Markup??

[Bully87]

Think you should sell at spot personally until you have some results behind you.

Dont believe in mark up personally but do understand why people do it without neccessarily agreeing with people about what they think they are worth.

I'm more of a 10% of my mates kinda guy and thats all. I do it for the sweat.

[Honeybadger]

I don't get it. So many people think 'the market can set itself' even though the bulk of the buyers may have no awareness of true variance/roi etc.


so why 'should' he set it at no markup IF people will buy at 1.2 or w/e.



I fwiw am massively on the side that people overcharge and provide little value very often and rather just pass on their variance and a potentially -Ev proposition. I'm trying to see why he shouldn't mark it up given it will sell.


is it ethical or for some actual strategic reason.


what markup would people pay for rastafish at the next dtd 300 ? and at what point is it just a breakeven stake?

Not sure what you are actually saying here Beanie, cos you appear to be contradicting yourself. You seem to be saying that you believe people are over-charging/offering bad deals to potential investors, but then you go on to say that you see no reason why JB should not sell at mark-up if he would be able to sell.

Are you basically saying "since everyone else is doing it, JB might as well do it too"?

[Skippy]

I don't get it. So many people think 'the market can set itself' even though the bulk of the buyers may have no awareness of true variance/roi etc.


so why 'should' he set it at no markup IF people will buy at 1.2 or w/e.



I fwiw am massively on the side that people overcharge and provide little value very often and rather just pass on their variance and a potentially -Ev proposition. I'm trying to see why he shouldn't mark it up given it will sell.


is it ethical or for some actual strategic reason.


what markup would people pay for rastafish at the next dtd 300 ? and at what point is it just a breakeven stake?

Not sure what you are actually saying here Beanie, cos you appear to be contradicting yourself. You seem to be saying that you believe people are over-charging/offering bad deals to potential investors, but then you go on to say that you see no reason why JB should not sell at mark-up if he would be able to sell.

Are you basically saying "since everyone else is doing it, JB might as well do it too"?

I don't see the contradiction. He's saying it's not unethical to charge people as much as you can for something. He's also saying that he thinks that buyers are generally paying too high a price.

Analogously you might feel that...
If I'm trying to sell my old car you there is nothing wrong with trying to sell it for as much money as possible. I might think that the eventual buyer has paid too much for my car- I wouldn't buy my car for that amount of money- but it's still not unethical to sell if for that much if that's what the buyer is willing to pay.

[titaniumbean]

Ya the current status quo is the contradiction imo not me.


I sold at 1.25 for the WSOP ME last year because I HAD To sell to play and it's a 10k and it's a one off tournament, + I have no specific record to show live, I wanted TO PROVIDE VALUE to people backing me not just spread the variance and pay 7.2% of the buyin myself.



Many threads I see on here AND on 2+2 I just look at the markup and think you'll be alreeet pet.



Many market place buyers can be punters etc and don't necessarily have to have any idea about roi/variance/the maths of goddam donkathons!  Just because someone sells out doesn't mean it was good value or even fair value. It just sold out. That cant last.



There is also lots of other factors going into the fact of sending money to random people, I would pay a higher markup for someone that I know in person and know that I can trust than I would for someone who is most likely a better ROI proposition but who I don't know if they will actually pay out. Obviously most of the time you expect to lose with backing so it's not normally a problem that matters, But it's definitely something that should be taken into consideration.

[kinboshi]

Aren't we just talking round in circles here - it's supply and demand?  There are lots of products and services that are priced at a point that seems unreasonable to many, but others are happy to pay it.  Who determines what's fair, other than the buyer and the seller?

Over time markets change, and it might be that buyers become more savvy (or have smaller budgets) and so the markups drop. But that's still being driven by supply and demand.

[titaniumbean]

Aren't we just talking round in circles here - it's supply and demand?  There are lots of products and services that are priced at a point that seems unreasonable to many, but others are happy to pay it.  Who determines what's fair, other than the buyer and the seller?

ya but if it's the blind leading the blind lol it's good to have the discussion.

[TightEnd]

I'm not having a pop Andrew, but

"I sold at 1.25 for the WSOP ME last year because I HAD To sell to play and it's a 10k and it's a one off tournament, + I have no specific record to show live, I wanted TO PROVIDE VALUE to people backing me not just spread the variance and pay 7.2% of the buyin myself."

1.25 (ie a substantial premium) doesn't really provide value does it? Yes I know the main is "soft" but there's a heck of a lot of "soft" roadhumps to get to over several days to even min-cash right

In my (observers) terms, value for an event however "soft" is at spot for someone without a long and successful record in the type of event they are seeking staking for, which you state you yourself had no specific record for

Of course we know the motivations of people staking can be not merely for "value"..people stake people who are mates, or who they respect, or because they want a punt when they can't play themselves

For John B, I feel much of the above is also a consideration.

