You can play whatever card you want. I'm telling you straight up that your long, rambling posts in which you don't make any particularly meaningful points don't help people want to deal with you.

Notice again how in this post, you've gone on another long ramble that doesn't really add to conversation and has nothing to do with the thing you were responding to. This adds to the overall incoherence of your writing.

I know you want to imagine yourself the genius who knows everything, but clearly an alternate proposal for the profit-sharing was presented in Post #5. And it took one sentence to communicate it. Once you stop being so arrogant about your ability to contribute meaningfully, and actually start contributing meaningfully, you'll find yourself having more interesting conversations.

Masque, I'm relatively new to the SMP, but tend to agree that your posts are unduly long. Your posts have good points, but they also seem to have unneeded complexity, length, and repetition. I don't think you wrote any new thoughts in your last several posts that weren't in your other posts.

As many have said (Pascal, Twain, etc.) - if I had more time I would have made a shorter book/letter/post.

I still contend that unless backer could withdraw his $30, there was no implicit or explicit re-investment of his $30 into the new $500. Therefore backer should get 50/700. This is cash, whose value doesn't change, so comparing it to a business is inappropriate.

If i am repetitive its because i am not getting through. I do not repeat the exact same things, i offer more details and context typically. donnie5 welcome to SMP by the way.

AaronW for example sees absolutely no problem with the following situation;


OP is A and staking 10% guy is B.

The way i saw it before the details about bb=5 were known, conceivably this is what could have happened among countless of other examples; (and this is why i asked more info while of course still generally accepting the reasoning of 6%)

A likes to play deep and starts a long session with 500 vs others that have 100-200-300-400-500 etc in that table. During the game, people come and go, he gets down to 300 and at this moment an hour later at the table we have 200,150,450,100,50,250 and the 450 guy is a loose fish that has just taken the 200 from our guy A over a couple hands with bad plays and bad beats. A is somewhat tilted at this and thinks i am gonna get this guy and i better have 500 again to be able to take him out for all of it if possible.

So A redeposits. Just as this happens a new agreement ought to have taken place diluting B shares from 10% to say 6%. This never did happen. We do not know if B had said from the start i am not doing more or if their agreement is play until you bust or double or whatever (or maybe he hadnt authorized etc). We know that an agreement is not possible at this point (not provided) and yet A goes ahead and deposits.

Keep in mind that if there is mixing next that engages all the stack, in a variety of influencing ways, it is the game itself that has forced an agreement to be determined later (in %) because we cannot see this as 2 companies 300 and 200 anymore if they are entangled in some play. That was of course the original purpose of the extra 200. To serve a function.

However as soon as A deposits 200, the fat fish stands up and leaves and the table is 200,150,300,100,50,250 and a new guy with 300 comes and sits down where 450 was and A has now 500. Yet that 500 counts as 300 still because the 450 guy left and nobody has over 300. We have 2 "companies" the 300 and the 200 and they are about to form a new at 500 but we do not have an agreement. Not only that but in fact we do not even have 200 acting in the game yet because nobody has over 300 at the table.

The rest you know. You get AA, someone has KK and pushes all in after reraising and you call for 300 and you get to 800 and then it doesnt even matter that anyone else can come and have 350 or 450 or 500 because you would be at 600 anyway even without the 200 added. It hasnt been used yet. Not even as fold equity or any kind of material influencing role in the game. Next hand another all in happens adding another 200 and we are to 1000 and cash out.

Yet of course i see your logic that we cant be doing such things, we need new contract with the deposit instantly to avoid such dilemmas and confusion and debates about it. But we didnt have the contract and the 200 was never important as it developed.

So why in this case doesnt B deserve still 10% of 800=80?


Company 1 and 2 never merged in that example. 2 never became a factor. An agreement was not in place. The deposit's purpose was neutralized immediately after it was made.


Doesnt this case present for you an ethical question/dilemma ? This is SMP. The thread under this branch of development presents an ethical question too. It doesnt have to matter that it didnt happen that way. As long as we didnt know how it happened such cases were possible.

Something like that was evident as possibility to me when we didnt still know the details and the bb level and the initial agreement or exactly how the new participation was rejected etc.

So you have a problem that i can imagine this thing and therefore ask OP to offer details so that i can in my mind release myself if i was in his shoes from the "ethical" obligation to pay B 80 not 60 or 70 but 80 in that case and be confident in the other estimate.


Do you have a problem that i see the world that way? And you are going to force me to to not do so, a philosophical/mathematical viewpoint anyway in a free Math/Philosophy forum when if we asked people outside in the street who understand poker a certain fraction would agree that the right thing to do is to give 80 in that example or that a dilemma exists?


