Started a new thread obv....
So far we have had horses that get very touchy any time someone dares suggest they aren't worth the markup on their thread. It seems as if they felt the remarks were maligned, and often originating from some quarters that were highly unlikely to actually take a piece. The latest development was the horse offering to take an additional piece of himself at the same markup in a (flawed but noble, with due respect) attempt to support the notion that it was good value.
On the flip side, we have stakers and punters that would like to have a healthy discussion about why a proposal may or may not be value before piling in at
3.6 2.7 1.25 1.1 Some of this may include sharing information that, despite assumptions, may not have already been in the public domain. Perhaps something along the lines of "I'm still waiting to get paid from last time.." A staker may feel that 1.4 is bad value, but unless he wants to stand a 6-fig liability when challenged to do so, it is difficult to strike a fair bet.
In a large-field, high buyin event, the most likely outcome is that the horse fails to cash. So having a straight "bet you £500 you don't cash" does not work. The horse needs an opportunity to have some further upside when they do go super-deep without bankrupting the poor unfortunate that dared to lay it to a £100 stake.
So, my suggestion would be a 100 index. Those familiar with spread betting can stop reading now, but I will give an example for the others.
Me to play WSOP M.E next year - $10k buyin.
Fails to make the money ----- bet settles 0
Makes < $30k ------------------- bet settles 25
Makes $30k<X<$100k ------- bet settles 50
Makes $100k<X< $300k ---- bet settles 75
Makes > $300k ---------------- bet settles 100
NR no bet. No other outcomes are possible. (obv the scales could change for different proposals, or for other events)
Now I can offer to pay 12 on this index for £100 a point to anyone that cares to sell. People could snap me off (wouldn't blame them) and we have a bet where every eventuality can be calculated in terms of P&L. (My max downside would be £1200 and their max downside would be £8800) Bets can be with or without escrow, as agreed at the time of consummating the trade.
Alternatively, someone could decide that 12's was a bit skinny, but offer to sell at 18. Now we have a 2way market that has taken shape, my supporters could buy from anyone that dared to sell me at 18, those still laughing that I was playing the M.E could sell £100 or any part thereof to me. People should imo observe protocol here and sell to the first buyer, or buy from the first seller, until they have been seen off for their full size. Ofc, the market can fluctuate, someone bid 13 and someone else can offer @ 16 and the market tightens up, everyone can back their opinions. Some nutter might come along and take all the 16s, then take all the 18s and then bid over for more at 18, so the new market becomes 18bid, 25 offered. (You may ask who is offering 25s at this point, the answer would likely be "some of those that bought 12's earlier
)
Anyway, I think that framework would work, it has stood the test of time in many other areas and gives a fair risk:reward ratio to both buyers and sellers.
What does everyone think?
Author