Of course I didn't do that. To do that would be to create the exact problem I'm criticizing. I'm not going to make a bunch of arbitrary assumptions and pretend like that answered the question.

BS. It is answering it if the OP decides that this or something very similar is his case. How can you be sure it isnt or that someone else is not interested to do it this way.

But the facking hypocrisy here is that i can create this system myself. Who stops me? I will use for player the logistic function x->4*x*(1-x) . Say i start at x=0.45658675 and after the 1534 iteration i define as win a distance from 0 or 1 smaller than 0.25 and a loss anything else. I invest 3 units in it and plan to run it until bust or +25 for the player A that gets 50%. Then C comes and wants in too. Price C if C agrees to stick around for same targets.

Why isnt this problem i thought a legitimate possible agreement between a player and an investor if the player knew his edge probability by prior history?

I can say with a very high level of confidence that he's not going to apply your technique because it is unnecessarily complicated. Could I be wrong? Sure. Could there be someone else out there who is randomly interested in calculating the expected return of a 55-45 situation in which the original player has 3 BI and there's a potential investment of 9 BI from an investor that intends to pull out when the bankroll reaches 25 BI? Sure.

Do I think such a possibility is realistic? No.

I never claimed it was illegitimate. I claimed it was unnecessarily complicated. I claimed it was unlikely to be used. I claimed that it has a large number of arbitrary elements. I claimed that the fundamental principle of reducing this to an expected value is erroneous. And I'm sure I claimed several other things about your model.

Now quit being a baby and stop your whining. Aaron W. thinks your valuation model is a bunch of crap. Boo-hoo.

Sorry man, i respect your capabilities and historical contribution to the site so i will not just ignore (its disturbing and i care) that you do not want to see what i posted for the value it offers to the thread, not in showing that this is the solution but in trying to force the OP to realize that the details like that and much more will determine the pricing and not a vague description like the original one.

The fact that i care doesnt make me vulnerable and a trolling target. It makes me a person that you can count on honestly working with others to produce a better result if only they wanted to do it properly with cooperation.

You can't be counted on to honestly work with others to produce a better result.

* The work will be honest. I do not take that away from you.
* It won't reliably be "with" others because you are irrationally wedded to your own ideas.
* It won't reliably be "better" because "better" often means "simpler" and that's not something you're willing to do.
* "If only they wanted..." just makes you sound like an arrogant prick.

I believe you are intelligent and honest. But I also believe you're a terrible poster and blind to how full of yourself you really are. There's plenty of good you can and do contribute, but your signal-to-noise ratio is awful.

If you want to be the sort of person you describe yourself to be, you would engage in patterns of behavior that promote the outcomes you claim to be interested in.

Can you offer an example of a case you can produce a value (price) for that we can appreciate? Just describe an agreement between A and B that then C comes into. I want to see your attempt to value something in a precise model. I want to see all your assumptions and the solution in an example of your choice. even if the OP wont agree its 100% their case. How is that for a pattern of cooperation?

That's a lot better.

An initial valuation scheme would be to use the idea I put forth in my first post. Use bankroll as the proxy for value and to use shares. This has its problems because it creates for a somewhat odd payout structure down the line because it's not clear how exactly the winnings are "reinvested" back into future playing.

Let's say that B originally had $50 and A put in $50 to buy half of B's future winnings. At this point in time, B's poker is valued at $100, with both A and B owning 50%.

B wins $20. Now the value of the system is $120. So if C wanted to buy in to be an equal stakeholder as A, then since A has $60 of value in the system, we could ask C to pay $60.

There are many ways this is imprecise and flawed. But it's a simple starting point that can then be explored based on the intentions of A, B, and C and the types of agreements they can come to. And it's also a model that's easily modified based on information that would be readily available to OP, such as the initial amount of money. (Maybe A just threw the whole pot of money at B and B is freerolling. Then we just change the numbers around. There are plenty of intermediate cases that are interesting, such as if B originally only had $25. Then we could talk about what percent of the winnings are reinvested based on some proportion that corresponds to the original investment distribution.)