|
Staking dilemma
Scenario :
Staking team is built of 3 backers, A, B and C. A has a horse from before the team was formed. Let's say he has 9k in makeup. A wants to bring him onto the team, what amount should B and C pay for this right? It seems to me that theoretically if horse gets out of makeup 100% of the time, B and C should pay A 3k each. Of course this is not a certainty, hence the dilemma. My brain has exploded thinking of what to do. For the love of [censored], MTTC help us! |
Re: Staking dilemma
I obv suck at this but I think that B and C should be in on A in all future but backtrack it since the 9k in makeup was all given by A when horse gets even first 9k goes to A and rest is split up based on the standard deal.
While if the horse gets further into makeup BC can now cover the future buyins It doesn't have to be equal sending as long as everyone has an equal share in profits just because say B is giving the money doesn't mean A and C aren't still invovled. Now it's just as if it was always going on with all 3. |
Re: Staking dilemma
thayer: your post makes no sense
Shaun: lol Shaun: fu |
Re: Staking dilemma
If person A is ok with that deal it sounds fair to me...translate...
A gets first 9000 made by stakee and then the horse is split 3 ways. sounds fair... |
Re: Staking dilemma
|
Re: Staking dilemma
my solution works, i think. was there beef with it?
|
Re: Staking dilemma
There is no fair or correct solution to this problem. The player is worth a certain amount to a backer, in NPV terms, over the length of the backing period, call it X (obviously X is subject to a great amount of uncertainty, but ignore that for a second). B and C should be willing to pay any amount up to 1/3 X for the right to receive 1/3 of the player's profits over the backing period. Obviously, if the player were JC Tran live or Imper1um online, B and C should be willing to pay a lot more than they would for someone else. Essentially, A is giving up something of very uncertain value -- to wit, 2/3 of the profits of the player -- and how the parties value that something is dependent on the parties.
|
Re: Staking dilemma
Why would someone want a player who is in makeup? Doesn't that mean she is a losing player?
Man I thought you guys were smart. sheets |
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
There is no fair or correct solution to this problem. The player is worth a certain amount to a backer, in NPV terms, over the length of the backing period, call it X (obviously X is subject to a great amount of uncertainty, but ignore that for a second). B and C should be willing to pay any amount up to 1/3 X for the right to receive 1/3 of the player's profits over the backing period. Obviously, if the player were JC Tran live or Imper1um online, B and C should be willing to pay a lot more than they would for someone else. Essentially, A is giving up something of very uncertain value -- to wit, 2/3 of the profits of the player -- and how the parties value that something is dependent on the parties. [/ QUOTE ] lol towitaments |
Re: Staking dilemma
|
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
Why would someone want a player who is in makeup? Doesn't that mean she is a losing player? Man I thought you guys were smart. sheets [/ QUOTE ] Heheh, now I know what Eric has been up to. |
Re: Staking dilemma
|
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why would someone want a player who is in makeup? Doesn't that mean she is a losing player? Man I thought you guys were smart. sheets [/ QUOTE ] Heheh, now I know what Eric has been up to. [/ QUOTE ]Hooking Brandi up with sat buyins? |
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...d/images-1.jpg [/ QUOTE ]I lol'd [ QUOTE ] lol towitaments [/ QUOTE ] and again [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: Staking dilemma
|
Re: Staking dilemma
the answer:
stake me :/ |
Re: Staking dilemma
if train B and train C leave the station at 6pm and they are 9k miles apart and train A leaves the same station but he has cargo on his back wearing makeup then whats for breakfast?
|
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
if train B and train C leave the station at 6pm and they are 9k miles apart and train A leaves the same station but he has cargo on his back wearing makeup then whats for breakfast? [/ QUOTE ] waffles |
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
if train B and train C leave the station at 6pm and they are 9k miles apart and train A leaves the same station but he has cargo on his back wearing makeup then whats for breakfast? [/ QUOTE ] Breakfast burritos? |
Re: Staking dilemma
marijuana?
