definitely this.

but people would be treating this a lot differently if it was a 30 year old who binked in 2010 and everything else was the same

in fact, if greg is smart, the age (and celebrity) thinng is a huge advantage

That's funny because I remember Ryan Riess getting slammed a lot worse than Greg ever has when he wanted to sell that HR package in the months following his win (people going crazy because he claimed he was the best player in the world probably had a lot to do with it). Get out of here with the age discrimination nonsense.

nah

So because some people on Twitter favorited one person's opinion that's age discrimination?

also nah

im not saying he doesnt deserve to get **** for the ridiculous mark up masquerading as an investment, but i doubt anyone ITT has played more than 1000 hands with him and the clear "LOL OLD" undertone in poker threads is bad for the games and douchey in general

there is some age discrimination going on by ppl who r prob fish themselves and don't win in poker but a lot of good (good and douchey not being mutually exclusive) players hating on this insanely bad value package have nothing to do with his age, it's little to do with his skill and more the package set up. if Ryan riess made a similar package for shrs it'll get similar hate for similar reasons, same if Peter Eastgate randomly came back to sell a highly priced 100k package

I honestly don't think its so bad. The guy has expenses and probably doesn't want to dip into his nest eggs as other people have stated. Variance in tournaments in insane and he wants to try and minimize it. He says he is going to be mostly playing buy-ins up to $2k and the WSOP. He doesn't have a shady history or anything. Its mostly people just think "OMG He won $7 million, where the munies go?!!"

I generally think staking is a suckerz game for most people but what he is selling is better than 90% of whats in the market place. Especially when you consider the chance to get scammed there is much greater there than with Greg.

it's like people are being mean about him being old, but 90% of the (mostly valid) comments about the packages worth are still true. it's rude and inappropriate and comparable to saying about someone (not Raymer) "this ugly/dumb/racist comment" etc is selling a terrible package, it's rude and out of line but doesn't stop the second part (bad value) being true


nothing wrong with what he is doing selling a package, and reasons are possibly legit. but the package is priced/set up poorly (he isn't necessarily intentionally being unethical or something, good chance he thinks it's +ev for investors)

One thing that bothers me - last year he sold part of his action, just like he's doing now. But then several months later he raised more money for WSOP buyins, leaving only a very small share of his action for the first round of investors.

If you were one of the first round of investors and thought you would be getting a sizable share of any WSOP winnings, you'd have been screwed. Turns out he only won a grand total of $5500 (which was a significant net loss since this doesn't include WSOP buyins). But if he had won the ME (lol) the first round of investors would have been VERY disappointed.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18...vents-1534207/

Did you read the OP in that thread? - he said that the ME was part of the original stake, as were smaller buy-in events.

Age has nothing to do with it AFAIAC. I don't think he's a winning player at medium/high stakes and I'm expressing my opinion that this staking deal is -ev for prospective investors.

He's been playing for years and does not have a consistent winning track record. He had one huge haul when he got a rush of good cards at the ME. But as we all know pretty much anyone can get lucky and win the ME.

Pretty funny if his wife doesn't work but wants to tell him to sell pieces.

I think this is a bad investment,smart on Raymer's part and at least he isn't a scumbag so you'll get paid if he's up.

Did you check the link? Last year after the first staking deal he later went on and sold more shares in himself, diluting that initial investment. Just click the link, don't take my word for it.

I did read it - did you? He says the ME was part of the original package and he was trying to raise money for other high buy-in events outside the scope of the original investment.

True dat, and the other $2.5M was also just pure luck.

BTW, you express your opinion about my skill level, but have you ever played with me? And are you good enough to be a valid judge of skill level even if you have? How would we know, and why should anyone think your opinion has any merit?

Not hating on you, just asking valid questions. AMIRITE?

it's less about your skills and more about the price/set up of the package. how many tourneys on average with what ABI do you expect to play this year? what average roi do you need for investors to break even on this set up? (break even is not a good deal for investors) I bet you haven't done this math

but yes your skill compared to the average field now is certainly lower than it was when you won the main

Well, he did say beforehand that he might do this if the bankroll was too small to play certain events (see below link). The alternative was to not play those events at all.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=69

My argument stands on its own merits. You are committing a fallacy by suggesting that my own personal success or lack thereof has any bearing on the objective facts.

