lol @ your name.

Valid point tho, he did play the 2-7 btw. didnt cash.

Personally, I think it's super sketchy for people to get more $ for their % than is their total buyins. How is that right that if they brick everything they still come ahead? Noone should be allowed to get more than 100% of buyins imo

My point is that what you've said is exactly that, your opinion. You're certainly welcome to not invest in anybody who does that, but there's nothing "not right" about it at all.

As I mentioned in the previous post, they have a product: their EV in the tournament. If you think it's higher than they markup they're charging, and they've retained a big enough share of themselves that you think they'll play to win, then it's a good deal, period. It *should* make no difference to you whether they got more money before the tournament.

Here's an example. Say some guy posts a $10k package where you think he has 120% return. He's offering shares at 1.1 markup. He tells you he's sold 60% to a private backer, and is offering 10% more at that price. What is the difference (to you) to these three situations:

a) He sold the 60% to the private backer at the same price.
b) Like a), but the private backer is his rich uncle, who gave him a $10k car at the same time.
c) He sold the 60% to said rich uncle for a 2.5 markup.

Hopefully, you see that these are all the same to you. Yet in the third (and maybe the second, depending on how you think about the car) he's free-rolling on his 30%.

To sum it up, the *only* thing that effects your EV as a backer (if you grant that the stakee will play to win) is his markup. It doesn't make any (mathematical) difference to you whether he sold enough to have a sure profit.

That said, it's certainly allowed to throw off warning signs. I do wonder in these cases *why* the person needs to sell so much. But it's not inherently wrong.

I still have to think about that, but I certainly see your point. My problem is : people sell shares why : to play higher BI tournaments and to decrease variance in them. They presumably have a ROI higher than their markup, right? But why would they then ever sell so that they charge more than the total buyin? The variance aspect is already taken care of because they already got all the money they need. By getting more money they are making -EV decisions, because their ROI should be higher than the markup.

Then I think we're agreed, as this is what I was referring to when I said it throws off warning signs. As a backer, I want to know why the seller needs to sell so much. But I'm fine with him doing so.

Yeah, I wouldnt buy pieces from someone who makes intentional -EV decisions - like when that 'chick' or the WOWEEWOOOWAH guy both were giving away equity to 'get references and show trustability', how surprising they both rolled their backers.

who rolled their backers? is there a link to where i can read about what happened or can u tell me? lol

Basically they both ran a few micro stakes where they gave away equity, let people freeroll for few $ of equity etc...then sold a bigger package and nobody ever heard of them again.

SNs are MyTime2Shine and woweeewoowah.

"she" didnt like it when i called "her" out over and over.

The thing that matters if they're freerolling is how much of themselves they keep. If they sell 100% of themselves at a markup obviously that's unethical because they have no incentive to play well. But say someone sells 80% of a 10k tourney with 50% markup. Obviously ridiculous but just trying to make a point. So they get 16k to play a 10k event and still have 2k of themselves. They could of course just not care about it and make 6k profit, but why would they do that when they have (supposedly) 3k worth of equity in the tourney? If they hadn't gotten the stake do you think they would have reg'd for a 2k tourney themselves and not cared about it? If he was some super-human sicko who I thought had a 60% roi in that tourney I would still invest knowing that he has 2k of himself and will likely still play well. On the other hand if he sold 99% and only had $100 of himself I would not invest because I highly doubt he'll be playing his A game when he only has $100 of himself. I'm not sure where the line is drawn but just take it on a case by case basis. If they have enough of themselves that they will still play their A game I don't see a problem with them freerolling if investors feel the MU is worth it.

dont back people who you dont trust. i sold off a decent amount of my action and still feel as much pressure to do well for my backers, as i do for myself.

Percentage doesn't matter. For example I sold 80% at no MU to wsop ME. The biggest tourney I've played so far with 100% of myself was a 1.5k and then I had another where I sold 50% and kept about 2k. So basically even though I sold 80% of myself it is still one of the biggest tourneys I've played from my point of view so obviously have an incentive to play well. On the other hand when I play $5 tourneys online I usually have a hard time taking it seriously even though I have 100% of myself. You honestly think that if you had no stake in the outcome whether you win/cash/bust first hand/etc. that you would be able to play with the exact same focus as if you did have a stake? If you can good for you you're better at it than I am. I would obviously try to do it but I can definitely see myself subliminally playing a much more high-variance style that might be slightly -ev because I think it'd be cool to FT/win and if I bust and go home early I don't lose anything and because generally folding isn't fun.

