Lol dude wins millions in poker and his shrew wife thinks hes not a winning player?

Its probably a sexless marriage anyways.

I think that people do not take into account is the fact that Greg has very good game selection.
you are comparing him to some so called(or self proclaimed) top players which charge lower markups for epts and 6max wsop tournaments, but Greg goes out of its way to go to some US tournaments in the middle of nowhere like the HPT and stuff like that, which are obviously much softer.

He busted the entire roll two years in a roll he's clearly not game selecting hard enough/minimizing variance enough playing in cash games/sngs or whatever else to be this great professional that you speak of.

I cannot say anything about his Skill Level, i have never played with him before. i was just pointing out that he has probably better Game selection than most.

I wasn't playing in the WSOP back then but I don't believe they took anything out of the prize pool for the staff tip, like they do now. So tipping a few percents was very common back then. Since the WSOP win was such a big prize him tipping 1% seems reasonable.

As far as cash staking goes, it one thing if you're staking someone who plays in your local casino, where you know many regs and dealers, its another thing to stake someone that might be playing in a new place each week. At least with the former I might here from some friends that such and such is doing well or my stakee has been running bad and I could get some confirmation.

From the little interaction I've had with Greg, it seems like he's trustworthy and a good guy but the cash game thing makes it sketchy to me.

What cash game stakes is greg playing? I recalled he posted he played some 1/2 and 1/3nl as well. Does anyone here think that is really amazing? I would been shocked if i was sitting at a 1/2 or 1/3nl game and then greg raymer takes a sheet and wasn't just donking around and was serious. So i guess his main game is 2-5nl?


He made a lot of money in the wsop when he won it. But after all the expenses, i assume he made at least 1.25 million at least net? im curious where did the money go? From looking at raymer, he seems like a very smart guy that would be pretty risk averse so im very shocked that someone like him would need staking

They money didnt go anywhere, thats why hes doing this. When he was a PS pro he got all his buyins paid for so his earnings could be safely invested. Since he is no longer PS pro he has to risk his own money and his wife isnt willing to deal with swings. They got used to a new standard of living after his WSOP win and shes not gonna let there be even the smallest chance of it changing for the worse.

If I remember correctly, be said he lost $ the year before, but not that he busted the roll. He also said he was a winner in cash last year, but over a small sample size

My cash game sessions last year totalled 24, and I was a net winner of a few thousand. My cash game sessions in 2014 also numbered just a couple of dozen or so, and I lost a few thousand. None of it is even remotely statistically useful. To be honest, neither are my MTT results. Playing 90 or so MTTs just doesn't give you a set of results that can be analyzed in any statistically useful sense.

All of this is why I don't talk results in my posts until asked. I don't play up my past glories as proof of the +EV nature of this investment, nor do I point out the negative results. I am happy to point out that I am considered anywhere from a very good to an excellent player by other players who actually have experience playing with me. But, unless you are personal friends with one of those players, not much I can do to to help you decide. Since I'm not an online grinder with huge numbers of results, I cannot prove anything. But, if you trust me to be honest, think I'm probably a pretty good player since I have done well in the long run, and would enjoy reading detailed reports several times per year, then this might be a good investment for you. If not, thanks for your consideration.

To everyone who had nice things to say about me, or who asked reasonable questions, thank you, it is appreciated. For those who just spewed venom, either openly or in the guise of a question, meh, haters gonna hate, try to move beyond your misery.

Best wishes, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Did you tip 50k when you won the main?

Lol if he tipped 50k. Can't be real.

He hasn't answered so that should be your answer.

-goes back to his miserable life-

Played with Moneymaker at 2/5@MGM after his win, though Greg played higher stakes before his win... I'd think it was weird unless it was like at Winstar when he used to promote the River

^ got a good chuckle

I liked the idea but I'm holding out on my stake for a Jamie Gold package.

" I promise you there’s no way anybody will go anywhere with your money. "

I'm with you - this is the part I don't get. I mean I'm an occasional player who plays about 3 weeks a year, and I find NL/PL up to 5/10 or 10/20 during the series really soft, and ditto fixed limit up to 40/80 (100/200 during the series). This is in Vegas. Now supposedly Greg is a world champ (not that that means anything) and winning high stakes mixed player (that should mean something) and he's playing 1/2 and 1/3? Was the 2/5 game too scary?!? He seems like a smart guy, and people seem happy to entrust him with a large stake year after year. So why on earth can't he move up at least to the mids?

