Ok my intent was to post almost as a devils advocate, walk away, let it simmer n discussion go on and then comeback later with a proper post. But I reckon I'll get alot of hate that way, so gonna post now. Am on my phone n playin live so answer might not be quite what I wanted...
My point of using titaniumbean was an illustrative one.
Im well aware that the beaneh sample size is small and also most likely not his only poker income stream ie. other accounts, live circuit mtt, casino mtt, online cash, live cash etc
I also know that in his staking threads he is absolutely open n honest re: negative rois etc and also puts plenty of background info into the op.
BUT although I may be wrong to higlight negative roi, these are actually the figures he used to advertise his services. So if its good then - why not now?
However my point is that staking requesters should not be labelled as scammers etc just because they put what is deemed to be inflated mark up on.
After all, as others have said, there is no industry standard to measure against or defined formula for calculating 'worth'. People are guessing their worth for whatever reasons, which have all been discussed in depth previously. But they certainly don't deserve such negative tags. If investors don't like the offer then give a wide berth.
As I say, Im pretty sure titaniumbeam has plenty of people that would vouch for his integrity and would not appreciate such a tag off the back of data presented. He also feels - he is worth markup - and indeed that he has been told hes worth more. So Im pretty sure he would feel aggrieved to be given a negative label...
As to Timex surely it would be better for him to spend his time n money encouraging players with higher mu ?
Ive prolly missed alot what I wanted say but screen scrollin on phone tiltin n distractin me
I get the devils advocate point, and wish more people were willing to accept criticism, talk openly so as to get the best discussion.
The figures themselves are not the things that I specifically use to advertise the services, I like to think that my supreme good looks and marvelous integrity make people lean more towards taking a piece than not before any considerations of schedule, player ability, variance, markup come into it. I specifically include the figures because I feel I understand mtt variance quite well (i've just always assumed that I and everyone underestimate it by factors of millions) and want to show what experience I have, what justification I feel I have to charge a markup, and always try to explain my other experience and the levels of work i've put in on my game over the years. Also think advertising is somewhat wrong, would rather use the phrase transparency. I feel like the threads I put up have merit and should sell out at the rate I put them up without me having to do a hard sell or spam the shit out of a load of randoms in a desperate attempt to sell out. In general all my threads have sold out quickly, a couple of which have been 10-15k outlays, which is hardly a small amount of money it's just the weird world of poker people seem to find these figures normal. By the speed which they've sold out at current marketplace standard I should have upped the markup to try and suck more out of people. Yet I would rather provide good value to my stakers, feel good in myself of the value i've provided. I would much rather be considered someone who undersells themself rather than a piss taker.
Can people stop using the word scammer, timex said it then said he wished he'd used another word, I used it because w/e that was what was being used and in my head it doesn't quite have the same horrific vileness that people seem to be getting offended by it's usage. Obviously my knowledge of synonyms wasn't good enough to better choose a word, I used douschebaggery to try to imply that I wasn't really sure scammer was the right word but it's all relatively similar.
it's definitely a case of if you know my ROI in whatever comp is 150%. fair markup is then subjective, at current mindsets we'd be finding 1.5 fine even though it provides no value just variance to the buyer. it's such an ethical/moral issue where you draw the line, and given everyone uses the old excuse of we'll never know our rois it lets people get away with ridiculous markups.
I'm not picking on Andy here this is just a general question, but if someone puts up a staking request at a premium and they show a bit of a loss on OPR I think its fair to question them. Sure some of their mates might say xyz about them, but it's hard to go against evidence on OPR v 'mates opinions'.
so player a has 15 tournies and shows a loss, player b has 0 tournies therefore he's a better prospect even though has none of the experience player a possibly has?
basically live poker is just joke results orientated. those who have achieved larger samples online have found there is a shocking amount of variance, with people like moorman going on brutal downswings whilst being one of the very best in the world.
with the payouts for mtts being so top heavy a couple of deep runs and some 9ths shows up as a poor roi whilst just 1 deep run to first projects the players roi up massively. it also skews it way past where it should be .
the whole point of judging someones ability means that you have to have an indepth knowledge of their game, not only that but an indepth knowledge or at least understanding of their finances/motivations. most people are pretty poor at assessing how good a player is, when you then ask them to assess themselves it becomes ridiculous how far away from reality that assessment can be. such that you often just have to go on your perception of them as a person and the amount/willingness to put alot of work in on their game and their temperament etc.
quite specifically woodsey I think you should go more on people you trusts opinions of the poster than on some arbitrary figures especially when the sample sizes are so small. (remembering that a sample size of 4k 9 man sngs is going to be alot more telling than a sample size of 4k 10k runner mtts).
as I said before and i'm not trying to be rude just using the dtd all time money list, would you think your were buying money buying a piece of rastafish in any dtd comp at a large markup rate, because over a sample of 5 tournaments he's managed to return a colossal roi?
I know exactly what you are saying, so what would be a reasonable sample size to go by on OPR?
The problem with people opinions is its easy for a group of friends to big each other up on here and create a false impression of their abilities. Now I'm not saying that deffo happens but you get the general point it think.
I'm tempted to look through the OPRs of a bunch of 'top' players to see how many they have played and what their ROI is.
that's the thing, does a small sample size of winning show more than a small sample size of losing?
the reasonable sample size question has gone on for years on 2+2 etc, essentially the bigger the variance the bigger the sample for you to get reasonably close to expectation, the more and more tournament winrates reduce the higher and higher the variance will get and the larger and larger the sample size required is.
if you look at the results of player A. and he has won 10k from 1 215 mtt online, he's really good right? even though you wont see any of the hands histories of how he played or how he won. it's for that reason that I would rather have the opinion of someone I respected who had knowledge of the persons game as opposed to just going off a small sample size.
similarly if we assume A a winning player, what is his roi? is it that figure he achieved from one tournament or are we going to be sensible and say this figure is skewed we go further down? at what point are we just making shit up?!
I should have just posted the link to noah sds mtt variance blog post again as it covers all this sort of stuff much better than I ever can.
Sorry for not having egggselent english skills Keys. I will use a thesaurus next time and try and find words that dont rub people up the wrong way (remembering that timex was the one to use the scammer phrase and that douschebaggery is obv a well cool word even if I just made it up).
Author