I can't remember if this has been discussed before, but I am absolutely sick of these guys who post an offer for a wsop package, then I agree to buy a piece of the package, then an hour later they PM me to say they're Canadian or whatever and 30% of the winnings will be withheld. Does it not occur to them that this might be relevant info to put in their post? It seems like things like that should be incorporated into the markup price, and they should deal with it on their own, unless they say otherwise in their post. When I buy a package I assume that I will get 100% of my share of the winnings because I evaluate all the packages based on this, I just don't get how people can not understand that.

most of them understand it, but dont want to post it cause it will deter buyers from buying.

obv not all of them know this before hand, but still seems pretty shadey of them to do it that way

Yeah Zima I realize that they understand it and don't want to post it, but it's really dishonest and intentionally deceptive because it effectively makes the markup a lot higher than what their post says.

I've had this happen at least 5x now if not more and it's incredibly frustrating. And I've bought a couple packages from Canadians who were upfront about the situation, because I was able to incorporate that into the value of the package at the time I bought it.

I'm sure there's some people that do it to be shady, but I would guess the majority just don't realize it's relevant right away and were acting in good faith when they posted the ad. I definitely see how it can be really annoying though.

Really what it comes down to is that it just leaves me with a bad impression of them, and makes me not want to do business with them, even if I would have bought the exact same package if they had been upfront about it from the start.

Nah I don't really agree with this. From my experience, I'll reserve some shares, and then within minutes I'll get a PM saying "oh btw i'm canadian i need to withhold 30%". So they definitely know the situation and its relevance.

How much tax does an american pay on his winnings pls ?

Yeah that's pretty quick for a realization. I haven't actually bought any shares of anyone so I was just guessing on how I thought people were acting.

Have you turned down a lot of people who did this after you found out about the 30%?

Ya I've turned down everyone who did this.

I'm glad to hear this. I knew there had to be some Canadians selling action that purposely avoided disclosing information. It bothered me at one point that I had a harder time selling just because I was very up front about the taxes. One person who wanted to buy basically asked in my thread "but you can just get all of that 30% refunded, right?". I answered no and it really killed my sales after that.

Besides my own greedy reasons it also bothered me that backers could be getting the shorter end of the stick by being deceived. I think if the marketplace can run smoothly with backers and players sharing in profits then it's way better for everyone in the long term.

Regarding Canadian taxes, the simplest and safest answer is it's 30% of net profits withheld and don't expect a refund to reduce that. People talking about getting most of the 30% back all of the time are misinformed. The refund you get is a correction to make it so you don't pay more than 30% of your net gambling profits on the year. Also it will take almost a year from now to get the refund. This is the RMS refund people are mentioning. I talked to them in detail on the phone and again, it's not a simple way to get most of your 30% back every time like a bunch of people seem to claim.

There may be some other method to avoid having the taxes withheld but from my research it's not commonly known. I'm supposed to end up meeting a couple Canadians who know more so if I find anything new I'll give an update here. I've already asked as many pepole as I could but someone else told me "oh yeah I think these guys know how to do it...".

I'm pretty sure the reasons you keep hearing otherwise is due to optimism and lack of research. People trying to sell shares and people wanting to buy a piece of a good player in live tournaments would rather believe the more favorable story. Remember, you can get close to a full refund but it just isn't automatic and it requires you to have gambling losses at least as large as the win that had the withholdings.

I talked to RMS for over 20 minutes on the phone about this and I've spoken to a Canadian poker player that dealt with them. If your head is spinning from all the different stories you are hearing, just contact them for yourself. http://www.refundmanagement.com/abou...nd-management/

You can sell shares to acommodate this pretty easily. Lump together all the highest EV ones that you want to play for sure and decide on the markup for them as a package. Then, also offer the lower EV/for fun ones individually with a different markup. People who believe in you in the secondary events can invest without having them affect your core offering. Similarly, many people sell their main event shares separately to charge a higher markup. It's smoother to do it all in one thread.

I believe what bothers investors the most is when people sell additional packages that affect their original offering. If a day 2 or 3 of one of the additional tournaments they play forces a player to miss something in their original package, then it lessens the EV of the original package since part of the money investors sent is in the player's hands without being used. Besides that, playing more tournaments leaves more potential for someone to be tired and not as sharp as if they'd had additional time off. Communicating things up front regarding this sort of thing is definitely the fair thing to do for investors. However, some people selling shares here for WSOP couldn't communicate they would be playing addtional events because they basically just went "Hey, everything I really wanted to play sold out so easily now I'm going to sell out more stuff that's lower EV. Yay more WSOP events!"

BTW, I'm the Canadian that was on your starting table in the first 1k WSOP event this year.

Derail posts deleted. If you guys don't like each other that much, use the PM system to battle it out please.