Issues Arising from Staking

[bobby1]

The question of whether the sophistication of the board is now such that a bigger control template is required is the pertinent one, I think.

I think this hits the nail on the head Rich.

[edgascoigne]

As we regularly see, people stake people on here for friendship, contribution to community, want to have a sweat etc. None of which are reliant on their view of the EV of the stake, auction or not

I think buyers display these characteristics in auctions, rather than just saying that there is an imbalance between some very savvy people setting auction processes and some less sophisticated people looking to buy, generally

I've bought a piece in JGCB for the Genting event in Stoke. Do I believe I have a purely financial +ve expectation here? If I'm honest, I'm not sure. (no offence John, win the world!). Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't, but it's largely irrelevant as it's not why I've bought.

Am I making this decision based purely on financial expectation? No. I read John's diary and I appreciate massively how open he is about his progress at online cash so far under Pleno's stewardship. I would have broken a long time ago and I appreciate his perseverance and positive attitude. This is why I have bought.


There may however be times when I make a decision to buy based purely on a perceived +ve financial expectation. If someone puts up a considerable online schedule, their OPR etc. and I am convinced the package represents value I may purchase 'blind' to the chap I am buying into. The motivation is wholly different to scenario A, though the end result is the same (my buying a stake).

I am fully aware of the risks in both scenarios.

For my money, we're all adults, and it's down to us to decide whether what we are buying represents 'value', whatever that means to us. Caveat emptor and all that. To my mind the forum has no responsibility (moral or financial) for the outcome of a stake.

[jgcblack]

Lil'dave is a winnar ofc and I can't wait for him to start breeding and bringing more, sensible, insightful, funny and clever people into the world.

Doobs sir, that is a fantastic post. Moarrrr pls

The rest of the stuff about auctions is interesting, I think Alex is a decent player but I wonder what his true expected ROI would be at £1k events over a decent sample.. Tough to make solid guesses tho.

I genuinely feel that I am good value at 1.2 but its so hard to prove it without significant online volume as keys mentioned in my first staking ideas thread.  I absolutely dont want to Grimm or have someone feel grimmed but im putting literally every hour sent into playing, talking to people and learning how to play this most amazing of games.

Apologies if I have offended anyone with my thread.

[pleno1]

I am selling @ 1.2 and I appreciate this might seem 'high' for someone with my sample of results however I am confident and look to the trusted and well known blondes on here to confirm that I still represent significant value in this buyin with this field.

this is not an attack at john, but what is  "significant value" does it mean your roi is 25% and we are making 5% on average, does it mean your oi is 50% and we are making big amount of returns etc.

People often use the words value but dont actually give their estimated real value.

[jakally]

Auctions are stupid IMO. If I were to sell for a tournament at 1.3 I could just set the reserve at 1.3 and freeroll at getting higher (assuming I'd have no trouble hitting 1.3). They suck all the value out of the marketplace for the buyer and rely on punters coming in looking for a sweat.

exactly this. The current one is in bad taste, badly thought out and terrible value. It is simply a new way of grinding out a small set of stakers to pay way over the odds.

I've reread Alex's staking post just to check, and I still can't fathom how it can be described as 'in bad taste' or 'badly thought out'.

[bobby1]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

[Doobs]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

When he realised there was a 20% deduction for tax he started a new thread that mentioned it.  I am not sure what else you wanted him to do on that score. 

[jakally]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

I understand the points you are making, but :

- Alex closed the initial auction once he realised the tax situation, and started a new thread, therefore resetting the price (therefore I think your comment 'and then told the price was the same' isn't an accurate reflection)
- The reserve not being divulged is fine (imo), as long as it is independently moderated, which, in this instance, it is.
- The 'bad taste' comment doesn't reflect anything that Alex has done. He has put up a second thread, which is open and honest. If people still want to buy, they are doing so of their own volition, in full possession of the facts. If they buy at bad value, (although who can judge this accurately, god only knows), then that is their issue.

I think the only criticism that can be levelled at Alex is the fact he didn't research the tax situation before selling. Wouldn't judge him too harshly on that though.

