Issues Arising from Staking

[cambridgealex]

I think I can think a bit more clearly about things now, and will admit that I was perhaps being over sensitive last night about a few of your remarks Bobby.

I think there's a thin line between debating the issues of auctions etc and you personally attacking me over this auction. You were pretty borderline between these two things. It did feel personal, and it did feel like you suspected I was doing something underhand and using the process for my benefit. But I also concede that you do have the best interests of the staking board at heart, and that you do have a vested interest as you do sometimes buy yourself.

You haven't actually said that you believe me when I say I've tried to run the auction in the fairest manner possible and although it is open to abuse and dishonesty, you don't believe that was ever my intention. If you could say that, it'd mean a lot. The Camel and I don't see eye to eye over certain issues here, but we have fair and grown-up discussions, and I don't get the feeling he think I'm dishonest about these issues. Naive, immature and inexperienced perhaps, but not dishonest. You're the only person in this thread, in this forum even, that I think thinks of me as a dishonest person, and naturally, I don't like that much. Perhaps I'm wrong there too.

[George2Loose]

Bobby your really cynical! I honestly wouldn't stake anyone I didn't trust

[SuuPRlim]

Ive nearly posted a couple of times but not really known what to say.

I also think that bobby's posts haven't been offensive or even rude, I remember him saying on a couple of occasions that he "wasn't questioning your value in the tournament" nor was he suggesting that you would do anything shady or ever act in a manner that wasn't with the best intentions. I think you've kind of over-reacted a bit here Alex tbh.

Having said this, not too long ago I had a feeling that Phil had a bit of a resentment towards the younger poker guys, however, following a few exchanges with him I now don't think this at all , I think he just has quite an abrupt posting style, much like Keys' which is abso fine and I would assume just part of his personality.

[Junior Senior]

Wow. It's all got a bit tetchy on here. I am not going to comment on the auction format, anyone's value or the need for moderation as frankly I am bored of it and we have discussed it too much. People's opinions are going to differ and that is fine and people can sell and buy at rates they wish to. No one is being coerced or having a gun put to their heads.

I will add a character reference though. Phil Q aka Bobby 1 would not be deliberately rude or out of line and is a genuine nice bloke. Having met him several times and been on a few outings with him I know he wouldn't set out to troll at all. It's clearly something he feels strongly about and he maybe has been a little veciferous in his desire to get over his opinions.

Agree with Tightend here, let's try and discuss the facts and take out the emotion and feeling or personal attacks etc.

Peace

[pleno1]

fwiw, i previously fell out with Bobby over something silly, but think he comes across great and definitely like him a lot and he is huge asset to forum.

KUTGW mate.

[cambridgealex]

Although plenty of people have posted saying I'm right to be pissed off, there's plenty on the other side too, and I met Bobby in Vegas very briefly and he doesn't seem like a bad guy at all - On balance I think I did over react. I had some really difficult real-life issues to deal with over the past week or so and it's having an affect on everything at the moment. So apologies for letting that get to me here and for some hasty and oversensitive reactions.

[DMorgan]

The yellow card system seems pretty harsh. Sometimes there is perfectly valid reason to miss a tournament through illness, tiredness/jetlag etc. Yes it does leave it open to abuse but it isn't easy for the backers to differentiate. If someone wants to screw the stakers over by going that route then unless you start wanting doctors notes or phone calls to a mod as some sort of proof, there isn't any way to stop it.

It is very easy to invest on blonde with almost zero flight risk. Just buy from the people that are known in person. Blondes aren't often flying solo at events either since most are DTD tournaments or big tour events where it is very easy to see who played and who didn't.

Stickying threads until either the player puts up a tournament report or until all investors are paid seems like a sensible idea. This is the sort of thing that I see a staking board mod doing, not pricing up which packages people should be buying. I think that a feedback thread for anyone that sells on the staking board would also be a good idea. If any changes are to be made, I think that these would be the most constructive.


 

[bobby1]

I think I can think a bit more clearly about things now, and will admit that I was perhaps being over sensitive last night about a few of your remarks Bobby.

