Do actually agree with this. Considering this forum has 6 figure sums changing hands on a weekly basis the requirements to put up a selling post are severely lacking in my opinion.

fizz should probably get his MP privileges back as he is far from the only one to have very bad practises he just made the mistake of selling too much and creating this ****storm. Sure if we looked into other MP regs we would find very similar patterns to what keith showed in his posts.

would be interested in participating in this discussion have a few suggestions for changes that could be implemented.

Sharkscope unlocked/no reset when any pack is for sale. it literally takes 5 minutes to lock and unlock your sharkscope with a stars transfer. Seems unlikely the people who keep it locked for tax reasons are going to get audited in 24 hours. If people have SS locked they usually have something to hide from buyers and it isn't much to ask for some disclosure when they are asking for people's money.

Have other ideas but that's the main one and will contribute when you hopefully make such a thread.

As far as i can see , bfizz and BBZ haven't addressed the original point that Bobo said concerned him which was selling 75 and 80% of tournaments when he had already put 50% up for sale on pokermarket after he had already been told that there was potential overselling on the previous weeks sunday majors.

Looking at bfizz tourney's entered this week its also telling that he hasn't played a single $215 or higher tourney since his Market place approval was rescinded. BBZ has said that he will stake him for them but bfizz doesn't want to increase his makeup.The subtext therefore is that bfizz wants to sell the majority of his 215$+ tourneys at markup so that when he likely loses its swept under the carpet and start afresh the next day and 2+2 investors are left out of pocket. Maybe a compromise if he ever did get his marketplace approval back is that as punishment for deceptively selling 215$+ tournaments, he can't offer $215+ tourneys in any packages on 2+2 for 2 years. He has a backer who can finance them or he can try and satellite in as he has tried to this week and a maximum limit of 50% of packages can be sold. BBZ says he wants more of his action , let him have it, i don't see why a staked player should ever be selling action outside the stake.

Only thing I have to say is it's perfectly reasonable for a staked player to sell action to reduce variance on the stake br. Let's look at me for example, I played over 100,000 sngs last year, but if I didn't sell a ton of action to the $1700 and $3500 (and the 1 $17,340 that went off) hyper sats, those ~1500 games would have essentially decided my entire year, and it would have been a hugely terrible result (the guy who bought all my nosebleed action got crushed). IIRC I was something like +400-500k at $1k and under and -250k to -300k at $1700+

I even sold some %'s off the stake BR to as low as $240 SNGs last year and this year am doing it all the way down to $181s given SNE has been GG'd and therefore I am having to play a much wider BI range with a smaller edge.

The same logic obviously follows over to MTTs...if a horse bricks out of SCOOP-H events and big BI WCOOP events, that's essentially GG for the entire year. The same logic can be used all the way down to super lowstake players that say, want to play and sell to the $215 Warmup and $215 Mil each week while playing a $15 abi

Edit: I do however believe any HORSE selling action needs to state that they are backed and by whom

The biggest concern from an investor's point of view with immediately giving bfizz's MP approval back is the precedent that it sets in this forum that there are next to no repercussions for intentionally posting misleading results when selling packages.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the general consensus I am getting from this thread is that 1) bfizz had his Stars sharkscope locked the entire time he was selling packages (recently at least) and 2) bfizz intentionally posted misleading graphs (graphs that were filtered for games he did not sell for as well as the filter cropped out).

If the above 2 statements are true, it is pretty gross to have zero repercussions for those actions, as they seem as premeditated as they can get.

Sure, this forum could use a significant rewrite on the rules of how to properly list packages, and I do feel bad to some extent that bfizz is getting the heat in this instance when others have clearly gotten away with the same tactics in the past. But I don't think just because bfizz is the scapegoat this time, we should just ignore the actual problem that is occurring of sellers getting away with intentional manipulation of results when advertising packages.

A lot of good points being made and I appreciate most of your recent posts.

Smartguy - "Is the Money Safe, if he wins big ?Will he run away , when people invest ?"

If these questions were even relevant, we would not be discussing the possibility of giving me back my MP approval quite yet. No one (well, 99% of readers) is worried I am going to win the big one and not pay out, that is far from the issue here. The list of people that will vouch for me to pay out a big score is longer than this thread.

