APAT Staking Exchange - Discussion

[Waz1892]

I investigated the "commercial" aspects a while ago

The advice I received was the Financial Services Authority licencing might be an issue to be an intermediary holding third party funds

I stopped at that point!

Couldn"t this been done by instead of a licensed player directory which charges a £10 fee, and holds the sums in an intermediary capicity, but as a Members Only criteria for Staking/Stacked,  Membership being charged at £10?

Would this make it more easier? I have I mis-understood.

Great idea for the whoel staking either way.

[Des]

I investigated the "commercial" aspects a while ago

The advice I received was the Financial Services Authority licencing might be an issue to be an intermediary holding third party funds

I stopped at that point!

Thanks for the feedback to date everyone, and please keep your ideas coming. If we do this, I would like it to be right.

Given Tighty"s experience above, I would remove the suggestion that APAT would act as a middleman for fund transfers.

I would also agree that APAT earning 1% of the value of the stakers winnings, paid by the licensed player, makes more sense than 1% of total.

[deanp27]

As it is the stakee effectively paying the fee for a managed service, which sounds good in principle btw, what are the advantages for the stakee being staked through here for a one-off event rather than trying to get stakes somewhere else for free?

I like the ideas you have but if I wanted to be staked for an event I am not sure that this would be my first choice due to the fees and %s eating into my equity.

Once you start charging a fee I think you need several factors that differentiate you from other sites and sources of staking.
Just my take on it really.

Maybe if you did it on a free basis you could insist on some hand analysis to be posted from the tournament as a condition in order to stimulate the strategy section?

[deanp27]

Also would never consider holding the funds given money laundering regs. As a professional firm, we don"t even hold third party funds due to risk and paperwork required so I"d suggest this as a strict no-no

[Des]

As it is the stakee effectively paying the fee for a managed service, which sounds good in principle btw, what are the advantages for the stakee being staked through here for a one-off event rather than trying to get stakes somewhere else for free?

I like the ideas you have but if I wanted to be staked for an event I am not sure that this would be my first choice due to the fees and %s eating into my equity.

Once you start charging a fee I think you need several factors that differentiate you from other sites and sources of staking.
Just my take on it really.

Maybe if you did it on a free basis you could insist on some hand analysis to be posted from the tournament as a condition in order to stimulate the strategy section?

Actually my thinking was that we don"t want to compete with the other sites in this market.  Adding a premium should keep the APAT market manageable and perhaps under the radar of the more opportunistic staker chasers.

[Swinebag]

Don"t mind the idea of the £10 one off and the 1% for the reason given by Des above

My only reservation is that the 1% refelects other stakers 1%, given that some BAP"s will be with or without stakeback

[poker_jason]

Late, Tired & Confused.

What is meant by a Licence? You verify who a person is and give them permission to post as stakee/staker? Pay £10 for the prvilege. What sort of checks are intended?  

Sounds like we putting obstacles in peoples way. I assume you are able to restrict a forum area to specific users?

Kinda like the managed service approach - would like to understand how that would work. Especially handling of money (Are you going to hold a DB of peoples bank details........hmmm)

[Bigfella42]

Jason I think Des has said above that APAT would not now act as  middleman so they wouldn"t need bank details. Having said that a lot of staking is paid by bank transfer and bank account details are routinely pm"d so I would have welcomed a more secure way of doing this.

I think the suggestion from Des is a good one as realistically the only people who would seek staking this way (fee based plus % of winnings) would be those who support APAT and who would be happy to give something back to the community when they cash.

The stakee can choose to take the 1% APAT cut into account when setting the selling percentage if they so choose and if they explain this in their staking request.

[poker_jason]

I apologise if this sounded arsey - it wasn"t meant to be in any shape. Honestly, I think the APAT guys do an amazing job.

I"m geninuely interested in "what checks" are proposed and by the definition/detail of a "Licence".

I guess we"ll know when they know/decide.

Agree "The stakee can choose to take the 1% APAT cut into account when setting the selling percentage if they so choose and if they explain this in their staking request." I"d pretty much assume most would do this.

p.s. Can I be first to put myself forward to be staked in $1500 WSOP event (aka 2013).....

Not so late or confused - just tired (day at folly farm with my children). edited out kids due to bad pun...

