Mixed feelings on the subject of public knowledge with respect to markup discounts but definitely nothing wrong with giving discounts for larger buyers. Personally, I've always disclosed when I'm selling to someone at a lower markup just because I strive for transparency in business dealings.

It's two-fold. First, I don't care how mentally focused a player is on the game I feel like if a player has only 20-30% of themselves in a tournament, it's just human nature that it will affect decision making in marginal spots. Maybe I'm wrong, but as much as I'd like to think I would be able to stay sharp and focused my decision making would probably be affected if I only had 20% of myself in a tournament. I'd make an exception for people selling action in HR's, SHR's or even 10k's who have very solid reputations.

I also want to back people who can afford to put themselves in the tournaments they are playing without being backed. Obviously, it's perfectly fine to reduce variance, but if you are going to play 15k buy-ins at the wsop and do not have 15k to put yourself in them I'd likely to avoid you. I really don't want to invest in someone who needs to sell 80% to play because the likelihood of being scammed increases imo.

Review some of the largest scams that took place in the marketplace. You'll find it wasn't guys selling 20-50% of themselves.

In general I can understand why some people don't like when people have really small %s of themselves, especially when the mark up and % sold make the person nearly free-rolling but I think you assuming the problem with this is that they won't play as well isn't good because some people might even play better, especially when deep not being scared money etc. I would play way more closer to optimal if I had a smaller % when Millions are at stake, because either I would be partly scared money or I would be correctly making tighter decisions due to utility theory (the first 200K >>> the second etc) for example.

Agree someone who needs to sell 80% in a small tourney (or maybe even a big one, but more so small ones) is a bit more likely on average to be shady etc although obviously that doesn't rule everyone out..

I really don't think this is true at all. EV is EV right? Anyone that is a longterm player should understand the concept.

i agree with this..i know if i have a small piece of my own action i feel obligated to try to play well..being not to let down investors..if i have a big piece of myself i actually might be willing to take more risk..cause i'm the big loser if i f it up..

i just look at being backed or invested in as a privledge..

I've closed packages rather than accepting these offers. I don't want to encourage the practice.

I think it depends. As a newer unproven player I want to show investors I can play and want to make them money so they are happy. I usually take 35-40% in my packages, but I'm there to win not to think I have 50% so I gotta play better...
If I had 10% ill try to cash for 1st the same way. But some people are different
I hear stories of guys hitting a huge score and having like 10-15% left after taxes and investors cuts... I'm sure they didnt care too much and those investors will buy him in into anything they want to play after pretty much.

If you play less optimally due to having a smaller portion of your action you likely are not that intelligent anyway. The payouts scale for the player in exactly in the same proportion whether you have 20% or 100% of yourself.

You do realize that the first million you make is worth more than the 2nd million, etc. right? Sure they both have the same value/ev of $1 million but say I have a net worth of 100k. I've locked up 10k in profit and am solid 2nd place with say 100 people left. I get into a spot where I can take a 60/40 flip with the chip leader. I know doing the icm calculation isn't possible but say theoretically it's something like if you call you're 60% to get 100k in ev and if you fold you'll have 55k in ev. ev-wise it's a call, but given that your net worth is currently 100k you are much more likely to take the low-variance route because in utility, 45k is worth more than 100k 60% of the time and 10k 40%. Now say instead he'd sold 90% of himself. Now he's locked up 1k and is in a spot where he can fold and take the 5.5k in ev or call and be 60% to have an ev of 10k and 40% to be out and only get the 1k. I think most people would be much more likely to make the correct call in this situation.

The other thing to consider though that I haven't seen brought up, is from the horse's perspective the time value of the tourney and the opportunity cost of that time. Say I sell 90% to a 10k. I lose a flip early and get crippled to the point where my ev in the tourney is something like 1k (so $100 from my pov). If I bust I can go play cash where I think I can make $50/hr at the very least, so now it's in my best interest to make bad plays that favor me either getting a big stack again or busting. This is also obviously a bad situation for investors. Also say they're tilting. Let's say net worth of 50k, if you have 1k of ev in a tourney left you're still going to take it seriously. But say you just got bad beat or something, guy ****-talks you, and he's shortstack with only 10% of yourself (~$100 equity for the horse). He's much more likely to just be like **** it and tilt knowing he's only going to lose a fraction of $100 vs. a fraction of 1k.

