Lol wtf is this? Within the poker world regulating markup has to be near the bottom of the list of **** to be crying for.

Fwiw there never will be regulation. Lol think about it- If there was regulation and transparency nobody would be playing/ aspiring to be a pro/ looking up to HS players. The industry would take a huge hit.

The guy is a huge whale who has run in top the 0.001 percentile for his entire career. He thinks this is a fair investment for others because he doesn't understand variance (or nlh) particularly well. He gets some added EV from amateurs spewing or playing scared vs him because he's known, but its still a rip off and he should definitely be heavily criticised for this. There are tons of guys online who fit every criteria above too.

this is the dumbest post in the whole thread

also people seem to not understand the difference between eg and ev

Just saw that some vlogger(Bikeking) who lives out of his car(not kidding) is selling for the main at 1.4. The guy is horribad based on his vlog and Stones Gambling Hall appearance. I'd say Hellmuth is a steal at 1.8 compared to him selling at 1.4. If Hellmuth can get a bunch of noobs to put him in a 1.8 good for him. He's not hiding what he is doing.

This whole 'controversy' makes me laugh. People make stupid investments every single day that a market of any type is open. It is up to the purchaser of ANY commodity (and yes, that includes poker players) to do their due diligence and determine whether it makes sense.

But where it gets really crazy is that even some of the cabbies in Vegas were talking about it. Had one that took me from airport to Aria the other day that asked my opinion of it when he realized I was in town for poker. He was also a poker player, but for cabbies to be making it part of the conversation says how overblown this is.

Bottom line is that if someone felt it was wise, more power to them. However, the prudent person is NOT likely to find this a wise investment. There was only one person I was ever willing to buy percentages of and she gave me quite a nice return on the three events where I had percentages. But I was never being asked to pay anything more than 1.15 and would have laughed at any attempt to pull something like PH did.

Phil's a smart guy, he knows that you can not compare a $10k super turbo to the main event or a $5k no limit or a WPT main event, he knows this.

He's also a self promoting genius, PH the brand is absolutely unstoppable, he puts a staking package up at 1.8 it sells in a flash, he has guys he plays with in private cash games freerolling him in $300k events, it's a massive EV print at every turn, he built it and he is cashing in on it.

All this controversy plays into his hands like a dream too, because when he wins a big tournament (and he will) he can say "they all said 1.8 was terrible, they all said it - and LOOK, PH rises again from the ashes of scepticism" at this point everyone who was initially sold on his self marketing (which I don't believe to be a bad thing BTW) is now fully villified with the rewards of a nice pile of money... perhaps it's smaller than the pile of money they've spent supporting the PH brand, but I bet it feels nice - and they'll have the big guy telling them how much smarter they are than all this "GTO wizards" who doubted him when he's the biggest winner in WSOP history.

I dont mind any of this either tbh, he's selling a dream and even though he can't deliver the dream like he says he can, he can certainly delivery enough glimpses of the dream to keep the punters happy - and if he loses a few on the way there seems to be plenty more where they came from.

I'm surprised anyone got wound up enough to make a twitter post tbh

Amen

*gasp* a Twitter post! Obviously people with real jobs would never do something so hard and time consuming.

Using the specific numbers from here: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=186 :

If (i) if Horse doesn't sell, then Horse doesn't play and (ii) if Horse does sell, then Horse does play are both true, then: (a) expected result for Horse when Horse doesn't sell = $0.00 and (b) expected result for Horse when Horse does sell = +$280.00.

Yes, Horse is selling at a discount EV that he could capture by playing, so if you want to consider engaging in such sale to be losing EV, ok, but practically, in this situation, Horse has a choice between two scenarios:

(1) Don't sell and have an expected result of $0.00; or
(2) Sell and have an expected result of +$280.00.


I understand that it would be said that Horse's EV is +$300 so selling 10% for $10 is a $20 loss, and so is -EV, but also may be +EG, depending on bankroll size and factors relating to risk. But from a practical standpoint, if Horse can't or won't (for whatever reason) play without selling, then Horse will never be able to recognize that +$300 EV. Horse has a choice between not selling and getting $0 in EV or selling and getting $280 in EV; Horse can never get the $300 in EV.

I'm certainly not a mathematical expert and wouldn't know how to do an EG calculation at all without looking stuff up. If you want to say that it is mathematically correct to say (i) selling is -EV and +EG and (ii) not selling is +EV and -EG, then whatever, fine. But, again, from a practical standpoint in this scenario where it is assumed that Horse does not play without selling, not selling leads to an expected result of $0.00 (anything you don't play in yields a $0.00 profit/loss) and selling leads to an expected result of +$280.




