Staking/getting staked, specific to PTP

[Penguinfan]

I know a few of you here visit PTP and some of you are even quite active over there. I have been trying to understand the whole thing and have a massive $300 total invested over there, so clearly I an new at it and some things I don't understand.

It seems to me that a lot of the players people are very quick to back simply aren't very good. Maybe they picked up a big score somewhere and that makes them popular, but if you look at their OPR stats they simply don't cash often enough to make them a good horse.

Example, and I will leave the names out (and honestly I am not bashing here, just trying to understand).

Player A puts up a BAP for $6000 and it sells out fairly quickly, I look up his OPR and has a -18% ROI for the past year, WHAT? How does a year long LOSING player sell out a BAP for 6K in less than three days? What am I missing there?


Player B whom I have money invested in so I am railing from time to time is WAY behind on two BAP's (busted the first one for over $3500 and has less than $1500 left of the second $4000 one). Now, railing him earlier I watch him call two people all in in front of him with 44 and survive to win the hand ( I see him do several things like this as well, but he's a winning player so I don't question it). When someone does question him about those plays he says that he has played with those players before and knows how large their range is. Does thier range include 2-3?

Now Player B, again is losing almost all of other peoples $7500, is on the bubble of a $320 buy in with an above average stack and calls off his stack with 77 when two players, including the chip leader shove in front of him. He busts out and again says he knows how large thier range is so the play was correct.

He does this twice in the same night, missing the money by two spots the second time. Again he had a top 15 stack when he does it. Simply cashing the bottom spot of both of those games gets his investors back almost half their money (from the second BAP at least).


My question, and I am willing to be wrong here, but isn't he kind of obligated to make sure he cashes here before making a play like that? I guess I think since he had a top 15 stack he could have easily went deep with or without doubling up there and feel he owed it to his backers to recover some of thier money.



We all know Brian is/was a tool and claims that once he pays people back he will again be putting up BAPs because other people have rolled and sell out $10K BAPs, if this is true doesn't it speak poorly of the community overall?

Thoughts on PTP?

[BlibbityBlabbity]

I have seen some play railing good players that I did not agree with (specifically of the bubble as well), but I think the answer to this question is no in general. You are putting your money up for them to try to make you as much as possible (do as well as they possibly can). I think the majority of players would agree that this means playing for the FT/top spots and not the money.

I have also railed good TIGHT players that made plays that I didn't agree with on the bubble. This includes folding in an obvious push situation when they are short and NEED those blinds/antes to have a shot to go deep. They folded and barely made the money for a small win when they could have had an average stack and almost doubled with just those blinds/antes!

You are not going to agree with everything they do. You are trusting them to generally make the right plays in the right situations as much as you are trusting them not to go blow your money playing blackjack in between tournaments.

As far as them being obligated to reimburse backers for a bad play.... I don't think it could be required. Some do it on occasion ("I am not charging the BAP for that, I played like shit, etc, etc"), but it is a long run game, not a one play game and it is the backer's responsibility to choose the horse. You are free to not back them again. I think there are ways to even ask to be bought out on PTP if you are unhappy, right?

[Penguinfan]

BB, thanks for the reply.

I guess I wasn't clear there. I don't think a horse should ever reimburse anyone for anything. You are right you are trusting them to do the right thing and once it's done, it's done.

My question was more around the thought he should have folded both of those hands and ensured he at least cashed when nobody in their right mind thinks they are ahead far enough to risk it with 44 and 77.

Perhaps I am just too nitty, but bubbling with other peoples money with 44 and 77 when you have a top 15 stack seems like bad management.

Thanks.

[Talking Poker]

First, if you have a question about PTP horses, I would suggest starting a thread on PTP, and not here. I'm sure you would get much better responses.

Second, when you agree to back someone, you are giving them money to play agreed upon game(s). They are allowed to play however they want though, so long as they actually play what was agreed upon. I would hope you wouldn't back players that you think are bad players, but if you do for some reason, you need to live with that decision. You certainly have the right to question plays they make. Maybe post specific Hands in the Hand Discussion thread here, removing their name of course, and see what kinds of comments it gets and then point them to the results. That way, you are giving them an opportunity to improve their game.

My last piece of advice is that maybe you should back players who play with the nitty-go-for-the-mincash style that is more closely aligned with your own. I personally don't think that's a good strategy, but it sounds like you would be more comfortable with it than backing the guys who are going to both bust early and FT a higher percentage of the time than the mincash guys.

[Penguinfan]

I see what you are saying, and agree. In the examples I gave I just thought getting some of the backers money would have been important and it's not like I was asking them to fold KK, I mean they called off fairly big stacks with 44 and 77 against TWO other players each time.

I know you and I agree as often as oil and water, but I don't think I would call folding 44 or 77 against two all-ins nitty.

I didn't post this at PTP because I figured they would just defend thier own reguardless. I was looking for more unbiased opinions from people who may be farmiliar with the site, but not regulars.

[Talking Poker]

Well, I certainly don't think two bad plays represents and entire community, ya know?