So basically you want people to generally sell enough action that they will not be scared money on bubbles/deep but also still have enough of themselves such that if they do get short they're not going to decide to punt it/tilt it away. Hopefully people who sell action wouldn't do either of the latter but honestly it's pretty hard to avoid getting horses to do the former. If someone is playing for amounts that are several times their current net worth, do you seriously trust anyone to push small edges in that situation? Is someone with a 100k net worth really going to push a small edge knowing that if they just fold they can literally double their net worth?

I'd also like to talk about something that I haven't seen talked about, cash game players. I play almost exclusively cash games online, but I've dabbled in online mtts, have a good amount of friends who play mtts I talk strat with sometimes, and have played in a reasonable amount of live mtts, so I think I'm somewhat qualified to give my opinion on this.

I've felt like I was stealing before when I bought action from online ssnl (and occasionally even msnl) cash regs selling action at no markup in something like the main event or even stuff like 5k ept's. These generally have sick structures, and as much as mtt regs like to talk about their roi's going up in deep structures, that generally helps cash game regs even more. Because literally in these 5k+ mtts every single player at most tables would fill up a table along with a 50-long waitlist if they were to sit at a cash table of the same stakes. If the average 5k ept table (let's not even think about how bad the average ME table would be) were to go sit a 5knl table on Stars, I promise you there would be a 200+ person waitlist. Every ssnl+ cash reg online at the time would get on the list to shot-take. And most of those start 300bb deep and are 100bb+ deep for several hours at the very least. So not only are there way more fish than would ever play 5knl+ cash, there's also plenty of mtt pros who may as well be fish 300bb deep.

But then the blinds go up. And the massive fish start to thin out, and the guys who would be huge fish at 5knl deep all of a sudden become relatively competent 10-30bb players. Most cash players have extremely limited experience with the kind of sizing that goes on 30bb deep, understanding of ranges, adjustments/counter-adjustments to make, etc. and a lot of those same players who I'd give insane markup to if it remained a 100bb+ cash game might actually not even have an edge at the very same table. Not that most mtt pros understand any of that either, but they do have a ton of experience with it and at least understand some of the patterns that go on and ranges that most other regulars have.

So I guess my question to some of the more experienced MP investors is, what do you look at from cash regulars who want to sell action to live mtts? Any thoughts/disagreements with what I wrote above? Thanks.

Cash players are usually better deep, although ssnl like 100nl or lower marginal players won't be "that" much better than average player ept fields. Good cash players = or > Mtt generally but only if they have some understanding of tourney play as otherwise too many spots they don't know what to do. Meta game is a bit different, sizing is way different post and pre when not deep, bubble factors icm, late game play etc etc. used to think almost any winning cash player crushes most tourneys but think the edge is limited if they never or almost never play them and therefore don't know stuff mentioned above, still plus EV and great value at near no Mu or low Mu I guess. Sry on phone so writing this kinda poorly

No offense zachvac but in short you are wrong. Cash players are technically and fundamentally much better poker players but that doesn't always translate to tournaments. Some play too tight, some play too loose (more so loose then tight, but not a given). There is such thing as a Tournament skill set. Now of course I'm going to take Phil Galfond over a 50$ abi online MTT player, but it's not a given I'd take him over a good high stakes live tournament player in a big live tourney. I have a couple friends who are winning 5/10nl+ cash players but they struggle in tourneys. Now obviously it's prob not a big enough sample, but it's not a given they will be great or even good tournament players. I also have played a lot of cash over the past couple years, including 2011 where I was on pace for supernova elite playing PLO, so I understand both sides, but I just disagree.

I respect your opinion a lot on this matter, but what exactly are you disagreeing with? I was basically asking how you would judge cash players (and maybe your answer is literally just how much tourney experience they have, but I doubt that), and I gave spots I thought cash pros had a huge edge and spots I thought mtt pros had an edge. I guess as a baseline let's say a 400/600nl cash reg that has say a 2ptbb winrate without bumhunting over a decent sample. How much weight would that have if you were deciding whether to invest or not in a package they put together?

Also apologies if I do come off kinda condescending towards mtt pros but most online cash guys I talk to beat msnl and I'm judging mtt pros based on mostly people in live 1k-3k donkaments that I perceive to be regs and friends with all the other 2p2 regs do. I'm sure my perception of mtt pros would be much different if I routinely played in mtts with tough fields.

Could not agree more. Being better at 'poker' does not mean you are good at mtt's. I think some cash-game players that can beat tough online games can literally have a negative roi in an EPT. In the same way you may spot some obvious deep-stacked postflop leaks in MTT players, cash game players also make huge mistakes that are very obvious to MTT players. Also important to remember that you are playing for the most equity towards the end of an mtt, which is the stage where the majority of cash-game players are clueless. I feel in general they often just don't have the stamina not to spew, especially in these multi-day tourneys. So standard to see cash regs with big edges on most of the field when deep-stacked manage to bust in the first few levels.

