Greg>Jamie AINEC

I claimed nothing. What bothered me was undeserved hate towards GR and the general need to crucify people in NVG coming from trolls and knowitalls.

How is this comparable? The jamie gold that got sued over not honoring a staking deal who only admitted fault after his backer provided a recorded voicemail of jamie screaming youll get your damn money.

Undeserved hate IN YOUR OPINION. Which is all it is & not very valuable at all when you post things like this. Thanks though.

I would suggest he is referring more to the former main event champion jamie gold that pissed away all of his earnings by trying to become the best bluffer in poker history and generally doing nothing but losing since winning the main event

You make a valid point though about him being a douchebag

Why do people bring up Jamie Instead of Jerry? Obviously, mentioning staking Jamie is -Ev since he is a known scammer. And saying you would stake Jerry because he is a wsop ME champ is hilarious. And I'm sure he'd love a stake lol.

Greg, your markup. Should be reduced because of your flexibility, how long you hold it, and having no real good results in recent years. You can slightly but no absurdly up charge because you are "nice" guy, I assume everyone who means nice just means you aren't a scumbag scammer so your reputation as a trustworthy person can increase your markup a little. You can also get away with some higher because being a main champ who still plays and have fans. But better players will do worse like I said before deals just to prove a point ( which is your markup is so insane in which you have all the same upside ).

Sorry Yeno, but you obviously did not understand the terms of my deal. There is NO WAY AT ALL for me to make money while my investors lose money. None, zero. This is a net package. If I break even for the year, we all break even. If I lose for the year, we all lose. If we book a net win for the year, then I will end up winning more than somebody who contributed the same amount to the bankroll as I did, for sure.

Again, read through my explanation on the thread in the marketplace. This is not a markup deal in any sense, and the concept simply does not apply. So saying that others offer a lower markup shows you don't understand what I am offering.

My deal is a variation on a long-term staking deal where the backer is covering all of the buyins, and the player only gets paid if there is a net win. The main difference is that my deal, and any make-up, expires at the end of the year. And that's why I'm asking for a 40% share as the player, rather than a 50% share.

At the same time, I am also one of the backers. But my status as a backer is exactly the same as every other backer. The point of me being a significant backer is that my incentives are now more exactly aligned with those of all the other backers, and not merely the incentives of the player.

Thanks for your input!

I think that every ME champion is + EV to play in the ME, if nothing else then due to their experience of actually WINNING it. That was my point in that post you are referring to.

Being a former ME champ doesn't entitle you to leverage that title for "whatever you want to try for" (such as potentially ripping off less knowledgable investors/poker fans) but believe what you want.

want a no nvg bet til march 1st? 100 dollars? (not as baller as you)

quote to book

Maybe if you did this normally there wouldn't be confusion. Having understood your deal, it's still bad for basically same reasons. You are asking for long term staking, with makeup expiring with an even lower ceiling of their investment then the first. The only difference is you can't make money while investors lose but your cap is much better. This is still incredibly bad deal.

And you thinking that, and thinking you are even possibly right explains why you are a losing fish @ poker ( I haven't read ur post history but I'm p sure of this )

Raymer is a good guy. If someone wants to gamble on his staking deal, I don't think anyone should have a problem with it. He has MTT experience. He has been there before. I think most people would rather gamble with him than some random Joe. I am sure most investors/backers know the risks and are hoping for big returns, but not really expecting them.

nope. I don't see how you made this connection, never mind.

I'll take a shot here. Math included.

1. Ability to re-evaluate at any point. If someone plays 50 soft, reasonably small field tournaments and is losing, I'd not only not want to pay 1.2, I'd not buy at all.

2. There is a huge difference between 10% at 1.2 vs buying 80+% at 1.2. In the former case, the player is only +EV (after expenses) if he's beating the field. In the latter case, you're collecting enough markup to freeroll and can be profitable despite being a losing player. Your deal obviously isn't the same as this, but has some similar elements, but I'm not here to debate that -- just answering your question directly and completely.

3. You know exactly what you are buying and can decide for yourself if it's profitable. With this package, the investor has no idea a) which tournaments you'll play b) the average buy in c) the number of tournaments d) the average field size etc etc.

4. An investment with a very quick turnover (a few days) should require a lower return than one with a 1 year duration. Therefore, to invest in this package, it would have to be way way way more profitable than a 1.2 investment I can make that will be settled within a week.