What the hell is this talk about genius etc? If i am genius its my business. You are not going to be the one to tell me i am not genius or that i am genius or judge for all the quality of my contributions in general but my life in the end when its over and what i did with it and how i touched people and interacted with them. For the same reason i will not ever dare tell anyone here if they are or not a genius or deny whatever good about them. I simply let them be as they are and try to make their life better if i can. I never came here and said hey celebrate my greatness. Are you kidding me? I want to see people here as my friends that enrich my life and i try to do the same.

The only arrogance here is by people that dare to put down other people and when they try to explain themselves they further ridicule them. And i never did that to anyone.

I think it's typically understood that you buy x% of the action and not a specific set of the chip stack which may or may not be used during the game. As in, when I'm sat at the table I can't point to a part of my stack and say "This chip is mine and this other chip is my backer's".

Because any other way allows me to lol freeroll my stake by risking his money when it suits me, and putting in my own money when it's clearly profitable. Or I lose 10% of my stack before going on a massive heater and say "Sorry, bro, I lost your part of the stack at the beginning so the winnings are all mine".

Or, for example, someone goes all-in and I have them covered and hold the nuts, so I use as many of "my" chips and as few of the backer's as possible to freeroll him.

This is aside from the obvious practical problem of having to track and calculate whose money went in and where in every single hand.

So yeah, the problem is that terms weren't discussed when topping up is an incredibly common part of cash games. Otherwise, no, I don't think any of your huge wall of text really raises any ethical problems. You buy % of total action, not specific chips.

If "getting through" means "getting people to care about what you typed" then you're not helping yourself get through. You may not be "repeating the exact same things" but you're not actually adding to the conversation.

How much does a hand-by-hand, blow-by-blow analysis feature into any staking arrangement? The answer is that is pretty much doesn't. I know of no meaningful staking agreements that require such an analysis in order to determine shares. So all of this is still pretty irrelevant.

Not really. What you describe here is not very similar to an actual staking problem, just as what you described in the other thread isn't actually what AI does.

You can ask OP all you want. I doubt OP will answer you, just as the OP of the other thread in which you wanted to calculate the value of an investment by performing an EV calculation based on completely arbitrary assumptions didn't answer you. You don't set yourself up for good answers because you can't reach a meaningful conclusion in a span of text short enough that people want to read. And you don't do a good job of even asking questions. You just assume answers and run with it.

You can view the world however you want. I'm just telling you that the social context of this board is that your ramblings are not going to get you the conversational engagement you seek. If you want to continue not getting what you seek, you are free to continue posting your endless ramblings.

Based on the way you approach this forum, you lack a certain level of social sophistication. You have all of these grandiose statements about how you care more about learning than everyone else, and how nobody here is interested in honest whatever. You come off as an arrogant idiot. If you don't care, you don't have to care. But then you will still continue not getting the interaction you want.

But you're free to do that, just as I'm free to point out to you the way to move forward and have you ignore it. Deal with it.

It's a misconception somebody "takes" anything from anybody. Variance does it in this case. If you "are going to get a guy" you are a loser, because you will be doing -EV decisions. Can't encourage that. Getting the idea though, A being a subordinate player. But B should know that when staking.
Good point. Question is what "fine" should be paid. I went for 7%, but why not your 8% (or 10% of 800) to punish OP a bit more seriously. I don't though see A's redeposit as that a big fault in the big picture, and B probably knew something like this might happen. I stick to the symbolic 7% if that makes B happy enough. Kind of a tip.

Remember OP is paying his ass off to save the day. The winnings should be his to the degree he earns, because he risked losing substantially.

This is exactly how it also works in business because it is the most fair solution.

The staker was given the chance to put himself at the same percentage ownership of the money on the table and opted to not take it the opportunity to do so. If that weren't true, then there could be an issue of unfairness to an original investor (the staker). Since it is true, the cases where it wouldn't be true simply don't matter.

As a more important and pressing matter, who the **** stakes someone for $50?!? Who the **** would want to be staked in a $500 buy-in game?!?

Do you think he should have negotiated with his staker before putting more money on the table? When re-reading OP it isn't in fact clear if he asked the staker before reloading and diluting, or if OP had the "right" to do so without asking the staker beforehand. Generally a player should have total freedom, and the dynamics of the play may make reloading a good option. He may not get an instant answer from the staker. If he plays even a single hand after reloading it may be way too complicated to negotiate a new deal without the risk of conflict. If they do, it should follow the mathematical principle Aaron told, but math gets a bit too complicaed for this use though, and may not satisfy. Friendship, give and take, may overbridge the potential problems though.
It's probably between friends. It may motivate OP a bit, and the staker gets a bit action for his money. It's much about the gambling element.

