PokerTips.org Forums

PokerTips.org Forums (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/index.php)
-   PokerTips Lounge (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=63)
-   -   Future staking opportunities... (http://www.pokertips.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51655)

skeptix82 Oct 01, 2007 5:59am

Future staking opportunities...
 
Wanted to get opinions on things.

I realize I've been loser in recent staking, so I'm wanting to gauge interest. Answer the poll and provide further opinions please.

EDIT : The actual answers refer to some sort of package. I very much realize that the more tournaments in a staking deal = lower variance. Still, post any thoughts you all have. I figure some of you are fed up and others have expressed further interest, let me know where you stand on this.

KyleJRM Oct 01, 2007 6:30am

I might stake again if it seems like a fun package. I'm not too fussed that you lost about half on the last one. I'd expect that's a standard result for the most part, and that most of the long-term winnings would come from a single big score here and there.

Seb47 Oct 01, 2007 6:46am

I am willing to stake you in any decent event. However I think it would be nice if you had like 25-33% of your action like you had for the WCOOP.

If you wanna play some low buyin WSOP event I would be willing to stack you.

Just one though : You cant come to a 500$ event and not be willing to play it to the end, you absolutly have to be fully focused on the tournament (well if you want me to stake you at least, but I am pretty sure most people were quite shock to see you started a 530$ tournament and was willing to ask another player to finish it) or cancel the deal.

Grisu_1981 Oct 01, 2007 8:31am

I think I remember (read: correct me if I'm wrong there) that in your "I am a bad poker player" thread there was a little discussion of your style of tournament play fitting the shorter stack tournaments better than tournaments with a rather deep stack. Thus the WCOOP wouldn't have been your best game.

So if the above is true to some extent I would like to stake you again for packages which involve your best games stackwise :biggrin:. I couldn't vote on that because I wouldn't know which option to pick.

emang8 Oct 01, 2007 8:50am

i voted for the last one, because it's true :mad:

tigga Oct 01, 2007 9:37am

maybe, stars isn't your favourite site.

what about stacking opportunities on other sites, e.g. Bodog?

Seb47 Oct 01, 2007 10:16am

maybe you didnt read the poll and figured it would be cool to post a random comment ?

eg : answer #4 => hint : FTP = full tilt poker

Molinero Oct 01, 2007 10:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seb47 (Post 545330)
maybe you didnt read the poll and figured it would be cool to post a random comment ?

eg : answer #4 => hint : FTP = full tilt poker

Maybe you figured that this post would make you look cool - it's doesn't. Why be such a smug?

On the staking part:
I'll stake you for anything if I can afford a share or two - I admit that I find it fun to rail and watch you play.

Seb47 Oct 01, 2007 10:41am

Cause its fun to be a "smug", whatever that means.

Iestyn75 Oct 01, 2007 11:59am

I bought my share because a) I've seen enough of Skeptix' play to believe that he could/would cash in a few events and b) it was the only way I could afford an interest of any sort in the WCOOP. Nothing changes by his showing this year.

My only observation is that I also would have liked Skeptix to take a check on his preparedness for an event. Seems to me that playing very big deepstack MTTs day after day is bound to take its toll, and that there must be appreciation from backers that if Skeptix isn't right, he must be allowed to back out of something, with the buy-in being returned pro-rata of course.

I'd certainly be interested in a package where I bought (say) 2% of an interest in 10 weeks' worth of Sunday $200+15.

LimpIn Oct 01, 2007 6:31pm

I like Iestyn's idea and wholly agree with what he said. But I still might vote for Skeptix is a bastard :shock:

skeptix82 Oct 01, 2007 6:45pm

Well, if we've learned anything so far from this poll, I am a bastard.

Responding to a couple points...

Quote:

However I think it would be nice if you had like 25-33% of your action like you had for the WCOOP.
Having 50% of the net is enough to make me play my best game. In fact, knowing that I'm playing for others tends to make me do things I wouldn't normally do (such as 1-table and not get crazy stoned deep in an event).

Quote:

Just one though : You cant come to a 500$ event and not be willing to play it to the end, you absolutly have to be fully focused on the tournament (well if you want me to stake you at least, but I am pretty sure most people were quite shock to see you started a 530$ tournament and was willing to ask another player to finish it) or cancel the deal.
There was a previous staking deal where I slept through an event. Stakers were fully refunded for that event's buyin. There was only one event this go around that sleep became an issue, and I was fully prepared to play it out if no one could take over, I just felt that if I went deep it might be in everyone's interest to let me pass it off to a more alert player. In the future I will include something outlining refund policies in the event that I cannot play.

