Sky 6 max UKPC Staking Package

[arbboy]

Don't think dreenie or rexas are accusing you of anything to do with your honesty and integrity In the gambling world.
Think their point is that to someone who has never met you, such as myself which on a forum like this common, you just come across as a bit of an arse/ not showing yourself in your best light

I was a bit of an arse 4 years ago as well.  Shit happens.  I don't tend to worry about it.  I am right more often than i am wrong so i just tend to go with my view and not worry about what other's think.

[Honeybadger]

Looks to me like you've owned the guy by making such a huge jam and repping a very different hand to what you had. If I was in his shoes I'd assume I was usually flipping, occasionally dominating, and almost never dominated. So well played.

Not much point in hating on a guy that made a 'bad call' against your actual hand (and perhaps against your actual range), but a reasonable call against the range that he probably perceived you to have. But even if he really has played his hand badly, still not much point in hating on him.

You said you are a believer in 'show me a good loser and show me a loser'. This cliche really does not work in poker. To be a winner at poker you must be very good at losing.

[Sunday8pm]

I quite like arbboy's tone in this thread, say what you think and say it to the public. Too many times you overhear people saying bla bla so and so is terrible amongst their private circles. Apart from getting a bit too personal Mark, I see nothing wrong with a little bit of fire in someone's belly now and again.

[tikay]

being backed on a long term make up deal to play mtts is ever so slightly different to being thrown in at the last minute only because rob is doing his nuts on an overlay and phoning anyone who will stake anyone into it to save his arse.  Is it only me who notices the same groups of people buying in late to mtt's at dtd when there is an overlay who never normally play there and all have 'connection's' shall we say to one or two big players in the game with money?  They are on a spin up/freeroll and will only win £1/2k even if they win the event as they hold such a small % of themselves therefore, by the very nature of this, will gamble much more aggressively than if they have 100% of themselves.  That's just human nature.

I appreciate the vast majority of people are staked.  I ain't as stupid as i look whatever you may think.  I know who is staked by who generally.  I keep my ear/eyes to the ground.

Yo ArgueBoy.

I don't think that is true, far from it.

A LOT of players are staked, fine, so be it, but the VAST majority are not staked. It's not even close.

If you mean those who played the UKPC last week, it's a lot closer, but the majority would have played on their own money. 

[tikay]

Looks to me like you've owned the guy by making such a huge jam and repping a very different hand to what you had. If I was in his shoes I'd assume I was usually flipping, occasionally dominating, and almost never dominated. So well played.

Not much point in hating on a guy that made a 'bad call' against your actual hand (and perhaps against your actual range), but a reasonable call against the range that he probably perceived you to have. But even if he really has played his hand badly, still not much point in hating on him.

You said you are a believer in 'show me a good loser and show me a loser'. This cliche really does not work in poker. To be a winner at poker you must be very good at losing.

I'm not interested in the debate, but I so love that, I'm stealing it, & claiming it as mine.

Good to see you last week. I SO hope that Interview survives the Edit Suite......

[scotty2hatty]

I quite like arbboy's tone in this thread, say what you think and say it to the public. Too many times you overhear people saying bla bla so and so is terrible amongst their private circles. Apart from getting a bit too personal Mark, I see nothing wrong with a little bit of fire in someone's belly now and again.

Agree with this. And arbboy is a winner with the women as well so people need to lay off!

[SuuPRlim]

some folks don't 'arf get in some big holes, & I heard THE most incredible staking story last week, though it's not for publication, sadly.

The highest make-up figure I've heard of is $11,000,000

[tikay]

some folks don't 'arf get in some big holes, & I heard THE most incredible staking story last week, though it's not for publication, sadly.

The highest make-up figure I've heard of is $11,000,000

!

It was not THAT daft.

It was a 5 figure sum, but that is, it seems, nothing these days.

It was another aspect that piqued my interest though, being fear of getting out of MU, in case the backer took the opportunity to close the deal. I must say, that occupied my mind for a good few hours. 

