https://www.pokernews.com/news/2021/...wsop-39889.htm

Concerned critic accuses: "This markup situation in poker tournaments is never gonna go away, is it? Big names are straight up robbing people once again, and it’s because the people buying simply don’t know enough about the process."

Who cares? Don't buy. It's a market. EV is not life

He can charge 3x mark-up for all I care.

even the sanfriscan monks of the 13th century recognized that any price is a fair price

Has anyone even suggested what a proper markup would be, or is it just bashing the Mouth cuz hes an easy target?

How has Mike done in the $10k Mixed Games events for the past 10 years?

Theres also supply and demand economics at play for him and any other famous player. If there is a fixed supply of action being sold and a large number of fans who want to buy it, then of course its gonna be overpriced.


Edit: I did a rough calc on his $10k Mixed Games results at the WSOP from 2011-19. If you assume he played Stud, Stud 8, Razz, O8, Horse, Dealers Choice, and 8 Game each of those years then thats $640k in buy ins and he has about $327k in results from those events. I could be overestimating how many events he entered but doesn't seem like a smart investment at all. That said if want to a buy a piece of the Mouth for fun and have a good sweat if he makes a run then more power to you.

Thank you, this just confirms my initial reaction which was something along the lines of "how does markup even matter if buying a piece would be -EV with no markup".

This. The complaints couched as "protecting people" just come off as "I wish I could sell at that price".

Might want to revise those calculations a little bit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_W...eries_of_Poker for example

do you see any of those 10k events you mentioned?



A confirmation based on assuming he plays every event in a subset (not likely), over a 10-year span, even when those events were not implemented yet.

Eh . I think your total buyins are way too high. He could easily be a break even player at $10k events (outside of holdem). Regardless, I dont think anyone should care about Matusows mark up, its a free market and if people are willing to pay it than so be it. Now if matusow in his packages was/is claiming that paying a 30% markup is profitable then its a bad look. But i dont think he claims that in his packages ? Simply posts them for sale, and if someone is stupid enough to buy it then thats on them. Even still, i bet some people buying the package understand its negative EV, they simply do it because they either a) like matusow or b) view it as sort of a lottery ticket.

I heard Mike Matusow is a great PLO HL and mixed game player. He must be able to play mixed games if he lives in Vegas. I'd take action on Mike in those events.

I did say rough calc. I just went thru his Hendon Mob to see his results and made an assumption about his buy ins, since theres no way of knowing for sure.

Its immediately wrong because 7 events * 8 years is $560k anyways, math is hard. I assumed that there was a $10k Championship for each discipline every year, but maybe thats a recent thing (did they used to be $5ks?). He also may not play everyone, although if you are a mixed games player, then the WSOP is your time to shine.

He did win a bracelet in a $5k Stud8 in 2013 and I am sure he profitable in $1500s and stuff. He is a really good mixed game player, particular the split pot games.

Im not bashing him. I dont even know what his package entails. Maybe its for everything, $1500s and $10ks included. I just wanted to add a little data to the claim that he isn't profitable in $10ks which seems to be the consensus, and unless he has entered <33 $10ks total over the past 8 years then he has not been profitable in those events. Sample size is really small anyways.

Ahh yes, anytime I get robbed it involves me voluntarily giving the robber money

mike is an outlier in the markup scam. having action on one of the more famous players ever can warrant MU.

Imagine being dumb enough to buy a piece in Mike ****ing Matusow.

Not only that, it's a betting market - lol.

I've had people offer to sell me pieces at markup and I'll never pay it
I just don't think it's worth it

However as long as someone isn't deceiving anyone there is nothing wrong with them charging it

That is my view as well. All these unknown players view themselves as better than some of the old school pros or big names and they can only get 1.2 or 1.3 if they are lucky.

its only worth it if people pay it

if people pay it not knowing what they are buying, they are a mark, a fish, fair game

this is the dumbest argument in all of poker, its rooted in envy, nothing more

poker players have no trouble at all taking advantage of poorer players who don't know what they are getting into ... the idea that there is altruism in this argument is absurd

Is Matusow winning at 1.5 in high rollers? No.
Is Matusow winning in high rollers? No.

Should he be allowed to sell at 1.5? Yes.
Should he be ridiculed and called out for it? Yes.

Seems like all is good

edit: lol @ him selling a 10k plo for 1.5 AND he's selling the Main event at 1.5. Hell that main event may not even be *that* terrible of a buy tbh

Mike's good for the game. He was one of the most outstanding characters that drew me into poker to begin with back in the day

"Mark Up Police" is begging for a parody music video to destroy that position South Park-style

I assume you have seen the anti-markup up video Matusow made years ago... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb3Y2yEAKfw

Mark-up should not be front-loaded. It should come off as a discount AFTER the player cashes. This means the player has to cash to make money. And the deeper he runs, the more he wins. So he will have an incentive to play well. Also, by back-loading it, it removes the ability to scam players by selling more than 100% and then intentionally busting out before making the money.

So instead of paying 1.2 markup up from for 100% of a players action, where the player locks in a gain of $200 for a $1k event and the backer will lose $1200 if player does not cash, instead charge 100% or 1k and backer only loses $1k max. but will then get 80% of net profit. So if the player cashes for $6k, the player wins $1,000, not $200, and player wins $4,000 net.

For randoms, friends, and 95% of all tournament players, 90% to 95% should be the payback for the back end to the backer. Only top pros deserve 80% to backers. (ie 20% to the player).

Here is a study showing 400 top pros only have a 30% ROI in the main event. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

In general, any player (pro or amateur alike) who is able to leverage off their persona or player "brand" is pretty damn clever if you ask me. If some regular joe trusts who they buy into and it is legitimate arrangement unlike with a grifter who reneges, then more power to the borrower aka player and the investor aka lender in the arrangement.

Thing you got to remember is poker for many is still a business. However, in the eyes of the IRS, many pro players can no longer necessarily write off their losses like they once did. But this method is a great efficient and cheap way of offsetting the player's losses. It is not like trading stocks where all your losses can be offset against gains come tax time. My guess is that it is probably not necessarily as good a deal for the staker in terms of their taxes but that is their responsibility just like staking a horse in a race or any other gambling venture. The staker is usually not thinking about the taxes like the house or pro is. This is a very subtle but important angle many miss.