I’m not sure I understand your point...

Skating/selling shares isn’t regulated as far as I know so there isnt any rules in place that say what he should charge

Yes all the nerds out there will break down ev/results/when he shows/what he had for breakfast/when his last bowel moment was to try to define what he should charge

But at end of the day he can choose what he wants as long as it’s not regulated

If people disageee they a) can choose not to invest or b) go to timex website to get a different mu

Ph doesn’t care about others and if he sold out at 1.8 he most likely will sell higher next time to maximize his earnings

It's not just lolsamplesize, it's also the fact that no one knows what his net result are. Nobody who knwos anything about poker would look at tournament cashes as a meaningful measure of anything.

The issue has nothing to do with whether he's a winner though. It's that it's almost unimaginable that HE HIMSELF would think that a 1.8 markup would be justified in a high stakes turbo tournament as an investment.

He's just booking bets for recreational gamblers and giving half baked "investment advice" that's intended to deceive. And apparently it works!

There's really no precedence for how this would be treated legally as far as i know. Even if they did decide to enforce in ways that were congruent with pump and dump laws it would be near impossible to prove bad intent.

It's fair to say that there's no realistic legal recourse and that he's 'smart' for capitalizing on the opportunity.

It's just also appropriate to point out that he's working the edges of what would be considered ethical in an industry that's pretty scummy to begin with. But then i guess it shouldn't be surprising from a guy who made his mark on the industry by shilling for AP/UB.

But no one in this thread actually done this. For all the people saying that 1.8 markup is clearly a scam, I haven't seen anyone put forth a good faith proposal for how Phil should calculate his fair markup.

Why? Because NO ONE knows their fair mark up price, or the fair mark up price of anyone else.

The only way to determine a fair price is for the player to guess at their own skill level and sell at that amount, and for buyers to guess at the skill level of the players on the market and buy if they think the price being offered is fair. It seems like that is exactly what Phil and his buyers have done here.

I am pretty sure that being the best player in the world entitles you to more than a measly 1.9 markup.

Maybe all markup is a scam and concentrating on Hellmuth just lets the other guys off the hook.

He could be charging 3.50 markup for a turbo 1 table razz sit n go and you could make the same argument.

The bounds of what constitutes a 'reasonable edge' might be fuzzy but i'm pretty sure you won't find a single person who's won at poker over a statistically significant sample who would think that this is even close to a fair price for a small field $10k turbo tournament.

If he charged 3.5 markup, he wouldn't get buyers...at least partially evidenced by the fact that Hellmuth -didn't- charge 3.5 markup. So in fact, I could make the same argument.

And I'm not sure there exists a single person who has won at live tournament poker over a statistically significant sample size. Though Phil Hellmuth might be the one person who has come closest.

he may also be the closest to establishing himself as a definitive loser for all we know.

there probably are a few who would buy at 3.5 markup and if was brandishing a recent string of final tables to justify it, it would be deceptive for the same reasons. On the other hand whose to say he doesn’t have a 351% roi? You can’t definitively say that he doesn’t. I guess if he finds senile old ladies with gambling problems to invest at that price all the more power to him!

If he’s not selling as an investment he’s booking bets, which is illegal for other reasons.

This is my favourite post ITT

Exactly.

Like i said before, he's selling a dream that he can sort of deliver enough of to keep the punters happy.

We can't say 100% sure but it's pretty much nailed on he's a decently big winner in these big field WSOP-style events. Hellmuth suggests that because his record in these is so good (which it is, lets give him that) that he can justify 1.8 mark-up in a $10k super turbo. Obviously this is nonsense I would suspect he knows this too but this is what it is.

He doesn't suck at poker, he has formats of the game he's a legit big winner in and cash games lineups he'd be a big favrouite in (like anyone else) but he's either too deluded or too arrogant to realise that the same strategy and style of play in a $2500 WSOP event won't work in the $300k. He's been making the mistake for the best part of 2 decades. He should show other, strong players, some more respect really.

1.8 markupis quite insane even for him. I dont buy the whole "experience" tale either, it just doesnt make sense.

so you don't believe certain players have edges in certain fields?

A player can have an edge and still charge markup at a rate that could be considered a scam.

He's probably addressing your suggestion that all markup may be a scam.

So then you agree that he himself (probably) believes that the 1.8 is a bad deal but that he's cherry picking data to mislead people into making a losing investment (to his benefit).



Rephrase this in terms of any other form of investment. You know of a stock broker who has a reputation for being successful at trading, and he's hyping up a company / advising people to invest based on claims that a seasoned investor would know are misleading. After publicizing his stock tips, he sold his stake in the company for a higher price than would previously be possible, which he was eager to sell at because he knew that it was worth far less. It's a textbook pump and dump.

The fact that he's a successful trader is less an argument why he's justified in doing it than it is evidence of his intent to mislead and defraud.

Is it an investment that he's selling, or is he selling action to punters? If it'st he former he's subject to SEC rules/regulations. If it's the latter he's booking bets and violating a whole separate set of laws. His only saving grace is that you can't prove intent which is it will never be pursued legally.

I for one think that Phil absolutely believes himself to be worth 1.8 mark-up. He believes that he alone has "white magic" and that if it wasn't for luck, he'd win every tournament. However self-delusional this may, he sincerely believes he is by far the best player in the world.

Just stop with this. There's no basis for this being subject to SEC regulation. It could obviously fall under gambling regulation, specific to each state, and I suppose some federal laws. But in no case the the legality of selling tournament shares going to be contingent on the amount of mark-up.

Should of been a 3.50 MU, don't know why everyone is stressing, Hellmuth is the GOAT

I'm not saying that they certainly are subject to securities laws and subject to regulation by the SEC. But I really wouldn't be so sure about your statement that there is no basis therefor. To me, without really digging into things, they do bear resemblance to "investment contracts" as such term has been interpreted for the purposes of the Securities Act of 1933.


...

Hi Abbaddabba:

I’m wondering if just the opposite is true. If Hellmuth’s big edge in tournaments is getting bad players to call huge bets because they become suspicious that they’re being bluffed, then his edge might actually be higher in one of these turbos if it contains a much higher percentage of bad players than a more standard tourney would have.

One thing to keep in mind is that getting a huge call ever now and then from a bad player when you make some sort of ridiculous over bet can make up for a lot of playing errors.

Also, I think this is whati Negreanu was doing with his “small ball” strategies that brought him so much tournament success. However, I do believe Negreanu is a much better overall player than Hellmuth and has a much better understanding of Poker strategy.

Best wishes,
Mason

I don't know if you're trolling or not.

Well I agree with the fact Negreanu is better overall then hellmuth

First part seems like a troll tho

+1 I hope everyone is going to be writing to Nike informing them that the £150 pair of trainers they purchased cost £3 to make.

Google translate for 'Merica

+1 I hope everyone is going to be writing to Nike telling them that the $150 pair of sneakers they brought cost $3 to make USA USA USA.

I’m not trolling. If you’re successfully exploiting many of your opponents, even if your understanding of why it happens to be correct is minimal, and it’s something that no one else (at that time) is doing, just by chance you could have a large edge. This also helps explain why Hellmuth, who did so well in tournaments also did very poorly in cash games.

And one other thing. If you talk to Hellmuth, as I have, he’ll quickly tell you how much better his no-limit hold ‘em tournament results are than his other tournament results. Well, the strategy of making huge overbets isn’t available in many other forms of poker.

Best wishes,
Mason