Issues Arising from Staking

[Simon Galloway]

Surprised at you tbh Tom.

Why are you surprised Mr G? I thought it was fair comment tbh.

And why a new thread instead of using one of the many other threads on this subject? (Not that I mind in the least of course)

For the record, I wasn't having a pop. you are one of the most astute posters on the forum imo, and I value your opinions above most others.

Thank you Tom ~ and likewise, hence my surprise.  I mean, if it was Tom the mod posting and wanted to lock the thread as it had been done to death, then ok.  But for Tom the individual, you normally don't say anything that doesn't make a positive contribution.

I have my views on the subject, the product of a not-inconsequential number of hours' thought, discussion and experience.  I am still very much open to the idea that I am wrong in various aspects of it ~ in which case, the sooner I find out, the better my future decisions will be.

It isn't a new thread, rather a bumped one from last year ~ yes, there are several threads on the subject, I just happened to choose this one, the only 2 things that went into the decision was a) keep it off someone's personal staking request (in fact, keep it off that board) and b) not start a new thread for it.

I can totally understand the topic has no interest for many, but the live staking board (here and 2+2) are super-active at this time of year, so lots of people still buying, but I imagine behaviours will change over time ~ backing is a fairly immature market, information is far from perfect and assumptions are not always accurate.

[RED-DOG]

I have to apologise. I clicked on unread topics and it opened at your post. I thought it was a brand new thread.

[Simon Galloway]

No probs at all

[SuuPRlim]

Said this the other week but as you've brought it up again, I used to stake all the time but won't pay anything but a minimal mark up out of principal now. My view is we are doing the stakees a favour not the other way around.....

Well whereas this isn't the whole story - in an ideal world you'd be offering a "profitable" oppurtunity to the buyers, therefore you're doing them the service of presenting them an oppurtunity to profit, I do have to kind of agree with you Woodsey - the (nearly always) reason for selling pieces in tournaments is because you cannot afford to pay the entire buyin - Iv reached the conclusion that you should be willing to either i) put your money behind yourself, or ii) take the hit on the ROI of the piece you're selling im exchange for being able to play the tournament you couldn't afford.

in the last 12-18months I've changed now to only ever selling at face value - either back myself and the ROI i believe I have with my own money, or let people help me saddle the variance for free, and dont charge them for the principal.

Having said that is got pissed the other night and put a bid in on something would never otherwise have done, maybe that's the trick, catch me when I'm pissed 

Shouldn't be too hard

[wazz]

I think you're missing the point. Whether or not X can afford to play the main event, if X has a good enough ROI, he can sell at markup. The size of his bankroll is only relevant in determining how likely X is to have a good ROI - if he's broke, probably not, if he's made $5M from poker then probably. This is business, there is no 'favours' involved in buying and selling action.

[The Camel]

I think you're missing the point. Whether or not X can afford to play the main event, if X has a good enough ROI, he can sell at markup. The size of his bankroll is only relevant in determining how likely X is to have a good ROI - if he's broke, probably not, if he's made $5M from poker then probably. This is business, there is no 'favours' involved in buying and selling action.

With respect Michael I think it is you that is missing the point.

Blondepoker is much more of a community than say, 2+2, and people, like Woodsey (and several others) buy shares in people for other reasons rather than purely business.

How much would Ironside have sold of himself in the PLO WSOPE event on 2+2? He sold out here and played.

How much would Tikay sell on 2+2 for the WSOP main event? Not a lot I'd venture to suggest.

You seem to be in a mad rush to get to 300 posts so you can try to sell some action.

I say "try" because everyone can see what you are doing (to be fair several of your post have been good contributions to various threads)  and depending on your proposal don't be suprised if interest in your stake is not what you might hope for.

Blondepoker is more of a community than a business, it's why a lot of people frowned on charging juice on fx transactions between players and charging interest on loans.

You can't just get given the same goodwill Tikay and Ironside got in their threads. It has to be earned.

[outragous76]

I think you're missing the point. Whether or not X can afford to play the main event, if X has a good enough ROI, he can sell at markup. The size of his bankroll is only relevant in determining how likely X is to have a good ROI - if he's broke, probably not, if he's made $5M from poker then probably. This is business, there is no 'favours' involved in buying and selling action.

With respect Michael I think it is you that is missing the point.

Blondepoker is much more of a community than say, 2+2, and people, like Woodsey (and several others) buy shares in people for other reasons rather than purely business.

