Staking Resolution - The Bank Of Timex (w-interview)

[SuuPRlim]

Keys says "If Timex had a little more PR-savvy about him" he would have achieved better results in this project or at least people would have been more receptive to his proposal. So superior skills in areas such as PR have value cos they get you better results. Let's say a horse is a mofo PR master and produces a staking proposal which attracts punters who just like the way he rolls. My question is why shouldn't he ask for a higher mark-up to reward him for that skill set in order to get better results in his own project? To say that his mark-up should purely reflect OPR is to put no value on such attributes. And not putting value on such attributes is the reason Timex made a faux pas.  

This isn't a faux pas on Timex's behalf at all.

A person's PR ability has no reflection on his value in a staking package.

It does however affect his ability to OVER-SELL himself.

Yo, calling everyone scammers is not a faux pas? Think you just did a faux pas

ok yea to clarify, PR adds value to the horse not the package. But why shouldn't he be allowed to over-sell and add that value to himself? because he has a skill set advantage over rivals with equal ROI so it gives him greater selling power. You think that is worth nothing in business? And you shouldn't exploit your strengths/advantages in business to max returns?

The only reason I bought cadbury's caramel was because of that sexy bunny in the advert..."why you rushing around...oooo....relax and have a cadbury's caramel". There was prob better value chocs in the shop tho.

Ok agree the scammers comment WAS a faux pas (although that's not what you said in your post lol)

I'm not saying horses shouldn't be allowed to use their slinky PR skillz to increase their mark-ups, but that's not the point of the thread the discussion currently on-going is how and if market imperfections are creating a bad buying environment . A general trend has emerged in increasing mark-ups and if you think it's solely down to the PR abilities of the sellers then I'd have to disagree with that, although I would agree that average quality proposals will have sold out quicker than higher value ones based purely on the quality of the porposal and would also agree that that is perfectly acceptable.

Also agree that the bunny is incred, from my recent visit to cadbury's world (children look away)...

Click to see full-size image.

[Tal]

How many concurrent arguments can there be in one thread?

Can't reason with those attracted to cartoon animals. Any others? Minnie Mouse? Ursula from the Little Mermaid? Dot from the Animaniacs? Bunch of weirdos

[Woodsey]

How many concurrent arguments can there be in one thread?

 

[DungBeetle]

What about Toodles Galore?

She was that floozy cat that used to turn up periodically and flirt with Tom in Tom and Jerry.

[Tal]

How many concurrent arguments can there be in one thread?

Can't reason with those attracted to cartoon animals. Any others? Minnie Mouse? Ursula from the Little Mermaid? Dot from the Animaniacs? Bunch of weirdos

THATS NOT A CARTOON ANIMAL - ITS A FRIKKIN ANIMAL SHAPED CHOCOLATE BAR MAN!!!!!!!!!!

The cadbury's caramel bunny was a cartoon advert rabbit. The product was shaped like a dairy milk but had caramel in it iirc.

Sex sells. Maybe Timex should have thought about that.

"Phil Ivey is selling at 1.65. I'm selling at 1.5 but with a password to some encrypted videos on my website"

[SuuPRlim]

Lee you seem to be totally missing the fact that these players are still PROFITING from them playing.

Spose a £10k event with 100 runners and Timex has a 200% Roi.

Prizepool is £1,000,000 and £30,000 of this is Timex's expectation. Now a "mediocre reg" who wouldn't be playing if he hadn't managed to sell 50% at 1.3 is now in the field, his actual ROI is 25% so of the £1,000,010 in the prize pool £12,500 of that is the reg's expectation. There is now £2,500 less which will be taken from EVERYONE in the field, those who are winners will win a little less and those who are losers will lose a little more.

If Someone came along as a result of selling at a inflated MU with a -20% ROI then timex (and other winners) would now be winning a little more as there is an additional £2,000 to carve up.

It may or may not have been a drive of ego to start the project but everyone is missing the point - IF his model is profitable, then he IS right.

Yes but then we get back to the poker ecology issue:

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=61121.0

Yeah thats all simple common sense stuff; my example was just a very extreme one in all senses.

If less of these small winning players can afford to play, then prizepools will be smaller or gtee's will not be met. Great in the immediate short term for players, but if gtee's are not met then casinos/sponsors will eventually lower them...or <shock horror for Timex> they lower the buy-in to attract more lower rolled players.