I think there's a thin line between debating the issues of auctions etc and you personally attacking me over this auction. You were pretty borderline between these two things. It did feel personal, and it did feel like you suspected I was doing something underhand and using the process for my benefit. But I also concede that you do have the best interests of the staking board at heart, and that you do have a vested interest as you do sometimes buy yourself.

You haven't actually said that you believe me when I say I've tried to run the auction in the fairest manner possible and although it is open to abuse and dishonesty, you don't believe that was ever my intention. If you could say that, it'd mean a lot. The Camel and I don't see eye to eye over certain issues here, but we have fair and grown-up discussions, and I don't get the feeling he think I'm dishonest about these issues. Naive, immature and inexperienced perhaps, but not dishonest. You're the only person in this thread, in this forum even, that I think thinks of me as a dishonest person, and naturally, I don't like that much. Perhaps I'm wrong there too.

Thanks for the reply

seriously Alex, I do not think you are dishonest. I don't think you are anywhere near that. I would not hesitate to buy a share in you if I thought the stake was good.

I just have issues with the way staking/staking threads are going and in that discussion your thread entered the debate, I had reservations about it and that was the spot to air them.

I really am worried and a bit concerned that some day soon there is going to be a big problem as a result of the staking board and some people I think the world of might have an almighty headache on their hands.  If at the end of the day we get some safeguards in place then that is good for everyone.


 imo it turns over too much money a month to be run under caveat emptor with a 'self management' approach. I spoke via pm to Tighty yesterday and some of the things we chatted about might start the ball rolling, there will be things that some people haven't considered and between us we might nail some regulations.

I just pressed the post button and your last reply is underneath it, there is no need to apologise, I come from a work background where most of the daily convo's were heated and animated due to time and how expensive they could be if we got it wrong. I sometimes type in that bullet form style too which is not always a good thing.The one rule that we always worked to is that once the dust has settled we never let the disagreements linger and we all went for a pint and a laugh.

cheers

I just noticed Dave said the same thing about the style of response so I need to take that on board.

thanks

pps, I just read the later posts and now I am worried, thanks for the kind words Junoir and Pleno, are you hitting on me?
 

[cambridgealex]

The one thing that I still don't get...Why on earth is this discussion in this thread not in the excellent "Issues arising from Staking" thread?!

I think it should all get moved.

[TightEnd]

done.

[Junior Senior]

I think I can think a bit more clearly about things now, and will admit that I was perhaps being over sensitive last night about a few of your remarks Bobby.

I think there's a thin line between debating the issues of auctions etc and you personally attacking me over this auction. You were pretty borderline between these two things. It did feel personal, and it did feel like you suspected I was doing something underhand and using the process for my benefit. But I also concede that you do have the best interests of the staking board at heart, and that you do have a vested interest as you do sometimes buy yourself.

You haven't actually said that you believe me when I say I've tried to run the auction in the fairest manner possible and although it is open to abuse and dishonesty, you don't believe that was ever my intention. If you could say that, it'd mean a lot. The Camel and I don't see eye to eye over certain issues here, but we have fair and grown-up discussions, and I don't get the feeling he think I'm dishonest about these issues. Naive, immature and inexperienced perhaps, but not dishonest. You're the only person in this thread, in this forum even, that I think thinks of me as a dishonest person, and naturally, I don't like that much. Perhaps I'm wrong there too.

Thanks for the reply

seriously Alex, I do not think you are dishonest. I don't think you are anywhere near that. I would not hesitate to buy a share in you if I thought the stake was good.

I just have issues with the way staking/staking threads are going and in that discussion your thread entered the debate, I had reservations about it and that was the spot to air them.

I really am worried and a bit concerned that some day soon there is going to be a big problem as a result of the staking board and some people I think the world of might have an almighty headache on their hands.  If at the end of the day we get some safeguards in place then that is good for everyone.


 imo it turns over too much money a month to be run under caveat emptor with a 'self management' approach. I spoke via pm to Tighty yesterday and some of the things we chatted about might start the ball rolling, there will be things that some people haven't considered and between us we might nail some regulations.

