jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[tommyt]

this thread is bananas

[LLL]

Sounds good. Good luck on the forums...

I have nothing against you, and you seem very articulate. Let me toss you a piece of advice. If you don't like the aggression, I'd stay away from conflict all together. Because even if you say the right thing, their are fifty trolls waiting to pile on you just to fuck with you.

And another thing. You can figure everything out. That's great, but in the end Druff will read every word in this thread and make his own decision. You can call in three million arbitrators and their word will mean nothing once Druff makes a ruling.

Does anyone else find it odd that Todd, who cant miss shit, hasnt commented on the thread that has doubled the next longest thread in PFA history?

Druff obviously loves the drama since he hasn't made a clear statement regarding this since yesterday.

[gut]

Have we come to a conclusion on the value of China's pieces yet?

[jsearles22]

Have we come to a conclusion on the value of China's pieces yet?

$500

[Steve-O]

Have we come to a conclusion on the value of China's pieces yet?

bout tree fiddy

[DABADASS]

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

[Bootsy Collins]

And we are back on track.

[jsearles22]

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

Just for clarification purposes, I dont think he is offering makeup. I think he is offering stakeback which is different. Its an even more LOL argument, but different nonetheless

[chinamaniac]

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

[jsearles22]

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

Maybe you are mentioning just for to make sure everything is 100% clear (*giggles*) but isnt stakeback on a stake SOP about 99.5% of the time?

[DABADASS]

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

Your deal is terrible. Combining cash games and tournaments on such a short-term deal is obviously great for you, but horrible for an investor. There's no way that LHE cash games provide a better ROI than WSOP events. Also, it gives you too many built-in options. Let's say you strike out in both tournaments. Are you really going to bust your ass to grind back the money you blew on the tournaments before you will ever see a dime? Let's say you cash for $100k in the tournaments. Are you really going to grind out those cash games? No, you'll probably play a few hours and that will be that. That way, you only have to pay out 13% of the winnings (on a 20% investment) from the tournaments instead of 23.6%.

Everyone knows your cash game portion of the deal is a creative way to dilute the returns from the tournaments. How about you offer separate packages. If your ROI from cash games is so great, then people will jump at the opportunity to buy-in to that separate package!

[jsearles22]

actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

Your deal is terrible. Combining cash games and tournaments on such a short-term deal is obviously great for you, but horrible for an investor. There's no way that LHE cash games provide a better ROI than WSOP events. Also, it gives you too many built-in options. Let's say you strike out in both tournaments. Are you really going to bust your ass to grind back the money you blew on the tournaments before you will ever see a dime? Let's say you cash for $100k in the tournaments. Are you really going to grind out those cash games? No, you'll probably play a few hours and that will be that. That way, you only have to pay out 13% of the winnings (on a 20% investment) from the tournaments instead of 23.6%.

Everyone knows your cash game portion of the deal is a creative way to dilute the returns from the tournaments. How about you offer separate packages. If your ROI from cash games is so great, then people will jump at the opportunity to buy-in to that separate package!

Cash games would provide a better ROI% long term but MTTs are better if you are looking to bink a big win in a short amount of time. Thats what WSOP staking is about. I agree he is throwing the cash in just to make the deal appear better. I also agree that throwing around the word "stakeback" is just a fancy way to muddy the waters for unsuspecting donors.

Also, did you just ninja drop in the 23.6% for LOLZ? Isnt that the exact amount of DD that DD owned?

[DABADASS]

You are being very vague on the terms of the cash game portion of the stake. Set some defined hours, and play prior to the tournaments. That way you can't adjust your allocation of time depending on how you do in the tournaments.

As far as the 23.6%, I looked at the percentage you would get if you only invested in the tournaments with 2k (2000/5500 = .3636* .65 = 23.6%), compared to if you invested in the entire package (2000/10000= .20 * .65 = 13%)

[jsearles22]

You are being very vague on the terms of the cash game portion of the stake. Set some defined hours, and play prior to the tournaments. That way you can't adjust your allocation of time depending on how you do in the tournaments.

