yes, standard deviation would be useful to include as another variable. packaging tournaments based on field size is a good idea. i believe noahSD's old blogpost from a few years back covers this and can possibly use those numbers to adjust markups for higher field size events.

What was being referred to is the goal being to split the EV of the % that is sold. So the 50% that is sold is worth +3750 of which the horse receives half (1875) and the backer half (1875) so markup should be 37.5%.

I don't think this is something that people generally aim for nor should they. I think most people would try and claim that all of their packages are weighted more towards the backer than this, which may or may not be true.

1%

Saying mu should be split is absurd. If a horse has say a 100% roi and there was an excess of buyers (which is basically the case now) it could easily sell at 1.95 at least and still be perfectly fair. In fact selling at 1.5 might be unfair towards people who can't reply as fast and would be happy to buy at 1.8-1.9 and still have a solid edge. People who really don't understand economics and free markets itt

Fact of the matter is as a buyer you don't know the true ROI, in fact some packages here may have a value below the markup or player may even be a loser in that tournament field, and there is always a non zero chance of being taken advantage of, which can mean anything from a horse playing hungover, or in a poor mindset to a horse basically stealing in an extreme case.

Buying pieces of people charging markups even anywhere close to their true ROI is not a good deal IMO, though certainly some premium is paid to those with good reputations and proven results.

Although I don't think it happens much, I don't "free market" is a good excuse at all for people knowingly charging higher markups than their ROI.

Except 2p2 isn't s free market, and it's not clear that it should be

So if someone is selling 10k in action, there's 100k worth of money that would buy at markup x and 10k who will buy at markup y (obviously y>x) that the person should then sell at x? That's just absurd and honestly it's unfair to the person(s) who would buy at y since now to get what they think is a good deal they have to win the race to reserve it. Like honestly I don't get how anyone can possibly think that it should be regulated and people not allowed to sell to the highest bidder and instead have to sell at what some people determine to be a fair price. I'm all for educating people and all for letting people short, but stating that people should only be allowed to sell on the 2p2 mp at what some think is a fair price despite there being willing buyers at a higher price is just honestly one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen.

Honestly this should probably not be in Primordial's thread but seriously some of these posts just seem so absurd to me.

So because some people take advantage of other players, the honest players should pay a portion of that to make up for it? How about we let the market decide and then if I think there is a horse I'm unsure of their reputation I need more of a premium? On the other hand if I know someone really well know they're super legit and not gonna cheat me I'm willing to pay at closer to their true edge. Obviously if you know a horse is playing hungover/bad mindset/whatever I'm all for regulating that somewhat but punishing people who have never done anything wrong in their lives and basically over-riding the free market is just absurd.

It just astounds me that people think we should basically not allow people to buy pieces because some elite people think it's a bad investment (if not having some elite people decide please let me know of a better way other than the free market). This thread is a perfect case. People made their case about how it's probably not a good deal at 1.25 and I personally agree with that as well. But people are still buying. It's an extremely bad precedent for the 2p2 marketplace to make rules that stop people from buying/selling at rates both parties agree upon and both parties are educated on the math involved.

Like I definitely agree that in general people get much too high MU, especially low-stakes online mtt pros. No one forces anyone to buy them. Instead of lowering MU's with rules and regulations, why not just allow people to post in their threads and/or allow shorting? I'm not sure what I think about those in general but I like them much better than letting people decide what's fair and not fair and banning people from buying/selling at rates other than is decided.

For example, didn't chainsaw have that one site where he was selling at like 2:1 in some donkaments? Say he posted a thread in the marketplace like that. If he posts that, then he gets the inevitable "lol there's no way that's profitable he needs a 200% roi no one, even the top mtt pros, get that kind of markup" and then people still decide to buy his action, what would you propose 2p2 do? I'm proposing they do nothing and let people make -ev investments and also allow shorting. I think it's quite clearly the best solution but I'm happy to hear the arguments of other people on why it's not and what should be done instead.

I mostly agree with what you are saying but have a lt to add in a few days

Only problem with shorting Zach is there are v few people who can afford to short decent %s of WSOP events and would just be soooo sooo easy for people to over short a ton of players and lose more than they have and also for people to scam. Obv same with people selling in general but less likely to happen because obv they are cashing and getting the $ in hand to pay out to people, on the flip side it would be soooo easy for someone to short 5-10 people for like 20% each, w/obv a small expectation in winnings/losses but 2-3 of them miracle shipping top 3s or something and now something with an INCREDIBLY small chance of happening has obv busto'd the shorter and he won't pay. Just really hard to regulate shorting w/o escrow and escrow makes it infinitely less appealing to most (+ having to deal with finding trusted escrows constantly for v large amounts). In principle I think shorting is def. something that should be allowed, but there are a million issues w/it that make me see why 2p2 doesn't just because they want no responsibility in it

Agree and completely understand 2p2 not allowing shorting at least publicly. Still don't think that justifies allowing people to unilaterally just say "this isn't worth it" and declare it to be a scam and expect 2p2 to do something about it.

May have missed it, but where did someone call for 2p2 to intervene?

I think it justifies saying "this isn't worth it" but I certainly wouldn't expect any action from 2p2

I just saw people saying that it wasn't obvious the free market was the best solution thought that implied they supported 2p2 stepping in in some way could be wrong.

Primordial--

You made many claims about your ROI in this event above, but you never claimed exactly what it is. If you're so inclined, I'd be very interested to hear your estimate of your ROI.

If not, no worries.

