LOL mods will get so annoyed, but I say we do it. We can make it happen on our own.. by reporting each one and mentioning in thread and PM to the OP.


Soooo lets do it together.

Why not just sell an amt for every week, month, three days. It's up to you.

Just put in that you want 70bi for x games for y time, and let people buy. Ill buy lol. PM me.

I think when you do profit splits, the math becomes much more complicated and it will vary on how much variance there is in their scores etc on what their break even roi should be to be profitable and there is no exact science as there is with generic markup that we are familar with on 2+2. There might be however some #'s that they match up to vaguely(not precisely), anyone know more on this?

I think I know less after this. Not a bad thing, just a testament to how little I already knew.

I really want to see an exact breakdown.

I am a novice when it comes to staking.... but I am curious to know whether a low stakes player such as myself Stirling38 on Pokerstars, can get staked in a $3K plus live tournament. I am going to blow an irrational amount of my bankroll on a big buy-in event for the hell of it and thought it might be cool to sell off a small portion. Given my ROI (on a low buy-in and low volume) is it completely impossible?

ps I just heard about Max Katz on Pokercast 162 - who would have thought!?!

I couldn't agree more with this. I'm not sure how to figure out this conversion but I agree that it'd have to take into consideration a player's variance. Obviously this isn't too realistic, but I do think that skilled mathematician/poker player could estimate the level of variance on different games (ie DoN's being low and 50,000 player MTT's being high) and give players some sort of framework to work off of with profit splits + stakeback.

I know this doesn't begin to answer the question but I pulled this chart off excel fwiw. It's just showing the effective MU a buyer pays in hindsight for a given profit split (+ stakeback) and ROI on the initial bankroll of a package. But like Supernova_Elite said it's basically useless for predicting a horse's expected return. Hopefully someone much smarter than myself can give this topic some thought and create something tangible for buyer's to reference.

Yes, I would love to see more info on this. It's been bothering me for a while, especially since I like to invest in SNG packages -- many of which are sold in this fashion.

So how do we start this trend?

Hi. I posted this in another sticky, but it looks like it goes here instead. Would someone explain 2 things to me.

1. What is MU (cake)? Is this just Mark-up?
2. How does stakeback work (maybe give a couple basic examples)?

MU, here, usually means mark-up (the rate at which a package is marked up by a seller).

IIRC, cake either is, or is similar to makeup (a condition of a staking agreement where the backer splits profits with the stakee only after previous buyins have been recouped).

RE: Stakeback
http://www.getastake.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80

Alot of the same questions have been asked and answered multiple times in this thread. Maybe we need a cleanup/roundup of this thread so people who don't bother reading the thread don't waste the time of helpful posters.

Guys, how much MU did I just pay here?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...ackage-991521/

Honestly after looking at this... I am so confused. Not at the breakdown, but at what I am paying this horse through this deal almost daily.

Depends on his ITM rate and ROI, but it could be higher than 1.3mu.

Side note: The number of dumb, complicated stakeback deals seems to be on the rise.

You paid 66% MU here

without MU (or without a cut):
you would've got back $94.41 on your $29.50.
instead with the cut+sb:
you got back $74.93.

So the premium you paid is $19.48 (94.41-74.93). If this same premium was just a MU at the beginning of the package it would've cost you $48.98 (29.50+19.48) for 10% which would've been a 1.66 MU.

You can't use results to say how much 'markup' he paid. I'm playing right now but it should be clear why.

He was asking how much paid on this package. Obviously I'm not saying he's paying 66% MU everytime he invests in AngryDux but he asked how much MU he paid on this package so I told him.

Well you are both right. I am sick, and could have figured out that package easily I guess I didn't finish my thoughts. I would assume that with his ITM/ROI and the overlays that he gets in some of these MTT's its upward of 1.3, meaning even though he's great I have really thin value investing in him.

And yes, these silly stakeback deals are on the rise big time. But so are overpriced (MU) packages, with ABI's 4-10x normal, and add in the weighted effect of how many people don't care about others money as much as their own and spew off when they get tired, or have a big score and don't want to put 100% into the rest of the session, or just don't finish registering for the session they sold (but if they lost your money they'd grind it out for you).

