right the much larger issue with 1k/1500s/DDSs with regard to variance is the huge fields. much of a good player's ROI comes from deep runs, and it takes more huge-field tournies to reach your true ROI than it does small-field tournies (though your ROI can obv be higher in huge-field because of the possible massive payday)

But I would suggest that many people overestimate their skill edge. You can't just say better structure = decreased luck required. That might be true for goldenbears, but might not be true for random person selling lolwsop $1500s for 1.2 on the marketplace.

agree completely

If I am investing in one tournament only (say someone just selling action to the main) I want to invest in Al. If I am going to be investing in a bunch of tournaments throughout a series I want bob.

It's probably wrong to think that way but it's my preference.

We should probably just ask Marvin what his thoughts are on all of this.. He seems to have the 2+2 monopoly on WSOP action this year with his Thread. He is pretty much the first person to see every single package (or potential package) that is put up on here.. I am sure he has great insight on this..

(I wonder how many people he has said yes/no to...)

Ya thats a good argument. I think that more money will be made in the marketplace if discussion of markup stays out of the threads. Thats why i want it changed. ( having bought and sold around the same amount, i feel im being fairly objective here)

I also recognize the need for a community based discussion of markup. Thats why i think a good compromise is moving those markup discussions away from the individual threads, and into a collective Markup Discussion thread".

I agree with jaime. The problem is any random idiot can post in someone's thread 'lol markup' and that kills their action regardless of the credentials of that person. (obviously experienced MP vets know whose comments have credibility, but they also know what good value is anyway)

What about something similar to the Supreme Court for the marketplace? 5-9 people who determine what the markup for each package should be. They can get freerolled 1% or a few each package.

what? that seems ridiculous to concentrate power like that. people should be able to charge whatever they want and people should be able to buy it if they want. I'm not sure where I stand on commenting on markups. I feel like most people don't have a strong opinion based on knowledge of the player rather just on their stats which can obviously be tremendously skewed/lol sample size etc. Like I'll learn more about how good someone is talking with them for 15 mins about poker than looking at their stats and it's not even close which is what makes it generally unfair when someone comes in and comments on it. If you actually have intimate knowledge of the player and his/her thought processes then I think it'd be much fairer to do so.

anyway #teambob and it's not close

I don't know if you were exaggerating but I think it's pretty absurd to say that you'll learn more in 15 minutes than you will from looking at the results they've had in the hundreds or thousands of tournaments they've played. I do agree though that commenting on markup should be reserved for those people that have a very deep knowledge of the seller, and those people only. I think people in this thread are largely discounting the amount of luck that is involved with playing tournaments. If you look at the majority of the most successful tournament players out there, I would guess that I very high number of them had big scores early on in there mtt careers. Timex may actually be the biggest example of this, Being the youngest ever to win an EPT. This is not a jab at his skill level whatsoever, just merely speculating on what his career would have been like without that win. I think that the confidence that comes from winning a big tournament is an extremely invaluable skill to have as an mtt player. Not even just winning but having a big score to boost your bankroll is huge early on in your career, and can make you play a lot better. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are a ton of factors that come into play when determining someones skill level as an mtt player, and all you can really do is look at their stats, and ask other people who may know them better than you. When you investing there are going to be good deals, and bad ones, obviously this is true in the marketplace.

As far as including the main in your package goes I think that Ezmogee makes a very good point, but I also do feel for the sellers. As someone who has sold two big packages over the last two summers, There are definitely days when I have a very profitable tournament on my schedule and I wake up and I just don't want to play. Maybe I went deep and busted the night before, or maybe I am just feeling burned out from the amount I have been playing altogether. What ever it is, it's important to understand that if I am opting out of playing a tournament, it's not only for my benefit but it is for the investors as well. If I'm not in the right mind state to play a tournament, then I think my investor is much better of getting his money back for particular tournament. Now if people are doing this only for the Main Event, then I definitely feel like that is a little shady and that they should probably be outed. Sorry for the long winded post. Good day

He wasn't and I can go even further: You have a guy send you 1 HH where they have to make decisions with a 40+ BB stack and you know exactly how they think about the game. It's not magic, it's just experience combined with good eye for detail and common sense.

FWIW this tourney win didn't change my game selection at all. The biggest cash I've played was all pre-EPT and I played my first 100k pre-EPT and didn't play another tournament with a buyin even half that large for another 3 years.

