absolutely not standard. and imo they shouldnt be doing this.

maybe approving threads is a big job - but couldnt the monds be given a % share of every thread they look over?

I mean a mod will be able to asses the threads & be rewarded for it, dont know how the mods would view it as an idea though. I understand that if that wouldnt be appropriate then maybe a standard format could be agreed then maybe a standard format could be agreed.

making it clear the terms, mark up & Costs. Or as stated above the mark up must be indicated in the title.

Sellers shouldn't have to bear this financial burden of giving mods a % tho. imo.

Just to point out one or two things. A big winning player online is going to have a much greater edge in a 1k/1500 than a $50k event. This is why there are large markups for these events 1k/1500's.

The $50k event will be a hugely tough field and GLIII understands this and hence why he cant go and charge 30% MU.

On the note of 'freerollers' and people paying for expenses. This seems common and acceptable practice on PTP and it seems some of those people filter into this forum and expect the same. In fact the std on PTP seems to freeroll on 80/20 deals.

If cts came on here tomorrow and said he had gone busto and was looking to freeroll the whole WSOP. 100% his action would sell out... just cos hes gone busto doesnt suddenly make him a bad player. Thus he would still be a worthwhile investment regardless of how much action he sold.

first of all, you have yet to show me a thread where the person is making money regardless of what happens in the mtts (which was your first example that i bolded again). the people selling 80% at 25% mark-up are basically getting 20% of themselves in the mtts with 0 invested. they still need to cash some mtts before they see any money back. i have a feeling you are misunderstanding what the mark-up actually is and see "80% at 25% markup" and think these people are just skimming off 5% right off the top and free-rolling their 20% in action. this is not the case.


as far as the 42% markup thread goes, it's the WSOP ME. Is matt24's roi way over 42% in this event, yes. Is it a good buy at 42%, that's not for me to decide/comment on. the WSOP is the best mtt of the year as far as ROI though, and you comparing that to jorj95 selling 50k 8 game shares at even money is laughable. the mtts are totally different and i would bet matt24's roi in the ME is well over 10x jorj95's in the 50k 8 game event.

and matt24 is also highly respected on these boards, so to say that in terms of comparing him and jorj95 is also pretty dumb.



there was also a discussion in the marketplace a long while ago (maybe 6-8 months ago) that stating exactly what mark-up you are charging should be standard. it should be clearly marked in the thread, and having it in the title is probably even better.



(re-read a few of my posts, and i said "i had never seen someone sell at 25% markup and sell 80%, well obv i have as i frequent these forums quite a lot, but what i was getting at is the part where you say 80-90% at 25% mark up, which would than give the person profit regardless of any cashes. my bad for not clarifying my point in earlier posts)

I'd add one final thing. Some people just seem to want a sweat during the WSOP. Not like sports betting ever gives you the correct odds but people still do it. The winning sports bettors can spot incorrect pricing of the market...i guess the same applies to poker staking.

nothing wrong with a good sweat.


oh, and lets go Magic

ive defo seen at least one person doing this. there was someone selling 100% at 10% or 20% markup somewhere and people still bought it! Literally taking a wage to play for other people. I'll try and find an example, though it defo happened more than once. It was for sets of sngs if i remember correctly.

Edit: Here's one example: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1147

Pretty sure anderson did it quite often though. Think he's the only person i've seen sell 100% but there might be others who have sold 90%ish at a markup that gives them a small profit regardless. It's probably mostly the small packages that most regs don't open.

If someone is able to sell their shares at 42% without misrepresenting themselves or their deal, I really don't see the problem with it. Why not let the market determine their value, instead of just conjecturing that it must be a bad deal solely because the markup is high?

A few people did point that out to Anderson and he started taking %'s of himself.

Possibly a bit different too being sng's and a decent run at them (being 50), means people might be happy to pay him (10%) to run them.

Not everyone was that happy about it though.

Complaining about big investors taking all the shares is just pointless. Think of it from the seller's perspective from an accounting standpoint, do you think they prefer to have 3 people buy up all their shares or have 50 small investors? I don't see how it's anything but a good thing that packages are selling out quickly...I doubt many sellers want their thread to linger for weeks.

Besides if a seller wants to sell to many people, they can just set a maximum on the amount a buyer can buy, as I did in my last thread.

Also Re: Buyers buying big chunks, I've had several people PM me after I bought a bunch of shares from someone, asking me if they could have a piece because it sold out, and I've always given them the piece they asked for. As long as the request isn't unreasonable I'll continue to do so. I'm pretty sure cts has done the same. I don't think it's either of our goals to prevent other buyers from taking action, we're just looking for good deals for ourselves, and to help people get into events.

