Future staking opportunities...

[LimpIn]

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

[skeptix82]

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

Responding to a couple points...

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).

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Iestyn75

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[TWLLM]

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]

Thx TWLLM, I found my signature