Sold 140%, of a 10K, casked for 40K. Assuming he gets 50% of profit less stake.

If you bought a true 10% you should get stake back (1k) plus 50% of profit (1.5k). If he has 140% to pay back that is 14 x $1000, and 14 x $1500, That is $35K. He still made 5k himself after paying out investors. Am I missing something here?

I havet read the entire thread so sorry if I missed critical info. He could have sold 140% at 1.3 and still be able to payback investors assuming stakeback and 50% deal.

judging by matt's wording it seems pretty sure that's not the first/only case.

the way u worded all this was confusing as **** w the whole 50% profit crap but seems like u reached the right answer. if he sold 140% at 1.5 markup then he has to payout 1.4x40, so 56k of the 40k he cashed for, but was given 14x1.5 to begin with so 21k. so he has 61k cash money now but has to pay out 56k of it. prob should have just lost. 21k is a lot better than 5k. pretty interesting his break even markup was 1.14 for what he cashed for.

joined in 2008 and think if you buy someone at 1.5 for $1500 you only get 5%?

you realize you are giving them a ton more markup with this "50% deal".

i know you dont mean he had a backer with makeup and a 50% on profits post make up, because this is obviously not the case here

you forgot to subtract the $10,000 entry fee. So with these numbers he loses $5000

You're not missing any critical info from the thread, you're missing critical information about how buying pieces works.

If I buy 10% of someone, I get 10% of whatever they win. That's it.

No, it's just strange coincidence that each of your errors gave you the same result.

That sounds right, assuming that he sold 140% at 1.5 markup.

i understand what elendil is coming from. a lot of friends of poker players, that dont really have any clue about buying pieces or poker in general would think ...

"if i give you $10,000 for the entry, well split it 50/50. essentially a 2.0 markup. where this player may have sold at 1.5 and if he wanted 50% of himself still he would have only collected $15000*50%= $7500.

aka have to put up $2500 to still have 50% of himself. and the backer would only have to put up $7500 as opposed to $10,000

vs profiting $11,000 not cashing. obviously these numbers significantly change with markup and percentage sold

Haha, feel like a bit of an idiot now

I have never staked or bought pieces. I have been on these forums for a while and just assumed it was stake back and 50/50. Wow, wuddya know?

I don't want to derail, but according to some pretty experienced posters, when you buy 10% of the action, you are returned 10% of the gross prize? So the player earnings are always capped to the markup the player adds? If so, what is in it for the player to make a larger score?

Sorry for my wording in each of the posts, my mind is pretty blown at this point.

generally markup is used for other expenses and based on edge a player has.
So, given past results higher markup can be asked because it's a "privilege" to invest in this person.

A experienced player can generally ask for more mark up then a player with mediocre results.

The player still has a certain percentage of themselves and would always benefit from a larger cash. Say in the case of a 10K buy in event the player could choose to sell 50% of their action at 1.2 markup. If they sold the whole 50% they would now have 6K to put towards the buy in and only have to put up 4K themselves and for that 4K investment they get to keep 50% of what they win. Thus if they cash for 25K they keep 12.5K, but if they cash for 2 million they keep 1 million, so cashing for 2 million would be much more beneficial.

That is of course if they are not overselling, which would be selling action to several investors in such a way that you have actually sold more than 100%. For example, if you sell to a 10K event at 1.2 markup and sell 10% to 11 different investors you have sold 110% for 13.2K. As you can see, if you could do this and then just bust out without anyone knowing you would pocket 3.2K, but if you cash for 50K each of your investors would be owed 5K, so you would have to pay out 55K when you only have 53.2K.

pretty impressive how that worked out. looks like he'd have to charge 1.857 to break even

because he plays unbeatable live MTTs in the ****ing united states of all places.

"oh you want 30% of my life time winnings? let me help myself go bankrupt slowly"

Unbeatable live MTTs in the US???

Lol I hope you are joking. Unbeatable for this piece of scum maybe, but the fields are hella soft.