But I think this is becoming somewhat tangential to the original point on this issue (and the original point on this issue was somewhat tangential to the topic of this thread). I think the original point on this issue may have been, and I think that we would all agree, just that it is possible for both the Horse and the Staker to make a profit. This may be accomplished by Horse selling EV at a discount, but presumably Horse does so because he gains in other areas, and the sale may be -EV, but +EG for the Horse.

And who here wouldn't take 1.8 for Stu Ungar? I'd take 10.8

What does EG stand for here? Expected gain?

If he was alive and playing today?

I would 100% take Phil over Stu against today’s players

And at anytime in history (even though he’s not good at cash games) I would take Phil over Stu in a cash game

As although he’s bad at cash games, at least unlike Stu he’s not the whale that the game is running around. By all accounts Stu was an awful cash game player and total fish/whale

Expected Growth (of a "bankroll")

Thanks

his ev doesnt change if he plays or not

you are talking about something totally different

Ive seen this idiotic argument itt repeatedly. At the poker table people realize that other players are trying to take their chips. That's the entire point of the game. When it comes to selling shares, the point of the game is to offer an investment in a profitable venture to help the player either afford to get in the game or reduce variance. Doing things when selling shares to try and "win" investors' money is dishonest. Comparing the two is just stupid. It'd be like saying a boxer can't be against domestic violence because he punches people all the time.

People calling out PH arent calling for him to be arrested or banned from casinos. They are mostly trying to call out someone that is either intentionally or unintentionally ripping people off. People are saying let the market sort it out. People calling out bad deals is part of how the market works. The punishment for bad behavior is a bad reputation. If you think people have their own financial motives for calling him out then call them out. But experts calling out frauds is pretty standard in most fields and disciplines imo.


The WSOPME and a fast speed KO tourney are completely different. Any semidecent poker player is gonna have at least a 50pct ROI in the main. Smarter people than I itt are saying not even top players are going to have that in the tournament at question.

That's another stupid point being made here. That PH's previous WSOP results can be directly compared to his expected ROI in this tourney. The structure and toughness of field is way different than most of what he has played and won in before.

I get things are worth what someone will pay for them. Buyer beware and all that crap. But poker has enough historical scandals and negative overall public view to allow television celebrities to use their fame to rip off unsuspecting fans.

True....the hustlers keep the winnings minus buyin stats somewhere on the moon. Maybe Guy has seen it?

The sleep apnea excuse is so ****ing ******ed lmao. When you have apnea it's the quality of sleep you get which impacts your overall fatigue levels the next day, not the quantity. Racking up more hours of low stage sleep cycles is going to do nothing if not make things worse.



In Hellmuth's defense this is a common myth. It's very common for people of all shapes and sizes to develop sleep apnea including world class athletes. There's many different parts of the mouth and nose that can cause apnea and being overweight and having a lot of excess tissue is just one of many.

I believe him if he says he has apnea but he should be using a cpap machine or mouth piece or whatever his doctors have prescribed for him to be getting a better night's sleep. If he's arguing that simply sleeping longer is his cure for solving the problem he's horribly misguided.

For all practical purposes it does.



Edit:

I wrote 3 paragraphs. Lost it I guess; I'm not sure how. Oh well.

dont think you know what ev is

I’m not crying for regulation because I agree it’s a small issue that impacts very few people and the resources it would take regulate would be disproportional.

This was a response to the post suggesting that because people are free to invest in dud stocks that people should be free to invest in dud staking deals. The point is you aren’t completely free to hustle people in the investment domain.

If you want to pat him on the back for dishonestly representing knock yourself out. This isn’t analogous to people trying to win at poker though. In poker it’s understood that you’re representing your own interests. What makes this dirty is that it gives the false impression that he’s representing investors interests. It’s not as dirty as, say, selling 200% of yourself and intentionally busting out, but hey - i guess if you’re truly about ‘personal choice’ that should be kosher too as long as there was nothing in the contract limiting one’s ability to do so.

I don’t much care that he’s doing it ... it’s more of a PSA for anyone naive enough to still think PH is an honorable guy.

Kinda funny that PH claims that he just wants to give his fans a sweat yet charges 1.8. Still manages to trash everyone else for having a small piece of themselves and wonders why people call him out.

Agreed people can decide for themselves how or what to invest in but definitely pathetic on his part.

To some extent, this is down to the ridiculously high buy-ins. There is far less money pouring into poker compared to 10 years ago, yet buy-ins have skyrocketed. So we're watching players that don't even stand to win most of the money they're playing for. Whee.

I'm using EV in more a slang usage than the strict mathematical definition I guess I'd say.

I don’t think we need to keep going on about this.

So, ok, you’re right: Selling is -EV.

And if Horse sells and plays he expects to make a $280 profit and if he does not sell and does not play he expects a profit/loss of $0, so, despite that, selling is the more profitable option out of those two.