Hey please dont get me wrong I am not complaining about the large investments, didnt mean it to come over like that.

What I mean is that when people like yourself & CTS go on a run then a larger % of the better deals are picked up quickly. Thats not a bad thing..

but what that leads to is the smaller investors missing out on the good deals & getting in with worst deals, thats all Im saying.

cts has hardly ever post first in threads buying action. secondly if a person is selling 60% hes generally buying upto 2/3's of the max they are willing to sell.

If you want good investments you need to do your research like pof and rupert and check for new threads every few hours.

the biggest problem i see with this forum is the lack of knowledge from people wanting to post. firstly i get like 2-3 PM's a week from people who see my sticky and think i am a mod then start asking me the most basic Q's. If they even spent 1 second reading stickies they would go a lot further. At least 5 people have msg'ed me who needed help with the simple maths (uk spelling :P) of calculating markup. I always help out when i can and am happy to do so... but most of the answers are already there.

lol rje, if this thread remains stickied, I hope people don't PM me nonstop about markup questions and stuff. I am by no means the right person to ask.

I like most of this post and I checked out the link. I wouldn't go so far as saying the op was trying to scam or commit fraud but WOW @ that thread.

I don't exactly agree with your comment on mid stakes grinders having an equal edge in their reg tourns and these higher buyin series. I agree with your conclusion but I think it's overwhelmingly due to structure. I think the increased buyin is more then compensated for by the advertising and satellite entrants. I could be wrong but that's my take on it. There's also obviously a line at some point, and if op really has a $24 abi then that's probably really close to that line.

I was going to quote a post by op that, I thought, particularly outlined his lack of understanding about variance and tournament poker but I thought it's not my place. Especially since he was probably responding emotionally to what he perceived as an attack (kind of was by zima and klink didn't exactly use much tact when wording his comments). In fact, I think it would have been a lot better to politely point out concerns with op's offer at the outset rather then to wait till afterwards and embarrass the seller and his buyers (which I'm sure wasn't klink's intent).

So, I've said in the mttc thread that I'm naive wrt business so take this fwiw. I'm okay with charging as much as you think people are willing to buy(well, I still think it's kinda scummy to sell yourself at a price you feel isn't +ev for the buyers, unless you say as much) but only if anyone has free reign to post polite cristisms in anyone's thread. I admit, I can see logistical reasons why this might not be allowed.

I think the main problem is who has the authority to determine if someone is "exploiting" uniformed investors. I'm sure you're pretty knowledgeable, but should it be ok for some random, who may or may not have the same evaluation skills, to make the same judgment calls? I'm not sure how to "fix" the situation. I mean if we let any1 comment on markups then ppl could just come in to every thread saying MU is too high and almost always guaranteeing that it will get lowered. At the same time, I guess I would like to see some precautionary measures taken to "protect" naive investors.

Great thread. I think the main idea is that the original posts should have way more information than they normally do. It should cover everything from markup, min and max % you're gonna sell, how taxes will be dealt with, how payments will be dealt with and time frame, tipping, exchange rates, etc...

People that don't respect these rules should get a warning and be banned on the second offense.

Great posts all around.

Some things I think are poor form from buyers:

1.) General complaining about someone's package with no intent to buy AND no specific complaint. I think everyone would agree "you have no right to charge this markup, you suck" is out of line, while I would be fine with someone writing "i sharkscoped and OPRd your 3 screen names with the highest volume and the results don't justify this markup, could you please explain why you feel this price is acceptable?"

2.) Complaining about big buyers. If you think that people buying big chunks and large amounts of action is bad for the marketplace, you are crazy/an idiot.

Some things I think are poor form from sellers:

1.) Being ambiguous about what percentage is being sold, or stating a certain percentage and then changing it after people have locked in. This is the worst by far. I don't think there is really an ethics problem with someone freerolling a tourney (although I personally would almost never invest in this situation, maybe in some live cases) but so often on here people do that and are misleading about what they are doing.

2.) Opening up more and more packages in the same series after their first sells out. I think this is a pretty lousy way to conduct business for people selling WSOP action. Opening up a package saying "I'm playing these 3 tournaments" with no mention of playing others, then trying to add tournaments to the package after people had bought in or creating an entirely new package that clearly puts the player under a lot of pressure to play a ton of tournaments doesn't sit well with me.

3.) Vagueness with regards to references. References aren't built over night and if you don't have a strong base you just shouldn't be posting in the marketplace. Too often the wave of buys comes after a very reputable poster takes a big chunk and I have to say some of these first buys (I am guilty as well) have been pretty thin reference-wise.

