APAT Staking Exchange - Discussion

[Sef]

Just caught up on the hookers n cigars thing..... I"m in

[SirPercival]

Just caught up on the hookers n cigars thing..... I"m in

too late - it sold out

[Sef]

Well if anyone wants to sell me a % of theirs.....  

[Des]

Well if anyone wants to sell me a % of theirs.....  

...you can have a percentage of my hooker....the cigar however, is cuban

[mal666]

Current threads are stating in terms of 100% staking but with60/40 return etc. personally think the board should have a universal way of stating the premium (I would use decimal method).

I mean 60/40 on a 100% stake is a HUGE markup (about 1.67) and established pros would struggle to sell at that rate and I think stakers should know this before this board gets established.

I disagree. Need to try word this right, too many terms. lol. Using this example it"s sold without a premium.. it"s sold as a percentage return so for every 1% you pay for you get 0.6% of winnings. On a premium sold at same rate you would pay for 1.67% and recieve 1%. So I think as long as the stakee has laid out the plan for which way he is selling then it"s up to stakers to decide how acceptable it is. If you don"t like it, don"t buy!

I think thats right anyway!?!??! lol

Of course there"s a premium, it"s just worded a different way.

As this is new here I"d expect quite a few people don"t really know much about staking. APAT is pretty broad in its membership so that obv includes plenty of newbies. It"s only fair to point out what is the norm.

Using Wayne"s op for eg, states 10% = $107.50.   But you"e not getting 10% you"re getting 6%.

6%  x 1.67 = $107.50

He even admitted himself he didn"t really know what was standard and Wayne"s been around for years.

Applying mark-up up front is just a lot more transparent, so again using Wayne"s eg (sorry Wayne this is not a troll you were just first up)

He would say selling 60% of SM @ 1.67.

This would raise the full buy in and he gets his 40%

People can then judge if they think the ev of the player justifies the mark-up.

[Sef]

Current threads are stating in terms of 100% staking but with60/40 return etc. personally think the board should have a universal way of stating the premium (I would use decimal method).

I mean 60/40 on a 100% stake is a HUGE markup (about 1.67) and established pros would struggle to sell at that rate and I think stakers should know this before this board gets established.

I disagree. Need to try word this right, too many terms. lol. Using this example it"s sold without a premium.. it"s sold as a percentage return so for every 1% you pay for you get 0.6% of winnings. On a premium sold at same rate you would pay for 1.67% and recieve 1%. So I think as long as the stakee has laid out the plan for which way he is selling then it"s up to stakers to decide how acceptable it is. If you don"t like it, don"t buy!

I think thats right anyway!?!??! lol

Of course there"s a premium, it"s just worded a different way.

As this is new here I"d expect quite a few people don"t really know much about staking. APAT is pretty broad in its membership so that obv includes plenty of newbies. It"s only fair to point out what is the norm.

Using Wayne"s op for eg, states 10% = $107.50.   But you"e not getting 10% you"re getting 6%.

6%  x 1.67 = $107.50

He even admitted himself he didn"t really know what was standard and Wayne"s been around for years.

Applying mark-up up front is just a lot more transparent, so again using Wayne"s eg (sorry Wayne this is not a troll you were just first up)

He would say selling 60% of SM @ 1.67.

This would raise the full buy in and he gets his 40%

People can then judge if they think the ev of the player justifies the mark-up.

Yeah.. as I said, too many terms. The up front "mark up" is what I was referring to as opposed to "premium".  I"m sure you understood. Thanks for the much clearer explanation. I"m never good at explaining things, I confuse myself half the time!  

[Des]

Current threads are stating in terms of 100% staking but with60/40 return etc. personally think the board should have a universal way of stating the premium (I would use decimal method).

I mean 60/40 on a 100% stake is a HUGE markup (about 1.67) and established pros would struggle to sell at that rate and I think stakers should know this before this board gets established.

I disagree. Need to try word this right, too many terms. lol. Using this example it"s sold without a premium.. it"s sold as a percentage return so for every 1% you pay for you get 0.6% of winnings. On a premium sold at same rate you would pay for 1.67% and recieve 1%. So I think as long as the stakee has laid out the plan for which way he is selling then it"s up to stakers to decide how acceptable it is. If you don"t like it, don"t buy!

I think thats right anyway!?!??! lol

Of course there"s a premium, it"s just worded a different way.

As this is new here I"d expect quite a few people don"t really know much about staking. APAT is pretty broad in its membership so that obv includes plenty of newbies. It"s only fair to point out what is the norm.

Using Wayne"s op for eg, states 10% = $107.50.   But you"e not getting 10% you"re getting 6%.

6%  x 1.67 = $107.50

He even admitted himself he didn"t really know what was standard and Wayne"s been around for years.

Applying mark-up up front is just a lot more transparent, so again using Wayne"s eg (sorry Wayne this is not a troll you were just first up)

He would say selling 60% of SM @ 1.67.