All my best, & good luck in the event,

--Nate

i just want to say I think it's pretty absurd all the hate that primo has gotten for this thread. I can't count how many threads i've seen where people are certainly n ot worth it selling at 1.3-1.4 in prelim events without one negative comment in the entire thing. It's clearly a sellers market and the general price of every package seems to have gone way up, yet this is the only thread I've noticed where people have come in with something bad to say. It's not right and i think that mods need to do something about it.

I think this happens much more often than you think.

That said, I agree in some sense with the spirit of your comment. Primordial is pretty obviously a great player, which is not necessarily true of (e.g.) some computational biologist who comes in and sells at 1.3 for his only major tournament of the year. He has the bad luck to be selling for an event for which ROIs can be estimated with quite high certainty--contrast the WSOP ME.

I think it's valuable to discuss these issues. If you have a good suggestion for how to do that, I'd be happy to hear it. Actually, I think Primo faced fairly little outright abuse--BackraiseNYC was pretty harsh, and I was certainly a bit snarky about certain claims that are (unless I'm missing something) demonstrably false, but a lot of it was just "wtf? 1.25 in the WSOP $10K HU?" or general discussion.

All my best,

--Nate

I do think that this thread has brought about a lot of very interesting discussion, which is great. However I think that a a lot of this discussion has been expressed in the form of jabs at Bryan and his package, which is not right. It should be held in the MTT community forum or somewhere that is more appropriate and meant for general discussion.

I believe that when you allow people to come into this thread and criticize the op at will you run the risk of letting the marketplace turn into a chaotic free for all. I think that there needs to be more regulation in terms of what people are and aren't allowed to say in these threads. Should I have the right to go into any thread I chose and say that the package is a "scam" because I believe the mark up is too high? Where do we draw the line?

Just because it doesn't happen in every 'bad' package that you see doesn't mean that it couldn't (or shouldn't). You aren't the first person to say that, and it's just not a good argument at all.

Nate. gives a really classy example of how to objectively criticize and there are a few posters itt that should take note how he handled it.

Ok so basically the closest thing online in structure to this are FTP Turbos (which I had a 54% winrate at $457 ABI which is considered pretty high), this format also should be quite a bit higher winrate than those due to the multiple lammer system allowing you a second and possibly 3rd life while keeping the stacks at something you have a big edge in. I also think people are grossly overestimating the traditional heros in this event and while most are blocked stats on FTP before they were blocked almost all of them who played this format were huge losers (except LuckyChewy who's amazing at everything ;p), so it's not like the field is full of people who crush this format, it's NOT, pretty common misconception by people it seems that everyone who crushes 100-200bb will just destroy this event, not at all the case tbh. Also I've been playing mostly hyper turbo SNG lately (0-25bb) but have played enough similarly depth'd cash (20-50bb) and had very very good results at it as well that I would say I think I have 53.5-54.5% avg winrate vs the field, the last few years in the tournament I would only give edge in this structure to a couple of people who play this event, def. <8 of them in a field of ~150.

as to ROI 53.5% avg winrate = 27.34% ROI, 54% = 32.77% ROI, 54.5% = ~38.65% ROI

and tbh given the field/structure I wouldn't be surprised if winrates are and can be higher for the best players in the field, there just isn't much data on how the lammers effect winrate, where obv my #s are from bo1 50bb sng, but yea, I'm very confident I'm +EV in this at 1.25, wouldn't be suprised if I was more +EV than I think either given the lammers.

so yea, those are my thoughts on it just to get it out there officially. Headed home today, will be contacting everyone to finalize action over the next few days

Primordial--

Thanks for the answer--lots of relevant and interesting info there.

Given your claims in the third-to-last paragraph, you must disagree with my analyses/simulations that I've discussed elsewhere in this thread and also in this thread. I'd really like to know why you think my claims about the relationship between average winrate and tournament ROI are inaccurate.

Please feel free to discuss this here or over PMs--or, of course, not at all. I understand that you might think you have more to lose than gain by discussing the details of this.

All my best, & good luck this summer,

--Nate

Hey Nate, we can take this to PM, keep it here, or move it to your thread, however you would like. The differences between our #s are because of 2 things, 1 my model wasn't as advanced as yours and just says on average I win each round 53.5%, yours is obviously a much better approximation of a true tournament draw, HOWEVER, in your model you have more than 30% of the field having a higher winrate than me when in reality this is nowhere near the case, like I said maybe my WR is underestimated because of the semi-bo3 format, where my #s were based on bo1, but def 0% chance more than 30% of field would have an edge on me so that's where the major discrepancy comes, I stated before I think <8 people in 152 person field should have an edge on me in this format

Edit: also as an aside this wouldn't scale perfectly for your projections of larger tournaments, as there are probably <20 players in the world who have an edge given format, so a field of 608 for instance (152*4) would not give 32 players an edge, and the same as n players continues to increase, I assume you get it.

why won't you accept lock as payment?

i believe he has posted elsewhere he would glady take limitless amounts of lock $$ at the market dictated rate of 35c/$1

These comments are getting old.

Primordial--

Thanks very much for posting here. I also don't really have a preference for where we discuss this.

You make some interesting points and I'll play around with my simulator tonight. I certainly agree that as field size increases the fraction of super-elite players will usually decrease!

All my best,

--Nate

That's not exactly what I asked and couldnt care less what's getting old to you. Just seems strange that a site's sponsored pro won't accept share payment on that site! very odd!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using 2+2 Forums