Coming from the guy who literally just said he wants to smack another poster in the face for having a different opinion from your own. Well played. Clearly we see how much your opinion is worth.

I agree with you, but why the **** are you sticking up for a poker pro? you hurt your head?

Except that you also have to take other things into account with the most significant being that you cannot use the money for other investments in the period of the stake and that you might not get your money whatever the reason. Also taxes.
For reasons like this staking someone with markup is pretty much always a losing proposition for the staker (with a huge variance). However, it's a free market so if people find suckers who will do it, fine.

I have no option to end the stake at any time other than as agreed to in the terms of the deal. Now, if I make the November 9, the bankroll is well over $1M, and all investors wanted to cash out now (obviously they are still keeping full ownership of whatever more I win beyond 9th place money in November) with regard to future events that I might play that year, we could do that. But it would require everyone to agree to the terms of the early end date.

Thanks for your consideration!

but he's a peaceful guy in general!

right, a long term has some other disadvantages

Most people swamping action and buying pieces at the wsop dont have this information so im sure they wont be deterred.

You make my point for me, so to speak. Even if I knew my schedule for all of 2016 with certainty, it would be super-complex to determine the average result for the backers and myself. Even knowing the schedule, I can make guesses will not know the field sizes, the percentage of field paid, the field strength, etc.

But, since investors here are so used to the markup method, I strive to explain why my deal is different than paying markup, but not any worse. I've yet to see somebody explain why they could profitably invest in player X at a markup of 1.2, but how it would not be profitable to invest in player X using my package instead.

Unless I see somebody else's math to the contrary, or come to some realization that I presently do not have, I personally would prefer to back somebody in a package deal like mine, rather than buy a piece in every event at 1.2. Looking at how often their results for the year will be somewhere between a smallish win down to break-even or a loss, it seems like the package deal is better. I do better on all of those outcomes, and only do worse if they have a great year and win huge. Seems like it's a lot better for the investor that the player only comes out ahead when he wins big, but the investor comes out better when results are bad to mediocre, when comparing my package to a standard markup deal.

Thanks for your consideration!

if you see my posts from the first one they were more about the structure of the deal and how usually deals like this are mispriced (not necessarily intentionally) due to a misunderstanding of the complex math involved.

i made it pretty clear that i acknowledge greg has a good reputation, seems to be a good poker ambassador etc based on reputation and is likely (since i don't -know him personally, nor have i dealt with him) a trustworthy guy.

i did say i think this deal is bad and at times used overly harsh wording but overall my main point is simply these kind of deals (long term deals with expiring make up) are often not good for investors. a simple way to put it is in most deals, the 'chance of being down' is very significant, and when the seller is down during that period (as said, this is pretty likely most of the time) the seller takes no loss (or little, if they are buying a piece too), but when they are up, the seller takes a fairly significant cut. so even ignoring factors like fwwm said (mostly that you have to lock up investment for long period etc) which i am not really even considering, the edge of the seller has to be really high just for it to be break even.

you can't say one is better or worse, it depends on the numbers used.. there are a lot of downsides imo to a long-term deal (less clear what you are buying, locking up money long-term) and not too many benefits (other than perhaps being guaranteed more action, which isn't really a benefit and can be also done for the more std method)

i can give you a more simple example though
say a player plays 9-man sngs online. for simplicity assume no rake. one way they could sell is 1.05 mark up. assume a $100 buy-in. that means the ev on each individual sng is $5, if the player has 10% roi.

say you buy 50% of a 10x100$ sng package, you pay 525 for an ev return of 550 or 25$ ev.

now instead, say the player sells a 10x sng package with 'stakeback' (if we are down, buyer loses, if we are up, seller gets x % of the profits).
depending on the finish distribution and %s used, this deal could be better or worse (ignoring the other factors).

50/30/20% standard pay out structure, there are a lot of different ways to make up a 10% roi. for example one that is virtually impossible would be 24.44% first, but 0 2nd or 3rd. another virtually impossible one would be 61.11% 3rd, but 0 2nd or 3rd. the cut for the seller should be significantly higher in the latter even though the roi is the same. if i gave specific numbers of what cut would be appropriate here, it wouldn't do much use since in mtts the variance is much, much higher/different but i imagine for a lot of people reading this who get what i am saying will see why the math is so different, but also why it is hard for the seller to be able to justify a reasonably high % cut in this method, since the chance of being down is quite high, even if they ev is also high.