Quote:

I think I remember (read: correct me if I'm wrong there) that in your "I am a bad poker player" thread there was a little discussion of your style of tournament play fitting the shorter stack tournaments better than tournaments with a rather deep stack.
That thread was written quite a while ago. Many of the things I discussed there do not apply today. As of now I prefer good structures in tournaments, as I've mostly switched over to playing small-ball.

Quote:

maybe, stars isn't your favourite site.
I fully believe that my numbers on stars are an example of the variance inherent in tournaments. There have been so many $100+ buyin tournies where I got really unlucky deep. A $20k score would make things look mighty different. That being said, FTP is definitely my best site (I have absolutely no interest in playing on Bodog at the moment).

expopcorn Oct 01, 2007 7:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iestyn75 (Post 545351)
I bought my share because a) I've seen enough of Skeptix' play to believe that he could/would cash in a few events and b) it was the only way I could afford an interest of any sort in the WCOOP. Nothing changes by his showing this year.

This completely matches my reasons for staking, plus its nice to rail with a personal interest in the result.

Quote:

I'd certainly be interested in a package where I bought (say) 2% of an interest in 10 weeks' worth of Sunday $200+15.
I think something like this would be a really good idea. Pick your favourite tournament/time and sell shares for a 10 week block.

skeptix82 Oct 01, 2007 7:38pm

I'm not really finding anything stakeable on FTP aside from the Monday 1k.

Maybe something where we set out X number of $215 sunday buyins for the Warm-Up, the Million and the 2nd chance. That way I can play them as ready and there won't be an issue if I don't want to play an event or am tired, we just move the buy-in to the next one.

Thoughts?

Seb47 Oct 01, 2007 8:03pm

Yeah that sounds good, each month you could set a package for 5 215$ tourneys and play the one you want.

Also are you planning on playing the WSOP ?

skeptix82 Oct 01, 2007 8:31pm

I would probably set it up a little bit longer term than that. Something like 15-20 buy-ins to be used at my discretion (likely about 2 a week).

As for the WSOP, it's quite a ways off. I'll start thinking about that sometime in like February or March.

MRVEGAS Oct 01, 2007 9:41pm

If i ever break down and make a deposit or make a huge splash in a few of the kiddie pool tournys i play in I'll stake/buy shares in whatever he puts up.

The more i think about it, i rather be staking a sleeping skeptix that the majority of players online, that play in tournys.

Unfortunately, his musical taste forces me to say that he is also a bastard!!!


Velicious

cobalt Oct 01, 2007 10:06pm

I think she meant a "slug." At least, that's what makes sense given the context.

TWLLM Oct 01, 2007 10:41pm

I was gonna mention this discreetly but since there's a thread:

I'm inclined to agree with Seb about your premium being too high. As much as you have an established record at lower buyin tournaments, with no disrespect intended, your record in higher events is significantly weaker. After all, you were on that P5s ranking for tournaments under $50 buy-in, so I don't doubt your ability in those tournaments, but in the higher buyin events, your performance is more marginal. You're probably +EV in tournaments in the $250-$530 range, but not by enough to demand a 50% premium. And besides your own skill, these higher tournaments (especially the ones in esoteric games) have much harder competition, further decreasing your ROI in them.

We take too much of a chance on you when you're playing these higher buy-in events for a 50% premium to make sense. I realized this after the first couple of stakes, but by now I'm in that horrible 'stakeback vortex' where even though I don't think it's a great investment with such a high premium, I'm looking at a return on substantial sunk costs that definitely offset this. I was also under a mistaken (if induced or not) conception of how gross $ was distributed on losses, hence the actual risk in staking is higher than I had conceived of.

My solution would be to suggest that it would be more reasonable to reduce your premium to say 33% or so and just retain enough shares such that you always have at least 50% of yourself (so that you don't get stoned or go nuts b/c you don't care). This would apply to any event with a buyin at or above $200. And any event over $500 you might consider taking only 25% to reflect the added risk.

If you wanted to extend staking to lower buy-in events, then keeping a 50% premium makes sense. But I have a feeling you don't want to extend staking to the smaller events because your ROI is so much higher that it's bread and butter for you, whereas these other tournaments you're able to rely on us to let you take shots. Nothing wrong with that approach - you should just realize/accept that you're playing in the range where it is a riskier investment, and drop your premium in recognition thereof.

Seb47 Oct 01, 2007 11:45pm

Thx TWLLM, I found my signature :)

skeptix82 Oct 02, 2007 12:08am

There is no way I reduce my "premium" for $200-500 events. If someone would like to stake me for $1k+ events, I would then be willing to reduce my "premium" to 40%. If someone would like to stake me for $5k+ events, I would then be willing to reduce my "premium" to as low as 30%.

You must remember that while I do enjoy playing for you guys, I'm not in the business of handing over my EV to others for shits and giggles. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement, set up by me, to play events that have a lot of value but very high variance.