Timex needs to realise that its 2013 and, through widely available coaching/videos/pha/media, the general poker community is better educated than it was in 2008 when he made his breakthrough.  His edge will diminish in some way or other.  There are bound to be more 'winning' players, albeit small winners.

He seems to want some kind of poker utopia, where just rich losing poker playing businessmen enter tourneys and do their dough to him. Maybe he should just go play the One Drop...

I mean the discussion has become so cyclical, this point isn't one I really agree with or think was hugely relevant in his interview, it's just the point of "why wouldn't timex want more worse players than him playing" I dont think the intention of his BankOfTimex plan was to stop "mediocre regs" playing tourneys they are under-rolled for, just a response to PAtricks question of "why do you care."

The bolded bit is a huge over-reaction he said or implied nothing of the sort in the interview.

all my posts ITT come across very defensive of him, my intention isn't really to defend him (I happen to agree with the main point he made) but people are making statements ITT that are drawn from gross misconceptions of what he actually said in the interview.

He said he hopes his scheme causes the markets to correct themselves and people got on a bandwagon and accused him of pretending to act in the greater good of society hidden behind a desire to profit. Then he explained a reason why it affects him personally that people are over-selling and poeple have jumped on a bandwagon of "Timex trying to exclude people from poker tournaments so he can win more." He called out a few people who he felt had put up bad value PUBLIC packages and everyone jumped on him saying he's just an ego-maniac trying to prove he's better than anyone else.

As a result everyone has totally missed his point, or doesn't care about the point, one of the two.

[skolsuper]

Wow best post ever lil'd

[cambridgealex]

Lee you seem to be totally missing the fact that these players are still PROFITING from them playing.

Spose a £10k event with 100 runners and Timex has a 200% Roi.

Prizepool is £1,000,000 and £30,000 of this is Timex's expectation. Now a "mediocre reg" who wouldn't be playing if he hadn't managed to sell 50% at 1.3 is now in the field, his actual ROI is 25% so of the £1,000,010 in the prize pool £12,500 of that is the reg's expectation. There is now £2,500 less which will be taken from EVERYONE in the field, those who are winners will win a little less and those who are losers will lose a little more.

If Someone came along as a result of selling at a inflated MU with a -20% ROI then timex (and other winners) would now be winning a little more as there is an additional £2,000 to carve up.

It may or may not have been a drive of ego to start the project but everyone is missing the point - IF his model is profitable, then he IS right.

Yes but then we get back to the poker ecology issue:

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=61121.0

Yeah thats all simple common sense stuff; my example was just a very extreme one in all senses.

If less of these small winning players can afford to play, then prizepools will be smaller or gtee's will not be met. Great in the immediate short term for players, but if gtee's are not met then casinos/sponsors will eventually lower them...or <shock horror for Timex> they lower the buy-in to attract more lower rolled players.

Timex needs to realise that its 2013 and, through widely available coaching/videos/pha/media, the general poker community is better educated than it was in 2008 when he made his breakthrough.  His edge will diminish in some way or other.  There are bound to be more 'winning' players, albeit small winners.

He seems to want some kind of poker utopia, where just rich losing poker playing businessmen enter tourneys and do their dough to him. Maybe he should just go play the One Drop...

I mean the discussion has become so cyclical, this point isn't one I really agree with or think was hugely relevant in his interview, it's just the point of "why wouldn't timex want more worse players than him playing" I dont think the intention of his BankOfTimex plan was to stop "mediocre regs" playing tourneys they are under-rolled for, just a response to PAtricks question of "why do you care."

The bolded bit is a huge over-reaction he said or implied nothing of the sort in the interview.

all my posts ITT come across very defensive of him, my intention isn't really to defend him (I happen to agree with the main point he made) but people are making statements ITT that are drawn from gross misconceptions of what he actually said in the interview.

He said he hopes his scheme causes the markets to correct themselves and people got on a bandwagon and accused him of pretending to act in the greater good of society hidden behind a desire to profit. Then he explained a reason why it affects him personally that people are over-selling and poeple have jumped on a bandwagon of "Timex trying to exclude people from poker tournaments so he can win more." He called out a few people who he felt had put up bad value PUBLIC packages and everyone jumped on him saying he's just an ego-maniac trying to prove he's better than anyone else.

