RainmanTrail
Straight Flush
Lederer is a shitbag. No question. But Chris had nothing to do with that shit. He just got in early enough to have a comfy seat on the couch. Then everyone got pissed at him because other people said to.
Daniel Negreanu zero markup package -- good idea? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter kaimat
- Start date
Lederer is a shitbag. No question. But Chris had nothing to do with that shit. He just got in early enough to have a comfy seat on the couch. Then everyone got pissed at him because other people said to.
crussader
Flush
He runs a full slate of tournaments at the WSOP including high roller events. That means a buy-in expenditure of more than $250k for the series. As mentioned, selling off some of the action helps with variance and bankroll management.
Pokerstars was paying the bulk of that. However, he has separated from Pokerstars and needs to replace the funding they were providing.
DN said he's selling no more than 10% at zero markup. I think it's more of a PR thing than variance reduction or bankroll management, although we can't ignore those aspects of the deal.
Reminds me of a chip sale, the site looks like it went down at Noon (the time slated for the sale).
Daniel should have talked to @Tommy & @TheChipRoom first!
moose
4 of a Kind
The way he is explaining it is wrong and will cost him a ton of money. His returns have to be net of taxes.
Since the site crashed, it's been rescheduled for tomorrow at noon.
...
Damn, I forgot about this and it's all sold out.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
I was interested - but deterred by his shitty return last year.
Spent the money on a date with Mrs Zombie. Returns are far more probable.
Spent the money on a date with Mrs Zombie. Returns are far more probable.
Venturalvn
Full House
Took a piece of mid action 8 minutes in but just got refunded an hour ago. Looks like he actually had sold out of low/mid/hi after 1/2/3 minutes respectively but a glitch let the site keep selling. Oh well, figured I had been lucky to even have gotten in after 8 minutes. Seemed like too long.
Yeah- the whole thing was AFU. Most of mine was refunded but I have a small piece of the Hi stakes package.
Tweet by B.S-H. summarizes it nicely:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">That time I bought action from <a href="https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@RealKidPoker</a> <a href="https://t.co/kxLOx6gfLo">pic.twitter.com/kxLOx6gfLo</a></p>— Brandon Shack-Harris (@Oscillator_WSOP) <a href=" ">May 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Tweet by B.S-H. summarizes it nicely:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">That time I bought action from <a href="https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@RealKidPoker</a> <a href="https://t.co/kxLOx6gfLo">pic.twitter.com/kxLOx6gfLo</a></p>— Brandon Shack-Harris (@Oscillator_WSOP) <a href=" ">May 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
crussader
Flush
He's at the final table in his first event of the summer. Someone's getting a good return on their investment.
Not legal advice, but that doesn't sound right to me. This sounds like a widespread offer to sell a piece of action -- not a one-on-one private deal. I would've thought the contract needed to fail being classified as a security (like mummel suggested) rather than some type of exclusion based on this being private.
The Howey test (which may be what you're thinking of) came to my mind as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co. A quick google confirms others wonder about this as well: See, e.g., http://www.burr.com/blogs/securities-litigation/2017/01/09/color-gambling-green-staking-security/
The CNBC video posted on staking on this forum, mentioned on of the staking match-maker websites was investigated by the SEC. The SEC dropped the investigation. See http://www.flushdraw.net/misc/sec-drops-youstake-investigation-countering-action-dismissed/
Sounds like a complicated issue.
Poker Zombie was wrong. The SEC did in fact look into players selling stakes. However, after a lengthy investigation, they concluded it fell outside of their jurisdiction.
I personally believe they looked at the size of the market and determined it wasn't worth the time, man power & cost to regulate it (i.e. if they were going to regulate a market and generate revenue, it had to at least cover the cost of regulation).
However, if this market ever becomes big enough, I believe they will definitely jump in. The more I think about it - players advertising their historical rates of return, raising capital by offering shares to the public in exchange for a percentage of future income, perhaps the public selling these shares to other members of the public, let alone the players "mark up" which can be seen as an investment banking fee.
Man this whole thing is an SEC wet dream....
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
Fixed your post.
The SEC investigated it and made a written determination - this is not our jurisdiction.
That is not to say that at some point in the future some congressman might want to increase the scope of the SEC, but currently the SEC has put it in writing that a poker player is not a corporation. They do not need to publicly disclose their winnings and losses, not does a poker player that is selling "pieces" have to disclose all of their assets (like a corporation).
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
