Greg Raymer (again) proposes lousy staking deal on YouStake

[garrett]

Retarded staking deals, aka staking deals, are how 99% of winning tournament players get their edge. The market for this should have cratered years ago but suckers keep lining up.

Yeah I agree, and the markup game and knowing the 'right friends' to get into MTTs is fucking hilarious..

[tyde]

Wonder if he grew over 6 feet tall yet?

SIIIIICK pic

had never seen this before

China is GOD

[BeerAndPoker]

It all comes down to whether someone is willing to pay that kind of mark up or not.

We can sit here all day and debate how you have to be stupid to invest in this and pay high mark up in general that tons of players are charging but the thing is if enough people are willing to pay at whatever price (ridiculous or not) that someone sets then why should we blame the pro for selling it at what they do if it sells out?

You think that pro gives a shit what 1000 other people on an internet poker forum think in regards to their mark up being so crazy? Hell no they don't as long as it sells out!

Just like any investment you make you should do your research before making a decision. Druff and other people in various forums are helping people realize how this likely isn't going to be a great investment based on your return, which I agree with in this case too but other people will just invest anyway.

Some might invest with their emotions like some fanboy who wants a piece of Fossil because they think it would be cool or whatever it might be so if they pay it then so be.

Greg could payout 25% and keep 75% for himself, which is laughable but he has every right to do that.

[Dan Druff]

This isn't so much about complaining about the markup anymore (though that was my initial reason for the thread).

It has since become much more about the shadiness with the tournaments not being specified in advance, to where he could be using the stakes to simply freeroll people for a much bigger percentage than he claims to be keeping for himself.

Also, playing cash games on these type of stakes is also shady, as there is no way to verify.

If Raymer wins $4k in a cash game and is feeling a bit light in the pocketbook, what would stop him from claiming to have won $2500? Absolutely nothing, and there's no way to catch him doing it.

Even if he has the purest of intentions, the problem is that there are too many loopholes, and it's impossible to know if you are being dealt with fairly.

These stakes should be ironclad and unexploitable (aside from outright stealing the money), thus removing any temptation from the player to screw people.

[jsearles22]

This isn't so much about complaining about the markup anymore (though that was my initial reason for the thread).

It has since become much more about the shadiness with the tournaments not being specified in advance, to where he could be using the stakes to simply freeroll people for a much bigger percentage than he claims to be keeping for himself.

Also, playing cash games on these type of stakes is also shady, as there is no way to verify.

If Raymer wins $4k in a cash game and is feeling a bit light in the pocketbook, what would stop him from claiming to have won $2500? Absolutely nothing, and there's no way to catch him doing it.

Even if he has the purest of intentions, the problem is that there are too many loopholes, and it's impossible to know if you are being dealt with fairly.

These stakes should be ironclad and unexploitable (aside from outright stealing the money), thus removing any temptation from the player to screw people.

There's always an element of trust in any stake agreement. Here's my opinion, if the terms are clear beforehand and two parties agree, so be it.

[Hockey Guy]

I actually think it's a little in bad taste to come right out & call this "shady" considering there was some controversy concerning Druff's WSOP shares last year.

I'll give Druff credit for dealing with it head on at the time but it occurred because of a situation/scenario he did not consider when he posted it & this may be something very similar from Greg's perspective. Or maybe there's some other built-in safeguard to make sure he is putting in the 20K & really has another 30K in backing & everyone is just talking out of their asses because they either haven't bothered to read read all the information or are not privy to it all.

Maybe we should wait a little longer before declaring it "shady" on page 2.

[Dan Druff]

This isn't so much about complaining about the markup anymore (though that was my initial reason for the thread).

It has since become much more about the shadiness with the tournaments not being specified in advance, to where he could be using the stakes to simply freeroll people for a much bigger percentage than he claims to be keeping for himself.

Also, playing cash games on these type of stakes is also shady, as there is no way to verify.

If Raymer wins $4k in a cash game and is feeling a bit light in the pocketbook, what would stop him from claiming to have won $2500? Absolutely nothing, and there's no way to catch him doing it.

Even if he has the purest of intentions, the problem is that there are too many loopholes, and it's impossible to know if you are being dealt with fairly.

These stakes should be ironclad and unexploitable (aside from outright stealing the money), thus removing any temptation from the player to screw people.

There's always an element of trust in any stake agreement. Here's my opinion, if the terms are clear beforehand and two parties agree, so be it.

The only element of trust in normal staking agreements is that the person won't run off with the money (either before playing or after playing). But there's no way for someone to screw you in a normal stake without being obvious about it and having their rep ruined as a result. (I suppose the only exception is chip-dumping to friends, but even that can become obvious to others at the table who might report back.)

Here, Raymer could potentially screw people in various ways, and still look like he was salt-of-the-earth honest. That's my problem.

It's like you asking me to watch a big pile of $100 bills where you have no idea how much is in there, leaving me by myself, and counting on me not to pocket some of them.

