#31
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Staking dilemma
gobbomom I am linking this post in 12-18 months when you have your first 5 figure score.
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Staking dilemma
[ QUOTE ]
[/ 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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Staking dilemma
Does this makeup never expire? Is the horse allowed to quit A? My full analysis forthcoming after these questions are answered.
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Staking dilemma
A is obv >>>>>>>>> smarter than B.
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|