now in gregs case, the chance of being down isnt necessarily that high, for example if he mostly will play 1ks with small, soft fields, but ultimately it sounds like there will be a lot of tourneys with much higher variance than that (even if the roi is high).

again the reason i suggested to produce some numbers is that in order to price the package like you did, you should be able to say how you came to that number, right? if you sell a single tournament for 1.2, and someone asks you 'how did you come up with that price' it should be easy for you to at least say something along the lines of 'i think my roi in this tournament is x' with x being obviously higher than 20%. when someone asks you how did you come up with this pricing it doesn't sound like you have much reason other than you feel it's a good deal, and you prefer this method, correct me if i'm wrong.

my goal is basically to show why almost no one ITT understands the staking method chosen, and therefore why they have no idea how good or not the deal is, not specifically to prove your deal is bad. (as we've established, i have nothing personal against you). a key thing for me was also to explain that whilst it is out of line/wrong/irrelevant to make personal insults, criticism of the value of a package should certainly be allowed especially if a deal is being posted in a public forum. again to recap, the reasons for this are basically that sellers can unintentionally, or intentionally post offers which are poor, and by allowing free discussion potential buyers can make more informed decisions (esp if there is misintent, not saying there is here again). and, being a reputable/nice guy etc doesn't give special rights to that since they are the ones who are most likely to be bought by people who don't understand better (there are people who don't care if a package is +ev, and just wanna sweat/support, and that is more than fine, but they should have the information available if they want).

peace

It doesn't.
Would you stake jamie gold and expect it to be +ev?

I haven't read Greg's staking proposal and don't know or care what an investor's EV would be, but just speaking in general, this is the ultimate form of tapping the glass.

It would be a lot better if people just kept this stuff in the appropriate places instead of making threads in NVG and broadcasting how unprofitable they think everyone is.

raymers cool. never thought i'd see him of all people get such disrespect..

basically none of what you quoted said anything about how unprofitable or profitable he is specifically, it was a general statement that ppl should stop saying that "if you think it's a bad buy, don't buy it and don't post about it"

also maybe I misunderstood but if you mean either people should let make bad buys (perceived) so either sellers can take advantage, or so bad players can continue to play, both are not good points at all (and neither of my comments are about Greg)

This post is so hilarious. It would be a lot better if people who haven't even read the package would keep their opinions to themselves. Just like its a free market, Greg posting this package in public on this site, social media, & youstake (which I was hoping would generate more discussion about what a joke the terms are on there) makes discussion (& criticism) fair game.

Lol u quoted me I quoted you personal vendetta Rate yourself much I DGAF about u just posting on the boards lol

u somehow find a way to reply to my posts in random threads all around the place and always go out of your way to disagree with often clear logic just for the sake of it then make personal attacks, and we've established you dislike any pros for whatever reasons. say what you want. maybe one day we will find something we agree on, still would love to meet you one day happy NY

I'd rather stake Jamie gold than Greg raymer given the same terms. Compare their tournament results. Also keep in mind that a lot of raymers winnings come from small buyin tourneys in flyover states with little competition.

Well, at least give raymer some credit for trying to find easier games.

Maybe its time to take a break claydol

ugh someone who knows me plz remind me to find better uses of my time

+1, ty

No. I rate Greg higher then Jamie though. Do I respect Jamie Gold for winning the ME? I do , its an amazing accomplishment regardless of him being a massive fish. I think Greg is +EV in large fields like the ME and others due to his live donkament experience.

Seems you are the clueless one. It entitles you to plenty. Including leveraging your status/fame for whatever you want to try for

To the other person who quoted me, I don't hate poker pros. I hate entitled online pros. I think mass grinding live or online is pretty pathetic and a tragic waste of life but whatever, (and live is actually vaguely heroic, if done gracefully)

Just to clarify, you are changing the premise from your own post. You just called someone a massive fish that you claimed...

Seems pretty disrespectful (& silly as you put it) to me.

Greg I can't quote as I'm one my phone.

The reason your investment is just obviously insanely bad and no one has to do the math is because people who are immensely better then you, charge much lower markup. You could win a decent amount in this pack while investors lose. You also get lots of flexibility and the investment is held for such a long time. That markup should be lower as you get all advantages.

The fact people who I'm sure , even you should be able to agree are better then you will offer same pack at lower markup ( who don't even care about the variance ) just to show how wrong you are.

Mr. Raymer, how many bullets each in the 4 HPT wins? Were you provided "as many as it takes" or were you limited? Did they put up your buy ins or did they come out of pocket?