Nate Meyvis Selling WSOP Main Event Action

Nate, whom most of you know as the other host of the Thinking Poker Podcast, is looking to sell 60% of himself in the 2014 WSOP Main Event at 1.3 markup, meaning each 5% costs $650. Terms are below; please email if interested. I’m sure Nate will keep an eye on the comments here as well, so you can use that for questions.

(i) I need paperwork from backers (just a SSN or TIN, really) if I cash;
(ii) 5% minimum, though I have no objection to people subdividing a 5% among themselves as long as I only have to deal with one person;
(iii) Any endorsement money, prop betting money, or other money I make on the side because I play in the tournament is mine to keep.
(iv) I can receive and send money with BoA, check in the mail, cash in Boston, or cash / chips / tournament lammers at the Rio July 2-4. I’d rather get the money beforehand because it’s one less thing to worry about while I’m traveling.
(v) I’m allowed to make swaps, sell small pieces to family and close friends, etc.; that is, although I’ll have significant skin in the game, I don’t want to create the appearance that I’m only selling/swapping 60%.

14 thoughts on “Nate Meyvis Selling WSOP Main Event Action

    • Oh, snap!

      Actually I have no objections turning this into a “what markup is appropriate?” thread if you have thoughts on the subject.

      • haha

        Do not have thoughts, just wit. As usual, my wit conceals ignorance. I have heard some respectable people say the Main is a tournament like no other and markups can be theoretically crazy. So yeah, I have nothing of substance to say on 1.3. I encourage people to buy, you are a responsible, competent, sure-thing as far as giant field tournaments go. For better or worse (better…funner!) I have spent my summer WSOP investment budget in one Carlos Welch.

  1. I don´t mean this disrespectfullly but what credentials do you have to justify the markup.

    • Neil–

      Good question. I have some live results[1] including two WSOP ME cashes but no very deep runs. I’d say my credentials are:

      (1) Well-above-average grounding in poker theory that allows me to adapt well in unusual situations, which poker (especially at the WSOP ME!) is full of;

      (2) Well-above-average focus, nutrition, hydration, not missing hands, not getting lazy, and so on. I prioritize the tournament and do many things off the felt to be good at it.

      (3) For years my main game was live mid-limit LHE. This gave me lots and lots of training at estimating casual players’ preflop ranges. This serves me well in tournaments.

      (4) I’ve seen plenty of good players blow up (not just bluff their chips off, but blow up) ITM in this tournament. I don’t do that (though I do make mistakes!).

      (5) The other boring stuff: sound tournament fundamentals, plenty of study over my poker life, plenty of study in the couple months leading up to the tournament. I’d go into detail here, but I should get to sleep.

      Here’s something I wrote about 2011; make of it what you will.

      Anyway, thanks for the question. I agree that 1.3 is pretty high, but in this tournament I think it’s more than justified. Just look at the quality of play at recent final tables. Indeed, I think the best argument for *not* investing in me is by arguing that there will be so many better players at the last tables that I’m overestimating the (small) likelihood that I make the top spots.

      A final note: I don’t plan to lower my markup below 1.3. If that means taking a very big piece for myself, I’m fine with that.


      • Just on Nate’s list, I would add he is probably above average in accountability, which matters when you are doing a financial transaction in the grey murky world of poker.

        However, I think the primary question is almost moot. I don’t think there is an exact answer. You cannot know the field ahead of time, so figuring out the exact proper markup is impossible.

        I see similarities in the world of investing. I could invest on my own, without the markup. Or I could outsource those decisions to someone who has a more appropriate education, experience, and skill set. I pay a markup for the right to outsource the decisions, regardless of the future outcomes. The better advisors, the ones with the supposed better expectation, charge the markup and take a percentage of the profits. So I see no problem with the standard arrangement. The question of what is the proper markup cannot be solved, only left to a marketplace. Backing has a very primitive marketplace. I think it will evolve over time, and markups may come down, or become better defined.

        Good luck to Nate and his backers.

        • Piefarmer–

          Thanks for these notes. I agree that accountability is important. I’ve paid people out without hassle in the past, and I think people don’t have to price in any risk that I’m going to run off with their money.

          I do think that questions about markup are susceptible to empirical analysis. That is, I wouldn’t charge 10% markup in a Full Tilt weekly $600 tournament (if I could play on FTP), just because we know something about the skill-set that is required to achieve that ROI and about how few people can do that.

          Unfortunately there are relatively few modern-era Main Events to give us good data that could be used to estimate an ROI without doing clever / speculative statistical stuff to the data. I will say that I wouldn’t want to crossbook a player with my skill set (and I mean both the good and bad parts of my skill set) even at 1.6, and even if it were a small enough fractional crossbook that I didn’t have worries about variance.

          I do want to encourage discussion of markup, both because it’s a very interesting subject and because I want to encourage responsible investing and game selection generally. That said, I do think it’s strong evidence/justification for 1.3 markup both that I think I’ll sell as much as I want at that price and that, if I don’t sell out at 1.3 but would sell out at (say) 1.25, I’m happy to buy my own action (in opportunity cost) at 1.25. That is, I’m happy to risk selling only (say) 25% of myself at 1.3 when I could probably sell more action more easily at 1.25 or 1.2.

      • Thanks for the comprehensive answer Nate, i really appreciate it. If you are still selling action i would like to back you to the tune of 650 dollars. My email is 650 dollars is not too much money to me but gives me an interest in the ME, and as a fan of the podcast, i would be happy to “invest”

        Piefarmer- thanks for the endorsement of Nate. I didn’t have trust issues about Nate paying me if he were to win money, nor about whether he will try his best and try to make the best decision in any given situation. I also don´t have unrealistic expectations about his chances and although i am not a professional player, I am somewhat aware of tournament variance even for the very best. I did think however my question was relevant and not completely moot. I didn’t need an exact answer, just a general idea of Nate’s pedigree and experience.

        • Neil,
          My apologies. My answer was meant to be broad, not a specific reply to you. (Other than that I think Nate has accountability and that matters, especially as markup increases). It wasn’t meant as a dig at you.

          I think the question is valid, if it can be answered, but that is what I question. In other words, Nate gave lots of evidence why he can justify markup. I didn’t see anything in his answer to justify his chosen level of markup (1.3 vs. 1.25). I don’t think it can be done, so it’s not a slight at Nate. I think those things are best left to a marketplace. So the real answer is, what level of markup are others charging, and how does Nate compare to those folks? Still, Nate could be correct and the comparables might be wrong (thus, bank of Timex).

  2. Long time fan of the blog/podcast! I’m curious with regards to the markup marketplace – @Nate (or anyone else interested) what fair value markup would you pay if you were buying a piece of an PFI (phil fuckin ivey), Negreanu, or Selbst?

Comments are closed.