ok yeah I was obviously misunderstanding you re: point 1 as what I said has very little to do with what you posted

i have bought shares i believe 3-4 times at markdown on here, one that comes to mind was vetiver's ept monetcarlo, i believe people are willing to do it when they need to sell alot of action in a short amount of time, so in the end markdown could benefit both people.

Lots of good discussion itt. I only have a couple things to say:

1. The trend of ppl coming into threads with condescending remarks about how they think a person is selling at too high of a markup is gross. I liken the situation to you going to someones garage sale and finding an item that (in your opinion) is too expensive so you decide to stand there and let all the other ppl who come there know that you think it's overpriced. Even if you aren't qualified to evaluate the seller's abilities you will undoubtedly discourage investment and make the previous investors feel embarrassed.

2. I think there is also a lot of trolling in general. I have seen klink10k (and others) ridicule tourbound incessantly. While I agree that some of tourbounds packages may have been overpriced I think the way he is treated by some of the 2+2 veterans is pretty pathetic. And I think if he or another newer/less respected 2+2er came into a respected member's thread making condescending/offensive remarks about their markup or abilities there would be repercussions. I have a hard time believing that every "popular" or "well-known" 2+2er that sells action to big live/scoop events at 25-35% MUs is a good investment, but no one ever says anything to them because they no they would be derided. I would just ask that the same standard be applied to individuals selling action to smaller events.

thanks

This is a really good thread I've talked with other people about this a decent amount. I'm not an mtt reg so I hardly deal with this stuff at all and might have some of this wrong but w/e feel free to correct me if I do. I've sold action to big live tourneys here and bought from a few as well, all for no markup. Unless it's a big tournament that will likely be soft I see 0 reason to ever sell action and markup an online tourney, especially when it's packages for a bunch of tourneys. If you have 50% of yourself in a bunch of $100's, why not just keep 100% of yourself in a bunch of $50's and it will be softer? There really is no shortage of these online these days. If it's something like the WCOOP ME or even on a slightly smaller scale FTOPS ME where it will likely have a lot of satty qualifiers and thus be super-soft for a tourney of that stake then I can see doing it.

But in general I guess I just don't think a lot of the midstakes (or whatever $20-$100 plus Sunday major regs are called) mtt pros are that good at poker and as was mentioned above a lot of the time the difference between someone with a 30% roi and breakeven is 1-2 big scores. This is actually something I've discussed a lot too. Make an mtt pro lose his 5 biggest all-ins that he won and almost every single one will be a lifetime loser. Take away the 5 biggest all-ins from any cash pro and they're still solid winners. I know it's cliche but it just seems the mtt pros who have won a decent amount of money don't realize how much luck there really is in tournaments. And I see it all the time, guy with ABI ~$30 has 30% roi that basically all came from a big win and wanting 25% markup on a 1k tourney or something. That's just ridiculous imo. And the best part is the place where most of these regs suck is in the deep stages which the bigger tourneys generally have more of. I'm probably gonna piss mtt people off (if I haven't already ) but as a FR cash reg when I play deep tourneys I just see leaks miles wide by people that I hear are solid mtt pros. They do **** that snap makes me mark them as a fish then I find out oh that guy has 100k+ in mtt winnings and is considered solid on 2p2? Obviously the really good mtt pros are good at poker in general I'm not talking about them. No one thinks twice when Jorg asks for markup or if elky came on 2p2 selling pieces with markup. But when the $50 mtt reg who would likely be enough to build a cash game around if he sat 200bb deep at even a 200nl table online and certainly 400nl+ sorry if I find it a bit ludicrous when they ask for something like 25% markup in a big deepstack tourney.

Also my view when I offer shares for sale is they're doing me a favor by allowing me to reduce variance/play the tourney for a smaller amount and I do them a favor by giving them something that is no doubt a +ev investment. So I'm never going to buy a piece of someone that I don't think is a no-brainer +ev investment and I hope I never offer to sell pieces when it is not a no-brainer investment for the people buying. I'm just not going to take a high-variance prospect for a tiny amount of ev and the person selling shares should probably realize that it's slightly -ev to sell those shares but it reduces variance and they can now play in a tourney they previously wouldn't have been able to.

Also as an aside been curious what if people invested in 100% of people who sold action at the markup they offered in the 2p2 marketplace? Would be interesting to see what kind of roi (and if it's even positive) they got and that would be a pretty good indicator of whether the markup people were taking was somewhat fair or simply a complete ripoff.

Also I pretty much agree with everything klink said and not entirely sure where I stand on pointing out if something is obviously a bad investment. Just fwiw the line of "it's none of your business if you're not gonna bet stay out" was the exact line used in the gary_neville bet as it was starting and a few people were saying it seemed kinda shady.

Also in response to this from tdomeski:
It's not really like that because you know what the price is before you walk across the street. A better analogy would be "It's $10 here you can get it for 5 euros across the road. I don't know how much a euro is compared to dollar just thought I'd point it out". But when the person selling is essentially pointing out all the good points (and who can blame him for that) I think someone as long as they don't lie/slander the person can make a post there simply stating the reasoning as to why they think it is a bad investment. I mean I'm not sure, I agree that if it's borderline it would be bad taste to post something about it while if it was a complete rip-off it should be almost a moral obligation to point it out. I'm not entirely sure why and I'm not sure where we draw the line.