With stakeback, and the assumption that my playing these events has a +EV, there is no risk. The risk you speak of is a function of time and variance.

I know you'd like to have an amazing deal set before you, but that's not gonna happen. What you will get is a good deal (and you evidently think it is a good deal by being the biggest taker).

TWLLM Oct 02, 2007 4:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptix82 (Post 545700)
There is no way I reduce my "premium" for $200-500 events. If someone would like to stake me for $1k+ events, I would then be willing to reduce my "premium" to 40%. If someone would like to stake me for $5k+ events, I would then be willing to reduce my "premium" to as low as 30%.

You must remember that while I do enjoy playing for you guys, I'm not in the business of handing over my EV to others for shits and giggles. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement, set up by me, to play events that have a lot of value but very high variance.

With stakeback, and the assumption that my playing these events has a +EV, there is no risk. The risk you speak of is a function of time and variance.

I know you'd like to have an amazing deal set before you, but that's not gonna happen. What you will get is a good deal (and you evidently think it is a good deal by being the biggest taker).

Wow. There are just too many things for me to disagree with in here. Some of these issues I've already pointed out my true feelings on in the previous post.

I disagree with you that we're getting a 'good deal' with the current staking arrangement, even though you're right that stakeback does make the arrangement somewhat more amenable. I would say the current arrangement is barely adequate.

I do have to ask this, though: do you have any numbers on your ROI on tournaments with a buyin over $200 versus those with a buyin below $200? Or by some similar dichotomy? I know it's always just based on 'past results' that aren't always reliable vs. 'long-run' expectation, but I would be REALLY interested in seeing these figures. This way we could evaluate your perceived profitability in these tournaments, beyond just the past 3 staking arrangements (which we'll all agree could easily be explained by variance).

All that said, I'm stuck backing you in similar ventures whether I like it or not based on the fact that I know you're good enough that, with the amount of stakeback potentially owed, the investment becomes much better. But that's not to say that, to a new potential investor, the arrangement is amicable - it's only 'good' for me because I have a lot of lost money to recover, which is a shitty way for a barely adequate arrangement to become decent. :wink:

PS - I should add this isn't anything personal with Skeptix (if I didn't trust you or believe you were a good player I never would have staked you in the first place). I just wonder about the veracity of your perceptions versus reality as concerns the higher buy-in events and your ROI.

skeptix82 Oct 02, 2007 10:18am

First off, I don't really track my numbers as well as I should, so I don't have ROI or other numbers for particular buy-in levels. Secondly, any numbers I did have would be rather irrelevant due to a very small sample size. Thirdly, it is not the buy-in amount that decides ROI, it is the expected edge you have over the field. For instance, I feel there was tremendous value in the WCOOP ME because of all the people satting in, whereas I wouldn't feel there was such value in the weekly Super Tuesday event (which has a smaller buy-in).

Unless I can play the exact same event over and over hundreds of times, you'll never know the true ROI. All you have to go on are my instincts as a poker player, and your own. I feel that my decision making abilities within poker are very strong, and are constantly getting better. Part of your staking me is trusting my judgement, and not only in the individual decision making within a hand, but in a much broader sense.

With that being said, I have played two $1000 buyin tournaments online. In one I finished 6th for $6500+ when my AK went down to Phatcat's AQ all-in preflop. My ROI for $1000 mtts is over 300%

TWLLM Oct 02, 2007 3:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptix82 (Post 545818)
With that being said, I have played two $1000 buyin tournaments online. In one I finished 6th for $6500+ when my AK went down to Phatcat's AQ all-in preflop. My ROI for $1000 mtts is over 300%

I agree that RIO for tourneys over $1k will be difficult for you to figure out if you've only played 2. :biggrin:

But surely you've played enough tournaments over $200 (not just WCOOP and FTOPS) that the sample size, while small, won't be miniscule. I understand you don't have the numbers lying around, maybe I can poke around looking at the various 'tracking' sites and see what turns up. I know those aren't very reliable on their own though, which is why I wanted to see what you had.

BTW, I realize ROI isn't based on buy-in it's based on edge (don't insult my intelligence - lol), but as buy-in increases, edge tends to decrease. Yes, there are lots of satellite winners, but there are less and less as you go higher (the Sunday Million will have several thousand, and the WCOOP ME maybe one thousand, esp. if you remove people who satellited in but are regularly playing $100+ mtts).

Fredrik Oct 02, 2007 3:36pm

The tracking sites aren't going to tell you his ROI with a good enough accuracy, so you might as well just try to guess it yourself. (If they say 30%, it should probably be interpreted as "30, give or take 200" percent).

