I meant that I am not expecting any money back but won't deal with you ever again

One person in this thread is looking a lot worse than everyone else is in this thread.

From this thread:

From the other thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...-162s-1582142/

It's pretty easy to assume you sold 12% privately when you make those 3 posts quoted above. If you want to provide assurance to your 2p2 investors you didn't unintentionally oversell, perhaps send your backer BBZ an audit and have him come in here and confirm that there was no private action sold, instead of just saying "lol you guys are all stupid to assume I sold action privately when I posted X% private".

Perhaps also consider mentioning what % you intend to sell in the OP of each package (70-80% or whatever) and that your backer BBZ has the rest of the action? Perhaps list in the OP if any games are being overlapped in multiple shares threads? This information should be available for investors to know.

I have decided to return the markup each person paid from Sunday the 17th. Not just because of the above comments, but also just believe that for causing you all to follow this non-sense and have to wonder about me, you are owed something. If nothing else, just take it as an "sorry mate!" and win a jackpot spin n go with it. Sorry again everyone.

I have just read through all of this. (and still haven't rec'd my funds from Sunday back yet).
I agree with what others have said here. Brian, you need to sort your attitude out. Even if it's not the original act itself of over-selling/freerolling, how you've handled it since has made you look worse. Like this aloof arrogance and joking really needs to stop:

It's kind of absurd/disgusting to be joking like that with other people's money and faith on the line.

I'm surprised that noone has brought up the fact that even if he didn't oversell (which is in question), if he did sell as much as 96%, at 1.1 or 1.11 MUs then he would just be freerolling on his packs.
This is not ok. I don't think it should ever be ok for anyone. Among other things, it means that the person has less incentive to win and try hard when they have so little of themselves (only 4%), and are going to be making a profit even if the pack loses.

I have asked you before in a thread how much you are selling for a certain pack, and you never answer it. It needs to be visible to everyone. It's fine if you say - "I'm selling up to, 80%, BBZ will have whatever I don't sell here". People just need to know obv so that situations like this don't come up again.

Yes this would be a good rule for multiple websites, or at least make it so that each place has to be known/visible to each website. However, this doesn't work for private selling on things like skype, where lots of people also sell to their friends on.

I think the rule should be that there can never be a situation where the player is freerolling (or over-selling) himself. E.g if someone is selling at 1.2, they can only sell up to like 83%. Mostly for the reason in my above post, and also just things like it being unethical.
Stakes with Stakeback don't really apply to this though, as while the player is technically freerolling, they get 0 unless they profit. So it should be where the player is already guaranteed a profit with his freeroll, regardless of how his tournaments go.
For example mddgfc used to constantly freeroll himself, and lost lots of investor's money, while he profited, before he eventually scammed everyone and ran off with owed money.

Also preferably I think a good rule would be if the player has to show clearly how much is sold, or even who to. There have been similar issues before as Brian's. For example "glammc", who I bought from many times here, also sells on the Russian gipsy site. And 2p2 investors are not privy to this, and he didn't (used to) specify how much was sold on there. That case is especially bad seeing as that site's in Russian, and most 2p2 investors won't be able to understand it, and at 1 point he did almost freeroll/oversell because of this. (I then spoke to him about it.)

I think if both of those rules were to be put in place, these cases would never come up again. Though if the first rule is put in place, then the reasons for the 2nd rule would basically take care of themselves, though there is still some implicit trust in it.

Definitely interested in seeing a BBZ audit, would be surprised if there was only 1 or 2 packages oversold or % sold w/ mu to a freeroll point.

Hero Value raises the penultimate point here which is that making a mistake in the first instance is a de minimis fail compared to how you address the errors. Your value is established here based on your reputation just as much for your talents as for your honesty and integrity. I'm not particularly questioning the latter two but I agree wholeheartedly with Hero Value that you need to address your mistakes, or even perceived mistakes, in the MP as a professional. From my vantage point, you were abrasive at best.

Thanks for agreeing to send back the MU on the package. I, for one, appreciate that gesture. However with regard to professionalism as referenced above, the decision should have been made organically.

a few responses/points:

1. All BBZ's players are required to send in transfer history audits regularly. BBZ is well aware of this situation and is also not under the impression that I have intentionally over-sold. We speak about how much %'s to sell regularly, and agree that we want to sell most the big stuff and keep the small stuff on stake to reduce variance. My hands are also reviewed by BBZ, and if I was playing badly because I have a small share, it would be easily identifiable.

