[Indiana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can pwn the 100's on your own money, then being staked 50% to play the 200's makes no sense at all. You're just making money for someone else at the probable expense of a lower win rate at the 200's vs. 100's.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not sure if I can beat the 200s and I dont want to risk my own money trying to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now it makes even less sense. Why is your investor staking you to donk around with his money? You're not sure you can beat the 200's and he's staking you? Can I talk to this guy? I've got a bridge to sell him. To cap it all off, as amazingly bad as this deal is for your investor, you get nothing out of it either other than the warm, fuzzy feeling of your giant $200-HU-playing ecock scraping on the ground as you walk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slim I have shown that I can crush the 50s and 100s. He believes that this should carry over the the 200s. Is that so unreasonable? He also has met me here in california and thinks my credentials as a human being make it very likely that I will succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's so unreasonable you can beat the 200s for a similar ROI to what you get at the 100's. I'm only echoing the doubt you expressed in yourself. In general, I trust your evaluation of yourself as a poker player more than I trust his evaluation of you as a poker player.

The simple fact is this deal doesn't make monetary sense for you. Your win rate won't be higher at the higher buy-in, so you'll need to take at least 50% of the profit to make the jump break even. Once you start taking enough of the profits to make it worthwhile for you, his risk/reward starts sucking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just saying that its not really about immediate cash returns for me. Its more about giving me a chance to play above my level at no risk. So what if I have to give up half the profits for the first month...Long term this should have major EV implications for me shouldn't it?