Markup??

[aaron1867]

I always fought arguments with people who said Aaron was a troll, I always insisted he was just clueless, but this thread has proved me wrong, so apologies to everybody.

"People are stuck on this saying "it's a soft field" and loads more silly sayings."

" I would guess Alex has a better ROI than Dan as you see him cash pretty often. So I am pretty sure backing Alex would be far more value than a ridic 1.6 mark up"

Amongst many others, just constantly in every thread being completely clueless and spoiling discussions and making the same people saying the same thing again and again and again.

Lol.

Just can see better value for money,

[pleno1]

why is saying it a soft field a "stupid saying"

[cambridgealex]

Pleno you've got it all wrong, you've forgotten how he sticks to his guns! Remember!? He sticks to his guns and takes the abuse" well.

Maybe if you stuck to your guns a but more you'd have made the advent calendar

[aaron1867]

Never live that one down.

Eeeeek, bitter bitter!

[Nico29]

Dan Morgan is a fantastic poker player imo.

Aaron is a fantastic troll.

But very tiresome now.

[titaniumbean]

I just don't................



I can't even............





oh dear lord ..............

[tight4better]

Click to see full-size image.

[cambridgealex]

Never live that one down.

Eeeeek, bitter bitter!

I got in the 2011 "premier" one met, so no reason to be bitter

[Boba Fett]

Given that pretty much 100% of staking proposals include the 'juice' there's already an implied mark up if ROI comparisons are being made.
Selling 10% of a DTD £300 at £33.60 is selling the prize pool at 1.12

This is a good point and one I'd considered myself. I think in general though we all accept the reg fee to be part of the tournament buyin.

Personally I think charging for expenses is ok in certain situations. I generally don't bother due to arguments it'd cause but say I decide to go play the DTD £300. I can either drive home and not get much sleep or book a hotel and get a decent nights sleep. It's in my interest and the backer's interest for me to get the hotel. Let's say the hotel is £50 then the overal cost is:

£300 entry
£36 juice
£50 hotel
= £386

So 10% here would be £38.60 - a markup of 1.286. Given any backers are going to get an equal share with me of any prize money then I think it fair this expense is included in the package - otherwise the tournament is more profitable for the backer than it is for me, and that's not even including the effort required by the player.

The difference for me comes down to "would that expense be incurred anyway?". So food/drink etc I'd never dream of including. But in my case I wouldn't play the tournament if I didn't get the staking. So it's not like i'd be paying the £50 regardless. So in that sense I think it's fair to include it in the cost of the tournament.

One final point is my staking requests are few and far between and are generally one offs. If I ask for staking it's because I want to play a tournament and am seeking financial help to do so. In this instance I'm more inclined to write off the expense as the staking is allowing me to play a tournament I'd otherwise not get to play.

Sorry but thats pretty ridic thinking you could add the charge of a hotel room or any other expenses.  If you're not prepared to eat the cost of the expenses to play a tournament then dont play it, you cant pass that onto backers.  Backers are buying a share in the tournament that you are deciding you want to play and should only have to buy a piece of the tournament only.  Where would it end?  What if the  only hotel you could get for the night was a £200 per night hotel?  just flick it in and charge the backers?  Room service? go for it and charge the backers, massage during the tournament will help you relax and play better, cool lets go for an hour and charge the backers.  Are you gonna add costs of flghts, taxi to the airport, cost of a new suitcase, some sunglasses for the table so you dont give off any tells, dinner at the dinner break, taxi to the casino etc

And for anyone thinking that expenses are just a natural cost of playing live poker and can be added when selling pieces, do you realise there are thousands of tournaments available 24/7 online and you dont have to leave the house?

Your where would it end argument doesn't really hold because if someone decided to add an expense for room service then you can clearly tell them to gtfo. But if a proposal was to clearly point out what expense was included then I don't see a problem with that.

I think it applies more to longer term staking deals. If I was suddenly rich and wanted to stake someone to fly around the world playing EPTs/WSOP/etc then I think it more than fair that the prices of travel/accommodation be included as part of the deal.

If you were to offer to stake me 50% in a bit of a round the world trip, but I had to pay all the travel/accomodation myself then i'd be likely saying no. By the time I got around to spending all that money the tournaments would suddenly be -EV for me and +EV for the backer. By factoring the expenses into the deal you can end up with a situation that is +EV for both backer and player.

As I say, for a one off trip down the DTD I'm happy to swallow the expense myself and accept it's probably -EV for me to play in the tournament. My reason for staking/playing isn't neccesarily to make a profit.

You can also argue it back the other way. Only £300 goes into the prizepool. Why should the backer have to pay their share of the £36? That's an expense of running/being in the tournament.

Thats completely different, if sommeone wanted to put you specifically into a tournament in a location where you would have expenses then they should pay/share in the expenses.  If its absolutely your choice that you want to go to the tournament then I dont see how you can charge anyone else for expenses.

Its 1 of the downsides to live poker, expenses can mount up if you go regularly and you need to be decently +ev in the tournament to make a profit after expenses.

[Doobs]

Pleno you've got it all wrong, you've forgotten how he sticks to his guns! Remember!? He sticks to his guns and takes the abuse" well.

Maybe if you stuck to your guns a but more you'd have made the advent calendar

Do you not think you have said way too much on the advent calendar already?

[skolsuper]

I am not sure if it is sometimes supply and demand? I am sure there are a few members on here that have took a % in someone as just a punt rather than considering the mark up they have advertised at.