|
Re: Staking dilemma
I would just like to point out that this is the person I have to deal with every day :
thayer: your post makes no sense Shaun: lol Shaun: fu Shaun: how doesn't it? Shaun: as long as its clear all 3 are in on the staking deal Shaun: when the horse gets out of makeup he gets all Shaun: but if the deal ends and it's -$ Shaun: then A B and C just sqaure up Shaun: and all have an equal loss thayer: do you nont understand what the dilemma is Shaun: that theres 9k in makeup from A backing him Shaun: while B and C want the action Shaun: if A hadhad say 60% of the action Shaun: and then had 20% and we had 20% a piece Shaun: then if the horse gets up 20k we would spit that up normally Shaun: I dunno how this sitatuon is ever different thayer: so you think we should each give A 3k Shaun: no Shaun: nothing Shaun: when the horse gets out of makeup Shaun: A just gets 9k thayer: so you think we should assume all future risk equally, while me and you get shafted on the 1st 9k Shaun: to cover what he fronted Shaun: yah Shaun: it's bascalilly as if we were always there Shaun: and A just gave him 9k to use first thayer: so its basically me and you picking up a player at a loss thayer: so A is freerolling thayer: do you not see this Shaun: no Shaun: we all have equal equity Shaun: and he just sent more to the horse Shaun: just like with X Shaun: we had equal shares Shaun: but I got like 30k of his makeup Shaun: cuz I had sent it to him thayer: no its not just like X Shaun: how so? thayer: nobody joined in on us staking him thayer: we were equally sharing in X's losses from the start thayer: it wasnt like hey thayer want to absorb half my losses thayer: and i was like yah ok Shaun: but we aren't absorving half his losses thayer: dude thayer: lol thayer: me and you miss out on the 1st 9k he makes, while A gets it thayer: yet me and you assume equal risk on future losses Shaun: but it's as if we were there from the start thayer: just imagine if he was stuck 10 billion dollars thayer: why would we do that thayer: where we share future losses while A gets the 1st 10 billion thayer: in future winnings |
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
There is no fair or correct solution to this problem. The player is worth a certain amount to a backer, in NPV terms, over the length of the backing period, call it X (obviously X is subject to a great amount of uncertainty, but ignore that for a second). B and C should be willing to pay any amount up to 1/3 X for the right to receive 1/3 of the player's profits over the backing period. Obviously, if the player were JC Tran live or Imper1um online, B and C should be willing to pay a lot more than they would for someone else. Essentially, A is giving up something of very uncertain value -- to wit, 2/3 of the profits of the player -- and how the parties value that something is dependent on the parties. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with what you are saying, but look at it from the viewpoint where if A's horse was not in makeup he would bring him onto the team at no charge. |
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There is no fair or correct solution to this problem. The player is worth a certain amount to a backer, in NPV terms, over the length of the backing period, call it X (obviously X is subject to a great amount of uncertainty, but ignore that for a second). B and C should be willing to pay any amount up to 1/3 X for the right to receive 1/3 of the player's profits over the backing period. Obviously, if the player were JC Tran live or Imper1um online, B and C should be willing to pay a lot more than they would for someone else. Essentially, A is giving up something of very uncertain value -- to wit, 2/3 of the profits of the player -- and how the parties value that something is dependent on the parties. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with what you are saying, but look at it from the viewpoint where if A's horse was not in makeup he would bring him onto the team at no charge. [/ QUOTE ] Assuming the backers are getting 50% of the profits after makeup, then something in the ballpark of A gets 66 2/3, B gets 16 2/3, C gets 16 2/3 of the first $18K in total profit (i.e., $13.5K in profit to the backers) of the player, then 1/3 1/3 1/3 split after that seems to make sense. This is with all backers contributing 1/3 of each buy-in going forward. This lets A get the major share while the player is in makeup, but still gives B and C an incentive to back the player while he's in makeup. In fact, B and C are getting the same return on the player for the first $9K that they would be if he wasn't in makeup, since they don't have to split anything with the player. Run a spreadsheet with this as a starting point against various scenarios and I'm sure this will be close to agreeable. |
Re: Staking dilemma
B and C don't pay anything initially but are in on staking the player from that point, but A gets the first 9k for his makeup then the rest is split proportionally. If player is truly +EV its still a good deal for all the backers proportionally.
|
Re: Staking dilemma
That is only correct if the deal is for forever, and if he is truly +EV.
