The Punters Lounge - The World's Best Betting Forum - View Single Post

GotaFancy? · 10-03-2008, 20:40

Ok Uber

You've identified one of the biggest concerns/problems - sustainability....

Two issues to achieving sustainability - bankroll management and positive ev (from the 50% cut).

First off - positive ev - we're totally reliant on heavy added value for that if we pay full buy in, and only receive 50% of profit. I think the PokerTrillion games (at the moment) have enough added value per player that we can have a positive expectation on the buy in. (even only getting 50% of profit back). Obviously that wont last for ever, and eventually we'll probably be selecting lower added value games, which will leave us without positive ev. However if we get a good run from the money, and give people new opportunities, then it is still worthwhile even if it is doomed to eventually go bust.... If it's worthwhile, then I think we have a great chance of securing extra funding from PL to replenish this when needed....

Secondly - Bankroll management - we have £200 to start off with - we are investing about £83 of that in the first game - one player one game - and then we'll probably go for the same in the second month!! Crazy bankroll management - and higher than we probably would have done - but it's "crazy" (great) added value too, and a chance for positive ev. The probability is that the first 2 staked players wont cash. The probability is that we will look to replenish funds with a gift from PL for the third month. The probability is that we will get another gift

Eventually we will get a result, and a big boost to funds....then we can look to giving away weekly buy ins, and maybe even multiple weekly buy ins. For as long as I perceive that there is positive ev from the PokerTrillion game with 50% of profit, we will probably stay there. Once I perceive the value to be negative ev, then we will have to look at it again and probably find a different tourney (with a cheaper buy in). For the moment though I perceive the value of PokerTrillion to be too large to ignore, with the knowledge that extra funding will probably be available when necessary if we go bust

Onto your proposal - in theory it's great

I think it would work for a lot of players on PL, however there is one major drawback - and I think it is losing one of the major advantages of the original proposal.

We want to give people an opportunity to play a game that they wouldn't usually play. If we only stake them 50% then they have to pay the other 50% - that will be a "no" for a lot of players on here - for example - with the Trillion game - if PL pays €50+(€5 and we expect the player to pay €50+€5 - then there are a lot of players who wouldn't do it. Of the players who would pay €50 - I suspect the vast majority would be prepared to pay €100 with the value added - and if they have positive ev which I think most of us should have with such an overlay) , then they probably should pay the full buy in themselves....if PL pays the full buy in, then there are a far higher range of players who should play for PL, instead of themselves (even if they're prepared to pay the €109 themselves)

10-03-2008, 20:40	#34 (permalink)
GotaFancy? God Punter Join Date: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 32,464 Awards Showcase Total Awards: 4	Re: PL Players Club Ok Uber You've identified one of the biggest concerns/problems - sustainability.... Two issues to achieving sustainability - bankroll management and positive ev (from the 50% cut). First off - positive ev - we're totally reliant on heavy added value for that if we pay full buy in, and only receive 50% of profit. I think the PokerTrillion games (at the moment) have enough added value per player that we can have a positive expectation on the buy in. (even only getting 50% of profit back). Obviously that wont last for ever, and eventually we'll probably be selecting lower added value games, which will leave us without positive ev. However if we get a good run from the money, and give people new opportunities, then it is still worthwhile even if it is doomed to eventually go bust.... If it's worthwhile, then I think we have a great chance of securing extra funding from PL to replenish this when needed.... Secondly - Bankroll management - we have £200 to start off with - we are investing about £83 of that in the first game - one player one game - and then we'll probably go for the same in the second month!! Crazy bankroll management - and higher than we probably would have done - but it's "crazy" (great) added value too, and a chance for positive ev. The probability is that the first 2 staked players wont cash. The probability is that we will look to replenish funds with a gift from PL for the third month. The probability is that we will get another gift Eventually we will get a result, and a big boost to funds....then we can look to giving away weekly buy ins, and maybe even multiple weekly buy ins. For as long as I perceive that there is positive ev from the PokerTrillion game with 50% of profit, we will probably stay there. Once I perceive the value to be negative ev, then we will have to look at it again and probably find a different tourney (with a cheaper buy in). For the moment though I perceive the value of PokerTrillion to be too large to ignore, with the knowledge that extra funding will probably be available when necessary if we go bust Onto your proposal - in theory it's great I think it would work for a lot of players on PL, however there is one major drawback - and I think it is losing one of the major advantages of the original proposal. We want to give people an opportunity to play a game that they wouldn't usually play. If we only stake them 50% then they have to pay the other 50% - that will be a "no" for a lot of players on here - for example - with the Trillion game - if PL pays €50+(€5 and we expect the player to pay €50+€5 - then there are a lot of players who wouldn't do it. Of the players who would pay €50 - I suspect the vast majority would be prepared to pay €100 with the value added - and if they have positive ev which I think most of us should have with such an overlay) , then they probably should pay the full buy in themselves....if PL pays the full buy in, then there are a far higher range of players who should play for PL, instead of themselves (even if they're prepared to pay the €109 themselves)