Jgcblack Genting Stoke (SOLD OUT)

[cambridgealex]

Have you actually said how much buy in is? or how much per %?

Yes this is a problem.

Also

I am selling @ 1.3 based on a 1.2 + expenses evaluation

This is not on - including expenses in the markup, they're for you to pay, not the backers.

Also assuming this is a £1k, how can you justify any mark-up whatsoever given your results? Given you're beating 10nl now but not yet 25nl (based on what I've read of your diary which I read every day and love  as you know) this translates imo to winning at £15 freezeouts perhaps £50, no higher. I don't think chopping a £50 comp and cashing a £500 deepstack once cuts it as proof that 1.3 will be good value. I'd sell at 1.0, or even better auction it, let the market decide.

I'd say this to anyone, given what's come out of the staking thread debate - everyone should comment where they see fit and stakees shouldn't take it personally and take it on the chin. I'm quite sure you will. Good luck.

No problem I understand and appreciate the comments.  I thought the idea of putting 0.1 on to contribute to expenses would be ok.  Clearly mistaken - I will change OP to reflect this. 1.2 it is.

£15 freezeouts and £50's? You clearly haven't remembered all of my diary then.  There are a lot of very detailed reports from the DTD500's this year.

I have played most of the £500's @ dtd this year (4 I think), with a mistake and some unfortunate variance being my own reason for one cash this year.  I have also played a lot of tournaments in the £100-300 market with good results, however they don't count on Hendon Mob due to being regular scheduled tournaments and not festivals or special events.

Any other comments, questions.. etc?

Good reaction John, wp.

My comments were mainly based on my assumption that this was a £1k event. I think I read GUKPT not GPS. Also you not stating the buy-in of the event may have contributed to the misleadance (new word, I like it).

Perfectly good value at 1.3 in a £400, why did you change the price to 1.2?

[Doobs]

Perfectly good value at 1.3 in a £400, why did you change the price to 1.2?

Feeling guilty after the 1.94 elsewhere? 

[Skippy]

This is not on - including expenses in the markup, they're for you to pay, not the backers.

I totally disagree with this- I think expenses are exactly what markup is for. If you are incurring costs going to play an event for someone, it's totally fair to put a markup in to cover your costs for going to the event. If you've got £100 worth of expenses for a £1000 tourney, it's totally fair to sell 40% at 1.1 and get your backer to pay for their share of the costs.

Markup above and beyond this- that's the bit I'm not so sure what it's for. "A salary" for playing the event?

[GreekStein]

Marky - speaks like someone from football factory but definitely vouch for the fish.

[jgcblack]

Perfectly good value at 1.3 in a £400, why did you change the price to 1.2?

Feeling guilty after the 1.94 elsewhere?  

Because you scolded me for the expenses..

Therefore I can't say "oh well its 1.3 anyways"

[jgcblack]

This is not on - including expenses in the markup, they're for you to pay, not the backers.

I totally disagree with this- I think expenses are exactly what markup is for. If you are incurring costs going to play an event for someone, it's totally fair to put a markup in to cover your costs for going to the event. If you've got £100 worth of expenses for a £1000 tourney, it's totally fair to sell 40% at 1.1 and get your backer to pay for their share of the costs.

Markup above and beyond this- that's the bit I'm not so sure what it's for. "A salary" for playing the event?

NOW i am confused....

What do blondes think??

[George2Loose]

It's stoke. Surely u should knock .1 off for expenses cos the hotel will be so budget

[AlexMartin]

would have bought, when is this?

[jgcblack]

would have bought, when is this?

Thanks mate, its next week.  Great comp, you've played a couple right?

The banter should be good.  Poulton is back for a bit as well, bribing the lady with him.

[david3103]

would have bought, when is this?

Thanks mate, its next week.  Great comp, you've played a couple right?

The banter should be good.  Poulton is back for a bit as well, bribing the lady with him.

Banter? We're not in this for banter! Nor for bribing ladies. Do that on your own dime.

[Doobs]

This is not on - including expenses in the markup, they're for you to pay, not the backers.

I totally disagree with this- I think expenses are exactly what markup is for. If you are incurring costs going to play an event for someone, it's totally fair to put a markup in to cover your costs for going to the event. If you've got £100 worth of expenses for a £1000 tourney, it's totally fair to sell 40% at 1.1 and get your backer to pay for their share of the costs.

Markup above and beyond this- that's the bit I'm not so sure what it's for. "A salary" for playing the event?

NOW i am confused....

What do blondes think??