You can go back pages in this thread and someone mentioned about Daniel Morgan being able to sell his package at 1.6, because it's a 'soft' field and full of businessmen, etc. But everyone else who I can remember was selling at max 1.3 & are far better players. I think some people actually keep on adding to their mark up as they think about it even more, by thinking "I think I am 1.15, but I'll round it upto 1.2"

There isn't many people in the staking boards who are anywhere near the mark up they are selling at. The only who is perhaps close is Alex & fair play to him.

As for John Black, I try to keep up with most diaries on here, but everytime I read his diary it is a HH from a live cash game, no mark up needed imo.

I sell now and again and always at a very decent rate.

How do you know how good dan is and what makes you the guy to judge? Because e doesn't have a big hendon mob? There's people I speak to every day that have 0 hendon mov scores that I would pay 1.5 in the main

if you had not lost your debit card again

LOL, brilliant

[skolsuper]

Just remember if in doubt you could always take advantage of the good natured community spirit on here and run an auction, fuck the rest take as much money as you can....

<3 flushy.

Oh dear flushy. For one, auctions find the equilibrium price not the highest possible price. Second, this is very rich coming from the person who sold at the highest markup ever on blonde, 2.0 in a tournament with 18% rake iirc, which you then royally punted . Also the person who got a horse to sell at 1.5 for a 10k and then endorsed that by claiming to buy a huge piece which you weren't paying that much for. If either of us has taken advantage of the blonde community spirit, it isn't me.

[rfgqqabc]

Sniping itt

[skolsuper]

No one has mentioned expenses.

When you are sat on your fat arse in Blighty having a punt on a Blonde in Prague/Vegas or wherever surely you would expect to pay some mark up for expenses the player is gonna pay.

So really 1.12 is kinda break even? It's gotta be minus EV for anyone to sell at spot, or am I wrong?

You're right, but nobody will agree with you here

I have only ever bought action infrequently and for very minor amounts relative to the more serious stakers like yourself, but I always thought  from the perspective that the markup I paid was for their playing ability and they wouldn't be factoring their expenses into it.

I rarely sold action here either, I think only twice that I can remember and only once at markup when there were still plenty of fish. I sold the action to cover expenses in the first instance, but the markup was only because I felt I was worth it and not to ensure all expenses were covered.

Given what's transpired since then and how much has come to light with regards to staking, I most likely wasn't worth the markup even back then and definitely wouldn't be now even though I think I'm a +ev investment in an average live comp.

When I put my staking thread up for Vegas last year, again I was pretty sure that I'd be worth 1.2  in the expected field at Binions, but for the sake of the extra $100 or so bucks I would make from selling at that I decided to just sell at spot. Also that way avoiding any possible aggro with asking for markup and also try to get it through without being told I should lower it to 0.8 

All I mean is that I wouldn't dream of marking up anything I sold, so that I could cover expenses when I'm off on a trip to Vegas and be able to eat more fillet steaks instead of Denny's while I'm away. It just seems wrong to me, but I'm obviously looking at it as someone who is now a recreational player and not doing it for 'work' anymore. Would you factor in expenses to your markup because for you it's work and therefore any costs associated with the trip come as part of the package?

Just trying to get my head around it and I'm quite sure that once explained I'll realise that I've always been thinking about it wrong.
 

What I mean is, like gouty says, for a player, selling at 1.0 is actually selling at a discount and is usually a bad idea. People are irrational when it comes to big tournaments, they want to play at any cost, but if you're incurring extra expense to play a tournament, selling a piece at 1.0 just raises your expense:buyin ratio further. A professional player shouldn't really be concerned with the glitz of a big tournament and should go where the value is. Long story short, if you can't sell at a markup, you would probably be (economically) better off playing a smaller tournament closer to home. This doesn't apply if you win a non-transferrable satellite seat to something, then you could rationally sell at 1.0.

However, for a staker, what the markup is spent on and what expense is involved in playing a tournament is not important. Like Simon G says, a horse can't use expenses to 'justify' a markup and therefore it doesn't belong in any staking request.

[Simon Galloway]

Hmmm I may not have said it very well.

First of all, the ridiculous. Clearly a player can't come back and say "oh by the way, lunches came to $1k so you all owe me another $100 each"  It seems pretty obvious I would have thought, but it did get a mention, so  unless the staking thread says "when I come back I will also send out a bill for my lunch" (gl selling out on that) then clearly this would be not down to the backer.

Back into the realms of conventional stake requests.  I guess what I meant was, in a stake thread, you can ask and 'justify' whatever you like.  From a personal view, it seems more unpalatable to be covering someone's hotel than it does to be covering their time/effort/skill.  But it really doesn't matter - you could ask for 1.2 with the intention of going to the tourny whether you sell or not, but if you collect the 1. in your mind you are having the backers cover your lunch whilst in the minds of the backers they are paying 1.2 for your skillset.  In other words, the equilibrium value of 1.2 might be arrived at from different variables, but it matters not.. the price is agreeable to both and where the .2 gets spent doesn't matter.

Lastly, as it also got a mention, the satellite qualifiers are often the most irritating.  Someone that is a recreational player or micro grinder or whatever suddenly binks a $10k non-transferrable seat.  To sell off 20% at 1.0 to cover the flight and hotel seems reasonable (and perhaps a logic flaw for me that it seems to be far more reasonable than ^^)  This is a player that spun up $20 into a $10k seat though, so it really seems unnecessary to sell at 1.2, bordering on greed.