Sorry, I know this comes off as a bit self-aggrandizing to keep making these threads, but my mailbox got jammed with mostly positive feedback from the last thread, and I notice WSOP packages starting to pop up, so I have one more thing which I think is really important.

link to previous thread

Given discussion on points #2 and #3, I really think it's a huge error for people selling big WSOP packages of $400-$2k mtts to include the Main Event on their package.

The Main Event is a hugely +EV and hugely risky investment, and optimal sizing for that is much different than for the $1ks and such, especially since it's 10x the average buyin for a lot of these packages.

I see a lot of people over the years list packages that consist primarily of 1ks, and I would snap buy like 40% of the package since I would easily take $400 shares in every event they play, but there's NO WAY I can justify having a bunch of 40% $4,000 sweats in the main event, it's just absurdly highly variant and so my purchasing of the side packages is highly constrained by the Main Event being in that package, so I end up only buying 2-3% or whatever.

I suggest that you all list the MAIN separately from all the sides IF your sides are primarily in the 500-2k range.

WORST CASE scenario is someone comes in and buys X% of each, and no harm is done... at worst it's exactly the same as how you all are doing it now. BEST CASE scenario is that you sell out much quicker, you sell out to fewer buyers, AND you can probably charge significantly higher markup on your main.

Great post !!

This makes alot of sense, and I appreciate your advice as I know you have experience buying and selling packages. I'm glad I saw this before I posted a thread selling my action, as it will be something to consider since I am planning on selling a large % for about 15 events including Venetian $600s and WSOP $1500s and $1ks, as well as the main. I guess my next step is revamping markups. Any advice on when you think is the optimal time to post a package? Thanks alot for your posts, they're always very insightful.

Agreed. I think people would find it much easier to sell out at closer to the markup they deserve if they sold in segments based on buyin.

I've also noticed in the past some players who mainly have had their major tourney success in non-holdem selling packages with holdem MTTs as well as their better game(s) which I think may also be a mistake. I understand they do it because they want to make sure they sell action in the hold'em tourneys despite them being a bit weaker in that area, but I think they drag down the value of their tourneys in their best game at the same time.

Bears - another great post - thanks for doing these. If you do not mind, I'd like to use this thread as a space to discuss other feedback on upcoming WSOP 2012 packages.

A couple observations I had:

1) I have seen a few packages with jammed packed schedules - events every day or 20 in 21 days. Everyone understands that all these event will not be played due to Day 2's and needed rest, and investors will be refunded. As an investor, I don't like putting up money knowing x% will be simply returned because I rather invest that money somewhere else. I'd prefer to see schedules where there is a high likelihood all events will be played.

2) It has been said before, but let's keep discussion of pricing/high MU out of a seller's public thread. We see things everyday that look overpriced and decide to pass, but to comment publicly is not fair to the seller. Problems with structure of a package is different, I am just talking about people complaining about MU. When a seller gets few buyers, he will adjust the price, just like the real world. Let capitalism do it's job.

#1 is tough. As a player its hard to know when you might want to play and take days off months in advance (and impossible to know when a day 2 is going to be made) If you schedule a day off, but there's something you feel like playing, you can't play. The only alternative is more flexible scheduling (like the package includes xx# of $1500s etc) which in turn investors are more weary of b/c there's some doubt of whether the action is covered by the package unless the horse is diligent about updating (from experience that's not common). I'm not sure theres a better alternative then what's currently being done.

If you have relatively few buyers, then you can get your money in tranches like MK did last year, but that exposes you to the risk of them becoming HOI.

You can also book that many events, but only take 90% of the money, essentially guaranteeing a 10% refund. If you brick everything on 1 day, then just take a couple tourneys off towards the end

As the series get closer I had the intention of contacting my investors and offer them a weekly refund of unused buy ins and profit chop. That way they wouldn't have that money tied up until the end of the series, increasing their maneuverability and decreasing their worries, as I wouldn't have that much money of theirs for a long period of time. This will be very easy to do with those handling me cash in Vegas or using BoA/Wells Fargo, and a tad more complicated with Paypal, but I'm sure there'll be ways around.

For those playing large schedules, this is actually a great idea.

have mental note of this now great idea thanks

Not only do I strongly agree with this, but I can't tell you how many guys I felt "scammed" me last year by selling a package of 20 events including main at X% MU where X% was inclusive of the huge value of the main - then after a poor trip decided they no longer wanted to play the main, and thus left me and my partners having paid probably 1.5-1.6x effective on the smaller events which is absurd.

It really left a poor taste in my mouth and I almost called these people out at the time.

Ezra

I haven't been dealing in the marketplace too long, but that seems really messed up. Whether it was an intentional way of altering the MU or not, it's pretty much just as bad, they made an agreement and then just said never mind because they didn't "feel like" playing? I'd be pretty upset.