As a result everyone has totally missed his point, or doesn't care about the point, one of the two.

Nailed it

[outragous76]

Lee you seem to be totally missing the fact that these players are still PROFITING from them playing.

Spose a £10k event with 100 runners and Timex has a 200% Roi.

Prizepool is £1,000,000 and £30,000 of this is Timex's expectation. Now a "mediocre reg" who wouldn't be playing if he hadn't managed to sell 50% at 1.3 is now in the field, his actual ROI is 25% so of the £1,000,010 in the prize pool £12,500 of that is the reg's expectation. There is now £2,500 less which will be taken from EVERYONE in the field, those who are winners will win a little less and those who are losers will lose a little more.

If Someone came along as a result of selling at a inflated MU with a -20% ROI then timex (and other winners) would now be winning a little more as there is an additional £2,000 to carve up.

It may or may not have been a drive of ego to start the project but everyone is missing the point - IF his model is profitable, then he IS right.

Yes but then we get back to the poker ecology issue:

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=61121.0

Yeah thats all simple common sense stuff; my example was just a very extreme one in all senses.

If less of these small winning players can afford to play, then prizepools will be smaller or gtee's will not be met. Great in the immediate short term for players, but if gtee's are not met then casinos/sponsors will eventually lower them...or <shock horror for Timex> they lower the buy-in to attract more lower rolled players.

Timex needs to realise that its 2013 and, through widely available coaching/videos/pha/media, the general poker community is better educated than it was in 2008 when he made his breakthrough.  His edge will diminish in some way or other.  There are bound to be more 'winning' players, albeit small winners.

He seems to want some kind of poker utopia, where just rich losing poker playing businessmen enter tourneys and do their dough to him. Maybe he should just go play the One Drop...

I mean the discussion has become so cyclical, this point isn't one I really agree with or think was hugely relevant in his interview, it's just the point of "why wouldn't timex want more worse players than him playing" I dont think the intention of his BankOfTimex plan was to stop "mediocre regs" playing tourneys they are under-rolled for, just a response to PAtricks question of "why do you care."

The bolded bit is a huge over-reaction he said or implied nothing of the sort in the interview.

all my posts ITT come across very defensive of him, my intention isn't really to defend him (I happen to agree with the main point he made) but people are making statements ITT that are drawn from gross misconceptions of what he actually said in the interview.

He said he hopes his scheme causes the markets to correct themselves and people got on a bandwagon and accused him of pretending to act in the greater good of society hidden behind a desire to profit. Then he explained a reason why it affects him personally that people are over-selling and poeple have jumped on a bandwagon of "Timex trying to exclude people from poker tournaments so he can win more." He called out a few people who he felt had put up bad value PUBLIC packages and everyone jumped on him saying he's just an ego-maniac trying to prove he's better than anyone else.

As a result everyone has totally missed his point, or doesn't care about the point, one of the two.

whilst I don't disagree with your points dave, he also did it through ego. Im Timex, one of the best NLHE players and ill decide what the market should do, and who should sell at what.

He quickly realised that he couldn't face the exposure, couldn't spend time dealing with all the PMs (and im sure 50% were probably people having a laugh) and then mysteriously there was a "tax" issue. For a smart guy setting up a business proposition its something of a school boy oversight, and not one I believe for a second (nor the gaming commission stuff).

He comes across as very arrogant in the interview, and slip ups aside with phraseology (scammers) he still came across as a prick

Ive no doubt he came into this thinking "ill change the market and this is how", as much as he did "this is a great way to make money".

Why is it for Timex to decide if the market is over priced? It  certainly isn't down to him. Although you suggest earlier the market isn't perfect, it doesn't need to be perfect. If everyone started selling at 5.0 the market would disappear overnight. Therefore, the market works just fine. So just like 10 years ago when the market was "mate to mate" and Ill buy you in for 50% share, it has adjusted down over the years due to availability of information and an expanding market place (selling on forums).  if you ran the market for 100 years and plotted results on a graph I guarantee you it should show corrections

[action man]

wtf? i did this years ago, albeit on a smaller scale. fish and chip paper now

[SuuPRlim]

I just don't get why people have taken such personal insult to his attempts. From my perception of it he said "I think the market's WRONG, and I'm going to prove it" he then proposehow he was going to prove it, by making money from the gap between current price and market equilibrium. If he CAN profit from that, then market's wrong and there isn't much room to dispute that, as a perfect market has no room for a middle man.

