1.42 markup is a joke. Stealing from the poker community to cover expenses lol. Anyone that would pay that type of markup is a muppet.

The final markup was 1.00.

Based on 100K of buy-ins he was break even and everyone got their stake back. That's equivalent to 1.00 make up*

If the mark-up had been 1.42 and he'd broke even, he would have returned 70K to investors and profited 30K himself.

I still go with what I said a year ago. He should have just sold 80K of his tournament action at 1.2, and used the extra 16K as a private cashgame budget, He would be 16K ahead and would not have to deal with all this suspicion.

*This is for direct investment, people who you-staked are in a position equivalent to paying 1.05.

Historically 1.42 is a low markup for WSOP events. Not saying i'd pay it, but ive seen lots offered at 1.5+.

Raymers package isn't just tourneys, it's a mix, so what is the correct markup for cash game staking on a one year deal?

Game selection matters. 1.42 might be good or bad depending upon the horse and the tourneys and cash games they will play.

Markup is an irrelevant concept to the deal I am offering. It just doesn't apply.

Last year I played about $131K in buyins through the year-long bankroll deal. We essentially broke even. If I had sold at markup, I would have made a nice profit. But, every investor got 100% of their investment returned, so in the end, it was equal to them buying a piece in each individual event at a markup of 1.0 (zero markup). If I had won the WSOP main event again, then it would have been as if they had bought me at a VERY high markup. But since you can't say what markup my deal is equal to until you know the result at the end of the year, you simply cannot properly use the markup concept to evaluate the EV of the deal.

The only way to evaluate the deal is to estimate how often I break even, how often I will have a net loss or net win, and what ranges of net losses and wins are likely. And then calculate from those what your expected return will be.

If you're interested, you have until next Wed to buy a share. If you're not, no problem. If you have questions but are not interested, then I'm not interested in your questions. Please ask somebody else.

But can we retire this silliness about markup? It is like trying to weigh an apple on a scale that measures temperature.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Wat......

Specifically with $131K of winning the investors would have been returned $92.2K and Greg as a player would have profited $38.8K (also their loss) under a markup of 1.42. Can people who insist there was mark-up in this deal please explain how both parties are break even?

Under a breakeven (or losing) scenario his deal is equivalent to markup of 1.00. IMHO this kind of "make-up" deal is a lot better (if the term is long enough) than a "mark-up" one.

For the mix events I've seen specialists charge has high as 1.6 and get it.

Again, I would never pay that but I'm a nit. It's reasonable to think there are spots where good players have an expectation higher than that.

But but but that's not what they're used to!! So who cares if it works for Greg and his backers and is actually much more beneficial to the investors in a break-even or losing year than a standard markup deal. Which is also funny because usually the bashers want to crap on Greg's game too, so they should be happy he is offering these deals instead of a basic 1.2 deal.

Greg has never been anything but a friendly person at the table and when approached, and conducts himself with integrity. I wouldn't doubt for a second the security of my funds were I an investor.

If result were posted he'd be banned

Gregs 1.42 is not bad if you look at what Jamie Gold 10k World Series stake. He sold 60% At 1.60. That 9600,so it cost him 400 for 40% of the action.

How on earth could anyone be suspicious of someone asking people to invest in him playing untracked cash games.

What were the results of this for 2017? Did he do the same for 2018?

He tweeted out today that he has busted his summer roll with the exception of the main event.

Maybe his mentor and great friend, Judas Ferguson, will loan him a few million from his stolen cache?

Cmon greg you were lucky enough to win the main event
Don't cry about bad beats
Boo Hoo ace ten lost to ace 7
that's where money in poker comes from
You won the main event!

Couldn't he make a decent living selling coaching and/or doing promotional appearances at card rooms? You'd think that any former main event winner should be able to ride that notoriety to a decent bankroll for the rest of his life.

how big was the roll?

Who’s gonna buy coaching from a guy who won the Main 14 years ago and has like 2.5M in tournament cashes since?
I assume 2.5M over 14 years is break even at best, but then again I’m a speculative ass

A lot of casuals would probably pay for coaching from people like Raymer, Moneymaker, and Gold. They are more well-known to the typical rec player than people like Chidwick and Bonomo. Doesn't matter if they're vastly inferior players. It's all about perception, like Trump being a "good businessman" and "billionaire". Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Raymer has definitely had a lol summer.

Judas sold out Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver, fossilman shouldn't expect much.

That is funny, he hasn't been in that many tournaments in the series, I guess he must have lost most his backers money playing all those untracked cash games he includes as part of the package he sells.

I wonder how well he knows any of the guys he loses to in those cash games.

case in point-i seriously have 0 clue who chidwick is.

That can't be for real.