Issues Arising from Staking

[Simon Galloway]

There are two levels of staking taking place simultaneously which clouds the issue to some extent.  And I'm going to try and go through this without naming names or giving actual examples just to keep this from being personal.

There are the group of forumites that think they are staking when in fact they are simply punting.  They are probably getting the worst of it when paying high markups, but paying 1.6 for someone (without dissecting their ability, the event, actual tax, "clown's tax" (i.e. a discount to factor in the likelihood the stakee does something stupid) but if they are taking 5% as a punt, I doubt it is any worse than walking into a bookies and betting 20 quid a race for an afternoon.  And obv I'm not breaking out the EV calcs to prove it.  Generally, where high markups have been paid, most of it is taken by guys taking small punts, backing mates, etc (even if they don't think they are) and the group of backers that do it somewhat fulltime are usually nowhere to be seen.  But I would never try and talk someone out of having a $100 crack at winning $5k+ regardless of whether it is a good spot or not.  Everyone likes to have action, to some degree, a chance of a nice sweat and a half-decent cop.

The backers that silently miss the auction/staking thread represent the other group.  Heavy duty or even full-time backers. They will take on spots where they believe to be +EV with acceptable variance to them and that is pretty much that.  Within that group, you will still see enough divergence of opinion to have disagreements and variance in price evaluations.

So the argument that "the market dictates" the right price doesn't completely hold true for me.  What is happening often in these threads is that there are enough punters to pretty much sell out most threads at most prices, within reason (and often beyond reason, imo)  It doesn't mean that we have arrived at a perfect price equilibrium, just that those seeking stakes are definitely getting the best of it at the moment due to the glut of punters that just want to get on.  A couple of binks will elongate the lifetime of this purple patch for stakees, but eventually, people will get bored of paying 1.6 on a regular basis.  That might take quite a long time to come about.

[Magic817]

As requested thought I would post more....

Not a big fan of the yellow card.  On a couple of occasions I have staked Dubai modestly and he has not played a tournament for whatever reason but tbh if he doesn't want to play it for almost any reason I would rather he didn't than played and just flicked it in.  Sometimes that may mean I lose out on a bit of EV but I am comfortable with that.  Also think the delayed payments would need to be dealt with carefully.  Iirc it took Keys a while to get the money to everyone after his Aussie bink because of various different issues that were pretty much out of his control.

I agree with redarmi about the yellow card for not playing being a bad idea, if I stake someone and they aren't in the right frame of mind then I don't want them playing. However if someone drops out consistently then I would reconsider whether I wanted to back them and potential stakers need to know this information. Again if there are historic issues with people getting payment potential stakees need to know this. This can include comments such as delayed payment due to xyz but kept informed....or took 2months and told me nothing! As stated previously, this could all be in a thread so people can view and have increased information to make their adult decision about whether to risk their money. 

On staking requests (mainly when people are playing live events overseas) could people not have to add details about repayment/how they plan to get the money exchanged. There have been some instances of people getting a bad exchange rate/using slow methods of getting payment. These details are important as it effects the ROI/investment decision.

[DMorgan]

All of the stuff about whether the horse played or not and how to proceed with it is all the sort of stuff that could go in that players feedback thread

[TightEnd]

Simon, as there are some market factors at work beyond simply "value"

Would you interfere with this process (can you interfere with it), in terms of price setting, or merely wait for the factors to disssipate and equilibrium prices move towards something more realistically equating to EV?

[Magic817]

Posted this on the other page before the posts were moved to this thread

As requested thought I would post more....

Not a big fan of the yellow card.  On a couple of occasions I have staked Dubai modestly and he has not played a tournament for whatever reason but tbh if he doesn't want to play it for almost any reason I would rather he didn't than played and just flicked it in.  Sometimes that may mean I lose out on a bit of EV but I am comfortable with that.  Also think the delayed payments would need to be dealt with carefully.  Iirc it took Keys a while to get the money to everyone after his Aussie bink because of various different issues that were pretty much out of his control.

I agree with redarmi about the yellow card for not playing being a bad idea, if I stake someone and they aren't in the right frame of mind then I don't want them playing. However if someone drops out consistently then I would reconsider whether I wanted to back them and potential stakers need to know this information. Again if there are historic issues with people getting payment potential stakees need to know this. This can include comments such as delayed payment due to xyz but kept informed....or took 2months and told me nothing! As stated previously, this could all be in a thread so people can view and have increased information to make their adult decision about whether to risk their money. 

On staking requests (mainly when people are playing live events overseas) could people not have to add details about repayment/how they plan to get the money exchanged. There have been some instances of people getting a bad exchange rate/using slow methods of getting payment. These details are important as it effects the ROI/investment decision.

[PizzicatoXev]

You may know there is/has been a problem recently with someone that there should not have been a problem with, is it fair that this person can freely ask for stakes again without any note of this episode being added to their profile?

I truly believe this is a one off for this guy but the next time a stake is asked for it will probably get a different set of stakers and some of the current ones will swerve it because of the problems this time around. So if that stake goes wrong too then who has protected those people when many others on here would/could have prevented this?

Is it down to the people affected to 'out' the guy with all that entails or is there a responsibility to clamp down on this by the site providing the facility?

If its too much/alot of work to do to add an area within peoples profiles I think a 'staking feedback' thread similar to 2+2 negative feedback thread wouldn't be such a bad idea...

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.

In theory its a good idea but in practice its close to unenforceable...

Firstly, some investors may be somewhat annoyed/over it and just prefer money back instead.