How much would Iroside have sold of himself in the PLO WSOPE event on 2+2? He sold out here and played.

How much would Tikay sell on 2+2 for the WSOP main event? Not a lot I'd venture to suggest.

You seem to be in a mad rush to get to 300 posts so you can try to sell some action.

I say "try" because everyone can see what you are doing (to be fair several of your post have been good contributions to various threads)  and depending on your proposal don't be suprised if interest in your stake is not what you might hope for.

Blondepoker is more of a community than a business, it's why a lot of people frowned on charging juice on fx transactions between players and charging interest on loans.

You can't just get given the same goodwill Tikay and Ironside got in their threads. It has to be earned.

 

much better than the response I very nearly gave

[SuuPRlim]

I think you're missing the point. Whether or not X can afford to play the main event, if X has a good enough ROI, he can sell at markup. The size of his bankroll is only relevant in determining how likely X is to have a good ROI - if he's broke, probably not, if he's made $5M from poker then probably. This is business, there is no 'favours' involved in buying and selling action.

Defo not missing the point, I'm just saying I think personally the angle this comes from is that the person SELLING the action should be taking the hit on needing to sell, not the BUYER having to take the hit.

If it was a buyers market, where you went out and said "I wanna buy X% in Y person for this comp" and they came back and said "yh, sure you can have for 1.25 markup" then I'd think otherwise, but as its a seller driven market, where they say "I wanna sell X % in Y tournament, because this tournament is outside my bankroll, or because I'm looking to reduce my personal exposure" then I think it;s the seller that should take the hit, and sacrifice their ROI on the piece they are trying to sell.

It's Business.

But then it works this way and it works well, so may it continue.

[pleno1]

wazz contirbutions make him top 5 blondes and early contender to pip me for an advent calendar spot. he posts on every board, very insightful, his average words epr post higher than 9ö% of people and is portraying himself as a good player too.

bring on the massages

[outragous76]

wazz contirbutions make him top 5 blondes and early contender to pip me for an advent calendar spot. he posts on every board, very insightful, his average words epr post higher than 9ö% of people and is portraying himself as a good player too.

bring on the massages

although I don't disagree that some of the stuff wazz has posted has been good, its clearly for his own benefit right? Mods would have just deleted meaningless posts anyway.

But Keith makes an excellent point about blonde staking. It is far from just business. Wazz seems to miss this completely.

[pleno1]

he is without doubt benefiting the community though, that surely cant be argued.

[outragous76]

he is without doubt benefiting the community though, that surely cant be argued.

got nothing to do with staking thou. Just because you don't like what mr or mrs x posts in a thread you don't read doesn't mean he/she isn't benefitting the community

[The Camel]

wazz contirbutions make him top 5 blondes and early contender to pip me for an advent calendar spot. he posts on every board, very insightful, his average words epr post higher than 9ö% of people and is portraying himself as a good player too.

bring on the massages

But will these contributions stop abruptly when 300 is reached and the inevitable staking thread goes up?

12 months of contributions like he's made in the last 10 days and his staking thread will sell out imo.

[millidonk]

Yea tumbleweeding on 2+2 then snap grinding 300 posts on blonde (even with a large amount of productive posts) is just dirty. It's like your best mate sleeping with your sister. Doubt it will sell anyway but if it did, it would be a slap in the face to the blonde community imo.

Personally, I would like to see a 6 month minimum membership duration for staking. So easy to police.

Bring on the massages was funny tho. wpwp

[MANTIS01]

I still find the notion of buying back action weird. You need to funk for your horse to run bad up until the ME starts and then funk they run like the wind from that moment forward. If it turns out your horse is binking comps and bang in form before hand, well you and your stake are sacked off. I don't really see the community spirit in that arrangement. Backing a horse in some massive luckbox donkathon isn't really 'investing in a profitable business opportunity', it's buying a lottery ticket. Think the buyer is taking a lot of risk and at the same time facilitating the horse's entrance to a major comp. It also seems more common to not be paid or to be paid late these days or for horses to say if they had a heavy night the stake is sacked off. So think there is an overall lack of respect for the buyer.

However, there is still value to be found, people can still buy action in major TV star Tony 'Tikay' Kendall, with no mark up, great trip reports, no risk of being unpaid or late paid, very humble respectful attitude, lots of community spirit, and significant commercial revenues from sky for wearing patches when he hits the FT. These are all the reasons why buyers would invest in a wsop lottery ticket imo, not because it is marginally +EV on paper.