Just curious, is canada 30% tax withheld because they dont have a tax treaty with the US? or some other reason,

Im a noob to staking players / selling shares. I had some decent results in 09 but not so much this year. I pulled my info up on OPR and it says my rating is 98.52. How good is that ? Would people be willing to put $$$ behind a low stakes mtt player with an OPR rating of 98.52 ? I have run significantly worse thus far in 2010 and havent really put in near the volume eithier so my OPR is not anywhere close to where it was last year. Does this OPR ranking even mean anything ?

I think other factors such as ABI and ROI mean a lot more than OPR ranking. I saw one guy have a 99.99% OPR but his ROI was 11%. The reason being he plays so much volume.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. My ROI in 2009 was 72% and ABI was $15. Which I feel our good - I would stake somebody who had that type of return over the year. However then I pull up my stats for 2010 and its exactly the reverse. MY roi in -69% and my opr ranking is in the 30's. Seems like if I was a backer I would stay the hell away from me with those 2010 stats. My results havent really been there this year and thats why I am considering doing this - We all know variance is a bitch and I feel thats what I have run into in the limited amount of tournies I played in 2010. Im considering putting up some mtt packages but I dunno. I dont want to put up anything I think is a bad investment.

Edit: I only played 180 or so games last year with an roi of 72% and so far in 2009 I have played about 130 games with an roi of -69%. Pretty sick swing. Funny thing is I am cashing more often (higher percentage) I am just not making final tables.

This is so standard.

Nobody will care about your 70% roi because you only have a 180 games sample which doesnt mean anything.

As we are on the verge of a couple new subforums and I'm going to do a fair bit of forum clean-up, this thread will probably be "un-stickies" very soon. I don't think there's really much of anything "actionable" for mods in here, is there? I think it's been an excellent discussion, and I there were some very good suggestions about how people should be posting, replying, etc, but not much that I would make a hard-and-fast rule.

meh, i think this thread should be stickied and it should basically be a must read for people before they post in here.


letting it drop down off the front page would be bad.

if you're gonna do that someone do cliffs and make a new sticky, having a 357-post thread be required reading before they post isn't all that great...

i mean, no sticky is actually "required" to be read.


i still think this thread should be stickied as a whole

I just recently made a thread for first time, and had somebody come in and say that they thought it looked bogus and fake, and that they didnt like my wording, i had got some hits pre to this happening, and it kinda pissed me off at first. But, then looking back, i know that im not a thief or playing little games, and found it to be very helpful in the end, changed package and got little more action, almost there, so honesty is always best
Steven

Since we have no questions thread in this forum, and people seem to be using this as one now, maybe it can serve dual purposes.

Why should I not be able then to post in someones thread, quoting stats and my opinion, if I have the chance, as small as it may be, to get that MU down from 20% to 15%. Again I'll cite the fact that this is a market economy and if buyers.let sellers set the prices, without any discussion or questioning, they are going to end up getting the short end of the stick.

I think it would be a great idea to make it mandatory for all people who are selling shares to include the mark-up figure in the title of their threads.

For example:

"Selling shares for 2 WSOP events @ no MU" or "Selling shares for WSOP Main Event @ 20% MU"

I think this was discussed some time ago and came up again in this thread. I believe this would:

(i) save time and make things easier for investors.

(ii) help keep mark-up figures reasonable and competitive in the Marketplace.

(iii) help prevent anyone looking to take advantage of inexperienced investors. (I have seen some cases where the mark-up figure is not even mentioned in the OP).

I can't really think of any downsides to implementing this.

There are downsides for people taking advantage by charging higher mark-ups, but thats about all. It would be pretty good if this becomes a rule, though.

There's a player in this forum selling 90% of himself in today's WSOP $5k. Is it really kosher for players to be selling off so much of themselves?

Obviously this tournament is much harder than the $500 at the Venetian on the same day/time. Why not just play that tournament with 100% of yourself instead of the WSOP $5k with 10% of yourself?

It's not as if this $5k event is some particularly soft event with several thousand players. I'd imagine the Rio $5k and Venetian $500 will get similar field sizes.

It's like when MyTime2Shine came in here selling 50% of herself in the FTP $129 KO at 5 pm when there's a softer $55 freezeout 90 minutes earlier that gets a similar field size. Why?

You dont get a bracelet at the Venetian.
Edit: Oh, and mark-up.

Eh, I don't really have a problem with it. I don't think I'd buy a piece of someone selling that much of their action, but I have no issue if people want to. The idea of playing a $500 at the Venetian with 100% sounds great in theory, but this is the WSOP. People want to win bracelets (there is some added equity in that, not as much as say 3-4 years ago). Also it's most likely the structure is a lot better for the 5k than for the $500 at the Venetian, so that should weigh into it as well.

Oh, and also, the guy might just like a challenge.

But theoretically the mark-up should be less than his edge so him having 100% of himself would be even more +ev.

From any EV perspective, you are completely correct. I personally do not consider investing in these larger event deals where almost 100% is sold off....

However, why they do it is likely experience/glamour of playing a higher buyin WSOP event. Good chance you will get to play with bigger name players, etc. Large 1st place prize to brag about, media (CP, Pokernews) coverage, etc.

I mean, I play 5/10-10/20 NL live quite a bit with 100% of my own action. Would I consider playing 500/1000NL with 1 or 2% of my own action in Bobby's Room with Durr, Ivey, etc (assuming anyone would ever put me in, lol). Yeah, probably would, despite it not being nearly as +EV as just playing 5/10 with randoms.

Extreme example, but you get the point.

Yes, basically the example tt_fold presented as well as the mytime2shine/woweewowah fiasco have this fallacy in common - horse is either making a -EV decision or is flatout taking advantage of markup, both of which are red flags

I know you are playing devil's advocate to an extent, but mehhhhh on a lot of these points

his decision to play the tournament could be +EV, but not as +EV as playing the other tournament

Some food for thought...

Let's say there is an incredibly trustworthy & talented player who isn't the "gambling type". He wants to lock up a fixed amount of money for playing a tournament. Could he sell 100% of himself at markup, pocket the markup, and just promise to play his best? It could still be +EV for investors.

Nope. Playing the $500 event with 100% action (if we assume he has the same edge in the $500 and the $5k, which is probably not true) he will have less profit than having the 5k with 10% at having markup for the other 90%.

Oh that's true, obviously his roi will be different but point taken this will be true even if the edges are at all close.

Also what was the conclusion of the Canadian discussion? I just found out a guy I bought a piece of for ME was Canadian:

If this is true and he will have it in 2-3 months no matter what I'm fine with it just didn't know whether there was a chance they don't get it back. He's a cash game pro.