4.) General attitude about markup. You are coming here to play tournaments that you can't afford to play. Yet the entitlement to be paid frequently pretty decent sums to do so is a bit gross.

Some ideas:

1.) A common format for all sellers. Every selling post just should start with a simple, easy-to-read header of something like

Tournament, buy-in:
Markup:
Cost of 1%:
Total amount to be sold:

Followed by the persons online sn's, references, other credentials, etc.

2.) Taxes. I do think it's kinda funny when someone posts "I'm from the UK so you don't have to pay taxes!" or whatever this common/misleading line is. I've done a fair amount of research into taxes from various countries for WSOP and from what I have found, the only issue is with Canadians. The Rio will hold around 30% of Canadian players' winnings and the standard is for the players to use a third party company called RMS to retreive this portion of the winnings. RMS charges a %age fee that works out to be rather small for large cashes, 1-2%, bigger for smaller cashes, 5-10%. On top of that, many people haven't received their RMS payments from last year. This is a huge issue (not always a dealbreaker) that should be very clear up front to investors. Several times now I have bought and shipped money for a share only for the person to say "by the way I'm Canadian and for taxes, blah blah blah." I just ask for the money back and leave with a poor impression of the person. There are a few Canadian players who have been extremely up front about the tax situation that I have made exceptions for and invested in, but in general, if you are from Canada and are selling WSOP action, you MUST make it known to potential investors that there are tax problems associated with any purchase.

3.) More information in OPs about ther player/person in general and WHY they need to be staked. This information is just helpful for anyone who wants to see anything more than a graph.

In regards to vouching for people and not taking a %, or a large %


I have vouched for a few people lately, and in each case tried to take a % if I could, but in one case, I was unsure of my own financial situation and unable to take a %, but this by no means meant that that particular person was any less value than any other person I've taken a % of, in fact he was probably better value than almost every piece I had bought previously.

I hope people don't have a big problem with me vouching for people without taking a large %, as I know many people, and I felt like I was doing the marketplace a favor by helping bring some of their action here. I wouldn't ever provide a reference for anybody unless I was 100% sure they were a good investment. As it would reflect very poorly upon me as a person, and hopefully people in the marketplace realize that my reputation is worth more than $1000 in WSOP action I could take of someone I vouched for.


Another reason not to take a bunch of action in people you vouch for, is that for every 1% of someone else I can get, I could get 1% of myself which in my opinion is a better investment for me. Or I can back more people for lower variance things (I back more than 10 people) since I don't have as much money to throw into higher risk (but at the same time. much higher reward) investments.


Like I said, I try to take action when I can, but while being away from the country, and having $0 online of your own money after withdrawing for Vegas, it will be very hard for me to take action of anymore people for the series, though I could Imagine as the series draws closer there may be other people wanting to bring their action to 2p2 that aren't necessarily established here that know me very well. Do you guys have an issue with me providing a reference for said people without taking a large %? I am part of a growing private community with a lot of very profitable players that may want to play some WSOP events and sell action, and if they post a thread here, I would certainly continue to vouch for some of them if that was ok. But you guys can let me know what is/isn't appropriate.

I certainly don't think I'm doing any harm, and the posts may not have even been in reference to the one time I provided a reference/didn't take action, but I just wanted to clarify what people's thoughts were.

I think vouching for someone and not taking a piece is fine but that you should mention the reason (all of those reasons are perfectly reasonable) you aren't taking a piece if you want anyone to take your recommendation seriously.

I only vouch for people i know IRL and also people I trust 100%. If one of them scams someone on here its also my rep on the line at the end of the day.

The tax thing is a fair point. I should of never assumed Americans play tax on winnings regardless if they play or stake someone.

This surely depends on the nature of the 'vouch'. If you are vouching for the honesty and integrity of the person i don't see why you should feel as though you should have to buy a piece. If on the other hand you're vouching for skill it seems reasonable to buy some - why wouldn't you if it's +ev?

Yeah, in that one particular case I was very clear about my reasons, but just wanted to make sure there was no issue.


In regards to reopening action, what are people's thoughts on people selling a package and saying they are selling a minimum of X% and a maximum of X%. They sell their min %, and later decide to sell more approaching their max %. Is there an issue in selling more action if it was originally stated that you may wish to sell more as an event draws closer, so long as it doesn't exceed the max% originally stated?

I have zero problem with this personally, and also I have very little problem with people reopening a package to sell a little bit more, unless they are close to a freeroll. Like if someone sold 30% at 20% markup and wanted to sell 10% more I wouldn't care at all, but if someone sold 70% at 20% markup and then wanted to sell 10% more I'd definitely have an issue with it.