its none of my business either, but i think charging investors for a massage sets a bad precedent.

for example, should your investors be charged for the breakfast you ate before day4 as well (which was probably a lot more +ev than the rub)?

agreed (its minor and innocent in this case of course, not like wazz is trying to screw anyone, but it is a slippery slope)

Taking a massage does not set a precedent. I don't really see where it would go.

agree

If I made day 4 and my feet were hurting cuz of my shoes, should I buy a new pair and charge that to the stake? My clothes were uncomfortable too, should I buy new ones and charge those to the stake? I don't have sunglasses but they'd prob help me cover up tells, I think i'll buy some and charge that to the stake too. Man these beds are uncomfortable, think I'm going to upgrade to a suite and charge that to the stake. Clearly I'm exaggerating a bit, but all of these are things that are +EV and will help your cause in the tourney. However it's unfair to investors to charge expenses outside the tourney buyin. Obviously I know you so I'm aware you meant no harm by it (as others have said) but it was certainly worth pointing out imo, if only to prevent others from doing it and thinking its okay in the future.

obviously you thought it was fine to do and it's never been made clear that it's not allowed (aka it's not a huge deal that you did it), but agreed with frank/sub/cts that it's a slippery slope and should not be allowed

Alright guys, point taken. I understand where you're coming from and that this sort of thing is open to abuse.

Hey guys let's discuss the philosophical issues with Wazz charging a massage to the stake some more!

Should just charge higher markup if exchange rates are going to be an issue. Should also charge higher markup if you think 5% isn't enough.

I also find it extremely arrogant that you think charging a massage to the stake is reasonable and although it's "only" €200 am pretty surprised you haven't undone the charge as a matter of principle. Whether it's +EV or not is completely irrelevant, the investors bought a % of your tournament action and not your massage action.

As per my last post, I agree in principle that charging things to the stake is not a good idea and can set a precedent.

However, I'm not going to apologize or say I made a mistake. I spoke to a few 2+2ers that I was out there with and all of them said I should charge it to the stake and none of them said I shouldn't; I also spoke with the largest other investor before I got it and he oked it.

I would not do the same in the future, but given the information I had at the time and the amount of pain I was in, I would absolutely do the same again.

Regarding markup, yes, I should have charged more. But I didn't. And I agreed to freeze the exchange rates at the day of the cash, and I'm sticking to it, and have as a result got shafted. I'm not using that as a justification for charging €200 to the stake, just saying that the investors got a good deal both from the markup side and from the exchange rate side, and that quibbling over a % of €200 doesn't really seem right, regardless of the size of my actual cash.

Can we drop this?

bla bla exchange rates could've gone the other way, I don't see how that is relevant in the slightest. You're using the fact that you've won some people money to swindle them out of a bit of cash. If you hadn't cashed I'm guessing you wouldn't have asked everyone to send their respective %s of 200 eur would you? You're essentially preying on the fact that most people will let it slide here so you can get yourself a free massage/whatever else you got for 200 (wink wink).

Apparently we can't.

I didn't want to have to bring up the fact that none of my investors have complained about me getting the massage, but I'm going to have to.

It wasn't a free massage, I paid €55 of it myself.

Yeah, exchange rates could have gone the other way, but they didn't. And that's really irrelevant to the matter at hand.

and obv if you are deep in the tourney your shareholders will just agree to charging it to the stake. They might not be loving it, but it's better for them than having you getting worked up and potentially blowing up out of the tourney.

if blopp had had a problem with it he would just have told me at the time, and he knows i wouldn't have got worked up about it.

if they did in fact have a problem with it, now would be the time to mention it. in fact, given the amount of stick i'm receiving over this, i will say that if any investors come itt and say that they're not happy with me charging the massage to the stake, i will pay for it all out of my own pocket.

^My point is that it doesn't necessarily make it right for you to ask

Putting myself in the shoes of an investor here: do I want to kick up a fuss and jeopardise the substantial amount that I'm owed so that I can save myself <10 euros? I don't think I do.

So it's no surprise that a load of non-investors are picking you up on this while the people who have money on the line are staying quiet. I'm sure that you're not trying to con people here or anything. I just think what you're doing is unfair and sets a bad precedent for future stakes in this forum, as others have said.

Wazz,

not an investor - but If I was I wouldnt have any issues with expenses if you were on a FT. get yourself a BJ in the toilets on the break if thatll make you happy.

But I can see where some people are coming from on i, pretty sure as well that no one would really kick off in the future if you say before the investors pay that you may spend some of the $ on XXXX once you reach the final table!

This is getting absolutely absurd and I have lots of stuff to do today so this will be my last post itt on the matter.

Yes, charging the massage to the stake sets a bad precedent and I will be avoiding any similar practice in the future.

However, given the information available at the time and the pain I was in, I would absolutely have done the same in the circumstances and thus will not apologize.

The idea that an investor would be jeopardizing his payout by making a complaint itt is absolutely laughable and I take offence at that suggestion.

I will repeat that if any of my investors say I shouldn't have charged the massage to the stake, I will fork out the €200 out of my own pocket. Given the amount of stick I'm getting, they wouldn't risk appearing like the bad guy, if they were at all concerned about that. The amounts of money we're talking about are trivial, and this is a matter of principle, of course, so the investors should be more concerned with setting precedent than the amount of money they'd be getting back.

What I said re: jeopardising the investment may have been worded too strongly and wasn't meant to be an attack on you. I just think that any investor would prefer to get their money quickly and not kick up a fuss when such large sums are involved. Also, given the nature of this community where being balla=cool and being nitty over money=uncool, noone's gonna play the nit card and ask for a measly x% of 200 euros back here.

You clearly accept that it's out of line and for some reason you are still burdening them with the responsibility of claiming the money back and not correcting this situation voluntarily. I don't get why you think this is the correct way to behave.

I am a shareholder and I am supporting wazz.

wazz wrote in this thread explaining how he was planning to use some of the leftover money on a massage, and how it was probably +ev for all of us. I thought it sounded very reasonable and therefore did not say anything. So did nobody else!

I understand now how this could set a bad precedence, but this has already been agreed upon. Therefore I do not think there is any reason to discuss this any further. At least not by people who do not have shares.

im an investor and im totally fine with these two sentences combined.

its not like he didnt mention it at the time itt and is all of a sudden deducting it now.
however its also true that no investor would probably speak up at the time to not cause commotion and thus worse play by their horse wazz.

so yes its unusual and should be avoid but its not a biggy either.

i personally dont want any of my share of 200 back and am happy to have helped mike to a nice massage.

yeah dont see why anyone is still giving him crap about this, seems like a pretty settled matter

sorry to derail this thread, but i have good news

the casino have agreed to cancel the cheque once they physically have it, and wire me the money.

therefore I have DHLed the cheque this afternoon and at worst will expect the money in my account a week monday, or the 24th of May.

this means I will be able to wire money to vegas by the time I get there and will be able to pay everyone out in cash from the 9th, and will probably be able to exchange live $ for online and pay out those people who need the $ online.

Sup guys,
I think that PMing Wazz your phone number along with a picture is a good idea. That way he has to call you on your phone to get the cash in Vegas.

Obviously see what he has to say first.

I suggested this to Wazz last week. I'm not sure how he decided to proceed... but i warned he had to protect himself... he cant just hand over $20k cash with no proof. People should have to sign for the money aswell.

Ofc.. wazz knows all this and im sure he will be smart in doing this.