Anyway sorry for length but it's a really interesting topic.

zachvac:

Your point about an MTT players ROI is correct, however you can't really have it both ways. For every MTT'er with a 30% ROI who probably should have a 10% ROI had they not won a few big pots late there is a guy with a 10% ROI who probably should have a 30% ROI had they not run absolutely terrible late.

Also, people sell shares for a myriad of reasons. As long as people aren't 100% freerolling action I don't think it really matters why they are deciding to sell 50% of themselves for $100 MTTs instead of just playing a bunch of $50 MTTs on their own dime. Sometimes people sell shares just to start to build credibility and a reputation within the community.

Okay so there is lots of good discussion ITT but so far not much has happened in terms of suggestions of any changes that can be made.

On the issue of coming into people's threads with no intention of buying and saying their markup is too high or unfair or w/e there is a ton of different opinions. I don't think the entire forum is going to see eye-to-eye on this ever, especially with the anonymity the internet provides. With that said you will never see me post in someone's thread who is charging under 1.5:1 markup and say it's too high or unfair. Further, if anyone posts something like that in a thread of mine (on the rare occasion I sell pieces) I will simply never buy action of theirs or sell any of my action to them ever.

As far as the upward trends of markups in the forum there isn't much that can be done IMO. It's not like we can set a price ceiling as one already pretty much exists. The only way to really curtail what seem like high markups is for buyers to just not buy at that price. The problem is these packages are selling out without a problem. If all the big buyers colluded together to not buy packages above X% markup no matter what, then I'd imagine more packages would go unsold and prices would probably eventually fall. But, how ethical would this be? Probably a lot more unethical than a seller selling a package that he isn't even sure is +EV.

ok yeah 2nd part is obviously true my point about the first part though is that you don't see the guys with 10% roi who should have 30% bragging about their sick results and demanding 25% markup on their shares. On average the people with the best results will be running good at anything. Pretty simple logic. The baseball player with the best batting average is probably running good. Not confined to just poker. So say you bet on the top 5 batting average leaders so far this year. Their combined current average is .330 now. So you make a bet that they will be above .325 the rest of the year. You're surprised when time and time again when you make this bet you end up losing money. Wonder why? Just pretty simple regression to the mean and the fact that the other hitters that are probably just as good as them hitting .280 this year aren't even on the map for this bet while the league leaders are campaigning about how great their results are and how it's because they're really good. Are they incorrect saying they're really good? Still doesn't mean their results reflect their true batting average over the long-term. See what I'm trying to say? And it's pretty obvious that mtt results are much higher-variance than batting averages for months at a time.

tdomeski brings up a great point that some of these issues may never be resolved, especially pertaining to whether it is ok or not ok to come into a seller's thread and voice that an investment is bad.

Perhaps the existence of this thread will simply shed a little more light for those who don't necessarily know how to determine whether the package they are investing in is +EV or not. At least some of those buyers who originally didn't know they were investing in a package that may be -EV will have a better opportunity to understand what's going on. Additionally, sellers who appear to be selling marginal investment packages won't have to be hassled in every single package they offer.

Others may choose to remain ignorant towards the issue, whether they're just buying shares to gamble or have a sweat during WSOP (w/e), and that's fine as well. I still believe that the market will balance itself out fairly well if as much information is presented up front.

Ultimately everyone's views and opinions can be presented and read here and those that choose to read through this thread might benefit from their share buying (and selling) endeavors.

No, I completely understood you the first time around. I'm just saying this lack of information on what someone's true ROI is doesn't mean it will always hold true that markups should be reduced across the board. And you do see guys all the time with 10% ROI's saying "Hey, I promise I've just run bad really late so my real ROI should be a lot higher that's why I am selling at what I feel is a fair 1.25:1 markup". Then they sell out in 2 hours.

Actually read the sticky and found this quote, "Often players with good OPR stats ROI’s of >40%+ will be adding mark-up to their stakes."

This was made a year ago or so and like someone said, it seems that there are a ton more people buying now which might be why charging MU is now the standard instead of the exception.

This is a completely biased opinion as my ratio of buying to selling is prob 10to1, but I think 2+2 needs to create and enforce some stronger rules on what the OPs must contain. I think they should clearly state what the MU (maybe even in the title?) being charged is and an exact or fairly tight range of how much of themselves they will sell. I think they should have unfiltered OPR and/or sharkscope screenshots from all sites they have significant play on. This will make it easier for people that are too stupid or lazy to click links to see if it's a good deal and not get the ball rolling on a seller that maybe shouldnt have it rolling. I've seen threads before where losing players charged MU and explained in the OP that it was a Sunday package and they were definitely plus EV in it, and they had no problems selling out and didnt get questioned by anyone.

I realize people that do more selling (and maybe even those that do more buying) are gonna see those requirements as too extreme and maybe even stupid. Maybe they are. Just my 2 cents.

Agree 100 percent.