It's not like there's a bunch of set rules anyone can look up to cover staking (aside from what are probably messy laws related to gambling and not likely to be designed to cover this kind of situation). It's an agreement between individuals, and they can formalise it to whatever extent they like, and come up with whatever rules they like.

People should talk about likely scenarios (like reloading) because it keeps things fair and saves a lot of grief.

$50 isn't a lot of money, but we all know it's enough to cause arguments when both people think it's theirs.

This may be one of the greatest points and outcomes of this thread.

If that part is taken care of, it's the simple correct math sum, in this case 6%. Everything above or under has the potential to cause an argument (the outcome is that counterintuitive there may be an argument anyway...maybe OP giving 1% as a "gift" can be a smart move...here we go...it may be nagging the stakers mind why, why, did he play "better" after reloading...)

Having a clear plan understood by the parties ahead of time is obviously better. Failing that, you operate under the most fair method, which is the one Aaron laid out. Not anybody's fault if one party doesn't understand what is fair.

I think it's important for all parties to establish the 6% as the genuinely right. Everything else is symbolism etc. Giving some "on a winning day" is a thought pattern mentioned earlier. But everybody should realize the 6% is the principally right, staked and staker should do the math together. And if the staked gives some more, he has somehow invested in goodwill. At other times the staker may give some slack that feels good. It's about social interaction and maybe bonding.

The 6% is right.

If they like giving gifts to each other, that is ok, but that is outside the realm of a financial transaction. They should also exchange pleasantries when the see each other.

If I was staking someone in a cash game using Aaron's payout method, I wouldn't accept dilution unless the player got explicit approval from me (assuming this is purely business). For instance, suppose you agreed to buy 5% of someone's action at 2-5 at a buyin of $500. Then, after playing for 1 hour, they put down an additional $50,000 (Caesar's Palace had an uncapped 2-5) even though effective stacks are still only $500. I bought the 5% with an expectation of an expected return on capital. Now I still have the same original risk but almost no upside expectation (Suppose the player wins three BIs - I walk away with $1.50 profit).

EDIT: Actually, this is wrong I guess--I wouldn't have the same risk. Ignore.

Almost everything has potential to cause an argument if one person thinks the maths is wrong.

Thinking back to my student days where I saw a few of these disputes on our nights out to the casino (people used to swap action for trivial amounts for the fun, and didn't really think about any awkward situations that could occur) the social aspects of it tend to be the most important. When people stake seriously or for big money (relative to their life roll) they tend to arrange things well and put some foresight into it.

The problem is, as I said before, people very quickly come to the idea that it's not the money it's "the principle" and that tenner should be theirs and things get heated. And even if they're wrong they aren't going to see it in the midst of an argument.

My mediation in a similar situation to this was "Why don't you take the difference and put it into the bar?", and that and a few beers resolved it. Sometimes the most fair mathematical resolution isn't the one that defuses it and you have to make a life decision about how much the £x is really worth over the aggro.

Even though the "at risk" part is wrong, you make an excellent point that has been only glanced at. The original investors need to have first right of refusal on dilution or they can be gamed.

The question of dilution is not substantively different from the conversation in this thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...oblem-1579198/

Presumably, this thread is about a one-time investment and a one-shot deal. And the general conclusion in this thread (work out these details in advance) are really what it takes. You should never really be diluting someone in a one-shot deal, and especially not introducing a third party midstream (unless the third party is taking directly from the player and not the original investor -- but that isn't really a good idea).

The other thread is more about trying to buy/sell shares in the long-term staking of a person. In that case, bankroll is not the only consideration, as there is some sense of "future value" that plays into the consideration.

This thread is more of a cut-and-dried investor's rights thing - you can't really do a "net-present value of future returns" thing here.

You really shouldn't in the other thread either, but people seem to have to get their quota of words in.

The bit in parenthesis is something worth googling and exploring for those who feel a bit lost.

The "you shouldn't be diluting" thing you mention is why the original investors have to have the first right of refusal of any offering to increase the stake on a percentage basis of their original investment.

Staking just a little makes both returns and losses small. When the staker bought in with $50, and got $60 in return, it's a really nice profit. Going from $60 to $70 is a quite massive step if it can't be properly given grounds for. Maybe the staker even wants 50/(500-50+200)=50/650 ~7.8% or close to 80 bucks. That's even more than the proposed 50/700! I'm more starting to feel $65 could be a nice sum.