Staking dilemma

[bobneptune]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]


the simplest solution if for A to keep his horse separate until A's 9k is made up and then by agreement, horse automatically goes into the group.

B&C shouldn't have to pay a big premium to get any player to stake, unless they both believe the horse is some kinda of ultra-hot commodity and they have to have this guy at this moment.

i understand A would like to get his 9k back, but he cannot expect his partners to assume the 9k loss when they had zero of the potential earlier positive expectation.

[halpgr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]


the simplest solution if for A to keep his horse separate until A's 9k is made up and then by agreement, horse automatically goes into the group.

B&C shouldn't have to pay a big premium to get any player to stake, unless they both believe the horse is some kinda of ultra-hot commodity and they have to have this guy at this moment.

i understand A would like to get his 9k back, but he cannot expect his partners to assume the 9k loss when they had zero of the potential earlier positive expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]I think bobneptune has it.

A and his horse need to somehow clear the 9k matter between them before A's horse can be in the team.

It seems to me B and C should not become involved in the makeup between A and his horse no more than they would expect a cut of A's earlier profits if A's horse had been in the black at the time the team was formed.

Without the makeup would B and C be paying A for his horse to join the team. The existence of earlier makeup between A and his horse should not affect what B and C would be paying A for his horse to be on the team. That's a matter between A and his horse.

[Stumpy]

[ 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.

[locutus2002]

Sunk costs are sunk; b and c should not pay anything for a's horse joining the team. This is basic and obvious. Also if the horse was such a great player then why would A want to lay the action off on B and C; why is the horse down 9K; and why does the horse not have 9K to begin with.

[striderz]

If the horse was up 9K, would you guys get 3k each? obv not. done

[Punker]

Horse goes into the team at no cost to B/C, and must pay winnings out in this order:

1) Makeup to Staking Group ABC
2) Profit share to staking group ABC
3) Makeup to original staker A

After that, horse can keep his winnings.

[Yuv]

Shoot the horse.

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]
Shoot the horse.

[/ QUOTE ]


and just where the heck have you been? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Seriously, I was going to ask Jimmy to check around to see if you're doin' all right. It's been awhile.

[Yuv]

Moved to a new place, bought a lot of stuff, took a break from poker.

Ready to comeback, whenever I'll get a hold of the canadian kid. Hope I can. Thanks for asking.