|
|
|
|
#1
11-20-2007, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 
|
|
#2
11-20-2007, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#3
11-20-2007, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Staking dilemma
 it's photoshop time?
|
|
#4
11-20-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#5
11-20-2007, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#7
11-20-2007, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
11-20-2007, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#9
11-20-2007, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
11-20-2007, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
