OT: STT Aptitude Test

[Degen]

Psychology Forum Cross Post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3897025&an=0&page=0# Post3897025)

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
am currently recruiting players to be on a Single Table Tournament poker team of sorts

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is gonna go over really well...

[Degen]

what is with peoples knee-jerk negative reaction to that?

why does team automatically mean cheating

it does not in this case...i didn't want to go into that a great deal, anybody who would like more information on that concept can check out my blog (in my profile)...this post is about the actual test

[raptor517]

he never said anything about cheating. i just think a sng team is really really stupid. im assuming it entails a group of people playing for an hourly wage and giving you all the profits. by the time these people are good enough to beat their respective games for more than they make from the hourly wage, why the hell would they not stop playing for you and play for themselves? seems pretty simple.. holla

[bjb23]

yeah id have to agree with you rapt.

a quote from the blog:

The wage paid to players will be 50% of what is determined to be the 'true' ROI for the game they are playing...for the entire team. So say a player is at the $50+5 SNG's on Party-and the teams true ROI is 15%, this player will be paid 7.5% (~$4.13) plus 50% of the rakeback (~$0.63) for each tourney they play.


50% of the roi??? with all due respect degen, seriously... who would want to do this? if a person doesnt have the bankroll then they shouldnt be playing the stakes, imo, and if variance is that much of an issue that a person would be willing to potentially sacrifice 50% ot their own profits, then this is the wrong business for them.

maybe im failing to see some underlying benefits (and if so, i apologize) but im not seeing how this would benefit anyone except the people getting the passive 50% income off the top.

[junkmail3]

Well, if you look at this as a variance reducing 'system' or whatever you want to call it, then it works for both the investor and the player. The investor absorbs the variance and the player gets paid for every tournament, never having to endure a downswing.

The problem is however, that I would not give up 50% ROI to achieve this. And a 50% tax on no variance is absurd.

I think you would have a lot more interest if you 'charged' 10% or something reasonable.

And with monitoring players, I've had a 35 buyin downswing. Would I be kicked off of this thing? I've had many 10+OOTM streaks, am I out?

If so, I guess I'd join, wait for my first huge downswing, get kicked out and stick you guys with that bill.

Am I to understand that 50% of the team expected ROI goes to the player and any excess winnings go to the investors? And, that players can also be investors? There doesn't seem to be any mention of how much of the excess will be returned to investors and how much will go to "management".

[jeffraider]

From reading his blog I got the impression that the 50% would stay in the collective bankroll, not just drop into Degen's pockets.

PS dope blog dude keep it up!

[sng-sam]

[ QUOTE ]
So say a player is at the $50+5 SNG's on Party-and the teams true ROI is 15%, this player will be paid 7.5% (~$4.13) plus 50% of the rakeback(~$0.63) for each tourney they play.


[/ QUOTE ]

What am I missing. I thought this was dead. Is this "team" not playing on party?

Straight Flushes,

SAM

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
... by the time these people are good enough to beat their respective games for more than they make from the hourly wage, why the hell would they not stop playing for you and play for themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

One might suppose it would take frequent beatings, but once you break their spirit the lack of light, ventilation, decent food, and some heavy chains keeps those guys in my basement from getting any big ideas.

[gildwulf]

This is interesting...are you looking for full-time players only?

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting...are you looking for full-time players only?

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you replying to Degen or me? I am looking for one or two more players. It's more very full time, than just full time. 18hrs/day. I have a spot in a closet and one under my kitchen sink. What size collar do you wear?

[gildwulf]

18. Preference is kitchen but I am willing to relocate.

[Degen]

i have yet to see one question somebody would find relevant on an aptitude test...

ill try and some up the issues in one swoop

the team project is a work in progress-it is evident here that the investors edge at fifty percent is too much-thanks for the input-well have a look at that

i would only benefit so far as i am an investor-no house cut or management fees

there is party rakeback-you just have to know where to find it

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Plan seems to be subject to free-rider problem of any communist pooling. Low performers get better $:effort ratio by lowering effort, and team ROI slips until everyone wonders why they started it.

Why not use the pooling to skew reward in favor of performance? pay 10% ROI for each game (for that steady income), and pay winners their actual winnings on top. Haven't done the math, so likely not sustainable, but there should be a pattern where 1st place winners make more than they would otherwise, and all other performance paid a nominal amount per game. Incentive is to win, which drives up ROI and keeps good players in it without the sense they're supporting freeloaders (though the investors then favor 2nd and 3rds.... so my idea is flawed too...).