hv never done this, but just forced to report abuse to this unrealzeal idiot

Dude... STOP ****ING POSTING

+1, LOL @ the tremendous amount of unprofessional-ism ITT. It's a MARKETPLACE If you have a quarrel with someone's product, confront them privately ffs.

This is unreal. It's high school level statistics. Each tournament IS an isolated event. When he quits the rest of the events, investments are no longer in play. #useyourbrain

I think you mean independent not isolated and since we have action in one based on results of another they surely are not independent

Think we can ask Jason the probabilistmm he would know

This thread has become very entertaining.

Still waiting for the mathematical proof from unrealzeal

Multiverse, bro. Multiverse.

Starts to do some math on this and the effect of ROI reduction is related to number of tourneys

However he still has to beat the opportunity cost which is simply added to the ROI

For ex if our opportunity cost is the forum average he will need to be that much better

Also I smell a rat when it's the HORSE can be breakeven or better which means he will often make a profit.
while u lose

Incidentally I did some work on 4 and 6 game packages using the rule that it dissolves every time its BE or plus and the effect on ROI is radical...it would be hard to show a profit with MU 0

Just when I thought you couldn't possibly say anything to make you look less intelligent...

Unrealzeal, this is a basic mathematical principle you need to learn.

Let's say you have a coinflip, 50% chance to win $20 and 50% chance to lose $10. Your EV is +$5. Assume you want to run this coinflip 6 times.
Each coinflip is independent. Simply put it doesn't matter what happened in previous coinflips, each subsequent coinflip will always have +$5 in EV.

I don't know if Galen is +EV or -EV in each of these tournaments, but whichever it is, it does not matter when he chooses to opt out or opt in. If each tournament is +EV, the whole package will be +EV regardless of optout clause. Likewise, if each tournament is -EV, the whole package will be -EV.

No...if you expand all possibilities to a series it will all cancel except for the times he sweeps one way or the other...that's why this effect is inversely proportional to # of trials

The less number of games the greater the sweep effect but the more games the greater the opportunity cosy...that's why the clause is terrible for investors...in a small set of games the opportunity cost is negligible but the sweep effect is significant ...in a large amount of games vice versa

I am willing to bet I am right....if I am wrong I will post a thread in bbv saying how dumb I am if I am right WILLD has to post one saying how I am good in math

I don't want to get addicted to this thread so I hope this is the last I write ITT

Because of opportunity cost the games are not independent, they are bound together

Time is an asset so if he has your $ for a future event this is $ you can invest elsewhere

So the coinflip is the package itself the individual games are the coin in the air...this is important imitation to realize this when you invest...you should calculated the even as a single entity

Btw I am not saying any of this out of hate...it's just an interesting math problem to me...I apologize for sticking my nose in it...not doin it to tilt anyone so I will use the ignore feature if I have to

This was pretty interesting to break down

As the number of games increases the probability the horse is ahead increases and approaches 100% as the number approachs infinity

This puts an upper bound which we can define as the forum index (what we would have made if we invested in every other package over the time period)


In other words for a large number of games, the horse needs to be exactly twice as good as the rest of 2p2 to break even

OK now I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'm not even sure it's possible for someone to be stupid enough to believe what you have just posted.

actually, by my calculations the horse needs to be 3.50 times as good as the rest of 2p2

After Galen shipped PCA, he sold shares to high roller events in which Munk and others were saying the markup was too high. One of Galen's arguments for the markup he set was that because he had won PCA he was playing with a lot of confidence that other players wouldn't have (or something to this effect). You'll play better if you've have recent success. We can all agree this to an extent.

With Galen's clause, it creates a situation that you won't be able to have shares in the events that he's playing at his absolute best (according to his logic behind the markup for high rollers last year) because he would have already quit the package after having hit a big score.

I don't buy shares here, but I've backed plenty of players. When I backed tournament players, I let them know prior to the beginning of an online tournament series that if they wanted to play in it, they needed to commit themselves to playing the entire series under our staking agreement. I wasn't going to watch one of my player have a good 1st week of FTOPS, have a breakthrough, quit me and then win 100k.

Maybe this is what unrealzeal is talking about?

This thread managed to get ****ed up enough that now there is no point paying attention to it.

The clause itself is -ev because it lowers the ROI

There are two effects that eat ROI..both related to number of games

If we use the rule that the fund dissolves at the midway point when it's breakeven or better then if we play a small amount of games we lower the ROI by putting a cap on the profit

You can see this easily if you consider playing 2 games, which would be the upper bound for the sweep effect...you can never cash in both but you can lose both...it's not hard to conceptualize what that does to you long term eq

What is interesting is that if you graphed both effects they would cross paths, so there is an inflection point in number of games where the combined effects is at a minima

Ok so let's say Galen sold you action on one event. When he cashes he plays another event but doesnt offer you any action. If he doesnt cash, he offers you action on the second one. Neither effect your ROI on your action in the first event. I'm done trying to explain this to you after this. It is really frustrating, because it's so simple.


The clause doesnt affect the ROI of the tournaments that Galen plays, it just makes the ROI of the events he potentially does not play zero/neutral. THIS ISNT HARD.

is unrealzeal galen and attempting to take heat off himself by posting a bunch of nonsensical stuff

Daut, CompleteDonk and Galen have clearly made well-thought out and mostly, if not entirely, correct posts in this thread. Galen seems to be one of the more intelligent posters on 2+2 and takes the time to explain his thought processes regarding how he comes to decisions in game and in regards to marketplace activities to both those who deserve a response and those who don't. He's a Stanford guy that has demonstrated in many threads that he has taken the time to do mathematical analysis on blind structures, field sizes, etc and how they correlate to potential ROIs. He has a belief that he's better than most everyone in live tournament play and has results that show that it may be true, time will tell. He believes that a large % of the ROI edge he has comes from late game play. He has a bunch of money and will likely play optimally in those late game spots where others may not, further increasing his ROI. The guy is beyond confident in his game and I think that is an absolutely huge factor people need to look at, and they need to look at it as a positive. For the life of me, I just can't imagine a guy who I would rather invest in than someone who has obviously done his homework and is always exceptionally confident come game time (this is huge, a 30% roi player is absolutely, positively not a 30% ROI player each and every time they play a tourney, they may be a 70% ROI type guy while playing well/having money/just received coaching/feeling confident etc and a -10% ROI while feeling down about their game/broke/haven't been studying/girlfriend just left them, etc). The first ~150 responses in this thread were excellent and I really feel I learned something from them. Many of the last 30 or so have been an absolute waste of time and I really hope that the mods will consider deleting them. There are far far too many threads on 2+2 that are excellent and could serve as great models of how threads should be handled that are then just absolutely destroyed by idiots unnecessarily interjecting.

One fine day with a woof and a purr, a baby was born and it caused a little stir...no blue eyed buzzard, no three eyed frog, just a feline canine little catdog

CATDOGGGG

CATDOG!!!1


CATDOGGGG

ALONE IN THE WORLD IS A LITTLE CATDOG!

One thing I will agree with is that Galen is one of the smartest ppl in the forum. He is way smarter than me it's not really close, he has owned me in a lot of threads so he is the most qualified to prove me wrong