How about this:

A sample Post

Real Name:
Event:
Date:
Buyin:
Mark up:
Price for 1%
Looking to sell X%

Description of why stake is required. Graphs/Links to ALL OPRs and SNS. Hendon Mob.Previous scores. Experience. Links to previous threads. List of references. Details of where investors should send money/ when can they reserve shares until.

A brief description of how you may pay back investors in the event of a win. A consideration of how currency fluctuations etc will be handled. Are you Canadian? Will taxes be withheld?

Further details/Covering grey areas: As a seller of shares it's your responsibility to cover every conceivable eventuality. Will you tip? Who will be responsible for paying this tip? What happens if there's a free seat for an event bundled in with first prize etc.The best posts are ones in which nothing is left to doubt and everyone is clear where they stand.

You should already be doing that anyway though, what's the point of references/vouches if you don't care who they're from?

This is a great post and should be the way it works around here. The term vouch refers to covering a debt and shouldn't have a different meaning here. There is nothing wrong with getting references to post without vouching for you, and would be a much better system.

Another topic I'd like an opinion on is the reselling of shares. There was an instance where I was reserved for $100 worth of shares which was highly attractive, as the seller guaranteed break-even to the investors. These shares sold out pretty quickly and there was a waiting list too. Would it have been ethical for me to resell a share for say $105 and walk away with a small 5% return?

thats the whole point of a vouch. dont do it unless you are prepared to pay for the debt if the person you vouch for scams or if you dont trust the person 100%.


i always just held vouching on a complete different level than being a reference or saying "this person is a good investment"

This is interesting and I would say it goes against the spirit of the marketplace if this is allowed, but I'm not set on that.

Another dilemma that I believe is currently NOT allowed is, say player X is selling action for tournaments that I don't think he will be profitable in at the markup, he sells out quickly, and there are a bunch of people on the waitlist. In these cases I would be happy to take the house's side and let everyone else buy his action off of me. I don't do this but am curious what people think of it.

Lol? Obviously not, otherwise you get ppl reserving x amount of shares with a view to re-selling and not actually buying - unless you're saying that if you reserve a share you could not pull out - which is obviously wrong.

I'm not sure how I feel about the concept of "reserving" shares in the first place, I think the marketplace would be much better without it -- buy or don't buy.

Its ok if the person has paid for the shares.. but if people go around and reserve 40% with the intention of selling on and then dont pay.. the person then trying to get the stake is back to square 1.

In terms of 'vouch' - if you are guaranteeing all monies are you saying you will reimburse the total amount won or just the money back to investors?

Obviously massive problems with both and why this kind of vouch whilst appropriate for prop bets and money lending just isn't practical in staking, particularly for big tourneys where it could be $xmillion at stake.

not sure i agree with this. although i do find it a bit annoying when people just go around and reserve stuff, and than send later, sometimes it's just what has to happen.


gonna use my specific situation to show 1 reason why i sometimes reserve and send later: I stake with a partner. sometimes we both arent online at the same time and we talk about everything we invest our money in. if i see something of good value/good sweat opp, than i wanna make sure i dont miss out.


i know it can kind of be a hassle for the person selling shares to have to go back through and confirm and it kinda bumps threads a lot and semi clogs the forum, but sometimes there is no way around it for one reason or another.


just be quicker on the draw CTS and snap it all up. jorj/psyduck lurking these parts more and more.

ok kinda confused why is it such a big problem if someone is freerolling? Say you think someone has a 50% roi in a tourney. He decides to sell 75% of himself at 40% markup. If my math is right he gets 105% of the buy-in sent to him and still has 25% of his action. Pretty sure that qualifies as him freerolling the event. But he's still playing in a tourney with 25% of his action and has every incentive to still play his best and if he really does have that 50% roi it will be a +ev investment for backers, a freeroll, and I don't see how that's wrong at all. Obviously selling 100% is wrong as the player no longer has a financial stake in his results at all but as long as he still has a decent chunk of himself regardless of how much he's been paid even if it's 5 times the tourney buy-in he still has the incentive to play well for his own equity.

lol this would be interesting. I think one argument for it not being allowed would be because of collusion to totally freeroll. So I sell 70% of my action then I have someone who's "not my friend" sell another 70% pretending to be doing it for the reason you said. Then I intentionally lose the tourney and we each make 20% on it variance-free. Also you'd end up with non-scammers who are just idiots doing this and whether they're right or not about it being a +ev investment not being able to pay out if they ship it. Say someone's selling with 40% markup and you think 40% is way high say it's the WSOP ME so you sell like 20% at 40% markup so they send you just under 3k I think that is then they ship it for 10 million and you owe 20% of that and don't have 2 million to be able to send to them.

lies

The primary reason I reserve shares is coincide closely with the tournament start time. Especially in live events, you often see cases where packages are sold as early as one month before the start of the tournament.