AFAIK he will be breaking american gambling laws - as you may or may not know the "wire act" makes it illegal for people to gamble "in proxy" in america.  So he's had to abandon his plans, not like this was a company he was gonna launch on the stock market or anything it was a practical exercise designed to make a point. If anything I thought he deserved a bit of credit for stumping up his own money to try prove a point he's made publically on numerous occasions. I've made the some point (albeit less vocally) but you won't find me putting my cash behind the opinion (for a couple of reasons)

Why is it for Timex to decide if the market is over priced?

Who's job is it? Surely it's the task of whoever operates within the market, and he falls into that category.

I just don't understand what he did to cause such controversy.

If I put up a staking thread at 1.4 and Key's comes along and said "this is bad value at 1.4 you have done nothing to justify this markup" I came back and reeled off a huge list of reasons why I'm worth 1.4, and have a 100% ROI and he replied with "OK. Buy 20% of yourself of me 1.25" and I refused what does that tell you about my confidence in that mark-up?

[SuuPRlim]

Obviously that example is purely hypothetical and wouldn't be a practical determining factor for numerous reasons.

[The Camel]

I just don't get why people have taken such personal insult to his attempts. From my perception of it he said "I think the market's WRONG, and I'm going to prove it" he then proposehow he was going to prove it, by making money from the gap between current price and market equilibrium. If he CAN profit from that, then market's wrong and there isn't much room to dispute that, as a perfect market has no room for a middle man.

AFAIK he will be breaking american gambling laws - as you may or may not know the "wire act" makes it illegal for people to gamble "in proxy" in america.  So he's had to abandon his plans, not like this was a company he was gonna launch on the stock market or anything it was a practical exercise designed to make a point. If anything I thought he deserved a bit of credit for stumping up his own money to try prove a point he's made publically on numerous occasions. I've made the some point (albeit less vocally) but you won't find me putting my cash behind the opinion (for a couple of reasons)

Why is it for Timex to decide if the market is over priced?

Who's job is it? Surely it's the task of whoever operates within the market, and he falls into that category.

I just don't understand what he did to cause such controversy.

If I put up a staking thread at 1.4 and Key's comes along and said "this is bad value at 1.4 you have done nothing to justify this markup" I came back and reeled off a huge list of reasons why I'm worth 1.4, and have a 100% ROI and he replied with "OK. Buy 20% of yourself of me 1.25" and I refused what does that tell you about my confidence in that mark-up?

The "scraping up my ROI" quote did it for me.

[Young_gun]

Read this earlier, great interview pleno 

Actually thought Mike 'timex' seemed ok, he was willing to put his money on he line so fairplay to him

Also could be seen as a marketing/PR stunt but i generally don't think it was.

Great thread too alot of knowledge, great read thanks all

[SuuPRlim]

I just don't get why people have taken such personal insult to his attempts. From my perception of it he said "I think the market's WRONG, and I'm going to prove it" he then proposehow he was going to prove it, by making money from the gap between current price and market equilibrium. If he CAN profit from that, then market's wrong and there isn't much room to dispute that, as a perfect market has no room for a middle man.

AFAIK he will be breaking american gambling laws - as you may or may not know the "wire act" makes it illegal for people to gamble "in proxy" in america.  So he's had to abandon his plans, not like this was a company he was gonna launch on the stock market or anything it was a practical exercise designed to make a point. If anything I thought he deserved a bit of credit for stumping up his own money to try prove a point he's made publically on numerous occasions. I've made the some point (albeit less vocally) but you won't find me putting my cash behind the opinion (for a couple of reasons)

Why is it for Timex to decide if the market is over priced?

Who's job is it? Surely it's the task of whoever operates within the market, and he falls into that category.

I just don't understand what he did to cause such controversy.

If I put up a staking thread at 1.4 and Key's comes along and said "this is bad value at 1.4 you have done nothing to justify this markup" I came back and reeled off a huge list of reasons why I'm worth 1.4, and have a 100% ROI and he replied with "OK. Buy 20% of yourself of me 1.25" and I refused what does that tell you about my confidence in that mark-up?

The "scraping up my ROI" quote did it for me.

So we're annoyed at his choice of phrase. No problem with the point he was making?