I would say that there is a 0% chance this is a profitable investment if (theoretically) you played the 10k NLSD 10 times -- and I'm making this comment regardless of your skill level. Even if you were the best player in the field, this would be a horrible investment. Why?

Because poker tournaments are dependent on power law returns. Depending on the payout structure (going to assume they pay between 10 and 16% of the field, and you cash slightly more than average), you'd go 0 for 10 somewhere around 20% of the time.** If you really toiled through the rest of the distribution, you would see this would be massively -EV even if you're decently +EV in the actual tournaments, as a result of carving out an outsized % of profits for yourself in upside cases.

There is a lot of debate and speculation in this thread about what your skill level is relative to the fields, but that is only one small piece of the puzzle. The rest of the puzzle is the volume that you'll put in, the quality of fields you'll play, the size of fields, and the payout structures. Volume is key for any staking deal. Any deal (only staked for cash games) I gave would have either a profit threshold or a volume (number of hands) threshold. Any other type of arrangement where you have little idea what the stakee is going to play makes very little sense -- the deal can be wildly +EV or horribly -EV depending on the volume/schedule. You shouldn't even be playing the WSOP main event on this deal, IMO.

**Let me illustrate with a toy game. Let's say you only play one type of tournament: an 20 man, $5000 buy in, winner take all tournament. Rake is 10%, so first gets $90,000 and no one else gets anything. You are so impossibly good that you win this tournament 7% of the time, which would give you an ROI of 26%. So what's the expected return of this package?

23.4% of the time you'd brick out and lose the entire bankroll.
35.26% of the time, you'd win exactly once, losing just rake (-10k). At this point you'd be able to re-invest in more tournaments, and there is a whole new tree in the calculation.
The other 41.3% of the time, you'd win 2 or more times. In these cases, you'd win an average of 128,119.

So what's the return on one cycle through the bankroll: .234*-100,000+.3526*-10,000+.4131*.6*128119 =~4800. On a 1 year investment of 100,000, 4.8% would be a miserable expected return, especially for an investment with such a risk profile. In addition to that, my assumptions about your ROI are extremely generous. I'll concede that most tournaments aren't only paying the top 5%, but this made the example easier to illustrate. Additionally, I did not bother calculating the sub-cases where you can continue to play more tournaments. But hopefully this goes to show that your intended schedule, volume, ABI, field sizes, and payout structures are extremely important considerations, especially for an investment with a long duration, and buying this package is akin to playing darts in a pitch black room. There is just no way to evaluate it without more information, but my intuition tells me it's a poor buy even if you're a solid winner.

I do think that you should provide more information and add some dis-incentives to playing lower volume or higher buy in events like the main and 10k NLSD that are clearly too big for this bankroll.

Edit: no point posting anything after twoshae crushed it

Greg, a question around the bolded, to clarify.

In the stake details you say that you are one of the investors, to the tune of 20k. Based on a total of 100k, are you saying you have 20% of the investor 60%? i.e. a further 12% on top of the 40% you are already taking from any winnings?

I wish you had posted this gem earlier. It would have saved me from reading your other nonsense.

Greg,

You are wasting your breath with these trolls. There are a lot of trolls in NVG and most are broke or a micro stakes/small stakes grinders. They are going to hate on you no matter what you say. Do they need a reason to hate? Nope! Its not like you are going to convince them using logic or by making some solid points or whatever that your deal is reasonable. They want to hate. NVG hates pretty much everyone except Phil Ivey and Patrick Antonius.

Good luck with your package. I honestly think tournament poker has gotten too tough make a living at unless someone is willing to put in insane volume. The edges are so small and the variance so high.

Another Greg "fossilman" Raymer apologist

How does he not have 2 million in the bank so he has his base and a guaranteed source of income? Really a great monologue and so very true.

Read Two Shae's post if you think the player being profitable is what matters in staking.

Markup is used here for a reason. Its a hell of a lot easier to figure out if you think someone has a >20% ROI in a field than figure out if you show a profit over a year with a 60% cut even if you know the exact schedule(buyins, field size, volume,etc).

Yes i was referring to his poker skills based on the "all main event winners deserve respect" comment.

Isn't he like half sold out in a few days? Seems he doesn't have to lower his price (which is different than whether or not this is a good investment)