|
|
#21
08-08-2007, 02:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Staking Situation/Math Problem/Maybe I\'m just stupid.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I dont think makeup is retarded, if its not in there they could easily go through half the stake, take shots / play bad and then go lol [censored] you afterwards because it doesn't matter to them. I'd say makeup is pretty mandatory in most staking deals just for the psychological factor. [/ QUOTE ] umm... thats why I think makeup is retarded. I dont get what you're saying. [/ QUOTE ] He meant the "psychological factor" for the backer, I think. 
|
|
#22
08-08-2007, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Staking Situation/Math Problem/Maybe I\'m just stupid.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I agree with curtains. Unlimited makeback seems like a really bad idea--much rather do something like stake someone over a set amount of tourneys or set $s bought in for or something. [/ QUOTE ] isn't that a much bigger risk for the backer, as the horse could logically lose incentive towards the end of an unproftiable deal, knowing that he'll be better off when the term expires and the makeup vanishes? Anyway, I don't think there are any perfect equations, especially when we're factoring potential psychological factors vs logistics and economic realities. Curtains' idea about the 10% guaranteed "clear" is pretty good, and I actually heard about a horse deep in makeup whose backer arranged something like this with him. Excellent idea, really. [/ QUOTE ] Good point. I've never staked someone in a long-term deal where one good finish couldn't erase all their debt, so I didn't think of that. Also, most of this is moot with a lot of backees, cause many of them feel really bad losing the backer's money, which provides a ton of incentive to play well.
|
|
#23
08-08-2007, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Staking Situation/Math Problem/Maybe I\'m just stupid.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I agree with curtains. Unlimited makeback seems like a really bad idea--much rather do something like stake someone over a set amount of tourneys or set $s bought in for or something. [/ QUOTE ] isn't that a much bigger risk for the backer, as the horse could logically lose incentive towards the end of an unproftiable deal, knowing that he'll be better off when the term expires and the makeup vanishes? Anyway, I don't think there are any perfect equations, especially when we're factoring potential psychological factors vs logistics and economic realities. Curtains' idea about the 10% guaranteed "clear" is pretty good, and I actually heard about a horse deep in makeup whose backer arranged something like this with him. Excellent idea, really. [/ QUOTE ] but why not just do a set amount of $ or set # of tourneys without makeup at all? I don't get why this isn't totally standard for longterm staking deals.
|
|
#24
08-08-2007, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Staking Situation/Math Problem/Maybe I\'m just stupid.
You see this a lot in the financial world. A lot of Hedge Funds only get a performance fee (typically 20% of profits) if they are 'above water' meaning, if they are down 10% one year, they have to make that up before they get their fee.
They still get a 1-2% fee on total assets, but that isn't how they get rich. Anyway, I can't ever imagine investing in a hedge fund where they are 20% under water, and the manager doesn't have pretty much all of his own capital in the fund. The incentives just don't work in the investor's favor anymore. I like the idea of the horse always having some stake in the current tournament. You could always to a sliding scale depending on how big the makeup is. Like, the player gets 10% if they are >100k in makeup, 15% at 50k, 20% at 25k, etc. That way there is always a bigger incentive to get the backer close to whole.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