This would raise the full buy in and he gets his 40%

People can then judge if they think the ev of the player justifies the mark-up.

Nice contribution there Mal, appreciated.

[mal666]

Ha, no probs. Enjoy the staking side of poker.

Can I just add the mark-up directly correlates to roi.

If you buy at 1.2:1 your horse needs a 20% roi for you to break even.

[SirPercival]

Ha, no probs. Enjoy the staking side of poker.

Can I just add the mark-up directly correlates to roi.

If you buy at 1.2:1 your horse needs a 20% roi for you to break even.

Damn, I was thinking of selling at 1.0 but now need to make it 0.8  

[Swinebag]

Current threads are stating in terms of 100% staking but with60/40 return etc. personally think the board should have a universal way of stating the premium (I would use decimal method).

I mean 60/40 on a 100% stake is a HUGE markup (about 1.67) and established pros would struggle to sell at that rate and I think stakers should know this before this board gets established.

I disagree. Need to try word this right, too many terms. lol. Using this example it"s sold without a premium.. it"s sold as a percentage return so for every 1% you pay for you get 0.6% of winnings. On a premium sold at same rate you would pay for 1.67% and recieve 1%. So I think as long as the stakee has laid out the plan for which way he is selling then it"s up to stakers to decide how acceptable it is. If you don"t like it, don"t buy!

I think thats right anyway!?!??! lol

Of course there"s a premium, it"s just worded a different way.

As this is new here I"d expect quite a few people don"t really know much about staking. APAT is pretty broad in its membership so that obv includes plenty of newbies. It"s only fair to point out what is the norm.

Using Wayne"s op for eg, states 10% = $107.50.   But you"e not getting 10% you"re getting 6%.

6%  x 1.67 = $107.50

He even admitted himself he didn"t really know what was standard and Wayne"s been around for years.

Applying mark-up up front is just a lot more transparent, so again using Wayne"s eg (sorry Wayne this is not a troll you were just first up)

He would say selling 60% of SM @ 1.67.

This would raise the full buy in and he gets his 40%

People can then judge if they think the ev of the player justifies the mark-up.

slightly disagree with this Mal (but only slightly)

I agree that putting a markup in staking threads should be the norm, but the suggestion you have given wayne implies that he is playing 40% on his own dime and does not explicitly say that he is not putting a bean forward.

I think it should still say: (something like)

"selling 100% with backers cut of 60% - this is 1:1.67"

Some people do prefer to back people who are putting some of their own money in over players who are fully backed.

[mal666]

Yeah the 40% is raised from the backers in that example.

[Swinebag]

stakeback/makeup in staking requests

This has been mentioned in a few staking requests and I fancy posting something on this.

Firstly, for the grandmothers, a lesson on how to suck eggs

A stake request that offers stakeback is one where the staker gets their money back for the stake before profits are shared out.

(names are made up to protect the innocent)

e.g.1 Ger wants staking into the WSOP main event ($10K buyin) with a 30/70 cut in favour of the backer (he is a fish!!) with no stakeback. Scouse decides he"s having that and ships Ger the $10K. Ger runs like a god for 3 days and makes the money before getting "coolered" with A5 on 58T board against villains 88. He min cashes for $20K. He ships 70% of this to Scouse who is ecstatic at his $14K return. He made $4K, while Ger walks off with $6K having invested only his time and skill.

e.g.2 George is staked into the WSOP Main event with a 30/70 cut in favour of the backer. He"s a great player but only ever seems to "min cash" in live donkaments these days, so he offers stakeback. Before (insert blonde pro) can say "rest", the BCPC consortium snap it up costing them $10K. George runs normal, bursts the bubble then goes out the very next hand for a $20K min cash. He pays the BCPC their $10K back plus 70% of the $10K profit ($7K) meaning the BCPC have made 7K from their 10K sweat, whilst george makes 3K for his time and effort and zero cash investment.

The second example is considered a much fairer staking arrangement as the staker is investing with no guarantee of a return but ends up with more than the player when he cashes. If both players do a bink and win $1mill+ then in relative terms, the returns for both examples will roughly be the same.

This is an example of where the horse is not putting any of their own money up. These deals should always be made with stakeback.

A lot of the staking deals so far on this board are examples where the horse has actually put up a fair bit of the money themselves and are selling percentages. In these examples the risk is shared equally between the backer and the horse so there is little need for stakeback to be included here.

[Chipaccrual]

Yep, what he said.

Fantastic post Rob.

[thinsy147]

Nice post Rob.

I think I"ve seen that George bloke on the telly....

I think I"ve seen that Ger bloke.... Well.... At the bar!

[SirPercival]

Excellent post Rob. Now can you do one for make-up please  

Des/Tighty - Can I suggest we place this, or similar example in the sticky threads.