having 10% of 20 tourneys makes MORE MONEY IN EXPECTED RETURN, than having 10% of a shedule that on average will have 16 (accounting for the time he buys back) so this is why the caveat does DAMAGE the EV of purchasing the package, and prolly why it's ambiguity has caused this argument.

Dont forget though, that when Bram buys back, he is taking risks the same as you when you bought them,

Is Keys bossy?

I don't think so at all, He puts a lot of time into his posts not just spew words at the screen like me, so massive props for that. It is worth nting tho that he is extremely tall, whether or not this is relevant

[MANTIS01]

Yeah no offence, don't mind the waffling tag as it is true.

Fwiw I'm pretty sorry this Bram kid was dragged in. I never mentioned him or quoted him and took time to state a few times that I was talking about objective 'horses' and not him. Think it's like a twist of fate that this new caveat happened to be highlighted on his thread when it could just as easily have been the next one. It's kinda obvious this caveat is being talked about and considered by sellers so op was the victim of current fashion himself rather than having any dishonorable intent. Think people should stop mentioning the kid when talking about this caveat tbh. Is why I genuinely believe comment should be avoided in staking threads.

Btw I don't want to argue with anyone and pretty much stay away from PHA now to avoid this shit. But clearly I have an unhealthy willingness to do battle if needs be. Sorry for inconvenience. Having said that even thou it was a bloody conflict there was some incred laughs. "Sack off the package" is still making me lol.

[NigDawG]

Are you guys purposely trying to tilt the crap out of everyone?

Fwiw, it's worked incredibly well on me, so well done.

I've read hundreds of staking requests on here and 2+2 and elsewhere. I've bought shares in well over 100.

I have never seen this caveat before in any staking request.

I don't want this this caveat to become standard. Others obviously don't agree.

find it strange you've never seen it before in any staking request. il admit i can't remember seeing it on blonde, but it is fairly common to see "reserve the right to cancel" for packages on 2p2. i just worded it differently to imply i'd only do so after making profit on the package. apparently not enough for some people itt lol.

i just wanted to have the option open if it came to it lol. 18 pages later it still just boils down to buy/do not buy

[The Camel]

Are you guys purposely trying to tilt the crap out of everyone?

Fwiw, it's worked incredibly well on me, so well done.

I've read hundreds of staking requests on here and 2+2 and elsewhere. I've bought shares in well over 100.

I have never seen this caveat before in any staking request.

I don't want this this caveat to become standard. Others obviously don't agree.

find it strange you've never seen it before in any staking request. il admit i can't remember seeing it on blonde, but it is fairly common to see "reserve the right to cancel" for packages on 2p2. i just worded it differently to imply i'd only do so after making profit on the package. apparently not enough for some people itt lol.

i just wanted to have the option open if it came to it lol. 18 pages later it still just boils down to buy/do not buy

If you had said you might cancel only if the stakers had made a decent profit I doubt I would have got embroiled in this thread at all.

All I kept imagining was buying a stake in someone, losing 3/4 of my money, them cancelling the final 1/4 of the stake and then doing a massive bink.

You can see how tilting that would be for a staker, can't you?

[NigDawG]

yhyh ofcourse. oversight on my behalf for not realising it could be construed that way i guess.

[bobby1]

yhyh ofcourse. oversight on my behalf for not realising it could be construed that way i guess.

 
good luck in the tournaments you are playing in.

[SuuPRlim]

yhyh ofcourse. oversight on my behalf for not realising it could be construed that way i guess.

 
good luck in the tournaments you are playing in.

he's playing tournaments?

[claypole]

Most tilting thread ever IMHO. Good luck Bramm, win the world.

[MANTIS01]

It was the blatant double standards that was tilting for me.

However, now there's a seperate thread for these discussions there should be no need to comment in individual staking threads.