The point Timex is making is that Bob has shown a huge amount of consistency to have the same ROI and profit amount as the guy who shipped the Million and the FTOPS...I think overall it would be pretty close as there is definitely gonna be merit in having someone who has shipped the big ones, but there is also a lot to be said for the guy who might rack up a string of impressive cashes without having actually had the massive score. Pretty sure both guys would sell out easily though!

A significant portion of Al's profit is trapped by the DOJ and is more likely to roll.... obviously

1. to the player worried about giving away free equity. As long as you're charging mu above 1 you're the only one who's receiving free equity. All you can give up is value.

2. To the guys who've wanted me to pay 1.6-2 mu on their wsop packages. The WSOP publishes the breakdown of payouts for every WSOP. Review last years payouts and calculate the spread between each payout and you'll see why I tell you to f off.

It's not like Bob hasn't played with significant money on the line, he has just happened to run poorly in the end game of the bigger events. This means that he's grinding out a very nice profit in the tougher games online rather than just having run hot in a few of the big soft MTTs (like Al).

It can also happen that Bob freezes when there is a lot of money on the line, which playing live would be even more noticeable than online. I think a mix of both, consistency + some closes, would be ideal.

Well of course it would, but when we're discussing two opposites saying a mix of the two is ideal doesn't really help. I'd imagine almost all MTT grinders would pick Bob over Al all other things being equal.

+1

+1

But, It can also be that Al got it in bad 4 times at the final table for each of his big scores..


I think you both are right, and unfortunately we really wouldn't know..

Look at stats of someone like thebattler, extreme example obv b/c hes an outlier but despite his high profits he has no scores over 25k. Id take that over someone with same profit but who top 3'd a few majors skewing results. In other words consistency is key.

I can say that I am a pretty good example of Bob (At $43-$45 ABI).... The few times I have made it deep in the big Sunday events, I got unlucky with 2 tables to go.. At my only big FT (Sunday Warmup) I lost a flip for 5th.

I think my live results are pretty solid for the smallish sample I have too.. But I haven't final tabled a Major/Big event yet. Does that mean I "freeze" with big $$ on the line..

I would like to think not, but then again.. I haven't been HU for a Bracelet yet either...

I think as an investor, I want to invest in something/someone who is going to give me the greatest AND most consistent return on my investment.. But that is just me.

In the Bob vs. Al example one way to look at it is to think about their true roi's. Seems like Al having the huge scores and Bob having none would lead to Bob being more likely to have the higher true roi.

Bob is the story of my online and live poker career, but maybe I just cant close

edit: I think my biggest score ever online is an 11th or 12th in the WCOOP main. lol.

I would invest in bob as well..

Al is a confirmed luckbox..

Alot of it beyond stats I like to go off of overall reputation if its from post count, mutual friends, tweets etc..

#teambob baby

is bob johnnybax?

id still pick al. isnt closing tourneys and final table experience a better skill? obv its just an example and the difference could be a few hands, but its not like if al won one or two more flips hed auto ship the big tourneys.

'Reputation' doesn't make you money, it only inflates the price you are paying.

Bob doesn't have that much profit without the ability to close tourneys.

I still feel fairly strongly about this. +1 free market

and I strongly disagree. Charging insane amounts of markup is taking advantage of average players who come in here looking for a sweat and don't know any better. similar to: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ments-1312390/

However, I'm not going to lie and say I care about what happens to those guys. I care that it affects my bottom line. My spread is directly impacted when I'm told I need to add on an additional 10% to my offer to retain talent because it'll be grabbed 1% at a time on CMU or 2+2.

You should be free to charge whatever markup you want and I should be free to comment on the markup you're charging.

Do you understand that when you do that in the public eye, it looks really bad toward the horse and can absolutely 100% skew investors into just not buying?

If you want to complain about markup, PM the horse and see if they would be willing to lower it for you. Otherwise, don't buy.

That's the point. If he calls out bad packages his intent is indeed to scare away novice investors and make reasoned investors think about what they are buying. He's trying to prevent rising MU prices from mediocre players.

Whether you deem that fair or not is another point entirely.

I'm not denying there are two sides to the argument, but pros of free market outweigh the cons IMO:

Free market pros:
-Maximum opportunity for profit on both buyer and seller side due to natural price setting
- more packages ( getting accepted and rejected) meaning better liquidity, and more opportunities for profit.

Free market cons:
-potential for new investors to buy neutral to minus EV investments
- tougher for sellers to sell due to increased threads

Player intervention pros:
-Prevention of investors getting bad deals

Player intervention cons:
- Potential for group think and popularity playing a roll in markups
- buyers opinion being the most vocal



My proposal for what should be allowed:

In sellers threads:
- Discussion of past staking history in regards to reputability.
- Buying of action

In a marketplace wide "markup discussion thread":
- discussion of markup in any and all threads, and it's merit. Similar to the business finance and investing forums monthly trading thread.



I feel like this is a solid compromise and will establish a common ground for both sides of the markup discussion issue. Thoughts?

I think another thing that gets forgotten in newer player packages (and I definitely made this mistake last year) is people forget about variance. Having a package filled with Rio Dailies and 1k/1.5k's is extremely high variance because of how little post-flop play you get. People are so worried about ROI/volume because they want to make an impression, they forget about the variance side of it.

Hopefully I can go back out this year for a week or 2 and if I can I'll def be playing more Venetian Deepstack and non-Rio events to help reduce variance for my investors and myself by putting myself in tournaments where there is more opportunity to use my skill advantage

"How little postflop play" you have is barely a consideration for variance and is a pretty good example of people not understanding anything when it comes to the marketplace. You can have a massive ROI in a turbo if everyone is playing horrifically.

The current standard is an open forum where people can comment in thread. Why do people who want to comment in bad threads have to give up their option? You are basically requesting the standard be changed because you don't like the current system. That's not compromise.

The problem I see with people commenting on threads is: what they know about the player's game? If I make a thread and charge X mark up, why a person I haven't played a hand against can tell other people that my price is too high? Does he have any idea about how I think about the game? Or he's just gonna look at results?

Does he know if the player has worked on his game? If so, who did the player hire as a coach? How good is this person posting about someone else's skills?

Is he going to review HHS, ask questions to the player and then announce a fair price? I coach and stake poker players for a living, and that'd be the minimum someone would have to do before jumping on a thread to question a mark up. I doubt it was ever done.

Sure in theory but to suggest there isn't a higher variance in turbos or less postflop play in a turbo at the WSOP (due to shorter levels and higher blinds) is pretty preposterous on its face. Longer Level/Better structured tournaments always increase the skill edge and decrease luck/run good needed