Yeah, no reason you should've known - the only reason I do is because I mod the Marketplace forums. That gives me just enough knowledge for the basics, and hopefully others will correct me if I get anything wrong.

I'm not positive what you're asking.

If someone sells shares to the WSOP Main Event, for example, it could go something like this. They decide to sell 50%, at a 1.4 markup. That means that every 10% would cost $1,400, and such a piece would entitle you to 10% of whatever is won by the player. If the player sells out, they would be paying $3,000 and the investors would be paying $7,000. Of course the player will also be paying any expenses. The player would then receive 50% of any winnings, and the investors the other 50%.

The markup has no effect on what is paid out - it simply changes the price one pays for a given %. It's usually determined by expenses and what the player is "worth". IE players who are considered to have a bigger edge can command higher markups.

Hopefully that answers your question.

Cheers Boba.

Essentially the player is charging the markup for playing the stake with no incentive for a larger score. Forget about selling 50% etc, crunch the numbers with the player selling 100% and see the distributions. This makes sense if a player is charging a true markup. If player has 20% roi and charges 1.2, they will make 20% of total buy ins played.

If they always make 20% in every single tournament they play. No more no less.

...but nobody does, or indeed can, do that.

If you're playing the main event once, it's impossible to have a 20% ROI.
0 or 50%+

when you sell at a markup, you don't sell 100%. you'd have no incentive to play well. you would profit the same if you bust or win.

if you sell at 1.4 markup and want to freeroll the tourney you would sell ~71.42857 for a ~28.5% freeroll.

$10,000 X 1.4 = $14,000

$10,000 / $14,000 = ~.7142857

Overselling and markup are two entirely different things.

Markup:
An increase on the share price because of the expected value of that share price. So I am gonna play the WSOP main and think I make a 100% ROI on that. Since I believe I am still a worthwhile investment at a 50% price increase I sell 1% for 150$ in stead of 100$. Thus charging a 1.5 markup. This way you can sell shares for a value greater than the buyin, but when you cash still collect enough money to pay out all investors.

Overselling:
Selling more than 100% of your buyins, for instance: selling 150% of my WSOP Main Event buyin. I will collect 15k but if I cash I will be 50% short to pay out all my investors.

Markup has nothing to do with overselling. If you sell 90% at 1.2 markup for a 10k you are freerolling a profit but still haven't oversold. Because when you cash you can still pay out all investors.

What happened here was probably a combination of both. He probably charged a hefty markup and sold more than 100%

Seriously this is turning into a grade school lesson on what markup is?

Ironic huh? I get harassed and my posts get moved because I called out McKeehen for being rude and nasty but still discussed the Zo Karim ponzi. But this thread has derailed into rudimentary markup discussions rather than putting on blast a former 'respected' poker player.

I bet Zo is loving the direction this thread went.

better than overselling is making swaps with a lot of people

here in my country a guy used to do that, swaping 10% with a lot of players on a tourney, bust and freeroll for 10% of them

he was caught when he had 10% of 7 out of 9 from final table than people starting asking each other if they made the swap and found 58 players that did

i know someone who was doing this in Cherokee, NC at the WSOPC stops. Be careful swapping

Yeah, we've gone quite a ways off topic here. Much of what's been raised here has been discussed previously in some of the Staking forums stickies - I'd suggest checking those out and posting any further questions there.

No, not really. Once your derail continued for several posts and over a day, it was dealt with, and now the same is happening here. Move on.

Feel free to take any moderation comments/complaints here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...hread-1285169/

I was coached by Zo back in 2013 when I just started out playing full time. Can't say I'm surprised by all of this.

Back then he even tried to talk me into quitting my staking deal to get out of my makeup so that he could take up staking me and have an increased share of my profits while I lose my standing make up. Goes without saying I did not take him up on this offer.

He's a piece of **** and deserves every bit of hate he will get for this. I hope he never plays another hand of poker again. You're a sad lowlife if you resort to stealing in order to play poker.