Azn - I was not intentionally misrepresenting my results like you are relentlessly accusing me of. I labeled the graph as lifetime $55> results several times, and the different pic on poker market was also labeled. Sure, I made a bad call by assuming all the reg buyers (as 80%~ or so of my buyers are daily buyers) knew what graph that was. Not to mention, it doesn't include all the high stake scores listed in my P5's profile which I also link. It's easy to see there is no $100k scores in the graph in question. It's also easy to find threads where the picture is labeled as lifetime $55 and under graph.

Keith - If I would have made 20% available for sale on Poker Market, instead of 80%, you would be attacking me for claiming that I was buying 80% of my action and misleading people in that way. I had no intentions of over-selling. I just made 80% available because if someone wanted to buy it, that option was available until the action was sold on 2p2. I see nothing wrong with this. Your idea to punish me for 2 years is interesting, but again, I don't think that is the solution.


So, correct me if I am wrong, but I am now only being accused of false-representation, and all other accusations have subsided. However, I did not intentionally mislead any of you into buying me into bigger buy in games, just as I did not over-sell. The graph in question was indeed labeled on several occasions as my lifetime $55 and under graph. I did not hope to make you think I was crushing high stakes by posting my mid stakes graph and excluding the text from it. I was never under the impression anyone was being mislead. I was simply showing you guys how well I am doing at the games I am playing, and that I am probably a good buy for the games I am selling for. And was not trying to make it deceptive. I am one of the biggest winners ever at the $55 and under level and I like showing off that graph, but there was no bad intentions attached to it.


Thanks again for the positive posts, hope we can get me approved again soon and ship the TCOOP main event together.

For starters, I hardly doubt I am relentlessly accusing you of anything, but we can move past that comment ...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...ajors-1583036/

The OP in the link above is pretty misleading if you ask me. You post a graph with no other information about the graph. You don't have a filter in the graph shown. You write no text detailing if the graph is filtered and if so, what the graph filters. You have sharkscope blocked, yet you expect investors to look in all of your other previous threads to find out more information on that screenshot. Great, you post P5s scores that aren't in that graph, but do you really expect investors to have to jump through all these hoops to know what that graph truly represents? How this is not considered misrepresenting is beyond me, but other buyers can decide for themselves I guess.

How about moving forward, if you want to ensure you properly present results in your OPs, post a filtered sharkscope of the buyin range and type of games you are selling to (i.e. if you're only selling 82 - 215 buyin range, then post 82 - 215 buyin range filtered graph). Or hell, don't post a graph at all at, just list all relevant screen names to sites you are selling action on and at least let investors know they have to do their own sharkscoping to get full information. Your sharkscope just conveniently is blocked too. Have you provided a reason why it was blocked in the first place? I'm sure your investors moving forward would be interested in knowing.

At the end of the day, everyone now knows the graphs you posted aren't representative of what you were selling. If buyers want to come to different conclusions as to your intentions that lead to misrepresented data, then so be it.

I've never questioned whether you would pay out , just highlighted that often people are still asking to be paid several days later, if you remember i had to ask several times and it took a week before you paid me .
like i asked/said previously $55> is misleading . > in maths is greater so literally you are lableing your graphs $55greater , no way does that translate to less than 55$ which intuitively is represented by <$55 i.e less than 55$
See , you have clearly shown you still don't understand the problems with the way you are selling packages.. If you were selling 20% at pokermarket and 80 % at 2+2 simple maths that even you could do says that you have sold all your action and would make nothing from your table winnings and would have made the makeup as profit regardless how the stake tournaments played out and had no incentive to play well for your investors.
rubbish, you had it clearly pointed out that you had offered more than 100% for sale in the comments at pokermarket and in this thread, said you were going to be more diligent and then did the same thing again .

you couldnt cross check the pokermarket and 2+2 packages because you put half of pokermarkets package in one 2+2 package with other tournaments and the other half of the pokermarket package in a seperate 2+2 package along with other tourneys. selling x% on either 2+2 package meant that it didn't represent x% of the pokermarket package.

You weren't checking the amount sold on pokermarket else you would have responded to the comments on the thread there about potentially overselling and not having paid out the previous sundays winnings.If you weren't checking the pokermarket sales then you couldn't update the 2+2 thread to reflect pokermarket sales and you didn't reduce the amount available on pokermarket once you had sold out on 2+2. If you had been reducing the pokermarket amount available to reflect sales on 2+2 you could have had a defence on that point , but you didn't so you haven't.

