I have just started participating alot in these threads (buying and selling). I have to admit when I first started perusing the threads, I was surprised people were charging markup at all....since irl most one-time stakes are at best even money.

I understand about sample size and realize that could be the case. But the fact that there were more losers than winners, barring things like losers would be more willing to post ITT than winners or similar factors, means that it's more likely than not that that group of investors bought -EV pieces. That's by no means a scientific study and I am in no way claiming it is.

Tdomeski, I havent bought that many pieces recently, but if that's true it's a major 180 from what it used to be. Are you sure threadnasty's thread isn't skewing your data. I recently read that and was pretty surprised because it was so rare to see something like that.

I've bought way more pieces than Ive sold so it's gonna be pretty clear where my biases lie and how I will intentionally or unintentionally skew the data.

Another interesting question to ask, should you buy from a seller that sells 75% or more action at say 25-30% markup, where they end up putting $0 towards their own package or sometimes even guaranteeing some money made when they brick every MTT in their package.

For example: Seller is playing 10K worth of buyins. Sells 80% action at 25% markup. He receives 10K from investors buying his 80% and now needs to invest 0% for his 20%. Would you buy from this seller? Let's assume he's a good player, yet chooses to sell so much action.

I was going to make this argument also but I decided not to go with a novel of a post.

I avoid packages where the player is free rolling with invested money. I want them to have at least 50% of their money on the line. Blinds 10/20 flipping for stacks on a free roll with my money is not what I'm looking for.

Good point sir.

the most important factor for a seller in this marketplace is time. selling pieces quickly is vital b/c they have a product that will expire at the start of the tournament. if there isn't an interest in a product at a certain price the price will drop the closer it gets to the time of expiration, or the seller risks holding the product forever. it's not like i can put this weeks sunday mill shares in a warehouse and wait for as long as i want until someone meets my price. i have to have those sold by 4:30 on Sunday.

if a seller is able to sell out with plenty of time to spare, then he likely could have charged a higher price. so, in this marketplace, people selling out quickly at super high markups (doesn't matter if it's +EV or not) only encourages sellers to raise the bar the next the time they sell. it also serves as benchmarks for prices when newer people come into the marketplace looking to fairly price themselves. if more packages went unsold, or unsold up until the seller dropped the price near the start of the tournament, then prices across the board would adjust accordingly. as is, there is no reason for a seller to not continue to up the ante until he realizes he risks not selling his pieces in time and losing his product.

a major reason this sort of game exists in this marketplace is not because buyers are misinformed or don't have adequate information, it's because they like to gamble (which is fine).

I think people should buy with extreme caution in these instances. Of course in theory the player still has incentive to play his absolute best, but in practice it doesn't always work this way (from what I've seen).

In short, buyer beware.

I'm lost, what exactly are you referring to?

I guess it depends on your perspective.

how can ppl say that buyers control the market prices,


......

This might be a bit off-topic, but I notice some players playing smaller buyin tournaments out of their own pockets while the MTT package they've sold is going on.

On the surface level, people might be okay with it, but I find that these extra tournaments take away time that could be better used to analyze the tables of the games that matter more.

I invested in one individual who sold shares for a package of his $109+ tournaments, valued at maybe 5k after markup. However, at the same time, he was playing $3 rebuys, $11 rebuys, $22 and $55 freezeouts. Across FTP and Stars, he had maybe 15 games running.

Is it just me, or should these kinda situations be avoided, where the player should either play ONLY the games in a package or also include the smaller buyins as part of the package?

seems like something that's worth asking before you buy a piece

I was referring to your statement that buyers influence the price more than sellers. Threatnastys was one of the few ones Ive ever seen where a lengthy discussion occurred about the validity of the MU being charged. In almost every thread, the OP sets the markup and buyers pay it without any discussion. I get what you're saying about buyers influencing the MU by buying or not, but almost every thread sells out at the MU that the seller sets.

Youre right in saying that most threads sell out because people are too dumb to know if it's +EV and/or like to gamble. As someone who buys sharse more often than sells them, it is in my best interest to see that this doesnt happen and cite statistics ITT to show people what the OP really should be charging. I hardly ever do that though because getting a piece for a few points cheaper isn't worth ruining my rep and pissing off pros who are influential and/or have influential friends.

