Official **** it I'm making a June **** thread, thread

[ZeeJustin]

Originally Posted by Kanu

I don't much like staking people these days, but having played ZeeJustin HU a fair bit and given his tourney record I will be buying a decent chunk if he sells enough to play and I expect it to be really good value. Given that you get random tourney donks selling at 1.3 or something for the $1k's at the wsop which have a worse structure and prob a tougher field (though still ridic soft ofc) as well as still having 10% rake I personally think the rate Justin is selling at is very reasonable. I'm open to being wrong of course, but as a potential staker it's gotta be much higher EV than almost any other tourney staking opportunity regardless of whether Justin gets extra EV from potential sponsorship etc?

Thanks Kanu!

[JsTs]

The payout structure is also pretty weird

[ZeeJustin]

Originally Posted by JsTs

The payout structure is also pretty weird

I'm good at the ICMs, so that works to my advantage.

[Stinger88]

+2 Cinque Terre

[klink10k]

for non americans its prob ok investment, but really hard to make money w/ taxes on a score like that not sure how it works exaclty but it can't be low %

[Nice_2_Beat_U]

What is the tax situation? What % of your winnings do you have to pay? Also if someone from lets say Germany stakes you, they have to pay german tax on it only, right? (plz only answer if you are sure and/or have experience with it)

[fanerio]

the "rake" for onedrop is insane, think its pretty iffy to sell at mark-up

[RunItUp]

i disagree w/you ansky zj on the sponsorship thing, coming off the back of a 100k win and the other highroller FT the exposure from playing this event will will be great for your 'resume' i don't think being american or w/e matters that much, pretty sure just wearing patches for various sites is worth 10-25k.

[Fritzy]

Originally Posted by Deldar182

Would never ever pay vig on a guy selling for a million dollar tourney who prob has less than 50k of himself, just out of principle (i mean thats ****ing 5% are you kidding me). Would buy it straight up, but if people are willing to pay it, then it makes sense to sell it at that rate. Personally i think its absurd.

Fwiw, this isn't an attack on ZJ, it's just something that always bothered me.

yeah I feel like this too, I know it doesn't make logical sense (since it can def be a profitable investment still)

re: Kanu, field size has a huge impact on ROIs since you get to play so much higher stakes in terms of buy ins at the FT

[Ansky]

Originally Posted by RunItUp

i disagree w/you ansky zj on the sponsorship thing, coming off the back of a 100k win and the other highroller FT the exposure from playing this event will will be great for your 'resume' i don't think being american or w/e matters that much, pretty sure just wearing patches for various sites is worth 10-25k.

I mean you are just wrong about this. I am not talking about the quality of his resume. I am saying that for Americans, who are now living abroad, who didn't already have a sponsorship, there is NOTHING out there. Maybe this will change if **** gets legalized and there are new sites wanting sponsored players, but right now there is virtually nothing.

And what exactly do you mean about the patches thing? Where is that number coming from and in what event?

[AK87]

Obviously if there is a market for it and people are willing to pay, you can't really blame ZJ for trying to go for the highest markup he can get. I think the thing Deldar and others have a problem with is just the general attitude of buying pieces at markup when the player can't even play without selling action. It shouldn't be a seller's market in a spot where the buyers have all the leverage in whether or not the person can play, even if that is somewhat illogical.

I personally get a little pissed off at friends who try to sell to me at markup when I know they aren't playing unless people buy up to a certain %. I've def sold action to things in the past at markup since there was a market for it in MP, but nowadays, if I need to sell action to something, I generally just ask a few friends at no markup.

[Deldar182]

Originally Posted by ZeeJustin

Deldar: I will have more than 5% of myself, although less than 15% most likely.

FWIW, I had less than 15% of myself when I won the 100k in Monte Carlo for 2.1 mil a few weeks ago.

What principle are you speaking of btw? Are you alluding to not being able to trust me, that I won't care enough to try to win, or something else?

I already assume when most people win a big tournament that they have less than 20% of themselves as default, i think its sad that its come to that, which is I guess the point I'm coming to that the guy below addresses quite well.

There's something... off (sigh vocabularyfail) about it, but as has been said, if you can sell it at a price then theres certainly no reason not to. I have a bit of an internal code dysfunction tho so I couldn't override that even if it was obviously profitable

Originally Posted by AK87

Obviously if there is a market for it and people are willing to pay, you can't really blame ZJ for trying to go for the highest markup he can get. I think the thing Deldar and others have a problem with is just the general attitude of buying pieces at markup when the player can't even play without selling action. It shouldn't be a seller's market in a spot where the buyers have all the leverage in whether or not the person can play, even if that is somewhat illogical.

Originally Posted by fanerio

the "rake" for onedrop is insane, think its pretty iffy to sell at mark-up

The "rake" is technically a donation to charity. Makes me wonder if its tax deductible which is obviously a big difference for investors from the US.

The ethics of markup is much more complex than whats being discussed ITT.

[Lefort]

deldar.. I think in general your attitude is understandable and very much reflective of someone who's an "oldschool" successful online cash game player. But I think that the current state of live tournaments and staking etc is also understandable and simply just an inevitable byproduct of the nature of the game. ie. its just something that should be accepted and not necessarily viewed as "sad" unless you make unfair comparisons to other forms and/or eras of poker.

I mean.. the nature of the super high variance of live tournaments** means an inevitable long-term shift into a state where most of the players have only fractions of their action. And it's a direct result of players either doing a good job of appreciating Gambler's ruin, or players that are left with their hands tied because they didn't do such a good job of appreciating Gambler's ruin.

If you didn't have this massive market for staking (along with all of the various situations that *seem* "sad" such as people having <10% of themselves, broke people able to play, etcetc..) then the game in general would suffer. You would have far smaller fields of players meaning far smaller prizepools and far less interest from the general public and media. And I'm sure you would see far less action in all forms of poker as a result. It's a trickle down effect that ultimately hurts the game pretty significantly.

The staking/MTT market/situation also adds another element to the poker world that basically allows a smoother distribution with respect to who "deserves" the money in the end. It yields opportunity for good investments for the people who have the money and can make good decisions with it.. and it makes for less of a get rich or go broke situation for people that don't have the bankroll yet are potentially good enough to succeed.

Also, I think the more people that play the One Drop, the better for poker in general.. and on a pretty significant level. Especially given the current state of the game in the US and the fact that pretty much all the big games are now very much live and private etcetc.. I think One Drop is a pretty big deal and I think it has potential to actually have a significant reach and effect on the poker world.

**poker tournaments in general I mean.. it's just that in the live scene variance is especially high given that results unravel so slowly.. there are only significant tournaments that run over the course of a year. Each year is basically a Sunday in the online world. (Pretty ridiculous when you think about it.. and helps a bit in understanding just how insane the variance is..)

[NLSoldier]

Nice post lefort. ZJ should obv charge w/e the market will bear. It's somewhat surprising to me that people are willing to pay markup for this event but if he's successfully selling the action more power to him.

I don't have nearly the tourney pedigree of ZJ but I'd be down to play the one drop for a 0% freeroll if anyone knows any really rich dudes who might be interested