would love to see this implemented into the marketplace.

I also was pondering with the idea of a live tournament swapping/selling thread for in between days. So that if i have 5% of player A i can swap some of that with someone who has 5% of player B if they have similar chips at the end of the day. Also the ability for people to sell at ICM or whatever is fair between days in tournaments.

Those are all really good suggestions, seems like they should be occurring more often already

Can someone explain how shorting works in this case? I must be missing something.

You're selling pieces of yourself in a tourney for 1.3, I sell pieces of you in that tourney for 1.25. That person sends me money and then I send them %'s of what you cash for. If people just want to buy my %'s and that means you can't afford the tournament you either don't play the tournament or change your markup so that its priced competitively(or get friends of yours to buy up the percents I'm selling of you as well as your action).

But wheres the profit for you to sell a piece of me to someone else come from?

he thinks buying a piece of you would be -ev, so selling it is +ev for him.

I used to buy action for live tournaments regularly when I thought it was good value. Most of the players I bought were people I knew of or knew somewhat and also were playing tournaments I myself had played or played something similar in that region. IMO I had a good grasp of field strength and that's how I assessed value in markups. Lately I have stopped buying action because IMO markups are pretty inflated.

I don't really understand TWO SHAE's attitude though. I've never see him in the marketplace until recently and he's very clear that he doesn't think it's profitable to buy so why don't you just not buy like I have done and many others have done?

Timex- in order to take 10% in the ME you'd have to be willing to pay out $800k , would that money be escrowed? Don't you think that many people that chose to short will just be freerolling investors? I think your idea would work great in smaller event, where the risk of being rolled is small, but near impossible at the WSOP.

This kind of thing does happen already, just not in a controlled marketplace. I remember in 2011, Tom Dwan gave someone I know (don't know if these are the exact #s, but I believe)$500, and that person was supposed to pay him 1% of whatever Dwan cashed for in the ME. lol at 5-1 MU, but I was sure that Dwan just got freerolled

you're forgetting the part where everyone buys from you for 1.2, then the person trying to sell at 1.3 never gets bought and in turn doesn't play the tournament, leaving everyone annoyed at you for killing the original action.

and agreed, the marketplaces has def been dry, but supply and demand will force people's markup to go down as more and more packages don't sell out


didn't you get enough free money from the mttc dolts with your sunday mil bet?

you're good at poker timex, just be patient, you'll get all the money eventually

if you actually want to get markup at a fair price then markup should be an auction system where you offer X % for sale, and people make bids on it. someone sold a similar thread once before, i think it was galen, i'm not sure, gonna look for it

Shorting before it's sold out is useless since typically people selling won't sell unless they sell enough. It's not hard to see how this could be exploited by people with enough money to influence this.

The other obvious issue is having enough to pay out. When you sell a piece of your own action, you'll win the money to pay out. If you sell the ME winner's action you then have to come up with ~800 times the buy-in. So you sell 5% and get $500+MU and then you have to pay out 400k. How many people would try to short and be unable to pay out should the player bink it? There are enough scams from people who do have enough to pay it out.

This doesn't solve any problems, but I do think shorting should be allowed once the player has sold his action and if the seller can prove they can pay out even should they win. This allows everyone who wants to buy to buy and gives the people who think MU's are too high (I agree btw for the most part) the opportunity to make money as well.

edit: I debated trying to do this with that one cash stake thread, but decided against it since I don't actually know the guy at all and according to this thread my thread would have been deleted anyway.

so what happens when the person posting the package doesn't give winning bidder action?

Say seller makes package offers 60% starting bid of 1:1 just to get things stirred up. Well the winning bid was only 1.02:1 and Seller is pretty upset about this. Should he be outed? Forced to take the %? How do we control the Marketplace this way?

I'm sure many people selling packages are freerolling investors as well. Similar to how an investor must assess the credibility of the horse, the potential buyer must assess the credibility of the person shorting.

Escrowing would be really slow, likely just only trusting people whose reputation seems more valuable than the amount they're risking is the best way to go about this

Perhaps starting this out by coming into threads and rather than beating markup offering to match markup such that when someone is selling 50% and tons of people waitlist all of those players can then get action?

Even though this may mean some people can't play, it does mean that players who are pricing their packages fairly will sell more easily when they see shorting groups aren't interested in undercutting them.

Ya, obviously don't accept action from someone who can't afford it. I just had dinner with friends and we talked about this concept and think from that group's interest alone we could have enough action to cover 7 figures in action backed by a group of players that most people would be comfortable with trusting they'd pay out 7 figures of action.

You would basically need to have the people shorting action act as a bank, with a very large amount of capital behind the short action they take. It is a good idea, but there should probably be a higher threshold than "whose reputation seems more valuable than the amount they're risking".

Even some of the more legit people that take action in the marketplace are going to be tested when having to pay out 300k because of a short that faced extreme variance. Basically, how does this not result in a level of free-rolling?

You need approved syndicates.

The MP is already a slow and inefficient place. This short-selling idea is really just never gonna happen so I don't really know why we are debating it.

I'm not sure I understand.... what has slowness got to do with it? The idea behind shorting is to make it more efficient. We don't even need 2p2 to be involved directly, just to have a group of interested parties with money who the mp believes will be able to pay out in the case of high-variance scores.

I think the main problem is that noone is going to want to bet against a group of 7 mtt sickos, if they say a deal is a bad deal id have to know a hell of a lot about someones game to say otherwise. Its unlikely im gonna make a mistake like this, but could easily make a mistake in terms of paying more markup than someone is worth.

basically even if this is allowed, the situations would be few and far between.

If it was such that once a package was sold out you could offer the same package at the same markup, i could see people going for that, or at the very least causing people to realise that the seller is possibly overcharging and they may have to reduce the markup for future events.

Alright, so

What does any of this have to do with "shorting"? Or markup regulation? either the wrong word is being used or im going to have to have someone explain what is actually even being talked about here.

Shorting someones markup would have you at zero risk if they win an event, why would you be paying out percwnts of winnings If your just making money on a downward gap in what they sell at? I dont even get how this would be done

When shorting markup your profit/risk would be made on a plunging markup valuation (or something) you would be betting they cant sell at the posted markup? My head hurts

Shorting is borrowing shares at current prices in hopes at a later date you can replace at a lower share price. After valuation goes down. Insert markup for share price. And im still confused.

im obv missing something

Think crossbooking (is whats being refered to here) is where someone would have to risk paying out when a seller/player binks. Betting that they dont cash (yet im failing to see how crossbooking effect to regating markup?)

Yep, but the later date is almost always after the tournament has taken place. So you borrow shares at $600 then they bink it so those shares are now worth 800k. They now have to buy them for 800k to be able to return those shares borrowed.

or just think of it as just selling the same way the same person sells their own action, it's a lot easier conceptually that way and it's identical.

There have been a few guys that have tried to auction off action. It never works. Why? because it takes more cooperation than can be realistically had via Vbulletin forum software.

If we allowed people to come into threads and poach action from sellers it would create a mess. That's just on top of the logistics of having someone shorting a package have the money on hand in case he needs to pay out huge.

My attitude stems from the fact that so many people sell 70% at 1.33, and take no risk. If you are good enough to have a 33+% ROI in 1500+ buy ins, why do you have no money?

If i post a package, it has to be viewed alongside tons of others and mine gets less attention, resulting in a lower price for me or just not selling out. As timex mentioned, I can't short some of the **** packages I see, so I'm effectively ****ed.

Because this forum is filled with "skillful" investors who have reasoned that they can be part of a large score.