Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Todd,
It isn't totally wrong. Thayer said they would pay A $0 for a guy not in makeup.
Thayer also said A wants B and C to take this guy into the team.
So obviously A thinks he's better off with the horse in the group, not staking him on his own.
The horse may be profitable for B and C, but he's also MORE profitable to A as part of the group. (At least in A's opinion.)
Probably beacause of things like the ability to put the horse into more & bigger tournaments.
My solution was A paid B and C but A got to keep the first 9k in winnings.
This makes this horse less valuable to B and C by exactly 1.5k each.
This assumes the horse always gets out of makeup, and a 50/50 split.
If instead you want B and C to buy 3k each in make-up from A, they should pay 1.5k each to A.
If a normal stake won 9k, B and C would each get 1.5k from that.
If B and C buy 3k in makeup each, then they'll get 3k each for the same win.
That's only a 1.5k difference.
Another option is just to give A first refusal on staking this horse in future events, and the group can stake him anytime A doesn't want to on his own.
|