As a buyer, you have the right to ask and probably should if this is something that matters to you. I would just post in their thread or PM them with this question/concern, then decide whether you want to invest. I don't see the majority of buyers having an issue with this, and also don't see why a seller would voluntarily withhold this information. There's no reason a seller should be forced to only play the games he sells in a package during the time frame of that package unless he specifically said this was part of his deal.

one idea I was thinking was sort of a dutch auction that could work well. Say someone wants to sell 35% in dutch style auction. They set time when all bids/posts must stop.

For example someone says theyll buy 10% @1.2.
Someone else says 20% at 1.1
Another says 15% at 1.15
Another says 10% at 1.15

In this case at the end of the time the 35% at the highest markup bids would be sold so everyone would get action except for the 20% at 1.1 guy.

I didn't say control. I said they have a lot more influence. I don't think I am wrong in this instance, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject as I value your opinion.

i actually thought about doing something like this but i thought it would just annoy too many people.

You're almost there, I think. Replace the "but" in your sentence with "and". Now you should see what I'm getting at.

I remember someone once posting a thread in bbv or somewhere auctioning off 1% of his action in the WSOP ME or something to the highest bidder.

Not really sure many sellers/buyers would want to go through this hassle for their action, although it would allow the buyers to control the market a little more, as well as possibly give proven players the chance to sell action at even higher mark up, based upon buyer demand.

Very interesting idea though.

it was timex.

(i forget what event exactly it was for, and what 1% was with no markup)

That was Timex for the PCA this past year (maybe someone else did it another time?).

The buyers do have more control in most instances.

before poker, my job was buying/reselling things on ebay, so I actually enjoy auctions and I actually think there is skill to it.

perhaps you could even add things in like a reserve markup of 1.1 (i.e. you will not sell if the highest/winning bids are below this)

I agree with the suggestion made by yourself and George. I probably should ask the seller prior to purchasing the package. At least its made me more cautious when making investment in these kinda packages.

One thing I'd like to point out is that if the seller is charging some sort of markup, you are effectively paying for their time (markup / # of hours played = their hourly wage for the package of tournaments). It just becomes counterproductive when they are exerting the same amount of effort towards games which have up to 10x difference in terms of value.

IMO, I find any number beyond 10 tables too much, and creates a situation where the player loses out on key information. Even if you are the best multi-tabler in the world or have purchased a HUD, you are still missing out on free information. If a person manages to sell shares @ 25% markup based on the fact that he has say 50% ROI over a 5,000 sample size, those numbers are not necessarily based on 15 tabling. Had the seller NOT been staked to play these bigger games, he would not be 15 tabling in the first place.

I wanna say as many as 50% of the investors don't even rail the sellers, they the whole picture of a stake, and only get a snapshot where the information is provided makes the OP looks good. I think some investors don't care too much about this issue, but if more of them actually railed, they'd be concerned.

Well, it looks like you know your criteria in deciding who you want to buy shares from and who you don't. Your points are all valid, and you should definitely use them to decide what packages you invest in, but I don't see it being realistic to restrict sellers into playing only their package games and not more. My assumption is most sellers don't add more tables if they think they are significantly losing edge/focus on their bigger games, which logically would be those he's sold action for.

Either way, it's good you, as a buyer, have your own criteria to deciding which packages you invest in. I'd imagine most investors don't even think twice about this though, but that's their choice.

I completely agree with this not being realistic, as this is online poker. The buyer could be playing a small number of tables (i.e. 3) and chopping weed in the background. Due to the nature of online poker, we as investors are also faced with the situation of imperfect information.

I understand completely what you're getting at, I just disagree with you. I think almost every one of these threads would sell out the same if priced +/- a few % points. There is prob a little bit of elasticity to it, but not much and when the supplier is setting the price of a product that is fairly inelastic (at least until you get to 30% or higher) I think it's kind of ridiculous to say that the buyer is the main controller of the price. They for sure could be if they were more organized and communicated more and maybe threads like this may get something like that going, but for the time being, the sellers are the main influencers of price.