I guess we have to take the % of time he doesn't get out of makeup/isn't +EV and multiply it by 3000 and that's the amount I owe. What is the % though, and yes I realize now it's not something really quantifiable. |
Re: Staking dilemma
thayer if he stays down we would just each give 9k first then after 27k in makeup do it even.
|
Re: Staking dilemma
Stop posting in this thread.
imo |
Re: Staking dilemma
HATE YOU, you are nothing/no one without me remember that
|
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
thayer if he stays down we would just each give 9k first then after 27k in makeup do it even. [/ QUOTE ] that actually makes sense. Over the next 18k in staking you dont pay and then pay 50/50 and you split profits 33/33/33 |
Re: Staking dilemma
|
Re: Staking dilemma
this thread reminds me of the good 'ole days, way last year before everybody started winning so much.
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] |
Re: Staking dilemma
gobbomom I am linking this post in 12-18 months when you have your first 5 figure score.
|
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q.../oddcouple.jpg [/ QUOTE ] Sorry but I envision 2 Oscars here and no Felix. Feel free to photoshop if you see fit lol. Aren't Mr. Waffle and Mr. Crush too young to even appreciate the humor in this. |
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
gobbomom I am linking this post in 12-18 months when you have your first 5 figure score. [/ QUOTE ] LOL! ok, you do that. and you & Thayer & Steve & Timex & A.J. will probley be fighting over who owns the most percentages of the most condo developments by then. I hope. |
Re: Staking dilemma
Does this makeup never expire? Is the horse allowed to quit A? My full analysis forthcoming after these questions are answered.
|
Re: Staking dilemma
A is obv >>>>>>>>> smarter than B.
|
Re: Staking dilemma
Thayer, if the team would pay A nothing for a horse not in makeup, then A should pay B and C to take this horse, not vice versa.
Assuming a normal stake with a guy not in make-up, 50/50 split, if horse wins 9k in a tournament, you guys would get 1.5k each. If A gets his 9k back first, then B and C would get $0. So if A paid you guys each 1.5k, you'd be even. This assumes the horse always gets out of makeup. If he gets out of make-up 75% of the time, then A should pay B and C 1.5k * (0.75) = $1,125. A then gets the first 9k in wins back. A obviously has the choice to either take this deal or keep staking the guy on his own. |
Re: Staking dilemma
I think it should go like this:
Player starts getting backed by group, player A has 9K of makeup on him. When player wins $$, third it up and pay each person their share (makeup first, then their split). Player A get's the 'players' share against his makeup until he's out of the hole. For instance...let's say he goes $6K more in the hole, then has a 15K score. $5K (1/3 - all makeup) goes to player A and he still has $6K makeup on that. Other two guys get $2K each (their makeup) and their 'split' their profit (at 50/50, that's $1500 each). That leaves the player with $3K in 'his' pile...but then that goes to player A and reduces his makeup to $3K. Rinse, repeat. That doesn't subject staker b and c to buying bad debt, but provides staker A a way to get out of his makeup with less future risk. Obviously if B or C WANT to buy some debt, then they could, but I wouldn't do it without some vig (nobody pays full price for debt). If Staker A wants some money, he could sell $3K of that makeup for say $2500, should he be willing to do that (rate depends on likelihood of return). oh - and stake me. |
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
Thayer, if the team would pay A nothing for a horse not in makeup, then A should pay B and C to take this horse, not vice versa. [/ QUOTE ] If the player is +EV, this is totally wrong -- it is a benefit to B and C to get a player stuck in makeup, because it means that the first $9K in profit is going all to the backers, whereas only $4500 of the first $9K in profit would go to the backers if the player wasn't in makeup. And if the player is -EV, he shouldn't be backed by A, B or C. |
Re: Staking dilemma
This seems like a good plan, thoughts?
Aguiar (5:45:23 PM): how about you and shaun pay the full 3k Aguiar (5:45:33 PM): with the stipulation that if he ends the deal with makeup Aguiar (5:45:35 PM): you get that % back Aguiar (5:45:58 PM): so if the deal ends 6k in makeup Aguiar (5:46:01 PM): you and shaun get 1k each back Aguiar (5:46:12 PM): if the deal ends 100k in makeup you only get 3k back tho |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.