Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourbound68
Comments
1. I think that a lot of what has been said itt is good advice/brainstorming. But, I think some thoughts/ideas people have shared have been more "Personal Preference" then what is best for the entire community. I say keep the discussion going keeping this in mind.
2. With new business/practices/communities etc. there is always going to be new and unforeseen problems/issues/tweaks because people haven't "tested" the waters. Last year was a new and unusual beast. I don't think people who made honest mistakes should be "hung" (no pun intended) for doing so.
I look at myself. I am someone who made multi packages. (Why did I do it?) I did it because like someone mentioned already. My first package sold out quick, and there were other higher buy in tournaments that I felt I was +ev in that i wanted to play.
Look, everyone isn't JPOSU and can put up a 70k package and be confident that it is going to sell out. I think the better your rep/results are the more beneficial it would/will be to the investors if you just sell one really big package. But for the people who don't have as much rep selling 2 or 3 packages might be the best way for them to secure playing full schedules.
I think that investors now know what questions to ask in this regard, and priority "should" be given to investors of your first package if you do put up subsequent packages...
** Also remember that bigger $$ package prices out a large majority of the marketplace. There are a ton of investors in the marketplace that should get a chance at WSOP action. And the people who put up 2-3 small packages gives this group a shot.
Pretty sure I nor anyone else has a problem with people selling multiple packages. The problem last year was simply people like you and many others (honestly not trying to attack you personally here) put up a package of stuff that was probably the softest and best value tourneys before the marketplace blew up and everyone's stuff was selling like crazy. When everyone realized how easy it was to sell shares, they then made new packages with tougher/bigger/more tourneys that they probably weren't sure they could include in the original package.
Our problem is that I'm fairly certain none of these people consulted their original investors whose share value would be affected by these new packages.
These people just saw an opportunity to play more tournaments and bigger buyins than they had ever planned and in some cases bigger they had ever played before and decided to take it.
This year I'm sure that no one will have issues selling multiple packages as long as they state their intentions in advance while selling their first package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourbound68
Question
What does everyone think about adding expenses into Mark Up? I know for me personally, staying in vegas for 2 months got extremely expensive..
Should players be allowed to add % MU for expenses? If so how much?
LOL no. It is really not the investors concern whatsoever how much it costs to stay in Vegas. They are investing because they feel the tournament will be profitable. Whether YOU the player are profitable for yourself considering expenses is completely irrelevant.
I just don't understand why you think this would be beneficial to investors in any way. Like this has been the standard since this forum began but you basically want investors to start giving up money and value for literally no reason.