Always been my opinion , nicely put Ben

I think I disagree with this, in theory both should just price at the max price of what they can sell the % they want to is (assuming it isn't unethical or something) and this would mean like you suggested the one who has to travel becomes a worse deal. Investors should be looking at numbers only, So generally speaking they will obviously take a better deal. If investors are willing to pay the inflated (because of travel expenses) price, they should be willing to pay this price to a local who doesn't actually need expenses so the local should just charge more since people are ("correctly") willing to pay and make some money off the MU. It may seem unfair at first but it just makes sense that EPT Berlin is more profitable for someone who lives in Berlin than it is for someone travelling all the way from Australia right?

To be fair if someone who has a lot of expenses charges a higher MU than they would have, it's not a "scam" because investors should only care about the EV for themselves, so in that sense it's irrelevant if the horse spends the MU they charged on expenses or baller dinners. Saying they are charging more MU for their flight expenses is just misleading as it implies they would do the same regardless of it made the investment unprofitable or not.

You need to stop picking one side or the other of this argument and think about how the market should function. Obviously it's better for the horse if they charge the maximum the market is willing to bear and it's better for the backer if mark-up doesn't factor in expenses. That's not the point.

I'm talking about how the market should function to be fairest to all parties, and create the best market conditions to keep the marketplace economy healthy.

No. If there are enough buyers to support the sellers the price will tend toward the actual value - the profit buyers need to support the volatility they are buying. If there were more buyers the price would approach 1.0 (or maybe even lower?). There's clearly more buyers though so the value will approach what buyers believe to be their true roi, which sometimes will be higher than their actual roi.

I dont see how expenses should ever be included in MU, an investor isnt gonna take a worse deal just because someone needs to fly across the world. So to remain competitive it needs to be priced the same as other packages that dont include this.

They should both be charging the max that they can (which in the ideal market would allow some profit for investors to make up for the risk/time value of money).

But they're both good deals, one is just less good than the other. You don't spend your entire action-buying budget on the Vegas reg, you spend most of it on him and some of it on the Icelandic reg.

vegas reg can just charge more if thats what people are willing to pay, there is no reason he should be forced to give a better deal just because he doesnt have any extra expenses.

I think your mu should be based on your roi. A horse should sell more of themselves if they want to use money for travel expenses. This is coming from someone who sells a lot more than I buy. I sell more for events that I have to travel for and less for events in fla

did it really take people this long to realize how badly they were getting ripped off on markup by some "tournament pros"?

markup fish, lol.

this is obviously the most reasonable point, you shouldn't be able to sell for more than your roi justifies just because travel expenses exist.

Exactly this imo.

The cost of getting to the event whilst relevant to the seller is not as relevant to the buyer. The MU should be solely based on the expected ROI and it is down to the buyer to work out if he feels it is a good deal for him. Surely that is how the marketplace should work in essence.

The fact that the majority of people over estimate their ROI in events is not a surprise to me.

It is a little akin to amateur golfers who always think they hit the ball further than they actually do. Most people will always paint a better picture of themselves than is the reality, especially when trying to sell something, be it themselves in a CV or a package on a poker forum.

Spoke to Neverscaredb immediately after the Timex interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZXG98I3nag

I didn't articulate myself very well and I think we're arguing semantics. I would expect that both of those players sell for the maximum investors will allow based on their ROI. The player from Iceland will simply have to devote more of his 'profit' to expenses.

Right, but that's not what's being discussed. If a local and a travelling pro both have a 100% ROI, and the travelling pro wants to charge 50% MU because he has expenses, and the local pro decides he wants to undercut him and charge 25% because he's worried about selling out, the travelling pro shouldn't then have to reduce his MU in line with the local.

The buyer shouldn't need to consider these costs in part of his own due diligence, he should just consider whether or not the investment is +ev enough for him. It's on the horse to work it out such that he's offering a good enough deal to the buyer.

thats a completely different issue and nothing to do with the travelling expenses. One player is charging the max he thinks he can get, and the other is charging less because he is worried about selling out.

If all other factors are the same, then there is no reason for a travelling pro to list at a higher markup than a local pro of the same skill level.

If supply stays the same and demand increases, price tends to increase.

Just came here to point out that theoretically, your goal in selling action is to sell it for as high as a mark up as possible. So doesn't it mean that if you are selling your package at lightening quick speed you sold it for too low.

I think it was a quote from the guy who founded the Hilton hotel. If your completely booked up, than your prices are too low.

Yeah sorry I meant sellers. Say 500 people all had a 100% roi in the main but only 2k disposable income. Meanwhile there is only one buyer who will buy one package. The market would force the price to approach 90% at markdown, 8k for his 90%. It would be higher because the horse needs to make some to counter the variance he is buying as well as his expenses/time/opportunity cost, but the point is that if it were a buyers market someone with a 100% roi could have to sell at markdown. But it's not, more likely today if someone had 100% roi he'd sell closer to 85-90% my. And there's nothing wrong with that it's how the free market works.

This makes sense as well. Let's look at CTS who sold at face value for the one drop. He sold out super-fast, and a ton of people wanted action but couldn't get it. These people wanting to snap-buy action probably would have bought and thought they were still showing a really good profit at 1.05. The only people who win with the lower markup are the people fast enough to click. If he sells higher he makes more money, people who are willing to pay higher make more money, and it becomes more about who thinks he's worth more paying more rather than who can buy it the fastest getting it.

People keep on talking about this being a buyers market but I don't see a huge amount of evidence for it. Possibly partly down to my package not selling very well, where a few people whose opinion I respect all saying they thought the package was good value. But aside from a few people obviously marking up way more highly than they should - even if they sell, for various other reasons - there are a few people marking up lower than they reasonably could and not selling that well, and the market is very clearly less fluid than it used to be.

where have people said it was anything besides a market strongly favoring the seller?

sounds like a buyers' market to me

I think you meant sellers market wazz?

There's a bunch of players whose realistic roi doesn't, or barely does cover the expenses, so they charge MU at roi + expenses, which is prolly not fair to the buyers but anything less is -ev for the seller.

Not sure how much heat Mike got from that kind of grinders , or if they even realized how bad this would be for them long term.

Both of the interviews were excellent. Keep up the good work.