This forum is turning becoming a bubble thats about to burst. There are going to be a lot of people doing some SERIOUS damage to their rolls this weekend. I see people insta buying all action of people who should be selling 12/90 man kos on ftp at best.

I backed out of almost everything. I'll let everyone bust up their money, have this forum leave a bitter taste in their mouth and then go back to making solid and well priced investments starting Monday.

Ground beef horses have been selling for prime rib prices lately.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...markup-992155/

Perfect example. And I like him. But if I look at the MU, his overall and last 120 days... then his ABI for all filters. Hmph, I would have to talk myself into buying these MTT's for this price. I think I see more value in buying him a beer.

On another note, what do you think the weekends add to a horses ROI? I always think that it doesnt change since a large part of their grinding is on the weekends. The weekend/guarantee pleas for why their MU is fair is moot to me. It's already factored in their ROI. If they only played Sundays.. maybe 5-7% tops if any?

I don't understand how one can look at ROI vs. profit split, using the original stake to determine markup. The original stake is not marked up; the final package value (profit + stakeback) is. (EDIT: This isn't really speaking accurately, but I do think it is what posters are trying to get at here)

Looking at the horse's cut vs. the initial stake doesn't speak to what markup represents. In a "I buy x% at y MU for $z" situation, it makes sense to look at the initial stake, since markup in that case is a function of it. But in a profit split, the horse's profit cut is a function of the final package value, not the original stake. Comparing his/her cut to the original stake doesn’t accurately show any relationship that exists in reality.

Since the horse has bought 0% of his action in the conventional sense, the horse’s MU can only be a function of the backer’s action, therefore it only makes sense to show the relationship as [horse’s profit cut] / [total profit + stakeback].

So, I wanted to take a look at the package provided by Duke (and the 2/20 package run by the same horse; since he didn’t show a breakdown I’m just assuming no refunds / unused buy-ins or rebuys):

March 4, 70/30 split—
February 20, 70/30 split—
Now, as for providing anything useful for backers prior to a horse’s run? I think we may still be SOL. I certainly think it’s possible for a stats-minded person to figure out a coefficient for expected ROI that takes into account the various variables at play.

So, since a horse’s markup is a % split minus stakeback, and assuming that the initial stake > $0, all we really know is that:

70/30 split: < 1.3 MU
80/20 split: < 1.2 MU
and so on…..

I’m not entirely sure about any of this, but there had been something bothering me for a while about BigVach's table on the last page so I thought I would try and flesh it out a bit. Any thoughts?

just that this is too confusing and a player should have to just sell a package the standard way lol

at the same time, if a player were to play on a legitimate stake they would receive 100% backing and a 50/50 cut

so i guess in the end you make out ok with a winning player in these, and maybe its the horse that takes a hit

am i right?

Big difference: 1) Backers aren't getting makeup here. 2) As a lot of people have been getting at -- a lot of the packages in the MP these days, taken at face value, would not warrant a long-term 50/50 split IMO, but rather a split much more in favor of the backer, at least at first.

I am hoping I don't get hated on too much. But I have def started posting in threads when I think the MU is too much, the 70/30 should be 80/20 and I have started asking people to report threads closed when sold out and even reporting them myself.

Well see where it goes.

I have stopped registering for some tournaments at the end before but thats just because I don't feel like spewing the investors money if I'm not able to play at 100% because at that point I'm pretty tired of suckouts and worn out. But I'll continue playing the tournaments that I'm in with the best of my efforts. That's just me though, I do see where you're coming from, because you would potentially want to make more money if they play more tournaments on the stake.

Yeah, I don't really do it myself (partly out of laziness, partly because I am hoping the market will eventually start to weed overpriced packages out more often). But I certainly don't mind people stating that something is overpriced (when it is, of course).

I would definitely like to see the market weed out most of these > 80/20 splits. Most people that sell in this fashion IMO definitely don't warrant more than 1.2 potential markup.

Hi guys i desperately wanna play this thing so bad that I'm coming here. Anyway I'm a losing player and really just looking for a loan but also would stake for it you get 90/10.
I have a good reputation and paid up mr. wookie on prop bets so this isn't a scam.

edit: ChronoDeath on stars