|
|
#32
02-18-2004, 03:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ask yourself
WOW! alot more responses then i had even hoped for...
Yes, I currently only play the .25/.50 NL games, and that rarely... Mostly though because I cannot afford to put much money in (College student's are poor)... I am curious too how they got my email... boggles my mind, because while i don't consider myself a poor poker player, i'm not great... I'm not sure if i can even long term beat a limit game, any one limit or what not (working on that)... However i feel confident at No Limit enough that if i had a bankroll, i could win (not 100% confident however...) It seems like a decent deal... My worries however: -Identity theft -some how cleaning out my bankaccount (don't know how) or my poker account Identity theft is the only probably one, since IF i did this, I'd be making a brand new poker account, or asking my current poker accounts to CLEAR any records of my transactions ( no credit cards / firepay information / neteller info) I'm going to follow up on the Interview... If you guys would like, i'll let you know, especially since i'll be posting here regularly if i get into online again... Thankyou for your insights, very helpful Kapt 
|
|
#33
02-18-2004, 04:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Other Than a Scam
Other than being a pure scam, I can think of three reasons this offer is being made.
1. The offer is being made by an affiliate: (a)You open a NEW account and they get the affiliate credit for lifetime commissions. (b)They fund the account, so it's probably Party's Quick Cash method of sign up for new and play money accounts. Or, you simply use their bonus code or URL method. (c)They want to interview you to make sure their investment will return a profit, as they don't want you to lose their investment in your bankroll. (d)If at a later date, you choose to play on your own, which you undoubtably will, as you've been interviewed for success (or at least breakeven), they simply give you a share of their affiliate income, but that's the subject of future negotiations. 2. They own a site/skin: (a) Again, they don't want you to be a 'total loser'. (b) If you are at least near break even, they gain because the rake is more punishing than what you can lose to other players and/or props. (c) If you passed the interview, your time is cheaper to them than having to pay a full prop rate. 3. They are professional poker players with spare cash and would like to invest in up and coming super stars. In return they get 1/2 your wins, plus their affiliate commission, and take all your losses. (a) You prove to be successful and regret being locked into these guys unless they agree to new terms that offer you a rake back incentive and 100% of your +/- to yourself. (b) You prove to be a poor choice, and they cut your funding. (c) You are around break even, so they don't mind getting the affiliate commissions. There is a good chance this may simply be another affiliate sign up offer in a prettier package. There is also the possibility this is a method to recruit props on the cheap. I personally take no issue with possibility 3. I do take issue with possbilities 1 & 2. For one, I really dislike affiliate spamming. For two, I hate seeing sites short change props for less than fair market rate. The offer is simply ridiculous for a player that already is in the plus. If you're in the minus, don't expect to pass the interview.
|
|
#35
02-18-2004, 07:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Other Than a Scam
Great input...
in response to your end comment though, ridiculous for a player already in the plus, but what about a player in the plus, who is playing the micro limits? It is currently what i'm playing, so this might give me a chance to get into higher limits, cheaply, while still working on my skills. #2 doesn't seem to likely, since they didn't say "at this site" only "your poker account"... which implys to me that I can play where ever i want... most likely gonna be party.... now, for your #1 point, I don't know how putting money into my account helps them if they are JUST an affiliate... I just don't think thier an affiliate for some reason, #3 and 2 are much more logical. I'm curious what they would be asking when i'm on the interview. Any ideas? probably win rate i'm assuming? limits i play/ have played, and success at those? Thanx for your input Kapt
|
|
#36
02-18-2004, 07:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another way to look at this
As a person that has backed numerous players in the past, this offer is could be a total rip off, or a great deal! My backing offers for B&M games in the past have been 5% of monthly net. Here's what the numbers work out to be:
Game: 10-20 Holdem Investment: $6,000 bankroll Risk: 100% Return: 5% of Monthly plus, 0% if negative. Conditions: Player to play minimum 160 hours/month. Player is slightly better than a 1BB/hour winner. 1BB/H x $20/BB x 160 H/month x 12 months x 5% = $1,920 Truth is, it will be slightly higher than $1,920 as the 1BB/hour player is expected to be stuck 2 months out of 12 months, where I received $0, but to be better than 1BB/hour of the remaining 10 months (in order to be a 1BB/hour player at the end of the year), where I get 5% of monthly of earn. Player has 1% chance of going bust. Therefore, Investment is $6,000 with annual return of $1,920, or 32% per annum with a 1% risk of total loss. This investment is substantially better than any 'normal' investment available in savings, or the stock market! If the offer is 50% of wins and 100% of losses calculated on a per month basis, you are being ripped off, and must be totally retarded or blind to accept such an offer. If it's 50% of wins, and 100% of losses calculated on a per session basis, the backer could be offering you a 'fair' deal, but that depends on your particular play style, and the games in which you choose to play. In extreme cases, a 1BB/hour player with a higher than 'typical' SD, that works 'fewer' hours per session, the backer might even be a net negative at the end of the year - in which case you are ripping off the backer. If we take this example to the internet environment and the world of AFFILIATES: Game: 2 x 5-10 Holdem Investment: $3,000 bankroll Risk: 100% Return 5% of Monthly plus, 0% if negative. Condition 1: Player to play minimum 160 hours/month at 2 tables simultaneously. Condition 2: Player to play minimum of 160 hours/month at 2 short tables simultaneously. For arguments sake, let's assume a 10-20 player steps down to a pair of 5-10 games. This is based on a number of assumptions. The 5-10 game is more like the 10-20 B&M game, most professionals prefer playing multiple tables, and 5-10 is easier to handle in a multitable situation than 10-20. Therefore, backer maximum potential investment is only $3,000 instead of $6,000. 