[Honeybadger]

So just to confirm Beanie... what markup do you think JB should charge, if any?

[TightEnd]

Aren't we just talking round in circles here - it's supply and demand?  There are lots of products and services that are priced at a point that seems unreasonable to many, but others are happy to pay it.  Who determines what's fair, other than the buyer and the seller?

Over time markets change, and it might be that buyers become more savvy (or have smaller budgets) and so the markups drop. But that's still being driven by supply and demand.

It won't be until the long term staking tide goes out that you discover which people seeking staking aren't wearing any swimming trunks

[titaniumbean]

1.25 (ie a substantial premium) doesn't really provide value does it?



I disagree so much.


Relative to the rest of the 'WSOP ME pieces market' it was excellent value. Relative to how well I can play in a deepstacked slow live tournament I think it is and was excellent value.



I have no clue about JB or his skill set, so no reason to ask me what I think his roi is. bit like lodden thinks.

[MC]

Sell at 1.0 unless you have evidence to back up being able to sell for more.

And don't assume ROI = markup. E.g. if your ROI is 120% 20% then selling at 1.2 is not good for a backer as you are offering them an even money proposition.

FYP

As far as I've noticed nobody had pointed out that this was wrong.

[TightEnd]

1.25 (ie a substantial premium) doesn't really provide value does it?



I disagree so much.


Relative to the rest of the 'WSOP ME pieces market' it was excellent value. Relative to how well I can play in a deepstacked slow live tournament I think it is and was excellent value.



I have no clue about JB or his skill set, so no reason to ask me what I think his roi is. bit like lodden thinks.

Yes compared to comparable stake requests, 1.25 looked good

I am referring to 1.25 as an absolute, really

Leaving aside stakers motivations, what other people are asking, the field soft or otherwise, 1.25 is still a big premium, I think, and this is not a criticism of you merely I think a lot of the staking market has got blase about the levels of premiums being requested

and yes, lots of others sell out higher (supply and demand etc)

[nirvana]

Incred that there are 5 pages saying:

JB is worth zero mark up but could probably sell at a mark up because people are nice/dumb/gamblers whatever

I think JB needs to really know he's worth say 1.23 so I have prepared a template which probably doesn't need much tampering


Baseline                                                           1.0:
Crush $10NL online (regularly for $30+ scores)        1.03
Insane hedge at live bowl comps                          1.11
Sort of listened to poker coach                             1.13
Posted HH's, very few totes spewy                       1.16
Played a few deepstacks at DTD, went 'deep'         1.18
Friend of Eurekans                                             1.20
Learning blog up and running                                1.23

Think that's about right - 2% please at 1.23

[fizix87]

I'm not having a pop Andrew, but

"I sold at 1.25 for the WSOP ME last year because I HAD To sell to play and it's a 10k and it's a one off tournament, + I have no specific record to show live, I wanted TO PROVIDE VALUE to people backing me not just spread the variance and pay 7.2% of the buyin myself."

1.25 (ie a substantial premium) doesn't really provide value does it? Yes I know the main is "soft" but there's a heck of a lot of "soft" roadhumps to get to over several days to even min-cash right

In my (observers) terms, value for an event however "soft" is at spot for someone without a long and successful record in the type of event they are seeking staking for, which you state you yourself had no specific record for

Of course we know the motivations of people staking can be not merely for "value"..people stake people who are mates, or who they respect, or because they want a punt when they can't play themselves

For John B, I feel much of the above is also a consideration.

I think its important to realise that the WSOP Main Event is a very different proposition than pretty much any other tournament, this is due to both the field size (and hence the huge prizes available at the FT) and the fact that there are significantly higher % of weaker players (thanks to the large amounts of satellite winners/people taking shots) than you would get in any tournament of equivalent size. Therefore any competent online tournament player is going to be able to justify a markup much higher than 1.25, markups of 1.4-1.6 are far from ridiculous for this specific tournament, and not taking this into account is a pretty big mistake.

Like anything else in poker, you have to consider the notional long run when you determine the value of markup and given the specific factors of the WSOP ME much higher markups can be justified IMO.

  

[kinboshi]

Sell at 1.0 unless you have evidence to back up being able to sell for more.

And don't assume ROI = markup. E.g. if your ROI is 120% 20% then selling at 1.2 is not good for a backer as you are offering them an even money proposition.

FYP

As far as I've noticed nobody had pointed out that this was wrong.

Possibly because he'd written it in a ridiculous colour and no one read it?