EMFH Team Play

[moo321]

I have no experience with this so tell me if I am just plain wrong, but it would seem to me that the 50K investor would be getting a really crap deal out of this. A 10% bankroll increase would probably not even translate into 10% greater bets because of bet sizing etc, and they are taking on a hell of a lot of risk by letting someone bet with their bankroll. I would say that except under very rare situations this would be a terrible arrangement to enter into.

Notice where I said "based on investment". Let's break this down. We start with a $100k bank, I put up $80k, you put up $20k, we play equal hours, and double the bank.

Players share:
me 25k
you 25k

Investor's share
me 40k
you 10k

So, I would end up with 65k, and you'd end up with 35k.

It may be easier to think of it in terms of "shares". Say every share gets paid 50% if the bank gets doubled.

 

[Pro21]

I'm not sure what the original question was anymore, but I will say that in all the large teams the investors are the ones who make the bulk of the money.

 

[moo321]

I'm not sure what the original question was anymore, but I will say that in all the large teams the investors are the ones who make the bulk of the money.

And this is why a lot of the large teams fail. I honestly don't think it's sustainable to pay investors more than 50% just for sitting on their asses.

 

[Pro21]

With one exception the players were the investors in teams I have played on. But some players have leaks and blow their money on women, booze, sports betting, whatever and invest less in the banks than other people.

 

[Kasi]

Notice where I said "based on investment". Let's break this down. We start with a $100k bank, I put up $80k, you put up $20k, we play equal hours, and double the bank.

Players share:
me 25k
you 25k

Investor's share
me 40k
you 10k

So, I would end up with 65k, and you'd end up with 35k.

Pretty much what I tried to say.

The $80K investor's return on his money is 81.25% and the $20K investor's return on his money is 175% in the same amount of time.

Flip the coin, when bankroll is lost, whether playing equal time or not, ROI is equal at 100% of investment except for the fact I have lost more absolute $' since I am the majority investor. Sounds fair to me.

If I'm the $20K investor.

Am I missing how, somehow, your point means being a majority investor is a thing to be desired under these rules of splitting wins and losses 50% based on investment and 50% based on playing time?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

With one exception the players were the investors in teams I have played on. But some players have leaks and blow their money on women, booze, sports betting, whatever and invest less in the banks than other people.

Isn't that what money's for? :cool2:

It seems plenty of the early counters were drug addicts who used AP to fund their habits. I haven't used drugs in a couple of decades but if I did, I think I would become a full-time AP.