Look, I'm going to be the first one to say it, but markup and the marketplace is a ****ing scam. Lots of people just use it to evade taxes in the first place.

Can you imagine if people started selling cash game action for markup? When I get in a 200/400 game I presumably have a huge edge. However, I could never sell this action at markup. Why? Who the **** knows? It's just the standard that MTT players can sell at markup in something that is a complete crapshoot.

Cash game edges (winrate) and variance (std dev in HEM) are much easier define. An investor knows EXACTLY what he is entering into, and there is no markup. In a tournament, all ROIs are purely theoretical and variance is so large compared to one tournament or a package of tournaments that you can't expect it to ever even out. Tournaments are also usually raked pretty significantly compared to a HS cash game.

I don't see why it should be any different for tournaments. I guess there are just enough dumb people willing to buy packages of people who aren't that good at poker and still charge 1.25+.

I think doing it as an auction as lnternet did for EPT Berlin is a much more sensible way to do it.

I'd love to see people's "lifetime graphs" for buying action in the marketplace.

have a question


So, someone comes into a package, says "this mark-up sucks, blah blah blah"

inevstor says "i think its fair, blah blah blah, please PM me if you have concerns"

another person comes in (most likely a friend), buys a small piece and says "man, this mark-up is a steal!!!"


seems kinda dumb 1 is frowned upon, and 1 just is normal.

It really depends on his experience playing different stack sizes. If he has no idea on the adjustments to playing a shorter stack, then this would be a horrible investment even at face. Live experience also matters to some extent. If someone is calm cool and collected then I wouldn't worry, but some online people tend to be borderline autistic and can't function at a live poker table (exaggeration but seriously, some people really suck at live poker). ICM also matters as well.

In general I think someone who plays 400/600NL is not going to be a good investment in, say, a WSOP 5k because the really good online players who are actually good investments in these tournaments play much higher stakes. They also don't usually sell, or if they do it's a low % at a high markup. Pretty much everyone that beats MSNL will be a good investment in the main event, however.

Use your head. If someone is selling 80% at 1.xx of a 1k, then...

DISCLAIMER: My 2c, very open to debate and have my opinions challenged here.

The way this marketplace works for MTTs is that the player is selling some of his equity in exchange for having his risk reduced.

Not liking that system is one thing. Calling it a scam is another and ridiculous.

Thanks for explaining the mathematical implications of selling a piece of a tourney. Bravo!

You still haven't explained why people don't sell cash game action at markup? Why is there no cash game section of the marketplace? Why can busto people play high stakes tournaments easily by selling here but not high stakes cash?

I also believe most packages sold here are marginally to significantly -EV if you pay taxes to the US.

Maybe it's not exactly a scam, but it's pretty much taking advantage of scores of dumb buyers.

There is tons of "This is a great package!!" but no "This is a ripoff" allowed (exactly what Zima is saying) which seems completely ridiculous.

Just because such a marketplace doesn't exist for cash games does not make this marketplace for tournaments invalid. None of your questions need to be answered to justify the existence of the 2p2 staking forums.

Okay then explain to me how this

doesn't completely invalidate the marketplace?

The marketplace should absolutely exist, but its current form is horrible. Open criticism should be allowed, and, in a completely ideal marketplace, I'd be able to bet against someone trying to sell at a markup I believe is too high.

Another problem with the marketplace:
People so often post links to their live results and almost NEVER do they mention how much they have spent in buy ins.

This thread exists because there are problems with the marketplace. It's tough for buyers to value what is being sold and it is easy for sellers to post and sell bad packages. I don't have answers for any of these problems, unfortunately.

It's fair, imo, to say that some sellers are specifically trying to scam buyers posting packages they know to be -ev, but that exists in every marketplace. The biggest financial institutions in the world scam their way to riches all the time, and as far as I can tell no efficient model has been made to trump an open marketplace.

This is why I think it's important that people who wish to call out bad sellers are able to. It's one of the most effective ways to let the participants police themselves.

As to Zima's point: If any buyer is influenced by a friend talking up another friends package and skills then they deserve to be duped into buying a bad package.

The first way to eliminate the biggest problem (people selling -ev packages) is to raise awareness. That is what I'm trying to do.

I agree with your entire post.

This is going to be a relatively weak argument that I'm sure you can rip apart, but I'm sure more often then not, a friend would know how the player plays a lot better than a random coming in and criticizing.