Issues Arising from Staking

[DMorgan]

Having a mod as some sort of arbitrator is moot because their decisions aren't enforceable. "So you're saying that I can either pay out $x or I get banned from the blonde staking board? Sweet. Cya."

Having clear and concise staking proposals is really what we're after but that is a good thing both for buyers and for sellers. When the desired outcome is of benefit to both parties, what we need is education not regulation. As it stands, the buyers know that having better quality staking threads is a good thing for them. You can see what you're buying and make an assessment as to its value pretty quickly.

Some sellers aren't on board yet as to why posting better quality proposals is good for them. Let people know that they will generate more interest in their proposal if it is clean and concise. Make it easier for sellers to create good quality proposals by bringing the FAQ and the template up to date then it seems like problem solved? Keys has been doing this for a little while and his contributions have had a big net positive effect on the forum imo. There have been very few junky, non-starter type threads that are much more likely to run into problems and even the quality of regular sellers posts have improved (mine included) compared to say a year ago.

The whole issue about caveats and auctions and stuff is ridiculous. If you don't like it then don't buy it. You can't dictate to sellers what you want their product to be.

[scotty77]

my opinion is that  the board is fine as it is.

think its also very unfair or people to band about possible names for these mods job too.  something like this will be quite time intensive, and not be paid.

[treefella]

Having a mod as some sort of arbitrator is moot because their decisions aren't enforceable. "So you're saying that I can either pay out $x or I get banned from the blonde staking board? Sweet. Cya."

Having clear and concise staking proposals is really what we're after but that is a good thing both for buyers and for sellers. When the desired outcome is of benefit to both parties, what we need is education not regulation. As it stands, the buyers know that having better quality staking threads is a good thing for them. You can see what you're buying and make an assessment as to its value pretty quickly.

Some sellers aren't on board yet as to why posting better quality proposals is good for them. Let people know that they will generate more interest in their proposal if it is clean and concise. Make it easier for sellers to create good quality proposals by bringing the FAQ and the template up to date then it seems like problem solved? Keys has been doing this for a little while and his contributions have had a big net positive effect on the forum       imo. There have been very few junky, non-starter type threads that are much more likely to run into problems and even the quality of regular sellers  posts have improved (mine included) compared to say a year ago                     


The whole issue about caveats and auctions and stuff is ridiculous. If you don't like it then don't buy it. You can't dictate to sellers what you want their product to be.

.       

Great post. 

[The Camel]

All this discussion seems a bit unnecessary.

The staking boards have been around for ~4 years and only one or two issues have really arisen in that time out of hundreds of threads.

I can think of 4 issues in the last month! (And another one is likely to hit the front page very soon, I believe)

Ok perhaps issues was a bad word. Whilst issues have been raised, I don't think they have affected the occurrence/outcome of a stake.

How many stakes have really gone wrong or needed any mediation that didn't involve betting on tennis, or involve someone called Fergus...

Well there are many different kinds of staking...

Taken me three hours, but finally get it.

 

[The Camel]

my opinion is that  the board is fine as it is.

think its also very unfair or people to band about possible names for these mods job too.  something like this will be quite time intensive, and not be paid.

He can say no.

[DMorgan]

There has been a number of disputes arising from staking posts recently.

I just thought having mod (s) would nip alot of these disputes/arguments in the bud.

Only disputes ive seen are from people poking their nose into staking threads that they have no intention of investing in, and quite frankly just being nosey and obstructive.
Staking threads are so dependant on the market forces that will always decide if they are good or bad value. Ridic that a mod should interfere or anyone else that is not a genuine investor IMHO.

This but its human nature unfortunately.

[The Camel]

Having a mod as some sort of arbitrator is moot because their decisions aren't enforceable. "So you're saying that I can either pay out $x or I get banned from the blonde staking board? Sweet. Cya."

Having clear and concise staking proposals is really what we're after but that is a good thing both for buyers and for sellers. When the desired outcome is of benefit to both parties, what we need is education not regulation. As it stands, the buyers know that having better quality staking threads is a good thing for them. You can see what you're buying and make an assessment as to its value pretty quickly.

Some sellers aren't on board yet as to why posting better quality proposals is good for them. Let people know that they will generate more interest in their proposal if it is clean and concise. Make it easier for sellers to create good quality proposals by bringing the FAQ and the template up to date then it seems like problem solved? Keys has been doing this for a little while and his contributions have had a big net positive effect on the forum imo. There have been very few junky, non-starter type threads that are much more likely to run into problems and even the quality of regular sellers posts have improved (mine included) compared to say a year ago.

The whole issue about caveats and auctions and stuff is ridiculous. If you don't like it then don't buy it. You can't dictate to sellers what you want their product to be.