2. I corrected my mistake about the way I responded to original claims of scams long before the most recent posts about it. I apologized, and identified that it was no laughing matter and that I handled it incorrectly on Sunday morning. But this is a great opportunity for me to say again that I have learned from all of this and will handle it better in the future. Even today, if I could, I would edit some of the posts I made. I also wouldn't mind a little understanding - as I knew I had no bad intentions but was being called a scammer in public. That triggers something in all of us I think. Nonetheless, I need to handle myself better and fully intend on doing so.

3. As a backed player, I never pay for any of the buy ins, and talking about a player free-rolling on a package is different than a backed player selling action, as the backed player never comes out of pocket regardless of how many %'s sell....which is my case. So, im going to "free roll" every package essentially, as I am a backed player and my backer covers the %'s that are not sold here in the MP, and not me personally. And the losses create my personal makeup amount in my backing deal. Just something to think about.

4. As the player, and not the buyer, I view it differently. The better you are at anything, the more you get paid. People don't like the idea of a player free-rolling, but I don't agree with the logic behind it. I am not going to try and change your minds, I am just identifying the lack of logic behind the popular theory here that a player free-rolling is a terrible thing. The idea that some big ROI players who sell big %'s are not allowed to free-roll because the community says so seems ... i don't know, not free-world. If a player worthy of 1.25 markup showed up and wanted to sell 80% to his Sunday majors, we as a community are going to tell him no because he would be free-rolling? And that's it? I don't know the solution, but I don't think we have found it by banning a player from free-rolling. Just don't buy if he is selling too much, that's an easy solution. Or maybe make it mandatory to include in the post how much you are selling, like someone suggested already.

+1

IMO packs where this happened, the $$ should be refunded - call it whatever u wish but that's the minimum required if any sort of privileges are to be given back -

That said I did have a few PM interactions with OP a while ago, and he came across to me as a bit confused with the number sorting etc....

Even if you are OK with selling 94% at 1.1/1.2 and try to convince us that free-rolling a pack is not bad, fact is it's actually a loosing proposition for investors in the longer run and THAT's why it's bad......look at it from our view.

.

No, I have since posted here saying that I changed my mind on this. Selling 94% was a mistake just as selling 106% would have been. I don't agree that all losses should be refunded, as I played my heart out for you guys, but I am refunding back all markup that investors paid on that day. Are you saying I refund all the losses? That seems like an excessively harsh punishment if so.

And regarding the free-roll discussion, can you explain why its a long-term losing investment for investors simply because more is sold? I don't follow how you got to that conclusion.

for the packs which were oversold or even sold close to 100% - by mistake or oversight or whatever

If i personally pocket 10% of every pack value without spending a single $ - I am essentially never loosing while my investors are

I wouldn't actually go as far (yet ) as saying that you'd spew away or loose something on purpose as you have had multiple FTs plus a B109 and B162 wins in these pack, but on the other hand just revisited those packs and it appears that they were sold more in the 70-80% range.....again could be coincidental

And also it would have been correct on your part to inform the MP here that you are cross-selling, if you'd done that some flags could have gone up earlier and prevent all this

anyways hope you are able to sort it out!

Should typically be OK as along as it's updated and linked to one another correctly on all sites - one of the reasons being you may have good credibility on one and still getting there on another

would like to hear what bbz has to say abt it?

I've invested in Brian many times and do believe he is a great player but I do think freerolling packages or having a large piece of the action definitely changes your play style. There have been a few hands posted on the rail thread that seems questionable to me but made more sense now knowing action/staking situation.

Thanks for your kind words about my game, I appreciate it. It seems every player will be throw into one category here however, which is the category where he does not play well when more than X% is sold; and X seems to be somewhere around 80% from what I can tell.

That just simply is not true, and far from it. Talk about skewed results...it really takes a negative stance on people in general. I play to win for a lot more reasons than money just like most other pro's. I want the scores on my career list, I want the bragging rights, I want the ranking recognition, I want my coaches and peers to think highly of my game. I want to win more than you can possibly imagine and the fact that you say some of my boom replays make more sense now because of my backing situation is a low blow. You could not be any further from right about the assumption you are making.