The deal Greg is offering can be translated to markup.

As part of the analysis, 1) the 5% fee was not included and 2) Greg the investor was ignored since it has no bearing on the other investors whether he is an investor or not.

The deal is a Modified 60/40 split which translates to a 1.667 max markup. The markup ratio increases along an algorithm from 1.00 to 1.667 since the investors do not have to pay markup until there is a profit blending no markup on the buy-in amount with 1.667 markup on any profit above the buy-in amount. The only other variable is how much is spent in buy-ins which weights the zero markup.

Basically, no matter the buy-in amount, the deal translates to overall markup as follows:

Loss to Breakeven results in 1.00 (No) MU
50% return on BI results in 1.1538 MU
100% return on BI results in 1.25 MU
150% return on BI results in 1.3158 MU
200% return on BI results in 1.3636 MU
250% return on BI results in 1.40 MU
300% return on BI results in 1.4706 MU
400% return on BI results in 1.50 MU
1,500% return on BI results in 1.60 MU

So, the pro to Raymer’s deal (Modified 60/40 split) compared to paying a flat markup somewhere between 1.11 (90/10 split) to 1.33 (75/25 split), is that investors pay no markup on a loss to breakeven which happens 7 out of 8 times but the con is that investors give up 15%-30% equity on a big win.

Greg - with regard to the point you made that you have a disincentive to chase your losses, it simply isn't true.

Let's say you have $10k of the roll left come December. As things stand, you'd be due $2k of that back. What's to stop you buying into the $10k Five Diamond for instance, effectively turning it into a $2k event as far as you're concerned where you'd be due back 100% of any returns from that 20%, however if you bink big you'd be effectively freerolling an extra 32% on any score above $100k?

Seems like the perfect incentive to gamble it up to me.

..or a more extreme example to illustrate my point..

You have $50k of the roll left. What's to stop you buying into a $50k event which has a mincash of 100k? If you mincash, you get 20% (equivalent to your stake), anything over and above a mincash you get a whopping 52%.

You could even sell the extra 20% at face value (not suggesting you would) and get yourself on a complete freeroll for 32% of anything above a mincash.

OffTh3Radar, there can never be a complete disincentive. For percentage splits like my deal, typically the investor(s) are putting up all of the money, and the player contributes time and skill. If that were the deal here, I have zero disincentive to not chase losses. But, by also being one of the investors (and in this case, by far the largest single investor), at least there is some disincentive to not chase losses.

Also, if anybody is interested, tomorrow is the deadline to invest. If you wish to buy in blocks of $1K, you can talk to me directly. If you wish to buy less than $1K, then you can do so at https://www.youstake.com/projects/gr...ent-cash-play/ in $100 blocks, but will incur a 5% fee paid to the website.

You can PM me here with any questions, or go to www.fossilmanpoker.com/contact.html.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

..but you were actually arguing that the way the deal is set up gives you more of an incentive than normal not to chase your losses, when I believe I've illustrated that the opposite is the case.

In the $50k example I gave with a $100k mincash, you have every incentive to disregard the actual bubble to a certain extent (thereby exploiting people who are playing correctly, which makes it even more +ev as far as you're concerned) as the first pay jump after the bubble is disproportionally more important to you than to anyone else. This obviously makes it -ev for your investors, for whom a mincash would be a pretty big deal.

I'm not suggesting this is all part of your plan (the overwhelming consensus seems to be that you're a stand-up guy), but I believe it's a dynamic of the staking arrangement that may come about towards the end of the year that you may not have fully considered.

All I'm saying is compare it to the same deal where I put up none of the money. In such a case, I have zero reason to not go crazy if stuck near the end of the year. At least, zero monetary reason; reputation and such always comes into play, as does personal values and such. But if we just look at the numbers, obviously an investor is more protected if I also buy a big piece. If I don't buy a piece, then your examples mean I have zero downside to take on huge risk. If I own a big piece, at least there is some downside for me financially to do that.

More importantly, if you don't like the deal, for whatever reason, don't invest. If you like the deal, think I'm a good player, think you can trust me, and it makes sense given your financial situation, then do invest.

It's really that simple.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

/thread

I can assure you there are worse ways to spend your money.