In before the - well it depends on how i do in the tournaments and how much time I have.
*seemingly implying that if he does well in the tournies that the cash is just a way to dilute the water as you have already touched on

[Sandwich]

... I also agree that throwing around the word "stakeback" is just a fancy way to muddy the waters for unsuspecting donors.

I must admit that I've been confused about this mention of "stakeback" since the offer was announced. Can somebody provide an example -- a simple mathematical hypothetical -- of a deal offering "stakeback" and a deal not offering "stakeback"? (which, in my limited understanding, is just that the staker gets his investment back before "profits" are calculated... well, duh!)

[DABADASS]

... I also agree that throwing around the word "stakeback" is just a fancy way to muddy the waters for unsuspecting donors.

I must admit that I've been confused about this mention of "stakeback" since the offer was announced. Can somebody provide an example -- a simple mathematical hypothetical -- of a deal offering "stakeback" and a deal not offering "stakeback"? (which, in my limited understanding, is just that the staker gets his investment back before "profits" are calculated... well, duh!)

A stakeback is in basically every staking arrangement. I skimmed his thread and I thought I saw someone mention make-up, but apparently I was mistaken.

Let's say someone stakes you for a $10,000 tournament and you agree to split the winnings 60/40. You end up cashing for $50,000

W/ Stakeback:

50,000-10,000= 40,000 * .4 = $16,000 for the person being backed, and $24,000 profit for the backer

W/o stakeback:

50,000 * .4= $20,000 for the person being backed, and $20,000 profit for the backer.



Basically, when you don't have a stakeback and you cash for more than the buy-in, the investor loses out on 40% of the buy-in compared to an arrangement w/ stakeback. (Using the 60/40 split mentioned above.)

So, if you cash 15% of the time, a stakeback adds around 6% per tournament. (Using the same 60/40 split)

Math:

$2,000 tournament, 15% cash rate (assuming the min-cash is > the buy-in, and same 60/40 split in favor of the backer)

$2,000 * .40= $800 * .15= $120 in EV gained by the backer (relative to a non-stakeback deal)

120/2000= 6% per tournament

[lewfather]

Lol phoneaments

[lewfather]

so why don't you write up a fail blog about it already. Fucking loser.

[DABADASS]

so why don't you write up a fail blog about it already. Fucking loser.

So nice you did it twice? Lew, you've posted on these forums for six straight years, and you've yet to create a memorable post. Being called a loser by a man such as yourself is an honor!

[chinamaniac]

actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

There's no way that LHE cash games provide a better ROI than WSOP events.






Also, it gives you too many built-in options. Let's say you strike out in both tournaments. Are you really going to bust your ass to grind back the money you blew on the tournaments before you will ever see a dime?

Ya I am going to play cash games and grind for my backers. I have run 2 stakes of 3 months a piece in the past 9 months and maybe took 3 full 24 hr periods off. I am probably leaving town directly after the 2nd MTT win lose or draw. So I could be ahead or behind in cash games at that point. But I probably win close to 7 out of 10 live sessions and am giving 65 % of the profits to the backers so this is an added incentive for THEM


Let's say you cash for $100k in the tournaments. Are you really going to grind out those cash games? No, you'll probably play a few hours and that will be that. That way, you only have to pay out 13% of the winnings (on a 20% investment) from the tournaments instead of 23.6%.
If I hit for 100k on the first MTT I will still play cash in my spare time if the games are good. Regardless of what happens in the MTTS or Cash games all money when I leave Vegas will be pooled and split


Everyone knows your cash game portion of the deal is a creative way to dilute the returns from the tournaments.
Disagree, I have sold 80% already and some very sharp stakers have bought action. How is it diluting anything? All money is pooled back in and divided up.

Let's say there were 0 good cash games. The extra 4500 goes back into the roll and the makeup has to be paid back.

Also I am a favorite in the cash games and I am giving them a very good cut on the action!!!!


How about you offer separate packages. If your ROI from cash games is so great, then people will jump at the opportunity to buy-in to that separate package!

How about I run my Baps the way I want to!!!! This is very standard to add both together