The way I see it, it's inevitable that a big issue occurs sooner or later.

Was just trying to think of ways to make this as unlikely as possible.

Maybe a mod isn't the right thing.

But surely having a TMay style fiasco is the worst thing possible.

Aggressive modding could have averted that issue easily.

TMay made an ambiguous statement in his proposal. A mod could have asked for clarification and it would never have become a problem.

[GreekStein]

Having a mod as some sort of arbitrator is moot because their decisions aren't enforceable. "So you're saying that I can either pay out $x or I get banned from the blonde staking board? Sweet. Cya."

Having clear and concise staking proposals is really what we're after but that is a good thing both for buyers and for sellers. When the desired outcome is of benefit to both parties, what we need is education not regulation. As it stands, the buyers know that having better quality staking threads is a good thing for them. You can see what you're buying and make an assessment as to its value pretty quickly.

Some sellers aren't on board yet as to why posting better quality proposals is good for them. Let people know that they will generate more interest in their proposal if it is clean and concise. Make it easier for sellers to create good quality proposals by bringing the FAQ and the template up to date then it seems like problem solved? Keys has been doing this for a little while and his contributions have had a big net positive effect on the forum imo. There have been very few junky, non-starter type threads that are much more likely to run into problems and even the quality of regular sellers posts have improved (mine included) compared to say a year ago.

The whole issue about caveats and auctions and stuff is ridiculous. If you don't like it then don't buy it. You can't dictate to sellers what you want their product to be.

The way I see it, it's inevitable that a big issue occurs sooner or later.

Was just trying to think of ways to make this as unlikely as possible.

Maybe a mod isn't the right thing.

But surely having a TMay style fiasco is the worst thing possible.

Aggressive modding could have averted that issue easily.

TMay made an ambiguous statement in his proposal. A mod could have asked for clarification and it would never have become a problem.

cliffs on the Tmay thing pls?

[George2Loose]

Having a mod as some sort of arbitrator is moot because their decisions aren't enforceable. "So you're saying that I can either pay out $x or I get banned from the blonde staking board? Sweet. Cya."

Having clear and concise staking proposals is really what we're after but that is a good thing both for buyers and for sellers. When the desired outcome is of benefit to both parties, what we need is education not regulation. As it stands, the buyers know that having better quality staking threads is a good thing for them. You can see what you're buying and make an assessment as to its value pretty quickly.

Some sellers aren't on board yet as to why posting better quality proposals is good for them. Let people know that they will generate more interest in their proposal if it is clean and concise. Make it easier for sellers to create good quality proposals by bringing the FAQ and the template up to date then it seems like problem solved? Keys has been doing this for a little while and his contributions have had a big net positive effect on the forum imo. There have been very few junky, non-starter type threads that are much more likely to run into problems and even the quality of regular sellers posts have improved (mine included) compared to say a year ago.

The whole issue about caveats and auctions and stuff is ridiculous. If you don't like it then don't buy it. You can't dictate to sellers what you want their product to be.

The way I see it, it's inevitable that a big issue occurs sooner or later.

Was just trying to think of ways to make this as unlikely as possible.

Maybe a mod isn't the right thing.

But surely having a TMay style fiasco is the worst thing possible.

Aggressive modding could have averted that issue easily.

TMay made an ambiguous statement in his proposal. A mod could have asked for clarification and it would never have become a problem.

cliffs on the Tmay thing pls?

Think he put up a proposal

People asked for %s

He ran deep in event but didn't state %s were booked

[claypole]

I've been out tonight caught up with this thread on the train, read a bit - however apologies if I am repeating points already made.

I am against any moderation for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think staking will never be "regulated", so introducing a formal role has little value and could potentially give Blonde some commercial risk.  The value it would add would only be at a moral or values level; and then only based on the individual appointed.  The same outcome can, and to a great extent has been achieved by self policing.

I think it's fairly simple; if you stake you have to make a risk based assessment of all the factors involved. This is easier for some, as over time you have dealings with individuals and get to know people within the poker scene - in essence you have access to more information that enables you to make better decisions.  If you don't have sufficient info - either go find it, as LilDave suggested or chose not to get involved in the stake - your own personal risk analysis.  Over time you build relationships, knowledge, and the ability to make better decision; however always a chance the relationship may go sour - you just reduce the likehood.  Only this week a blonde asked me about a staking situation, a horse - and I gave an honest answer, which fortunately in this case was top guy, great admin, in my view 100% solid.  Clearly, that is no guarantee - but the person who asked me, trusts me, so hence likelihood of advice being good is better. People make there own choices and base it on their experiences and that's there choice. And they have the option to ask for help, I am a pretty regular staker and have been staked - and along with the others that get involved I have no issues with people asking me how a deal has gone, or asking Flushy, Tikay etc about how I have paid.  Equally, if a proposal is not up to scratch, either ask for more info or simply don't invest - its not tricky.