No I'm still accusing you of offering more than 100% of the tournaments on offer at pokermarket.
The second pokermarket offer was all 215$ tournaments. All advertised with your <55$ graph, that was a case for giving your 215$ graph but you know that doing so wouldn't have sold any and risked alienating your 2+2 sales if your 215$ graph was revealed.I think you knew exactly what you were doing and thought noone would notice and if they did your reputation would possibly deter them from complaining.
you knew full well . I can't believe you just put that .

are you really trying to claim that you were a good buy for the games you were selling here and at pokermarket when you were clearly losing ~100k at them. and you and your staker both say that you didn't want to give your staker much of the action as you didn't want to go deeper into makeup. thats saying that you knew that you would probably be losing.
if you say that selling most of your action to games you were losing at to people without makeup instead of your staker who you would owe makeup to had no bad intentions they your morality is clearly questionable.

You don't like my suggestion that for 2 years you either get your staker to back you for the bigger games or don't play them , thats the punishment for doing what you did. It still leaves you with the ability to sell the lower games that you claim that you can beat, but i'm guessing that your staker would want all of that action.
maybe you could label it your titanic package.

Keith you have gone from making some sensible points earlier in this thread to what just looks more like a personal attack and basing a lot of accusations on conjecture. Plus the fact you don't seem to understand why someone who is backed for a certain level of buy in would sell for higher bis etc is pretty basic and possibly shows a lack of understanding and credibility.

I think this thread is now past that point, its now whether he should get MP approval back. He has now unblocked SS and as far as it stays unblocked people can make up there own mind.

It isn't a debate whether he is a good or a bad buy (which half your posts seem to be about). Its whether going forward he is trustworthy with money (which he has been afaik), and whether he will learn from this mistake and be more organized and transparent with everything.

keith, inequality signs (< >) can be used either way. "$55 > X" and "X < $55" are literally the same statement. $55 is the upper limit for both. bfizz was not claiming that graph to be for buy-ins above $55 at any point as far as i can tell (although he did sometimes post it without any labels at all, which is not cool but an easy mistake to make)

give some examples of the conjecture. In his last post , bfizz tried to claim that all that he'd done wrong was misrepresent his results. I think that putting more than 100% up for sale of some tournaments across multiple packages knowing that there was a problem with the same happening the previous week was also wrong.The only personal attacks in this thread have been from Bfizz at me.
I understand full well that people would want to smooth variance by selling higher buyins. The difference in this case is that his backer says that he would like more of that higher buyin action. it is blatently obvious why bfizz would rather sell at 10% markup to 2+2 investors with no makeup and to keep the markup rather than to his staker at face value with makeup on losses and no markup to pocket .It was so obviously beneficial to him that he sold more and more and more until it was almost all sold to investors and hardly any to his staker.I am surprised that you don't consider this to be a problem where a player has hardly any interest in the stakes profitability.
Have I said that he shouldn't get approval back? I suggested that it should be limited which would have two purposes , partly as punishment for the "mistakes" in this thread but also to serve as a deterrent to help prevent other people sailing close to the wind with future stakes knowing that they'd just get a slap on the wrist if caught and then allowed back again as if nothing had happened.

You use the word mistake , I think that there were more than one "mistake". If he will not accept that what he did was wrong in selling such high percentages and across more than one site with no reduction on the amount on offer at either site as sales are made at the other site, how can he learn from it?

He's not the only one.

There's no way we're going to start having different tiers of what people will or won't be allowed to sell. Either you have Marketplace Approval, or you don't. Anything else is too difficult to manage.

Looks like I can't get approved in time to sell for TCOOP main event tomorrow but would love to play the main event and if I can manage to sell 75% I will play ...PM me if you want a piece of my TCOOP main event..no markup!!

Wow. Apparently removing MA wasn't enough? Good luck getting PMs while you're banned.

Edit to add: Just noticed the Marketplace Approval application on the 29th as well:

Yeah, that's not quite the whole story, is it?

I know it isn't meant to be a joke and I am not taking as such but it's hard not to find the humor in these most recent posts. Lol

lol, nice job bypassing market place approval.............it was smooth and effortless.

like spitting in someones face without a care in the world.

I mean, this illustrate how immature Bfizz really is- and his attitude really lacks respect for this whole incident.

