Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarbear1955
Yes you and your backer have different objectives given that the backer by your description is also the house. But why do you seem to feel that is against you? The house will always try to maximize their profit over your profit but in this case the house has less incentive to turn the game into a pure rakefest as opposed to a game where good enough players can win.
Yes both your profits and losses are effected by capping how much you can buy at one time. Given your current position(being in makeup) your backer correctly cares more about limiting the potential loss.
You agreed to the deal with no rakeback. How do you think it benefits your backer do give you any? If that was a deal breaker you should have said no to begin with rather than believe your backer would willingly modify the deal against their interest.
Since you are currently losing no it is neither true or obvious that giving you more money is +ev for your backer. Despite your belief if you go on a losing streak or get hit by a car tomorrow they NEVER get repaid your makeup.
Your "fair" share of rakeback is the share you agreed to when you made the deal. Unless they used force to make you accept the deal; and being unwilling to give you any deal unless you agreed to these terms is not force, you willing accepted that you felt the deal was at least fair to you as they willingly accepted this deal is at least fair to them.
Clear solution is to get out of makeup and renegotiate/end the deal. They have no incentive to renegotiate to make the deal more favorable to you at their expense.
Look at your "My Initial Thoughts". If your first two were deal breakers don't make the deal. Look at the third point and realize you are in makeup not currently a winning player.
Your focus appears to be on what I accepted and not what is in the interest of the horses profit.
Whilst I agree with the sentiments of ‘what I accepted’, you have also ignored (for example) how a change that occurred to the game structure directly effected my average profit rate. And this implementation was not orchestrated to benefit me, just the fish.
The entire point of having a laying history to get staked is to prove beyond reasonable doubt your skill level. I have a sample of 100s of thousand of hands with consistent win rates.
Even the data from my sample clearly illustrates it’s extremely neg ev to restrict the number of times me playing short handed. Wouldn’t a backer who has a direct vested interest in maximising my profit analyse the data? Ie see that 12/12 give or take, times I finish the game off I clean up?
I would also argue the cap has nothing to do with reducing my losses but everything to do with helping start the game, and controlling short term losses in a way the focus is not on maximising horses returns but to maximise passive income.
He claims being down over five months is varience. Yes some of it is, the other is a set up which opposes where max skill level can be applied. Do you think pros are playing Omaha high five card 8 handed, unless there are massive whales?
Whilst the house does not want a rake fest, this does not mean the house doesn’t know how to apply long term strategies to sustain a game. Games are sustained by two methods. Incentivising players comparatively to other clubs, advertising, finding players which are good for action that are consistently in the game.