[cambridgealex]

I think Tikay is right in that if you take the poker playing population as a whole then the (vast) majority is NOT staked. Tikay knows the vast majority of players play at the microstakes.

In EPTs etc however, the number of people that truly have put in 100% of the money themselves and have kept 100% of the action is very low.

[cambridgealex]

5 fig makeup totes standard teeks!

I've ran well to have never been in too much given what I play. But better players who play lower stakes have got in more than that and out again multiple times over!

[arbboy]

being backed on a long term make up deal to play mtts is ever so slightly different to being thrown in at the last minute only because rob is doing his nuts on an overlay and phoning anyone who will stake anyone into it to save his arse.  Is it only me who notices the same groups of people buying in late to mtt's at dtd when there is an overlay who never normally play there and all have 'connection's' shall we say to one or two big players in the game with money?  They are on a spin up/freeroll and will only win £1/2k even if they win the event as they hold such a small % of themselves therefore, by the very nature of this, will gamble much more aggressively than if they have 100% of themselves.  That's just human nature.

I appreciate the vast majority of people are staked.  I ain't as stupid as i look whatever you may think.  I know who is staked by who generally.  I keep my ear/eyes to the ground.

Yo ArgueBoy.

I don't think that is true, far from it.

A LOT of players are staked, fine, so be it, but the VAST majority are not staked. It's not even close.

If you mean those who played the UKPC last week, it's a lot closer, but the majority would have played on their own money. 

I would be amazed if 250 of the field in the £1k had 100% of their own action tikay.  If you include swaps (which is effectively selling in a different way to smooth variance) i would be amazed if 100 people had 100% of their own action.  Your statement is obviously correct in the whole poker community including all stakes down to the micros.

[Junior Senior]

So you wouldn't vote for him to be Vanessa Selbst's next protege? Pretty sure it's the same guy right?!



Even Trumper is plugging him!

@Dusk_Till_Dawn_: Vote for DTD regular Richard Shiels

http://t.co/DDdTsT2rA3

"Dad playing poker back in the 90's"....I feel old.

The nineties were recent right? My wardrobe says so.

[Junior Senior]

some folks don't 'arf get in some big holes, & I heard THE most incredible staking story last week, though it's not for publication, sadly.

The highest make-up figure I've heard of is $11,000,000

How? Surely that can NEVER be gotten out of.

What happens if the backer wants to stop backing? Do they forfeit the right to get that money back?

[Dubai]

Ah the good old makeup argument

Will explain why a horse is worth more to a backer when he has higher makeup than none tho- it's the opposite of the real world, worse you are doing the more value you have to the "company (backer)" and more demands you can make

Reason is- when a player has 0 makeup and is on a long term 50/50 deal- the first tournament he plays it's the equivalent of the backer paying 2.0 for shares in that tournament. However if a player has 100k makeup and first prize is 100k, then it's the equivalent of the backer buying shares at spot aka 1.0 in they tournament. Therefore theoretically the higher the players makeup in relation to the tournament prize pool, the better the investment appears as a one off for the backer


Which is why people get let go when they clear makeup, as it's the point they are worth the least to their backer

[Dubai]

The main problem with regards to backing people particularly in mtts is that a huge portion of the players that need backing/are backed fit into the 0-20 region. Now what this means is they are somewhere between break even and 20% roi winner- now obviously on paper a 20% winner is fine- problem being when you factor into variance, playing expenses, living costs it now becomes a massive issue. They simply can't win enough money to sustain the costs of living associated with life and tournament poker, so they end up borrowing on makeup, putting expenses on makeup and the figure starts to rise- bear in mind they are only a 20% roi winner at best and that's when they are playing well. Now they start playing slightly worse and are only a very tiny winner, some bad variance when deep can mean huge downswings for these types of players whilst continuing to borrow and seek the big win to get out. Now the figures too big and they are probably a small losing -roi player. GG