Everyone can make mistakes: but its how you handle the mistakes that matter. Based in how this have been handled i personally thinks he should not get marketplace approval back.

Sent from my LG-H815 using 2+2 Forums

Is there anything productive happening behind the scenes? An update here would be great.

The last post from Bobo Fett was sort of misleading, as he implied that there was more to the story than has been covered ITT already. However, after PM'ing him and requesting clarification on what he meant by his open-ended edit, he told me there was nothing else other than what has been covered here ITT already. Which made me wonder, what was the point of his post, and why am I not getting my approval back if everything has been sorted out? Was it out of spite? Doesn't matter, but several of his posts have lacked professionalism and I am pretty sure the edit was simply out of spite, as it wasn't aimed towards accomplishing anything productive.

I then asked if I should re-apply again, and was told that I would get my approval back when the time was right, but that right now it seems pre-mature. I was also told by him that he viewed my re-application as an attempt to try and get re-approved by a mod who would review my application and approve me without knowledge of the situation here ITT, essentially accusing me of trying to be sneaky and hoping I could get approved without Bobo Fett realizing it. Seems far-fetched to me, but that's what the man told me. I apologized for him misinterpreting my application, and assured him I was not under the impression that I might somehow sneak back in the MP by by-passing him and was surely not unintelligent enough to think that even if I did somehow sneak my application in and get approved, that it would last very long. That accusation alone made it clear to me that he has made this a personal attack on me, and that his professionalism was becoming absent.

I either did something and don't deserve approval back, or I did something that needs to be corrected (which has already happened), and now deserve my approval back. Why is there this grey area in which it's upon an individual (who clearly isn't fond of me) to give me back my approval? Doesn't seem right to me, which is why I am posting here. I need to know what the community thinks, because the man who seems to be in charge is now just taking pointless shots at me ITT and telling me in PM's that he thinks the time is pre-mature to give me back my approval, without a defined reason why he thinks so. Is that legit? Is that how the MP is? No.

I don't know what I am asking for exactly, but some steps towards resolution would be a good start. Maybe some of you mods (Jdawg91, AsjBaaaf, TheLipoFund) who have already chimed in could do so again, as well as regular investors/players, giving your opinion on when/if I should get my approval back. After all, all the accusations have been silenced, and there is no more discussion regarding potential wrong-doing with bad intentions. My audit came through clean, I agreed that I won't sell over 80% again, I apologized for not labeling my graph and explained why I stopped, and also promised to be more organized and transparent with my packages. I also unblocked my stats, and refunded everyone the markup from the day you guys thought I over sold.

But once we move passed those points, it seems like a well-known reg like myself should be re-approved promptly opposed to being treated like a criminal and talked down to by admin ITT. Is that where I am wrong, and this is still wild-wild-west esq? Or can we use facts and sort matters like professionals? At this point, it is tough to put into one sentence why I am banned from the MP - other than some of you have your doubts. And while you are free to have your doubts - they amount to nothing, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Thanks for any positive feedback guys. I sure am anxious to get back to work.

i think bfizz should be re instated, kinda ridic how this isnt sorted out yet.
he has not scammed anyone, he addressed all the issues that people had, graphs/overselling, etc. I dont see what the issue still is
gl man

think he handled it pretty poorly overall and I probably personally wouldn't buy from him but think he should be unbanned. if anyone doubts anything, especially investors, they should have the right to request the audit be shown/"proven" to a mod or similar.

fwiw imo, whilst I wouldn't necessarily like it if a seller did it to me, I don't think it's wrong to sell at different prices, especially as it's fairly common practice to sell to friends/coaches/backers at a lower friendlier rate, or bulk buyers (for convenience).
usually disclosure is appreciated, but not ethically mandatory.

next, I think there isn't necessarily anything wrong with selling a huge %, even if it means the horse is free rolling. there happens to be a strong correlation between a bad horse/buy and a big (say 90%+ sold), but doesn't mean all cases are bad horses. there are few ppl I trust and have faith in that I would buy when they sell say 90-95% at mu, but they definitely exist and they are way better buys than worse horses selling say "only" 50% and it's not even remotely close.