If I do pocket some, you'll have no way of knowing.

There's a big difference between that, and leaving $10,000 cash with me for safekeeping, where you will definitely know if I steal from you or not.

[jsearles22]

I actually think it's a little in bad taste to come right out & call this "shady" considering there was some controversy concerning Druff's WSOP shares last year.

I'll give Druff credit for dealing with it head on at the time but it occurred because of a situation/scenario he did not consider when he posted it & this may be something very similar from Greg's perspective. Or maybe there's some other built-in safeguard to make sure he is putting in the 20K & really has another 30K in backing & everyone is just talking out of their asses because they either haven't bothered to read read all the information or are not privy to it all.

Maybe we should wait a little longer before declaring it "shady" on page 2.

It's pretty telling when I ask "does the site make him front the money" and the unquestioned beacon of integrity Todd says "well the site is likely complicit in the scam". It's really ludicrous Druff or anyone is allowed to lob unfounded bullshit at a person who has been in and around poker for years, been involved in staking for decades and NEVER has had his poker/financial integrity questioned. It's really bullshit, unprofessional, and unethical

[tyde]

Raymer has never shown any 'scammer-esque' tendencies during the course of his past and present behavior in the poker community

I'm disappointed in this thread

better find some more convincing proof

this thread borderlines on slander/libel

unsubstantiated rumors and accusations with little to no verifiable substance

not cool

[jsearles22]

There's always an element of trust in any stake agreement. Here's my opinion, if the terms are clear beforehand and two parties agree, so be it.

The only element of trust in normal staking agreements is that the person won't run off with the money (either before playing or after playing). But there's no way for someone to screw you in a normal stake without being obvious about it and having their rep ruined as a result. (I suppose the only exception is chip-dumping to friends, but even that can become obvious to others at the table who might report back.)

Here, Raymer could potentially screw people in various ways, and still look like he was salt-of-the-earth honest. That's my problem.

It's like you asking me to watch a big pile of $100 bills where you have no idea how much is in there, leaving me by myself, and counting on me not to pocket some of them.

If I do pocket some, you'll have no way of knowing.

There's a big difference between that, and leaving $10,000 cash with me for safekeeping, where you will definitely know if I steal from you or not.

So what do you propose as a solution to appease you? Honestly? I mean you even went as far as saying the site, we'll known for operating these stakes, is possibly complicit. Honestly how do you recommend this is handled if all the parties agree to the format (which isn't for outsiders to debate really)

[sstorture]

this deal doesn't have a food budget either ?

[Suicide King]

Also my wife beat him in a 2-7 limit td satellite. Sooooooo confirmed busto Again.

[Dan Druff]

This thread is degenerating into the same 18-page garbage seen on 2+2.

Basically, the Raymer fanboys keep screaming, "OMG leave Raymer alone! He's a great guy! He has been nothing but a good citizen in poker! What all the hate/suspicion???"

And once again, this isn't about Raymer.

This is about the manner in which the stake is being conducted.

If I were running such a stake, I would expect and deserve the same level of criticism.

Staking has been around for decades in poker, and especially took off during the poker boom. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. There are various successful staking models where the risk to the staker (as far as getting cheated) is minimal, assuming a trustworthy stakehorse. Raymer's model is weird, nonstandard, and full of loopholes where one could get cheated and never know it.

That's my problem.

I'm not saying that Raymer is cheating anyone. I'm saying that this staking model is ridiculous, and is very prone to abuse.

Why isn't he posting a preliminary schedule of tournaments, so people can see what he is going to play and understand why he needs 100k?

Why is he running a 100k stake via a site with a 5% fee, when there are clearly enough people who trust him to simply write him checks or send him the money on Paypal? Does he really need YouStake to guarantee people will get paid, at the cost of 5%?

Why is he playing cash on the stake, when no one can verify the results? He shouldn't be doing that for obvious reasons.

If Raymer is busto and wants to play tournaments on stakes, that's fine. If he wants to overcharge markup for his packages, that's also fine, provided he is honest about it the actual amount being charged.

However, this isn't rocket science. It's very simple. It could/should easily go like this:

- Raymer posts a list of tournaments he will play in 2016

- He will collect stakes or these tournaments, and agrees to pay out 60% of all profits to investors when the end of 2016 is reached, or end it early if the stake money runs out

- He will not play cash with the stake money

Simple and easy.

If he really has 30k from outside backers and 20k of his own, he shouldn't soliciting for stakes on top of that, but rather use this 50k first, and then see if he still needs backing.

Or he could separate out the 50k he already has for certain tournaments, and sell stake pieces for the remaining tournaments. That would also work fine.

This is not only a convoluted mess, but can so easily be abused that only a fool would buy into this.

And before you cast Raymer as a saint who can do no wrong, remember that he was caught cheating on his wife with hookers. And while that doesn't necessarily translate to financial impropriety, it also proves that he's not as squeaky clean as he wants to appear to be.

Basically Raymer should be treated like any poker player on a stake: "Trust but verify"

This model requires trust, and does not allow verification.

