If it wasn't true sports betting wouldn't be such big business

lol wtf please tell me this isn't the norm and that people this dumb only post and get people to buy once in a blue moon. Actually I think I'm gonna go take a shot at Ivey at 500/1k and go sell action with 5% MU in the marketplace. The best part was him having to sell like 80% after marking up less because he couldn't afford it. If you can't afford to spend more than like 1-2k you're probably not +ev in that tourney...

honestly i have no problems calling that thread a straight up scam.

if no one said anything, i would bet money that someone who was casually browsing would buy a piece not being able to see through the tourbound's utter bs. I also have no idea why these threads are being closed and my posts are being deleted by mods when i am 100% correct. The fact that he is straight up lying through his teeth and continues to do so and get away with it is annoying.

i think its "standard" for the mods to close threads when the OP asks for it to be closed. not commenting on whether or not i think its the right policy.

vouching is 100% different than a reference and the terms should not become interchangeable in this forum iyam

+1 especially if your posts were deleted

The posters posting the ONE LAST FINAL PACKAGE on their 5th package after I have bought pieces of their first and second are really tilting me by now. Each one takes away from the EV of previous packages and it is unfair and unethical towards investors. This shouldn't be allowed in the future.

ask for your $$$ back.

yeah i think i learned a lesson here too, i will probably make a lot of my purchases next year contingent on their package being their only package.

A follow up to this...if someone sells one WSOP package that includes events from May 29-June 13, and then a 2nd one that includes events from June 14-June 30, and another just for the main event, I have zero problem with that. The ones that need to be disallowed are the ones who sell 8 random WSOP events during the whole series, then decide to sell another package with 9 more events that overlap with the events from the first package.

Maybe there needs to be a rule that if someone is selling more than one package for an event, that the dates cannot overlap in any way.

I'm glad you posted that George. As a stakee I was concerned that backers might also have a problem with fatigure being an issue.
I totally agree that this should def. be a rule. When a stakee is asking to be backed in a second package that has numerous tourneys overlapping his first package he is basically showing zero respect for his initial backers money since they bought a piece of him based on the whole package, and not just the ones he is able to play or chooses to play. This must be an official rule since I can't think of a single argument from the opposite side that is even remotely valid. Mods please consider this. It is essentially stealing investors EV, which is their money.

It's completely ridiculous, and quite frankly I can't believe people are that dumb/naive to put investors in that sort of position.

Pretty sure that's been brought up before ITT.

No.

Because the OP requested it?

Which thread are you referring to? None of yours were deleted from the Tourbound thread.

Yes, although not always locked...especially if there was money invested. In this case, keeping it unlocked seemed like it would serve no real purpose other than seeing it constantly bumped with more people chiming in about how stupid it was.

Zero posts were edited or deleted from that thread by mods.

I think that many people are just looking to hit a mini lottery, regardless of the lack of value involved. I really question if some investors even spend one minute researching some of the stakes offered. Along with selling hyper turbos for 20%, I've seen a player that had lost money in over 5,000 hands of .50/1 LHE selling action to a limit event at 15%, along with a barely breakeven player over all areas selling himself for 15% to the 10K HORSE event.

Another thing that has been correctly pointed out is that once a few people have bought into a clearly -EV event, several more are sure to follow. It would be interesting if someone took the time to figure out how much a staker would be down if he bought into the last 1,000 or so offers made.

lol what i def had some posts deleted in his ftops thread.

Setting ceilings is a horrible idea. If nothing else, it would seem to justify that anyone charging under that amount isn't setting their MU to high. There's also no telling when someone is gonna offer a new package that should justifiably garner above the ceiling.

I still think requiring the MU to be posted in the the title is the best option. That way it would be perfectly visible that the MU you are charging is above everyone elses, and would require you to justify ITT why you deserve it, or have a big enough name or OPR ranking that noone questions it. Kind of like a supermarket that clearly displays the price of each item.

ya i think markup and % being sold should be clearly listed in title
(selling 60% at 1.2:1)

I haven't looked at any other threads; the one that was being discussed by the posts immediately prior to yours was this one:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...shares-790023/

From which no one's posts were deleted. If you meant a different thread, that wasn't very clear to me, and I'd have to have another look.

Pretty sure he meant this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...k-ftop-754096/

yah well when u troll just to troll your posts sometimes get deleted

So what is the consensus on the etiquette of posting in threads questioning MU?

There's currently somebody freerolling blocks of 45-man $7 SNG @ 33% MU... the top 10 SS winners at the same limits (and under) have ROI's ranging from 18-23%. If one is polite about it I don't see the problem with pointing out to potential investors that they're betting OP is winning at a 50% higher ROI clip than the top $ winners at the same games. This would give OP a chance to explain why he is vastly superior.

I like the idea of mandating MU in thread title. It would save investors time opening threads, which there are a lot of.

ya I think mods should do something to make it mandatory to include markup in the title. It is better for everyone in the long run. Regarding the 45 man $7 I didnt invest because of the 33% markup but when I checked again after it sold out I noticed that it is actually barely over 1% markup, it is really 1.0133 markup which he just didnt state correctly and is a huge difference

^ Oh oops. My mistake. Just another reason why there should be standardized markup values in thread titles

Yes I didn't realize that they way he wrote it was selling at 1.333% markup which is technically correct but since we're used to seeing markups as 1.25 or 1.15, if we didn't see the % sign we're thinking 33% markup.

Fwiw, I invested, and more than doubled my money

I really think this thread has had some positive results with people making OPs clearer and providing more info. I think it may have had some negative effects as well. I've seen a couple threads were people mention they have references but dont mention them because they arent able to "vouch" for them. I dont see any problem with someone youve had dealings with in the past posting in your thread about that history w/o then being on the hook if something shady happens.