Staking dilemma

[gobbomom]

this thread reminds me of the good 'ole days, way last year before everybody started winning so much.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[shaundeeb]

gobbomom I am linking this post in 12-18 months when you have your first 5 figure score.

[Doylestown]

[ 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.

[gobbomom]

[ 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.

[Double Ice]

Does this makeup never expire? Is the horse allowed to quit A? My full analysis forthcoming after these questions are answered.

[Sherman]

A is obv >>>>>>>>> smarter than B.

[Stumpy]

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.

[Confused1]

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.

[Todd Terry]

[ 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.

[THAY3R]

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