It's a personal decision; I love Tikays approach to staking which is "I right it off at the point I stake" - that's not to say he doesn't base his decisions ons one logic and wanting a return, however it's a good attitude to have.

So my summary is I would encourage everyone to be sure before they invest, ask questions, seek opinions if they are not sure and the take responsibility for their staking - and in the 1% chance it's a grim or a problem, whilst trying to deal with it accept responsibility that there was always a chance an issue may occur.

[The Camel]

Having a mod as some sort of arbitrator is moot because their decisions aren't enforceable. "So you're saying that I can either pay out $x or I get banned from the blonde staking board? Sweet. Cya."

Having clear and concise staking proposals is really what we're after but that is a good thing both for buyers and for sellers. When the desired outcome is of benefit to both parties, what we need is education not regulation. As it stands, the buyers know that having better quality staking threads is a good thing for them. You can see what you're buying and make an assessment as to its value pretty quickly.

Some sellers aren't on board yet as to why posting better quality proposals is good for them. Let people know that they will generate more interest in their proposal if it is clean and concise. Make it easier for sellers to create good quality proposals by bringing the FAQ and the template up to date then it seems like problem solved? Keys has been doing this for a little while and his contributions have had a big net positive effect on the forum imo. There have been very few junky, non-starter type threads that are much more likely to run into problems and even the quality of regular sellers posts have improved (mine included) compared to say a year ago.

The whole issue about caveats and auctions and stuff is ridiculous. If you don't like it then don't buy it. You can't dictate to sellers what you want their product to be.

The way I see it, it's inevitable that a big issue occurs sooner or later.

Was just trying to think of ways to make this as unlikely as possible.

Maybe a mod isn't the right thing.

But surely having a TMay style fiasco is the worst thing possible.

Aggressive modding could have averted that issue easily.

TMay made an ambiguous statement in his proposal. A mod could have asked for clarification and it would never have become a problem.

cliffs on the Tmay thing pls?

This is from memory - figures may not be 100% correct but the actions/comments are correct

He was looking to sell 20% his action for some 10k tournament.

Immediately two guys posted offering to buy 5% and 2%.

He posted "ship the money to pokerstars and you are booked"

Three or four days passed, the proposal slipped down to page 3 or 4 of the forum.

Someone then bumped by saying "3% please"

Immediately followed by someone saying "rest" ie 10%.

Both then posted - shipped to Pokerstars. Well before tournament began.

Then after day 1 when he had a top 5 stack, TMay shows up and says, those last two pieces are not booked, even though he posted "ship the money to pokerstars and you are booked"

He said that statement only applied to the two posters who had replied and he didn't know how to quote posts.

He sent the money back.

Huge furore ensues.

He ends up coming second or chopping the the tournament or something and not paying the two stakers.

[claypole]

That's interesting Keith, would you ship stars to someone on a thread before they have responded and said "booked"? See I wouldn't, never have - until I have had confirmation, a pm or message in the thread.  My point is, that's my responsibility and decision - not making out like I'm great I am sure at some point I will get turned over. 

[The Camel]

That's interesting Keith, would you ship stars to someone on a thread before they have responded and said "booked"? See I wouldn't, never have - until I have had confirmation, a pm or message in the thread.  My point is, that's my responsibility and decision - not making out like I'm great I am sure at some point I will get turned over. 

In this case, yes I think I would have.

He really should have quoted the posts when making his statement.

It clearly looks like it's an open invitation to anyone who wants a piece to send it on Stars and be booked.

I'm 99% sure it wasn't a scam, and it was down to his stupity. But he should have honoured those stakes. At the very least should have paid out the equity on his stack on day 1 (when he realised he'd got the money)

He was absolutely freerolling the two guys as it was. If he had busted on day 1 he could have kept the money.

[AlexMartin]

personally i only like to stake people i know or failing that have absolutely spotless reputations with zero baggage.

[George2Loose]

I have no idea why such a huge deal is being made re staking.

I would say the majority of requests have gone without incident and there have been some very successful ventures.

On top of that we're all adults. We all know the risks with any investment whether it be poker or any other type of investment.

Sometimes you aren't going to get your money back.

As someone who was stung by someone close, it would be easy for me to be cynical and not trust anyone in the poker community again. However if that were the case I would probably be doing a ton of overtime at work as I wouldn't have a backer who trusts me implicitly with often large sums of money