Assuming that in the long run the marketplace investments made by an investor will result in a positive return, then the time value of money here applies. If I was to post a Sunday package on Monday (6 days in advance), the investor would be better offer reserving x%, which would be sent on Saturday. Meanwhile, between Monday and Saturday, other investments could be made with the same money.

Or do you consider the above the same as "purchasing" a share?

I think that it's ok to put in a kind word for someone like "in the past I've staked this player and he shipped back promptly". But if you say I can vouch for this person than I feel the onus should be on you to pay the investors if something goes wrong. Yes this would cut back on vouchers. But that's a good thing imo, because it would also cut back on scammers. I'd be happy to see this rule entered as a rule into the marketplace.

As for reserving shares, I think it's ok to do if the tourney is a month away as Broken_Jia suggested. If you reserve a share though you should be obligated to buy it though. And if you back out you should be expected to post an explanation. If there are no reprocussions for backing out then what's to stop someone from reserving 10% of everyone's shares and then do their homework to see if they are a good investment.

Yeah, I misused the words vouch/refer in my post.

I have vouched for exactly 2 people on 2p2, and in both cases I handled all of the investors money for them (had them send it to me), posted the thread, and took an active role in the vouch. In both cases, I would have paid back investors their initial investment had something gone wrong, though I gained nothing from the situation beyond helping friends out when they needed it, though it was quite inconvenient.


If you vouch for someone, it should require a big commitment on the part of the voucher, as it serves to send a credible signal to investors that the person is very serious about their trust in a person.


When vouching for someone, let's say they sell 10k in action, and they ship 400k, is the voucher responsible for the 400k, or just the initial investment?

i agree that the term vouch should be equivalent of financial responsibility and held to that standard in marketplace. I.E. if i vouch for someone and they run with the money, i am responsible for paying investors back for at least the money they invested.

Wow sweet thread, just read all of it.

From what I've gathered:

The people who are smart investors (usually smart people to begin with) will have a much better chance in doing well as long as they put a few minute worth of research into their investments. Seems obvious, but I know I've just randomly invested in people because I'm an action junkie. I learned my lesson though.

I've also wanted to get more active in this form and I plan on doing so, both buying and selling so this whole thread is a good read for the future.

The whole 400k. This is why using the word "vouch" lightly in a place like this where liabilities can end up being huge upon a big score isn't such a great thing.

2 things I would really like to see in every live action buying thread:

1. Person's real name.
2. Twitter account.

As someone who has quite a few regular horses and buys quite a bit of action, it's nice to have Twitter to go to for all updates. I know a lot of people say they don't do Twitter which seems ridiculous to me when you are selling action to a bunch of different people. It's the best and easiest way to keep track of everything. When you are in Vegas, checking this forum for updates that get posted a day or 2 later isn't the easiest thing to do because it is really easy to forget and definitely not the most fun from an investor perspective. And as a buyer, we really shouldn't have to track people down for these 2 things.

Wouldnt you rather have the horse keeping his full attention on his play than posting hands and updating as every tourney finishes?

It is annoying when a horse doesnt post a single then until he's done and then only says out of everything cashed for x, but it only takes a few minutes to go to OPR or PPL and see exactly how he did.

I agree that people coming into a thread and saying I vouch for player x and nothing else is pretty lame unless he actually is insuring the players trustworthyness. I mean it only takes a few minutes to explain your dealings and history with the player.

I'm not talking about hand for hand updates. It takes less than a minute to update at breaks.

I totally agree with this. I think we are gonna see a problem with some people who have sold action not updating frequently at all, which I think is unacceptable. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to text some kind of an update once every few hours.

Since my 42% mu number on the main event came up, I thought I'd address it. This was not a figure I pulled out of thin air, lots of thought was put into it. I asked multiple people what they felt I should charge and I had #s from 1.3 to 1.5(with 2 people saying they would maybe even go higher than 1.5). So the 42 # was in the middle and it is the same markup as was offered by a staking group back in 2008 when I told one of them I wasn't going back out to play the main because I didn't feel like risking $10,000. They said they would put me in for 70%, I said no I'm not really interested, I'd still have to throw in $1500-$2k on flight/food/hotel, he countered by saying he'd cover expenses... in the end I didn't even go with that great deal offered, but that is how I came up with the 1.42xxx #.

Onto some of the other issues, I do not see a problem with people "freerolling" in most instances. I'm only putting in around $1000 of my prelims and as of right now nothing in the main event, though I'll put whatever in thats not sold by that time. When I say most instances I can see a problem when you have not built up goodwill longterm. With me, all can be assured I will be playing 100% at all times(probably slightly better than I would on my own money). This is an absolute privilege to come in here and sell a lot of action to play multiple events in the WSOP and I do not take that lightly. I thank every single one of my investors who are able to help me out at a time I am down.

I don't think I have much of an opinion on anything else, I do think the CTS idea(which I've seen before) of selling other people and betting against them is a neat idea. But only a few people could really do it as they could possibly have to shell out a ton for a win in the million/wcoop/scoop/wsop.

I do agree that vouch means you would pay if they ran off, that is how we treated it in the sports betting thread.