[noble1]

There seems to be a lot of positive response to the staking board idea and offering a free service along the lines of those offered elsewhere would be a relatively straight forward process, but I"d like to get your feedback to a managed option that would be revenue generating for APAT.


-  APAT would charge players looking for staking a one off license fee of £10 plus 1% of any prize money won in the staked tournament.  So if for example a staked player sold 50% of his / her action and went on to win £3,000, the amount going back to stakers would be £1,500, while the staked player would also return £30 to APAT. 


With regards to the charges, it is my opinion a one off license fee of £10 would deter time wasters and act as a form of identity check.  In addition, the 1% of prize money, while unlikely to provide any meaningful revenue for APAT, would justify our investing some resource into ensuring the service is managed and publicised in such a way that would encourage as many of the members as possible to give staking a try. 

on the 1% fee thingy Des, will APAT have the fee capped ?

[Des]

I apologise if this sounded ****y - it wasn"t meant to be in any shape. Honestly, I think the APAT guys do an amazing job.

I"m geninuely interested in "what checks" are proposed and by the definition/detail of a "Licence".

I guess we"ll know when they know/decide.

Agree "The stakee can choose to take the 1% APAT cut into account when setting the selling percentage if they so choose and if they explain this in their staking request." I"d pretty much assume most would do this.

p.s. Can I be first to put myself forward to be staked in $1500 WSOP event (aka 2013).....

Not so late or confused - just tired (day at folly farm with my children). edited out kids due to bad pun...

I"m geninuely interested in "what checks" are proposed and by the definition/detail of a "Licence".

I guess we"ll know when they know/decide.

Where a player is less well known on the forum we"ll connect with them on Facebook, investigate their record on the Hendon Mob or sites like Pocket Fives.  Ultimately if we find that an individual has no friends and record, then we will not license them to post staking requests on the staking board. 

If we do go ahead with the staking initiative we will do so on a board that everyday posters will be unable to post on, unless licensed to do so by APAT.  That step, and the addition of fees should remove some of the opportunistic requests also.

[Des]

There seems to be a lot of positive response to the staking board idea and offering a free service along the lines of those offered elsewhere would be a relatively straight forward process, but I"d like to get your feedback to a managed option that would be revenue generating for APAT.


-  APAT would charge players looking for staking a one off license fee of £10 plus 1% of any prize money won in the staked tournament.  So if for example a staked player sold 50% of his / her action and went on to win £3,000, the amount going back to stakers would be £1,500, while the staked player would also return £30 to APAT. 


With regards to the charges, it is my opinion a one off license fee of £10 would deter time wasters and act as a form of identity check.  In addition, the 1% of prize money, while unlikely to provide any meaningful revenue for APAT, would justify our investing some resource into ensuring the service is managed and publicised in such a way that would encourage as many of the members as possible to give staking a try. 

on the 1% fee thingy Des, will APAT have the fee capped ?

I don"t think we would cap it Mark.  I would envisage the majority of wins would be tiny, but a speculative large win could be incredibly helpful to APAT also.  

[Sef]

I actually like the 1 off £10 fee idea to deter any old chancer. The % of winnings to APAT, as i said at the start, should be standard for allowing to advertise the request and I"m sure we all know the revenue generated by it would benefit us as members in future. Regulate the part of the forum to a point YES, act as middle man a definitave NO. Transactions between staker and stakee only.

Also not sure if it"s possible and the legal work, if any, needed for this, but anyone in the database to accept the Ts&Cs when joining it so that any requests/sales can be legally binding between the 2 parties (not to involve APAT)?

Also I don"t think there should be a cap on the fee.

[Zozzy]

I like the idea of the £10 fee, and checks being done via Hendon Mob stats for example.  This would create trust with fellow members.
A staking forum is a brilliant idea if done in the right spirit. It would create a lot of fun and banter at the rails. The last thing you would want is random players with no known contacts asking to be bought into events.
The Apat brand to me stands for good organisation and fairness. There are plenty of examples of this in the forum discussions.
I prefer the 1% to Apat pay option to the totally free option because peace of mind is important.

[mal666]

Wow, looks like a goer, wp Des.

Early days I know but who would head the syndicate ? If my money was in there I"d like some say in who got backed with it obv.