Some great posts and discussion in this thread so far.

I really like this idea. If we could create some kind of standard template for OP's it would prevent sellers from mis-representing themselves in the Marketplace, which imo is a significant issue at present.

1. maybe not individuals, but if there is a general consensus is its too high than maybe something should be done. there is a huge difference between complaining like Alan Kessler and actually doing something for the good of marketplace as a whole, the point of everyone investing is they want to make money right?

2. Explain why we shouldn't criticize people for exploiting uninformed investors.

yeah i think everyone can agree that stuff like this happens, there is no real point discussing it unless we figure something out to change a completely free market forum. I mean, it **** these people who are doing this ****, but its really hard to stop them.

Ive been looking @ this staking forum for a while & have just started to invest. Soley as a money maker.

BUT, I can see so so many bad deals out there being bought up quick. people selling large packages @ 25% mark up & selling 80-90% thats madness. People are staking a horse & paying him a wage on top & Giving him a bit extra as well.

This cant be good for the community - add that to the big guys buying big chunks of the better deals, it is leaving smaller investors with only the worst offers out there.

30% mark up is pretty pricey - but worth it for the likes of jorge! Surely there has to be some way of approving requests before they go out. Making sure that a fair markup is charged & that people arent trying to freeroll events.

anyway just my 2p.

pretty much disagree with your whole post esp the bolded. i have never seen someone sell 80-90% of a mtt package with a 20% markup (thus creating a profit regardless of even cashing 1 mtt). if i missed an instance of this, dont hesitate to link it here.


i also dont think whining about big buyers is good. they lurk the forum just like anyone else. if they wanna buy a big piece cause they think its a good investment, than they are more than welcome to. everyone has the same chance to buy a piece in a thread.

30% mark-up would be a great price for a lot of people. whether they decide to post in the marketplace is another story.

approving mark-up's/threads before they go up would just create a ton of work for the volunteer mods and thats just not fair. i am sure they already have enough bull**** to deal with.

And how would you propose this happens?

Basically, it's unrealistic. 2+2 makes no money from this forum, and as you say, the mods are volunteers.

Not only that, who is going to be deemed qualified enough to pass judgment on what markup is fair?

This. Infracted and deleted, along with the replies.

FTW. These forums are too busy now for mods to see every post. I see very few of them any more. Reporting posts brings them to our attention so we can deal with them and nip any ****ty attitude in the bud.

A post report is what brought me here.

yeah i was about to report it, then thought it probably was already and waited and you came in

so thank you bobo

Well planned, then.

NP.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...shares-788926/ - 80% sell @ 25% mark up = Free for the Horse with still 20% eq

Again 80% with 25% Mu - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...1-25-a-787472/

Same again - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...1-25-a-785058/

same again - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...sop-me-788255/

so thats 4 threads Where the horses are getting 100% staked. I dont believe that 100% off the investors in that share are aware of that fact though - it isnt clear in all of the posts.

what about this one - 42% mark up! is this a fair charge? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...n-main-788144/


and then you come to this - where one of the highly respected guys on here is charging 0 mu - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...markup-761336/

In threads where sellers are freerolling 20%, it isn't necessarily something that shouldn't be allowed, but perhaps could be a criteria buyers use to determine whether they want to invest in the package. I'd imagine some buyers would frown upon this, thinking it would somehow affect the seller's ability to play their best, knowing they have 0$ invested themselves (which isn't necessarily true).

There may be some instances where the seller is financially burdened at the moment and can not invest in themselves, which is perfectly fine. I would be more concerned if someone was regularly selling packages and freerolling them all.

I would be interested in hearing the thoughts about this issue from those who buy shares often. Is this a criteria you would consider before investing?

Ive decided against backing a horse unless he has a minimum of 20% invested with there own cash. In the long run it cant be good for backers having people do this for short term packages.

A long term backing agreement is totally different than someone wanting to get some investment to move up a level or 2 that they cant afford if sticking to BRM.

can anyone on this forum really show that they are a +EV investment with a 42% mark up?

Thats for the wsop main event. A field like that and a live event is gonna garner a lot bigger MU. I really dont thnk setting caps on what MU can be charged or what percentage they must keep of themselves is the answer. Where you'd draw the line would be completely arbitrary and hard to agree on. I really think the free market system can work if sellers are required to be completely upfront about exactly what they are selling. More informed buyers are going to go a lot further to finding the right equilibrium than having outside forces set arbitrary caps.

Bobo, I completely agree that having mods approve threads is ridic. It already takes a day at least just to get marketplace approval. If every single thread had to be approved, the backlog would be absurd. Do you think requiring the seller to put the MU amount in the title would be going to far?

I think if that were the case, then we really would start seeing buyers being the ones that controlled the prices.

Also, I have heard that some sellers that are selling shares to live events include extra markup because of travel expenses. What amount of markup (in terms of $, not %) would be appropriate? Should there be a ceiling to this factor?

I literally have zero idea what the answer to this question is, lol.

I really like this idea actually and don't think it would be too much to ask the seller to do at all. Make it as standard as sellers giving their screen names in their OPs isn't too unrealistic I don't think.