BubbleBoy Oct 02, 2007 3:51pm

I don't know anything about your play, your bank roll, your current goals or your normal playing grounds, but I still think you are better off just playing cash games.

ggnh Oct 02, 2007 4:11pm

I think your musical taste... is.. well.. HOT!... there I said it....

TJTay89 Oct 02, 2007 4:14pm

He won't be better off if he gets bored at the cash game grind and then blows off half is bankroll at one stretch. Now I don't know much about skeptix, but I will assume he plays Tournies for a reason. I agree that money games offer better return of investment for a lot of people, but the great things about a tourny is if you are better then the other people you should be able to place fairly often, it only takes one big score to make up for multiple bad tournies, and if you are prone to getting bored then it offers you a faster paced game that has an end in sight.

skeptix82 Oct 02, 2007 7:52pm

I've often thought cash games would be the way to go. However, I've been playing like 95% tournaments ever since I started playing. It would take a while to make the switch to cash games, and I would have to absorb a whole new skill set before I could expect to have the same sort of winrate I now enjoy in tournaments.

Fredrik Oct 02, 2007 8:30pm

If you watch a bunch of cardrunners videos first, you could make the transition very fast.

But if you don't feel like switching to cash games, don't bother. It's not like you really need to change anything right now.

TWLLM Oct 02, 2007 10:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fredrik (Post 545937)
The tracking sites aren't going to tell you his ROI with a good enough accuracy, so you might as well just try to guess it yourself. (If they say 30%, it should probably be interpreted as "30, give or take 200" percent).

Ok maybe I won't bother then.

I just wonder whether anyone (including Skeptix) has a realistic view of his edge in tourneys over $200. The answer unfortunately isn't obvious or forthcoming.

skeptix82 Oct 03, 2007 2:26am

Obviously it depends which $200 tournament. For instance, I think the Sunday Warm-Up has better value than the Million.

If you want me to make an educated guess, I would put myself at between 30-50% ROI in most $200 online MTTs.

Axis of Evil Oct 03, 2007 4:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seb47 (Post 545268)
I am willing to stake you in any decent event. However I think it would be nice if you had like 25-33% of your action like you had for the WCOOP.

If you wanna play some low buyin WSOP event I would be willing to stack you.

Just one though : You cant come to a 500$ event and not be willing to play it to the end, you absolutly have to be fully focused on the tournament (well if you want me to stake you at least, but I am pretty sure most people were quite shock to see you started a 530$ tournament and was willing to ask another player to finish it) or cancel the deal.

LOL!!!

skeptix82 Oct 03, 2007 4:28am

Ban.

TWLLM Oct 03, 2007 3:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptix82 (Post 546394)
Obviously it depends which $200 tournament. For instance, I think the Sunday Warm-Up has better value than the Million.

Really? Sure variance is much higher in a monstrous tournament like the million, but there are SOOOOO many donks (per good player) in the Sunday Million, way more than in the warm-up. So how is the warm-up a better value?

BTW I wouldn't mind staking you in Sunday tournaments on Pstars because I figure the fields are soft.

skeptix82 Oct 03, 2007 10:55pm

The Warm-Up has mostly European players and a good number of the American pros aren't awake yet.

I think the route I'm gonna go is offer a package deal that include x $215 buyins for Stars sunday tourneys and x $162 buyins for nightlys. This way I can play out the buy-ins at my own discretion and sleep won't be an issue. I would naturally post whenever I was set to play an event.

So something like

8 $215 Sunday buy-ins
8 $162 Nightly buy-ins

Total : $3016

100 shares at $30.

Thoughts?

zolaboy Oct 04, 2007 1:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptix82 (Post 546904)
So something like

8 $215 Sunday buy-ins
8 $162 Nightly buy-ins

Total : $3016

100 shares at $30.

Thoughts?

I would be interested in this type of a deal.

Seb47 Oct 04, 2007 2:13am

I am not sure why you are laughing out lound AOE, if there is some kind of gramatical mistake well sorry, if this is on the stacking it self I meant I would be willing to take shares like for the WCOOP obviously.

edit : btw I would take shares too for that package.

MikkeD Oct 04, 2007 2:23am

I'll probably back you again for a share or two if it is convenient for me to rail. I say this because I should watch the play in high stakes MTTs, and buying a share gives me that extra incentive. If you make some $s for me, then that is all the better. :P

The bottom line is - I will wait to see what firms up, and will buy in if the nights work for me to rail.

Fredrik Oct 04, 2007 2:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seb47 (Post 547043)
I am not sure why you are laughing out lound AOE

He probably just thought it was funny that you said "stack" when you should have said "stake".

to stake someone = to pay his buy-in
to stack someone = to win all of his chips


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:56pm.

vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.