Secondly, there may not always be similar events within a suitable time period and travel distance for a horse to be able to play... For instance if I got staked to play EPT London and got smashed the night before and ended up missing the tournament due to hangover/after effects etc would I be forced to travel to another EPT event and incur far greater expenses to do so? What about the guys who did Vegas packages and may have missed a tourney or two, especially in a mix game format...

I think its more than reasonable for a horse to offer to play a similar event and for investors to agree or disagree a they see fit but to require it would be a mistake

[pleno1]

The missing tournaments argument is so ridiculous.

What I you sell for a package where if you're day 2 you can't play the next day etc this is really common and just really tilting argument.

Ofc pay back with the mark up that's not even questionable.

[Simon Galloway]

Simon, as there are some market factors at work beyond simply "value"

Would you interfere with this process (can you interfere with it), in terms of price setting, or merely wait for the factors to disssipate and equilibrium prices move towards something more realistically equating to EV?

I am largely in the laissez-faire school on most things like this.  I don't think you can interfere or unduly influence the action of the price takers.  If someone is having the bailiffs come round shortly, they might be far more willing to pay 2.0 at auction for a "shit-or-bust" 30% of a player.  That is going to be unattractive to others, obviously, but I don't think there's anything anyone can do to "protect them from themselves" if they want to bid 2.0...

"simply value" is uncertain enough a concept as it is anyway!  I don't think, for example, that backing a 21 year old going to Vegas for the first time is usually a good idea.  Most people who have been to Vegas will know what I'm on about, every chance they go off the rails, do something stupid w.r.t. tax, FX, gambling, drinking, etc that whilst the player is masquerading as "I'm easily worth 1.6" I am likely to price that up as not worth 1.0.  Others won't come to the same valuation and I have no idea who is right and wrong, just my take is that there is enough recent evidence to suggest it is +0.6 for edge on the field, but -0.8 in clown's tax.  Others won't share that view, or may not have previously factored it in.  They are free to pay whatever premium they see fit.

[smashedagain]

The missing tournaments argument is so ridiculous.

What I you sell for a package where if you're day 2 you can't play the next day etc this is really common and just really tilting argument.

Ofc pay back with the mark up that's not even questionable.

What if it's a scam to feed the kids and then you don't pay it back til your giro comes ( do dole dossers still get a giro? )

[cambridgealex]

Yikes SG is a smart guy

[TightEnd]

Simon, as there are some market factors at work beyond simply "value"

Would you interfere with this process (can you interfere with it), in terms of price setting, or merely wait for the factors to disssipate and equilibrium prices move towards something more realistically equating to EV?

I am largely in the laissez-faire school on most things like this.  I don't think you can interfere or unduly influence the action of the price takers.  If someone is having the bailiffs come round shortly, they might be far more willing to pay 2.0 at auction for a "shit-or-bust" 30% of a player.  That is going to be unattractive to others, obviously, but I don't think there's anything anyone can do to "protect them from themselves" if they want to bid 2.0...

"simply value" is uncertain enough a concept as it is anyway!  I don't think, for example, that backing a 21 year old going to Vegas for the first time is usually a good idea.  Most people who have been to Vegas will know what I'm on about, every chance they go off the rails, do something stupid w.r.t. tax, FX, gambling, drinking, etc that whilst the player is masquerading as "I'm easily worth 1.6" I am likely to price that up as not worth 1.0.  Others won't come to the same valuation and I have no idea who is right and wrong, just my take is that there is enough recent evidence to suggest it is +0.6 for edge on the field, but -0.8 in clown's tax.  Others won't share that view, or may not have previously factored it in.  They are free to pay whatever premium they see fit.

thanks

So when it comes to regulation, or not..on issues like reputation threads/preventing those with questionable feedback posting on the staking board..how laissez faire on those sort of issues?

[cambridgealex]

The missing tournaments argument is so ridiculous.

What I you sell for a package where if you're day 2 you can't play the next day etc this is really common and just really tilting argument.

Ofc pay back with the mark up that's not even questionable.

No-ones questioning that? It's when players skip comps to get smashed, or cos they don't feel like it, or cos they're hungover from the night before etc etc. No-ones questioning the black and white spots.

[TightEnd]

The missing tournaments argument is so ridiculous.

What I you sell for a package where if you're day 2 you can't play the next day etc this is really common and just really tilting argument.

Ofc pay back with the mark up that's not even questionable.

No-ones questioning that? It's when players skip comps to get smashed, or cos they don't feel like it, or cos they're hungover from the night before etc etc. No-ones questioning the black and white spots.

exactly. Not playing because they are ill, or family issue or the plain vannilla reasons not to play is obviously fine

Phil quoted an example, which happened recently I gather, where someone was staked to play a weekend comp, did the lot on live cash and then cried off the comp, with subsequent payback uncertain

These sort of things, if proven/admitted to, are the issue for future use of staking board.

[Simon Galloway]

thanks

So when it comes to regulation, or not..on issues like reputation threads/preventing those with questionable feedback posting on the staking board..how laissez faire on those sort of issues?

I think any time there are unanswered issues from previous stakes, there should at a minimum be a warning label to that effect.  So many estimated inputs to the value calcs as it is, without imperfect information to boot.  People assume that "everyone is aware of his history" but that is rarely the case.  We have seen repeatedly that any individuals raising concerns like that get taken as highly antagonistic comments by OP.  Perhaps if there was a more faceless "still owes" stamp on the thread, it would be a useful service to anyone thinking of taking a piece.

[Simon Galloway]

Yikes SG is a smart guy

Thanks, but I failed big time in getting any of my previous employers to agree