To think, I could be Timex if he didn't cooler me (sorta) at that final table

****** joke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF-5u8TfFn4

And I'd be rs30

I definitely was exaggerating with 15 minutes but it was just to make the point that stats are often overrated and the only way you're really going to find out how good someone is by talking to them about poker/looking through hand histories/playing with them etc. Especially in mtts, where so many tournaments are career-changing (every Sunday probably 99% of the people who reg the sunday million would have their lives changed if they won it and it's just $215 to enter) as you rightfully point out, one pot going to one person or another can swing the stats/perception of someone massively.

Even with an example like the bob/al thing earlier, people wanted to take Al because he can "close" a tournament or "doesn't feel the pressure" when he might've just coolered someone AA to KK for 2x avg at the ft of the million--maybe Bob was at the other end of that cooler. That one pot which couldn't be changed turns someone into a "closer" and a "winner"---even if Bob has 100k or 300k less overall profit than Al, he still might be a better player. Just looking at stats alone isn't going to tell you who's the best or not. It can certainly help you weed out people, sure, but not like a ton more than that. That's the point I was trying to make.

And I think there's no doubt that most (if not all) people who are successful have undoubtedly "run well" early in their careers---whether it was in a specific tournament that propelled them or falling in with the right group of friends. I believe there's some term for this but I can't remember it right now. Winner's bias? Idk. But yea that's undoubtedly true.

This + 100, 15 min is a little exaggerated maybe but the point is quite clear, most of the time stats are misleading, people may play 2 tables and crush whereas others play 30 and have "marginal" stats (but way higher hourly), people have results from softer days or sites (either a few years ago when games were softer, or from softer sites where games are softer) stuff like that. And obviously variance itself says a HUGE part in who wins the gold, especially in MTTs.

Hard to say about mark ups, in general if people will buy then it's not really the fault of the seller but the exception is (and it's very hard to draw a line here I guess) when it's pretty obvious the seller is being intentionally (or unintentionally I guess) misleading. Also the problem is there is no rule that exists (nor should it) that all packages have to be good value. Personally, and most people are the same, I always price so that I think there is a very reasonable room for profit/EV for investors (and I would want any package I buy to be the same, with the exception of some random sweats of friends I don't mind taking some neutral EV game with for tiny pieces or whatever), but can certainly agree with others that some people just want a sweat and aren't purely investing to make huge +EV buys, plus a good deal for person a might not be for person b etc. I wouldn't mind buying $100 worth of micro tournies for only +10% EV (or even 0, or maybe even slightly - if I wanted to just randomly gamble) and high variance whereas I would never buy a 10% of someone's 100K tourney even if I thought my EV was 20% because of bankroll, utility etc.

Another thing that bugs me is when people state in the OP they are selling only 40% but then if that sells out pretty quickly open it up for another 20-30%. I am more interested in buying from someone who has at least 50-60% of themselves than only 30%.

I have no problem with that as long as its expressly stated beforehand that thats a possibility.

Pming to ask for lower markup or selling privately at lower markup feels shady to me.

this is true but to a very small extent. youd hope that people would treat a tournament the same no matter what % they have of themselves, but i know its not always the case and its seemingly easier to not care if you only have 20% of yourself in a 1k vs 50%.

Valid complaint BUT, anyone that would play less then optimal because their piece isn't stimulating enough is not good at poker. Not a worthwhile person to invest in imo.

Not sure if this is the right place to post this. I am not a fan of the bidding system when selling shares. I think it is way too easy for the bigger investors to collude to keep the price low. There are only a handful of big investors, with most people buying a small %. The smaller investors will not make much of an impact on the price anyway. I like the idea in theory, but I have learnt from experience how scummy some people are capable of getting when it comes to money.

Especially when it's represented in the thread as if they bought at the higher markup. If a lower markup is agreed to privately, it should be stated openly imo.

basically every big buyer I've ever had contact me for the WSOP always PMed me looking for lower markup than listed. If you hate that practice... well...

getting a lower markup for big shares is fine, but it should be made public knowledge in the thread

Hmm I could be convinced otherwise but I'm not sure if that is necessarily important, I know a lot of people often state something along the lines of "Keeping x% for myself/backer/friends/swaps/etc" and there is a decent % of the time where a backer or friends would get a discount. I have done that in the past and don't really have any problem admitting, although to be fair it's usually just for really small pieces for a sweat for friends.

I mean I guess if I bought some shares, and later found out the guy sold to a group at a lower MU and didn't list it, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I also don't think it's unethical necessarily and feel I would be thinking somewhat irrationally.. Seems standard to sell to friends at a lower MU (for example two buddies just have an agreement to always sell to each other at no/low MU), dunno if it needs to be public knowledge (again not sure about this).