|
|
#14
08-20-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see why you think you have a right to know who is staked by who. [/ QUOTE ] A right [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Not sure what you mean, but I for sure would like to know if Im playing against ActionJeff, timex, or some team of 2p2ers instead of donkeys 1,2,3 in a final table. You can stop nitpicking. No, I don't think there is such a thing as "a right to know" 
|
|
#15
08-20-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If somebody has insider info, could you please share with the community? I think it's only fair. [/ QUOTE ] I dont see why you think you have a right to know who is staked by who. [/ QUOTE ] yes, there are still people out there who stake people for mtts, yet dont take over their mtts for them deep, and would try hard to bust their stake if they were placed @ same table. fwiw i will be staking players in the wcoop, and no, i will not be revealing the names of my stakes, unless they want to reveal themselves. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure you recognize the potential conflict of interest created when a staker and stakee play against each other, in the minds of both. The same exists for 2 stakees playing against each other, if they know that each is backed my the same staker. In a previous thread, I posted my reasons why I think staking of competitors and swapping should be banned: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=2&vc=1 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=2&vc=1 In light of recent revelations in the online poker world, you can probably understand that some players would prefer not to take only the word of the vast armies of stakers/stakees out there that they will play no differently against each other as against anyone else. If this in fact the case, the only way to put people at ease would be to reveal the stakers and stakees, so that if and when they are playing at the same table, their play can be scrutinized. Since most top tournament pros are staked and known to be staked, there is no stigma attached to being known as being staked, so I can think of no legitimate reason why a stakee would be opposed to revelation. Moreover, I think everyone has an interest in knowing if a significant chunk of the field in any given tournament is staked by the same person/entity. Would anyone play a high-stakes cash game or SnG where 30% of the table was playing for the same backer? I sure wouldn't, even if I had no explicit reason to question the players' integrity.
|
|
#18
08-20-2007, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
Brandi, Newhizzle, and neverwin for the WHYCOOP...
|
|
#19
08-20-2007, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
i'm staking zeejustin, zeejustin, zeejustin, zeejustin, zeejustin, and zeejustin
|
|
#20
08-20-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you be willing to name your horses?
What is the point of so many people replying to sirio with sarcastic lies (e.g. I'm backing annette, jbax, colson, etc)?
Just answer that you would or wouldn't be willing to divulge. I am not backed, but might be up for it as I am a casual player that doesn't have the poker bankroll to buyin to very many $1,000+ events, and don't have time to play a lot of qualifiers. If I was backed, I would only reveal it if the backer were open to it. And vice-versa. But I would generally not mind if it were public knowledge. -Z
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