Did you say that you were going to refund MU just on the pack that was oversold or on this pack too?
Well, you said that you read my post, but I'll post this part of it again:
"Among other things, it means that the person has less incentive to win and try hard when they have so little of themselves (only 4%), and are going to be making a profit even if the pack loses."
It means that the player is going to play more recklessly, and he's not going to care so much about min-cashing things, but more just risking it trying to go for a bigger score etc.
I'm not exactly saying that this applies to you, and in your kind of special/unique situation where you are both backed and selling for tournaments, but that is the natural reality of it.
I and others just don't think it's ethical, you can look back through various other threads that have discussed the ethics of it if you want (mddgfc was a good example earlier because he was always freerolling his packs, and was not very good).

The - "well investors just shouldn't buy in those packs" arguments don't really work. For example there was a thread about a month ago where someone was selling at a markup of 1.8 to something, which people were basically up in arms over, and his stance was just - "well just don't buy then if you don't want to". Do you think that's ethical of him?
And that argument especially doesn't work in this case, because you never made it clear how much you were selling, so that a buyer couldn't possibly have decided to not buy or cancel because he saw that you were going to be freerolling. Like I probably wouldn't buy if I originally saw that the player was freerolling. I think that the player should invest at least some of his own money into it.

Personally, I believe that it's the seller's responsibility to be ethical, and to create a mutually beneficial pack for both parties. And that often isn't the case when there is freerolling involved.

I think that would add a lot of value to this thread, and would help to assess OP's fitness to have MP approval.

+10 on BBZ's input/audit of player.

the crux of this matter now comes down to whether or not the private 12% was sold or not.bfizz should be showing where that 12% was reserved and by who and some time stamped proof that the % was withdrawn.
For all we know that 12% could have been sold to other bbz stakees on a private forum/skype and they could be under pressure to say that they withdrew so that bfizz can play again and start reducing his makeup .

I would also suggest that a transaction history from his cashier for 16/17th be sent to Bobo Fett so that he can check to see if a mysterious 12% was received or not. There is no need to have that made public , but there is a need to verify whether the 12% was sold or not

both 2+2 packs involved potentially oversold tournaments and the pokermarket pack that i bought was entirely potentially oversold. Having said that he was going to refund the markup of each investor on the 17th yesterday, 14 hours later nothing has hit my cashier despite him not playing on stars yesterday, actions speak louder than words in cases like this.

Following a PM , i can confirm that dhenz14, bfizz's roomate and fellow BBZ stakee was also selling packages on 2+2 and pokermarket. This is the link to his pokermarket packages.https://pokermarket.com/profile.php#...e/1297/staking. I've only checked the package he sold the most of , but 23.5% of 50% offered was sold on pokermarket and http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...-hots-1581829/ was the selling thread on 2+2.
42% was sold on 2+2 giving a total of 65.5% sold. the issue of selling on both sites was brought up in that thread with one person saying that it looks like 90% sold and dhenz saying that one person didn't buy and he sold 75%. either he's lying or not very good at maths or sold some extra privately. the 90% figure is wrong because it was got by adding 47% of the shares available to 43% of the package at 2+2 and since half of the package was available at pokermarket that means 23.5% was sold there. since 65.5% was sold and he says that he sold 75% that leaves an undocumented 10% of the package sold. The 2+2 thread didn't set an upper limit on how much of the package was available for sale so there was potential, intentional or not for him to have sold over 50% on 2+2 and 50% on pokermarket if pokermarkets shares had sold out.The 10% undisclosed is remarkably close to the 12% under question for bfizz . could just be a coincidence but i think it should be explained.

I don't think that this is worthy of market place approval being withdrawn as investors were aware that the action was being sold in two places and if it looked like being oversold he may have stepped in and stopped the selling. However , lying to investors by saying someone didn't buy, or undisclosed % sold is more of a worry and should result in a warning that he ought to conduct his threads better in future or at the very least have disclosed himself that he was selling elsewhere and put a cap on the amount offered on 2+2 .

understand your concern with the 16/17th time period, but has anyone checked both players selling pattern for the past month and a half.

have a feeling there might be more packages oversold, and that would clear up any question about it being a one time mistake.

but guess even if previous packages were sold below 80% we won't know what % BBZ had.

Agreed.

I have sent him a skype message suggesting he post ITT if he can confirm that neither pack had over 100% sold. I have received my markup refund and consider the matter closed once BBZ confirms nothing was oversold.

bfizz has said several times that BBZ had whatever wasn't sold

Not sure what BBZ gonna say though, his horse sold 94% of action @1.11 that is 104.34% of buyins, As bfizz11 said he doesn't get any freeroll means BBZ is getting 6% freeroll on pack +4.34% profit even before bfizz11 hits register button.