I am with Alex on this.  If you want to play somewhere glamorous like Vegas, Monte Carlo or Stoke then you should pay.  If your backer wants you to play somewhere like this then you would have an argument. 

My thinking is there is poker on the Internet, virtually expense free, so why not just play that.  Road trips are luxuries and aren't really profit making ventures once expenses are included.  You can obviously get round this by playing soft sats such as the gukpt ones.

As it is you can just use the extra 0.2 towards expenses anyway.  Probably the best and least controversial way of saying the same thing for future reference (I mean just sell at 1.2 rather than explaining that part is for expenses if I wasn't clear)

[mondatoo]

This is not on - including expenses in the markup, they're for you to pay, not the backers.

I totally disagree with this- I think expenses are exactly what markup is for. If you are incurring costs going to play an event for someone, it's totally fair to put a markup in to cover your costs for going to the event. If you've got £100 worth of expenses for a £1000 tourney, it's totally fair to sell 40% at 1.1 and get your backer to pay for their share of the costs.

Markup above and beyond this- that's the bit I'm not so sure what it's for. "A salary" for playing the event?

NOW i am confused....

What do blondes think??

I am with Alex on this.  If you want to play somewhere glamorous like Vegas, Monte Carlo or Stoke then you should pay.  If your backer wants you to play somewhere like this then you would have an argument.  

My thinking is there is poker on the Internet, virtually expense free, so why not just play that.  Road trips are luxuries and aren't really profit making ventures once expenses are included.  You can obviously get round this by playing soft sats such as the gukpt ones.

As it is you can just use the extra 0.2 towards expenses anyway.  Probably the best and least controversial way of saying the same thing for future reference (I mean just sell at 1.2 rather than explaining that part is for expenses if I wasn't clear)

If you don't think people should charge for their expenses then surely you should think this is really bad ?

It's basically just doing it sneakily instead of being honest.

I also agree with Alex that this shouldn't happen, as has been discussed when others have done so in the past. You should sell at a price you truly think reflects a good deal for backers whilst still getting good value for yourself, not think you should probably sell @ 1.0 but then add a point on for expenses, 1/2 a point for a lapdance when you bust level 5 and 1/2 a point to pay for your share of the bottle of Grey Goose when you're getting smashed coz you're free the next day anyways.

PS GLGL JB

[pleno1]

Expenses justifies reasons for selling not for an increase in markup.

The difference in market value from blonde an 2p2 is absolutely hue at the moment which is obv bad for us.

Maybe we are just punters or perhaps they are nits, but the WSOP prices really were eye opening.

[Doobs]

This is not on - including expenses in the markup, they're for you to pay, not the backers.

I totally disagree with this- I think expenses are exactly what markup is for. If you are incurring costs going to play an event for someone, it's totally fair to put a markup in to cover your costs for going to the event. If you've got £100 worth of expenses for a £1000 tourney, it's totally fair to sell 40% at 1.1 and get your backer to pay for their share of the costs.

Markup above and beyond this- that's the bit I'm not so sure what it's for. "A salary" for playing the event?

NOW i am confused....

What do blondes think??

I am with Alex on this.  If you want to play somewhere glamorous like Vegas, Monte Carlo or Stoke then you should pay.  If your backer wants you to play somewhere like this then you would have an argument.  

My thinking is there is poker on the Internet, virtually expense free, so why not just play that.  Road trips are luxuries and aren't really profit making ventures once expenses are included.  You can obviously get round this by playing soft sats such as the gukpt ones.

As it is you can just use the extra 0.2 towards expenses anyway.  Probably the best and least controversial way of saying the same thing for future reference (I mean just sell at 1.2 rather than explaining that part is for expenses if I wasn't clear)

If you don't think people should charge for their expenses then surely you should think this is really bad ?

It's basically just doing it sneakily instead of being honest.

Did I ever say I thought 1.2 was good?

He thinks he is worth 1.2, people have bought.  The end result is he has something for expenses.  I struggle with the moral difference between people charging extra for perceived skills, lap dances or expenses.  If it isn't value I don't buy.

GL jb. 

[Marky147]

Yeah I'm with Alex here too, if you perceive yourself to have an edge then sell at what you deem to be appropriate. I don't think selling to cover costs you incure by doing something you want is really on.

I was going to sell at 1.2 for Vegas, but I just sell at spot as making an extra $50/100 isn't going to make that much difference anyway.

I would have to charge at 2.5 or something if I wanted to even partly cover my expenses when I go away to play anywhere

As for buying action, I just randomly buy because I like to punt. I never really consider the value aspect which is flawed highly for obvious reasons...


Get second please John