it's an extremely common fallacy that it's unethical to free roll

op honestly next time someone makes reasonable questions you should be far more polite, you made yourself look pretty bad with the unwarranted slandering and stuff

exactly. half of this bs is laughable. give this guy his approval back. his packages had the most views and selled out faster than anyone in the MP. he updates rail threads more than anyone. he has shipped multiple big tourneys for the MP in the last few months and paid back the same day. oh, and BBZ had his back and the audit was clean...and backs him, coaches him, and believes his game is good but agrees with lowering variance. what exactly is you guys' problem with selling 94% and bfizz earning markup because he is a great player with amazing mid stakes results over a massive sample with huge sunday variance? You are mad because he is free rolling? Or scared he will punt? You cannot group them together and ban a player from selling 94% of something. Its totally player dependent.

and like previously stated itt, there is nothing wrong with selling 94% and it can be a hell of a lot better investment than some scrub selling 50% of the same games. if you believe the player will be his most optimal game at selling 94%, then wth is the problem? and i guess i also gotta address the dumb crap about selling at different markups being a bad thing. it is what it is just like previously posted before me.

I would be interested to know if any of the people saying MP privileges should be reinstated have acted in a similar way.

With sharkscope unlocked take a lovely screenshot of 0-55 games.
Crop out all the filters so there is no way to identify it.
Block sharkscope.
Sell to 82-215 buyins showing this graph with zero means of identifying it.
Actually be losing $150k over the last 6 years at said buyins.
Selling 80-96% of said games.

Saying well i labeled that graph as $0-55 10 threads ago is laughable as you know full well a good % of investors don't do nearly enough due diligence. I was slack in this department myself as i thought with our previous conversations that you wouldn't do this but live and learn.

i honestly don't care if he gets back selling on here or not. I won't be buying regardless. Also accusing Bobo of being biased is pretty laughable imo. He seems to be a very objective and knowledgeable mod. I do find it amazing you seem to think you have done nothing wrong Brian but im happy with whatever bobo decides.


Off topic and to touch on this.

Why is it a fallacy? I can tell you why it isn't in my opinion. All a player has to do if selling 80% at 1.25 is break even and they get 20% of the cashes not profit. Hell even if they min cash the smallest mtt in the schedule they get a guaranteed profit.

Part of being a good poker player in my eyes is having money management to be able to actually pay to play. If you cant manage this then it does seem unethical to play a get out of jail free card and still make guaranteed money while having a sports betting problem or whatever other leak you have so you can't afford to put up a single cent of your own buyins.

think U Shove I Call answered the question about did he do something worth being banned.............answer is yes.

as far as reenstatement into the MP, his actions after being called out were somewhat entertaining (ooopppsss sorry) and somewhat disrespectful.

thinking minimum 1 year ban or until his 55-215.00 graph shows a profit (see i can be somewhat entertaining also).

Note: Seriously want to appoligize to Dhenz14 for mixing him into all of this previously.

A year ban may be harsh. OP had made mistakes and will most likely be more careful to avoid these mistakes again. Sharkscope has been unblocked so future/current investors can look before deciding if they want to invest. Some people play poker for a living and banning them for a year might be a little too harsh.

someone could just be a nit and prefer to give up ev/risk nothing. or they could be broke for whatever reason. doesn't make it unethical.. getting full staked is similar, they risk nothing and essentially "free roll

as I said the correlation between a bad investment and a freeroll set up is very high but there are for sure cases where a freeroll is a fine investment. example some good friends of mine sometimes give a stkeback deal in one off tourneys and this is a better investment than 95% of the 2p2 marketplace and not close lol

it just "feels" unethical cause most ppl who try to do it on 2p2 are generally broke and/or bad horses who don't know the math etc and it gives it a bad image. if more legit posters offered it more often it would probably have a better image.

btw ur example is just not a good one, sure what u said is true but the player would have to be pretty good to even sell that. also if someone is sick and can sell wsop main 2.0 and chooses to do 50% "unethical" is just not the right word at all and it could be completely fine

cliffs: most freeroll deals are bad
not all freeroll deals are bad
free rolling in itself is not unethical

Stakebacks and freerolls are far from the same thing. I agree stakebacks can be decent investments at least they have to show a profit for the seller to get any profit.

Freerolling and keeping a % of cashes without a need to make any profit on a regular basis isn't ever going to be ethical. Not sure how you can compare this to being backed either as no makeup is accrued. I respect your opinion obviously but will agree to disagree on this i know im far from the only person who thinks this.