That's pretty bad. It definitely makes you think that these huge packages could be problematic. I don't really get making a package that you can't handle or can't afford if you brick early events. That's why I'm gonna have to sell a large percentage, since I need to make sure that my expenses in the package fit my bankroll. It doesn't make sense to sell for a bunch of that you might not be able to play (except for making day 2's, etc.), but it seems to be somewhat common unfortunately.

What I mean is, you should only be selling a package that you know you will be able to play at a cost to you that you can afford. You can't expect the investors to meet their end of the bargain and then not be able to meet yours because of problems with bankrolls, burnout, etc.

I think most people separated it last year, but this should definitely be the standard and I would love to see 100% of packages doing it. Nice post along with the other thread as well.

GL all buyers and sellers this year

Honestly some people don't know how much of a grind they'll be able to handle, especially those who have never played a big grind at the WSOP before. I played live cash for years so I thought I'd be fine grinding live MTTs every day for a month, but they can really get to you in a way that neither live cash nor online MTTs can.

I think a good solution to all of these problems would be just posting all of the tourneys you could play (1 each day with some breaks for rest), put individual markup on each one and sell it like that. Make it clear from the start that you by no means plan on playing all of the tourneys, but that these are the ones you want to select from based on when you make day 2s or need rest. If the package ends up adding up to $30k with markup then sell pieces as if it were $20k and only play a maximum of $20k worth of tourneys including markup (trying to get as close to $20k worth played). This is obviously more work for the seller as they have to determine fair markup on more tourneys if they want the package to sell, but at the same time I think it would be much better for the buyers by far since it keeps more of their money free to invest elsewhere and doesn't give them unrealistic expectations of the package.

Agree that this should be standard.

It's funny you bring this point up as I was having the same discussion with a friend/backer of mine the other night. I am currently running a WPT regional package that is a total of ~7k with a total of 7 tournaments and the main event is a $1800 that I am including 2 bullets for. Meaning the main event alone (2 bullets) is >50% of the package I am running and it really makes no sense for me not to separate the larger buy-ins from the smaller in hindsight. I chopped a $270 event for this WPT package for ~6k (subtle brag) but if I play both bullets of the main the investor's will see no profit.

When I post my venetian/wsop package for this summer there is no doubt I will be separating the two with the smaller buy-ins with the larger ones/main events, in summary +1 to OP.

Yea of course it's bad, but buyers in the MP have routinely been treated like an afterthought. It's true there are some amazing sellers (and those are the guys I still buy) but having backed ~200+ people at this point, I would say somewhere around 25% have absolutely no concern what's fair for their backers.

Ezra

I think you should absolutely have called them out on that personally. It's another great argument for why packages should be divided according to buy in level, I had 3 separate packages for my schedule last summer. Worked great in my opinion and buyers didn't seem to have an issue with it (granted MK bought all of package 1 and 2, most of package 3).

Ezra, that is absurd and you absolutely should have called everyone out on it. Sellers need to know that such behavior is flat out unacceptable. I also support calling people out on absurd markups in their threads, as anyone who has been paying enough attention can see. Even though I said in the official markup thread that I believe sellers should charge whatever markup they think people will buy no matter how high it is, that doesn't mean the buyers shouldn't do their part to keep prices low and help create a good "equilibrium" imo.

I disagree with that, having a place to discuss markups is fine but it should be kept out of individual threads simply because it has the effect of killing a seller's action regardless of whether or not markup is fair which really sucks.

you should definitely out the scumbags

Well, from a buyer's perspective, killing all the overpriced action and forcing down markup is +ev.

MP will achieve equilibrium by itself. Packages not moving -> markup goes down, vice-versa. No need to start a poo-slinging campaign.

Calling someone out for modifying their package or ditching a certain event in a way that is -EV is fine IMO. Nothing wrong with feedback.

Market might reach equilibrium of what people will buy, but that doesn't make the mean that setpoint is +ev for most packages. Even markets like the NY Stock exchange are full of products that are wildly mispriced.

The reasons the 2p2 MP isn't even close to as good as an exchange market:

- Buyers, in general, are much more gambly
- There are few good ways to concretely evaluate package equity
- Those that do buy packages have many varied ways to value buys and each buyer can have a much different valuation of a package.
- Each package might receive 200 buyers look at it, but it only needs a handful of them to buy to sell. Those who value the package the highest are obvious those who buy.

If valuations vary widely, and each package is only bought by those who are at the top end of a package valuation, then the equilibrium for the market is not going to leave many solid +EV spots for savvy buyers.

Ergo, while I don't personally comment on players markup, it makes sense that those who are active buyers should look to keep markup within reasonable limits.