Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
Very nice post, and nicely written!

I didn't understand one part: you wrote, "What if the team is losing, do losses also get 'paid' based on hours played? If so, no one's going to want to put in more hours during a losing period, because they'll just get attributed to having a higher % of the action (negative)."

I assume by "the team is losing" you mean the team is in the red, and not just that the team is eating into profits by losing at the moment. If the team is in the red, why does it matter if you have more hours than someone else? The loss is borne entirely by the investors in proportion to the amount they have invested. How many hours the players have played has no consequence in that situation. Or, so it seems to me.

Don
Yes, losing as in "in the red".

It would depend on how the team structure is set up, and I used that as an example of why you can't necessarily just say "Players take a proportional amount of action based on their hours (or EV) compared to team's total hours (or EV)." And if you go the route where investors take all of the losses, then you need to figure out an appropriate amount of time before a bankroll is split, because in the worst case scenario for the investors, if they take all the losses and not all the wins and you do a spit (hypothetically) every single day, then they're gonna get screwed over.


The way my team works (not a BJ card-counting team), is we almost always just invest whatever % we feel comfortable with into a new play, and don't do payouts based on how much play someone does. If you invest 25%, then you get 25% of the wins or 25% of the losses. We try to split up play as evenly/fairly as possible....and if someone isn't putting in their "fair" share of work, then others tell him to go do more work. Somewhat by coincidence, we usually all take a full equal share of the investment, so it's not like some people are investing way more than others.