[bobby1]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

When he realised there was a 20% deduction for tax he started a new thread that mentioned it.  I am not sure what else you wanted him to do on that score. 

well knowing that there was 20% to come out of the prize pool before putting up a staking request.

Alex has been critiquing other staking threads and trying to promote  friendly feedback which is good but if you are going to do that and then put up one of the worst request's on the board then you have to accept the critique too.

[bobby1]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

I understand the points you are making, but :

- Alex closed the initial auction once he realised the tax situation, and started a new thread, therefore resetting the price (therefore I think your comment 'and then told the price was the same' isn't an accurate reflection)
- The reserve not being divulged is fine (imo), as long as it is independently moderated, which, in this instance, it is.
- The 'bad taste' comment doesn't reflect anything that Alex has done. He has put up a second thread, which is open and honest. If people still want to buy, they are doing so of their own volition, in full possession of the facts. If they buy at bad value, (although who can judge this accurately, god only knows), then that is their issue.

I think the only criticism that can be levelled at Alex is the fact he didn't research the tax situation before selling. Wouldn't judge him too harshly on that though.

You are a clued up guy Neil, would you buy any part of that package at the prices?

imo we have gone past the point of buyer beware now and its only going to go one way in the future.

[Skippy]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

When he realised there was a 20% deduction for tax he started a new thread that mentioned it.  I am not sure what else you wanted him to do on that score. 

well knowing that there was 20% to come out of the prize pool before putting up a staking request.

Alex has been critiquing other staking threads and trying to promote  friendly feedback which is good but if you are going to do that and then put up one of the worst request's on the board then you have to accept the critique too.

Why not critique on the actual thread? If you think people are being ripped off, feel free to say so. Don't have a sulk when people don't listen though and buy anyway.

[neeko]

Getting "good value" at an auction is surely an oxymoron.

20%is not being taken out of the prize pool but rather out of the winnings which makes a difference.

I am confused about people trying to stop adults from making independent irrational subjective decisions - odd.

[mondatoo]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

When he realised there was a 20% deduction for tax he started a new thread that mentioned it.  I am not sure what else you wanted him to do on that score. 

well knowing that there was 20% to come out of the prize pool before putting up a staking request.

Alex has been critiquing other staking threads and trying to promote  friendly feedback which is good but if you are going to do that and then put up one of the worst request's on the board then you have to accept the critique too.

It's not even close to being that bad.

[bobby1]

As requested by Alex.

'Perhaps discussion should be moved to the new "staking discussion" thread rather than this one?'

I'm not sure where that came from Skippy, nobody is sulking. I didn't bring Alex's request up in this thread, it was a general discussion about staking and ROI, it developed into a wider topic and Alex's thread became relevant to the discussion.

[pleno1]

Hi Neil,

The post was put up without knowing there was a 20% deduction from the prize money. When it was pointed out the auction rules didn't change. It was just added to the front page of the request.

If it is bad value before the 20% is taken out and you then leave it when you realise the 20% will go then that is in bad taste imo. It just makes a mockery of the request and is clearly badly thought out if the biggest deal breaker isn't included initially.

It is also an auction with a fixed reserve that isn't divulged, the board is being used by people to get thu what they can, not offer genuine value staking opportunities.

If you were offered a stake and took it and then found out there would be 20% less prize money and then told the price was the same would you think that was fair?

When he realised there was a 20% deduction for tax he started a new thread that mentioned it.  I am not sure what else you wanted him to do on that score. 

well knowing that there was 20% to come out of the prize pool before putting up a staking request.

Alex has been critiquing other staking threads and trying to promote  friendly feedback which is good but if you are going to do that and then put up one of the worst request's on the board then you have to accept the critique too.

It's not even close to being that bad.

the actual OP is good, and the prices being high aren't Alex's fault and are probably a testement to the good op.

It's just the auction that creates falses prices etc.

But who is who to say what is inflated, Alex even states 2.0 with the 20% tax would be good value still

Yeah come on lads, be nice to poor Alex, he is only selling at 1.9 or so already, let him have a fair shot at a proper price

needs more love

If bything does over inflated prices mean that auctions are extremely bad for the market place and somewhat take advantage of social stakers who just want a punt?

[ ] over-inflated

[X] still great value at 2.0

[X] over-inflated ego