If your investors in years past have made money staking you, say so. Tell us the ROI each round of investors earned. Don't cherry pick and only give results from 2004.

Let's try putting it this way. Imagine a player who is good enough that you would be willing to buy a piece of them in every event they play all year long at a markup of 1.2. This player is going to enter 200K worth of buyins, so you will have to pay $2400 to have 1% of them in each and every event.

Would you rather pay $2400 for that 1%, or pay $1000, and back them in a deal such as the one I am offering?

In hindsight, the correct answer will be obvious, of course. But at this time, not knowing how good or bad they will do, there is no way for you to say which is going to be the better deal. If they do anything from a loss to a net win of $100K or less, my deal works out better for you. Only if they have a net win or over $100K do you do better by having bought $2400 at a markup for each event individually.

This is why I don't understand the hate and the negativity regarding my offer. If I underperform, it works out better for the investors to have done it this way. Only if I overperform will the investors wish they had just bought pieces individually. This seems ultimately fair to me, I only get a bigger piece if I get better results.

Please let me know how your math indicates that my deal is unfair.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

I never said anything about your results. I asked on what basis you are judging my skill. Have you ever played with me? And if you have, then we would need to have some idea of your skill level in order to estimate how much value your opinion would have when it comes to judging my skill level. I'm pretty sure we would all agree that if a very unskilled player were to sit down for an hour and play with a mix of top pros and unskilled amateurs, that he would not necessarily be able to provide us with useful feedback on his opponents. He simply would not be able to judge the skill level of his opponents, because his skill level is so low. He wouldn't appreciate the difference between a skillful play that didn't work this time, an unskillful play that worked out, or anything else for that matter.

So, if you're going to pronounce your judgment on me, why not at least let us know the basis for your judgment?

Yes, MikkeD did check the link and so did I. Apparently, you have a problem with reading comprehension because what MikkeD posted is correct. The initial investors are the ones who had a piece of Raymer for the main event. So, I would suggest that you click on that very same link you provided and read it again; this time very slowly. Or better yet, I will just C&P the relevant sentence for you:

Have you got it now?

I have no horse in this race, but has the policy in the marketplace changed and people are allowed to write in threads there that the packages seem to be -EV for investors?

Seems a little bit unfair to me to drag one package to NVG, just because its a former ME champ to get attacked by new acounts here?

If you think its a good investment buy shares, otherwise don´t.

It's relevant to the point that he won't screw you if he wins.

This is the basis of my assertion that your proposed staking arrangement is a bad deal: you could simply disclose how your investors have fared in the past, but you choose not to.

You have this information. If your investors made money, post the results and make me eat crow.

If you don't post your results, we can infer from your refusal that they would discourage investors.

This question is a good example of not really thinking through my offer. If I achieve even a 0.1% ROI this year, my investors will have made money. 0.1% of 100K is $100. If we had a net win of $100, then each $1K piece will get back their $1K, plus 60 cents (their 1/100th share of 60% of the profit).

Obviously this is an oversimplification, as a hypothetical player who had a 0.1% edge would often finish the year in the red, often win more than $1, and only rarely net a win of exactly $1. After considering a statistically valid sample size of random years, backing this player would lose you money. But I'm more than slightly confident that my edge is a lot more than this.

duh. As is true for every player out there who was more than a total newb in 2004. The average skill level in the field for events of all sizes is tremendously higher than it was in 2004. So clearly my edge against the field is lower than it was. But it is still very high, IMO.

If you feel otherwise, simply do not invest. Not sure why my threads gather so much hate, and yet when I look through other marketplace threads, I do not see hardly any hate or negativity at all. Nobody has ever posted any math showing how my offer is unfair, or would only be profitable if I was a player with a massive edge on the field. If you have such math, please show us. If not, then why such a strong opinion?

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)