I just pressed the post button and your last reply is underneath it, there is no need to apologise, I come from a work background where most of the daily convo's were heated and animated due to time and how expensive they could be if we got it wrong. I sometimes type in that bullet form style too which is not always a good thing.The one rule that we always worked to is that once the dust has settled we never let the disagreements linger and we all went for a pint and a laugh.

cheers

I just noticed Dave said the same thing about the style of response so I need to take that on board.

thanks

pps, I just read the later posts and now I am worried, thanks for the kind words Junoir and Pleno, are you hitting on me?
 

Haha, youre a little different to my usual type.

I just tell it as it is mate, everyone knows where they stand then. I am on the side of truth and justice

[cambridgealex]

About missing tournaments that you've sold action for. It's a tricky subject and I don't think having a rule on it would be possible as there's so many grey areas. There's so many spots where it's really obvious that missing the tournament is the clear choice e.g. Food poisoning, player has been up all night vomiting and still is with 10 minutes to go until late reg ends. There's also spots where it's obvious the player is taking the piss. E.g. "Decided to fade the comp. getting smashed with the boys instead" is not on. If there was a rule about this, it'd just result in lies and there'd never be a way of policing it: E.g. player gets smashed and misses comp, if he owns up he's banned from the staking board, hmmm nah, food poisoning again lads.

I sold for a package in Vegas this summer, 8 tournaments. There were days I felt like I'd quite like to have a day off poker. Nothing serious, mainly poker fatigue or tilt, just wanting a day off/break. It creates a dilemma because you don't want to disappoint your backers and take the piss - you want to give them value for their money, give them a chance to get out of it if you're knocking it in so far, yet you feel that you wouldn't play your best and that's also not what the backers want.

Maybe instead of refunding events not played, horses should be forced to play other similar events and a different time. E.g. Player sells for 7 $1ks and only plays 5. He must play ~$2ks worth of events at a different time. Perhaps two £700 UKIPTs or whatever he choses and the backers agree to. Just a thought.

[smashedagain]

Just to put my   in Bobby/Phil is definatly one of the good guys and don't like seeing him ripped apart by the pack. All mates stick together which is the right attitude to have but he is making many excellent and valid points.  I have to say I don't agree with some of them as I like supply and demand to dictate the price but his honesty and integratiy can't be questions surely.

Edit. Well not until Camel comes along and says I got it all wrong again and he is actually a crook

[TL900]

The yellow card system seems pretty harsh. Sometimes there is perfectly valid reason to miss a tournament through illness, tiredness/jetlag etc. Yes it does leave it open to abuse but it isn't easy for the backers to differentiate. If someone wants to screw the stakers over by going that route then unless you start wanting doctors notes or phone calls to a mod as some sort of proof, there isn't any way to stop it.

It is very easy to invest on blonde with almost zero flight risk. Just buy from the people that are known in person. Blondes aren't often flying solo at events either since most are DTD tournaments or big tour events where it is very easy to see who played and who didn't.

Stickying threads until either the player puts up a tournament report or until all investors are paid seems like a sensible idea. This is the sort of thing that I see a staking board mod doing, not pricing up which packages people should be buying. I think that a feedback thread for anyone that sells on the staking board would also be a good idea. If any changes are to be made, I think that these would be the most constructive.


 

all this imo.

Maybe instead of refunding events not played, horses should be forced to play other similar events and a different time. E.g. Player sells for 7 $1ks and only plays 5. He must play ~$2ks worth of events at a different time. Perhaps two £700 UKIPTs or whatever he choses and the backers agree to. Just a thought.

And this.

Overall though If you don't buy from complete unknowns (without references) there shouldn't be much of a problem.

[DMorgan]

I really think that your goals are just unrealistic bobby. You're trying to create a sterile environment where everybody has been background checked, everyone has references and everyone is putting up great value packages. I would love for that to be the case. It'd make all of our lives a lot easier.

In reality the marginal* benefit of making changes to move towards that are just not great enough to justify the number of man hours it would take to set that up and to maintain it. If the prevailing opinion of the board was that the marginal benefits outweighed the costs then the biggest backers would be queueing up to invest hours of their time because it would be worth their while. Winning poker players are among the best at being able to see things in terms of the long run and even then, I just don't see the benefit of regulation even though I will probably still be active on the blonde staking board years into the future.

Could it do with some tinkering? Yeah sure it could and my last post mentions a couple of changes that I think would be easy to implement and would be beneficial.

*marginal the economic definition