[jsearles22]

This thread is degenerating into the same 18-page garbage seen on 2+2.

Basically, the Raymer fanboys keep screaming, "OMG leave Raymer alone! He's a great guy! He has been nothing but a good citizen in poker! What all the hate/suspicion???"

And once again, this isn't about Raymer.

This is about the manner in which the stake is being conducted.

If I were running such a stake, I would expect and deserve the same level of criticism.

Staking has been around for decades in poker, and especially took off during the poker boom. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. There are various successful staking models where the risk to the staker (as far as getting cheated) is minimal, assuming a trustworthy stakehorse. Raymer's model is weird, nonstandard, and full of loopholes where one could get cheated and never know it.

That's my problem.

I'm not saying that Raymer is cheating anyone. I'm saying that this staking model is ridiculous, and is very prone to abuse.

Why isn't he posting a preliminary schedule of tournaments, so people can see what he is going to play and understand why he needs 100k?

Why is he running a 100k stake via a site with a 5% fee, when there are clearly enough people who trust him to simply write him checks or send him the money on Paypal? Does he really need YouStake to guarantee people will get paid, at the cost of 5%?

Why is he playing cash on the stake, when no one can verify the results? He shouldn't be doing that for obvious reasons.

If Raymer is busto and wants to play tournaments on stakes, that's fine. If he wants to overcharge markup for his packages, that's also fine, provided he is honest about it the actual amount being charged.

However, this isn't rocket science. It's very simple. It could/should easily go like this:

- Raymer posts a list of tournaments he will play in 2016

- He will collect stakes or these tournaments, and agrees to pay out 60% of all profits to investors when the end of 2016 is reached, or end it early if the stake money runs out

- He will not play cash with the stake money

Simple and easy.

If he really has 30k from outside backers and 20k of his own, he shouldn't soliciting for stakes on top of that, but rather use this 50k first, and then see if he still needs backing.

Or he could separate out the 50k he already has for certain tournaments, and sell stake pieces for the remaining tournaments. That would also work fine.

This is not only a convoluted mess, but can so easily be abused that only a fool would buy into this.

And before you cast Raymer as a saint who can do no wrong, remember that he was caught cheating on his wife with hookers. And while that doesn't necessarily translate to financial impropriety, it also proves that he's not as squeaky clean as he wants to appear to be.

Basically Raymer should be treated like any poker player on a stake: "Trust but verify"

This model requires trust, and does not allow verification.

If only you had warned of potentially impropriety on Jaseps stake beforehand maybe this would all be different. I don't say this to troll, I say it to point out that you are attacking someone viewed as more successful than you. Please look past my last sentence and explain why you are speaking out about this format repeatedly but let Jaseps similar stake run on your website?

[MumblesBadly]

Basically Raymer should be treated like any poker player on a stake: "Trust but verify"

This model requires trust, and does not allow verification.

Ronnie would agree.

[MumblesBadly]

it's all about making accusations first, based solely upon rumors and innuendos from anonymous sources, with no actual proof whatsoever


imo it's a miracle Todd doesn't have multiple libel and slander lawsuits pending


I don't mean this as a personal attack on Todd.....but he needs to check himself making these types of claims with no substance other than second hand info

I disagree. Druff is like Columbo here: When he sees something unusual, he correctly suspects something fishy could be going on. Especially when more straightforward methods to honestly achieve the stated objective are available.

But he is also appropriately warning potential participants in such schemes of the potential risks.

[sstorture]

"Is this NARCO GIRLS? I'm Greg Raymer and I won the Main Event at the WSOP, My credit card is VISA xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-9222, please send me a girl with one eye who loves blueberries. Also, very important, dont call TMZ or the police. I'm in Room 312. Be warned, if you or your associates start any shit or attempt to rob me, I will fight you all off with a broomstick. If possible can you stop and get me a spicy bucket of KFC with Large Coke. Thx...Fossil"

[sstorture]

Who's the worst client for a prostitute?

A) Tyde with no internet connection, 12 beers deep, and just about to start smoking rocks

B) Raymer after busting out of a Honkeytonk Poker Tour Event

C) Charlie Sheen no condom

[chinamaniac]

Obv with the cash aspect involved it requires more trust. But again, if you don't like it or feel you can't trust Raymer then do not buy.

[sstorture]

Coprophagia /kɒp.rə.ˈfeɪ.dʒi.ə/[1] or coprophagy /kəˈprɒfədʒiː/ is the consumption of feces. The word is derived from the Greek κόπρος copros, "feces" and φαγεῖν phagein, "to eat". Coprophagy refers to many kinds of feces eating, including eating feces of other species (heterospecifics), of other individuals (allocoprophagy), or its own (autocoprophagy) – those once deposited or taken directly from the anus.[2]

In humans, coprophagia has been observed in individuals with mental illness. Some animal species eat feces as a normal behavior; other species may not normally consume feces but do so under very unusual conditions