2 tables x 1BB/H x $10/BB x 160 hours x 12 months x 5% = $1,920 (same as B&M) Difference is $1,920 return on $3,000 investment = 64% rate of return on investment. Deals are faster online than in B&M, but we'll say BB/H is the same, as games are generally tighter online, and we assume the new recruit will take some time to adjust. Rate of return for investment is not changed. Further, the exact deal worked out, be it monthly or sessional caluclation of earn split or loss still needs to be worked out, as stated earlier. However, what is different is the affiliate return for your investor - In full game (10 max): $2 avg rake / raked hand x 2 tables x 50 raked hands / hour / 10 players x 25% = $5 per hour. After 160 hours, your backer has received an additional $800 per month for his investment. In shorthaned (6 max): $2 avg rake / raked hand x 2 tables x 60 raked hands / hour / 6 players x 25% = $10 per hour. After a 160 hours, your backer has received an additional $1,600 per month for his investment. Even asssuming your investor takes ZERO PERCENT of your wins for his bankroll investment (eventhough they are asking for 50% with exact method of calculation unspecified in original offer), $800 to $1,600 in affiliate fees per month to you investor (assuming a $3,000 investment) returns between a 320% to 640% per annum to your investor. Again, a truly astornomical rate of return ! If you are not a net plus, you will gain from someone taking your losses, but you probably won't pass the phone interview. If you do make money, you are better off playing for yourself and finding a good affiliate to kick back at least half of his commission to you. If you are that good but can't find a friend of family member to back you, then you probably aren't as good as you think, and won't pass the phone interview anyways. Further, the offer is unlikely to include a 'full' bankroll, but more likely 4-5 times a sessional buy in ($1,000 to $1,250 for 5-10), which provides your investor an amazing, unbelievable, and out of this world rate of return, and is also something you should be able to provide for yourself. To summarize, if you don't make money, don't expect to pass a phone interview. Even if you do, expect not to get any more funding after you've proven yourself a loser to your investor. If you do make money, go find a good affiliate and get back a share of his commissions because that is way better than having someone take BOTH 50% of your wins, and 100% of the affiliate commission !! I have backed many people in both B&M and Online situations. This sounds like a real rip off. On the other hand, your services might be required for some kind of money scam and it could prove very lucrative to participate. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#37
02-18-2004, 08:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another way to look at this
Was curious... you said its a bad deal, since invester is getting 50% of his investment...
but to me, I barely can afford to put $100 in, which is 4 standard buyins for a .50/$1 limit game... your saying that its still a bad idea, if they get me to higher limits, to start building a bankroll, maybe for a year? I'm not even sure if i'm going to pass the phone interview, but if i do, i think it would be worth it... but then again i'm not too sure, why i asked everyone on the board...
|
|
#38
02-18-2004, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think we have to re-name this Forum to..............
...............Con-Man's Paradise.
Instead of working one "mark" at a time, you can put your stream of bs out to the whole school, and if you get a 5% "bingo" response, you're rolling in the dough!!! Beats working for a living......... Life is goot......... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#40
02-18-2004, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another way to look at this
I did not mean to say it is a bad deal because your sponsor is making way too much money. I meant to demonstrate how lucrative this deal is for the sponsor after 'screening' out non-performers. But to look at it purely from your perspective:
Assuming the net take of your patron will end up being as little as 25% of your net win. That is no matter how the 50% win - 100% loss is calculated, they end up with 25% of your monthly net. You currently play 1/2-1 with say a 1BB/hour win rate. They agree to finance you for 1-2, and your new win rate is 0.75BB/hour. Under an affiliate that say, gives you 65% of your rake at 1/2-1: Game: 140 H x 1BB/H x $1/H = $140 per month. Aff: 25% x 65% x 0.45 avg rake / 10 x 140H x 40h/H = $40.95 Your current monthly net = $180.95 (140 + 40.95) Under a program for 25% of your net wins and they sponsor you for 1-2: Game: 140H x $0.75BB/H x $2/BB = $210 You Pay: 25% x $210 = $52.25 Your new monthly net = $157.75 (210 - 52.25) In this example, you've doubled the limits you play at, taken a 0.25BB/hour reduction in your earn rate because of it, and both paid 25% of your net winnings AND conceded your rake rebate for the privelege of making $23.20 less per 140 hour month. In order for this sponsorship to be break even for you, they would have to agree to taking less than 14% of your new monthly win, and that is assuming you do not drop more than 0.25BB/h for moving up the limits you play at. You need to consider: 1. Your cost in rake rebate, 2. Your cost in the net percentage your sponsor charges, and 3. Your cost in terms of percentage of BB/hr at the higher limit, in order to determine if you are better or worse for the sponsorship. I could be totally wrong. The net percentage charged could be trivial, and you might not suffer a substantial drop in earn rate in terms of BB's per hour. In which case, doubling your limit through sponsorship could result in higher net monthly earnings despite conceding your rake rebate. To further demonstrate the 'bad' deal, even if you were never getting a rake rebate, if your sponsor got as much as 25% of your monthly net, you'd be no better off, if you're making 0.25BB/hour less at the new limit ($140 compared to $157). If you want to move up in limits, and don't want to grind it out (pay your dues as an aspiring pro), then demonstrate to a personal friend or family member that you are worth their investment for something as small as a 5% monthly return on their investment in you. Make it a business deal with someone you know and understands the value you are giving their investment.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
