blonde poker forum

Awesome blog by Phil Galfond

http://www.philgalfond.com/lindgren-loans-and-a-little-advice/

what has erik lindgren done?

 

100 pages on 2+2

Got outed for welching a 2.8k bet! Turns out he is in a huge hole (3m min)  then everyone  (respected folk) smash his reputation. Seems he hadn't made provision for losing 250k a month

Wowsers

Shocked by this, he never seemed like someone who would do anything like that!

Exactly Phil Galfonds point.

One of the best pieces of advice he gives is to beware the most charming and friendly famous players.

I can think of three UK players who are extremely famous who often are super friendly to newbies, taking them for dinner buying them drinks, even putting them in small tournaments.. purely to set the newcomer up for a big loan request.

Really stinks.

Name and shame

Thats a big C-bet sir

Not near as big as the jam in their eye on the river.

Is it just me, but after reading through that, it just seems to be stating the obvious?

Well if it was obvious to everyone, we wouldn't be discussing it would we?

It certainly isn't obvious the way borrowing/debt system works in the poker/gambling world, for those not experienced in it. As it doesn't work like that in almost any other culture.

Enjoy reading/watching anything Galfond comes out with.

I have never understand all the borrowing/lending that goes on in the poker world. If you don't have the money to hand, just don't play is my motto. I have never done either other than once asking a player to buy me into an event I might have missed registration for. I gave them the cash back as soon as I got there before even playing a hand I felt so guilty.

I was at my mums last night and dying to play a couple of tourneys on my Ipad. Didn't know you couldn't deposit on your I-pad stars account and only from a PC/Lappy, I considered posting on here to see if someone on here could ship me $100 (pay back today) so I could play, but I honestly would have died from shame asking  ;ashamed;

Am I in the minority thinking that?

If you are, I must be too.  Even turned down staking for an event recently which I never asked for in the first place.

Have you got £5 u can lend me plz?  ;)

Realistically there is a big difference between pros borrowing / lending money and casual amatuers.

There are often times when you their is a game bigger than you expect, you have lost all the money you have on you or have been running well below ev for some time and borrowing cash is necessary.

But, I think the moral of the story is: be careful out there and make sure you know and trust anyone you have financial dealings with.

Nope I have never been staked and the only time I remember borrowing is at the WSOP last year when I dumbly thought my card would have a reasonably withdrawl limit.

Tbh this might well be to my own detriment, as it has somewhat stopped me taking shots at higher buyin events my roll wouldn't stand. I just don't feel comfortable with it and would probably play worse on staked/borrowed money.

 

Funny on several levels.

Idealistically speaking Woodsey I agree with you 100%, but it's a little more complicated than that, galfond sums it in in part of his post where he desribes "mutually beneficial lending/borrowing relationships." It's prolly a concept difficult to understand if you're not used to the constant to-ing and fro-ing of high stakes gambling.

As for E-dog I'm pretty sure his reputation was nearly total public knowledge? I also heard the figure he owed Haralobos was initially $2.4m and he still owes him about 500k. 

I'm not particularly informed about these complex mutually beneficial lending/borrowing relationships between high stakes gamblers either. My view is quite basic and rudimentary. I think if you say to a guy you will pay him his money tomorrow and when tomorrow comes you don't pay him I would say that is dickhead behaviour. I mean people can dress it up any which way they want as some kinda intense complexity normal folk just don't understand but in reality and at the end of the day it is still dickhead behaviour.

I think you're missing the point Mantis, if I said to you "mantis can you lend me £5k I can't get hold of any money till tomorrow will give you it back then" and tomorrow came and I didn't pay you the money back it would 100% be dickhead behaviour (maybe there is a completely legit reason in which case you'd prolly excuse me the delay) in stuff like the E-Dog scandal no-one is disputing that borrowing $2m of someone and taking 7 years to pay him, or welching or slow-playing gambling debts is anything but dick-ish also.

What I am saying is that borrowing and lending in high stakes gambling is something that really HAS to exist in order for the world to function properly, I have a few people who I lend and borrow from/to on a very regular basis and in neither direction do we make serious efforts to pay back by a certain date as the money swings in each direction so frequently and there is perfect trust there that it's no real big deal. If I really needed X money in X place at a certain time then ofc I could call it in, but even if I wasn't owed the money my most likely "go-to" for the short-term loan would be one of these people anyway.

So we're not really dressing it up as any complexity, I'm just saying that the very honorable and idealistic stance of "If I don't have the money to hand then tough luck me" is not really all that feesible in the gambling world even though it might be hard for people who dont consistently deal with this kind of money to understand (and i mean gamble with this kind of money, I'm sure there are people who could buy and sell a big chunk of the high stakes poker world several times over who would be equally as befuddled by some of the financial exchanges that go on, it's just habbit and how it works)

the whole just boils down to judgement. you either trust someone, don't trust them or you don't know if you do. You have to base all your decisions in this are on which of those the person falls into and understand the level of risk with each category.

Fancy a nandos and the £10 fo at gala?

Nah dude I don't miss the point. There seemingly needs to be these open lines of credit between folk so gamblers can do exactly what they want to do when they want to do it. But that is it. The world wouldn't grind to a halt if you couldn't do exactly what you wanted to do thou. It would just be like normal life where people spend money when they have it to hand and wait for things or save when they don't have it. The point is because these transactions are so frequent many are becoming desensitised to the acquisition of a debt. Like it don't really matter to keep somebody waiting if you are balla. My point is that all the dressing and the frills/glamour of high amounts going back and forth should be stripped away because it is inconsequential really. Under all of that fizz you are left with the basic character of a man and to that end we are all held to the same set of rules. But the story is always the same. Guy x is a super super nice guy but didn't pay because of blah blah being lol cash broke or whatever. But the reality is if you take on debt without appreciating the graviity of repaying it as agreed then you are not a super super nice guy you are dickhead behaviour sort of guy.

Galfond is truly one of the best ambassadors for the game we have, remarkably level headed for someone with gazillions and his own slide in his apartment.

This paragraph from the blog is so true:

There are a few handfuls of people in poker who’ve shared with me their financial status at some time or another, and others who I’ve heard about their financials second hand.  Every single one of them had less money than the public thinks.  I’ve never known someone to have significantly more than their perceived bankroll.  Keep that in mind.

I guess I'm jaded but I don't get all this Galfond love, I'm with aaron, think it's all just stating the obvious really. Yeah some people still fall for it but that doesn't mean they need some finger-wagger telling them not to. The guy who invented segways died reversing his off a cliff (no joke), pretty sure nobody needs to write an article to inform the public that that's a bad idea. Would have thought it was the same with money lending, everyone knows not to hand over $$$s to near-strangers but people make mistakes and all the articles in the world won't change that.

pretty sure he was just the uk distributor.

not that it matters anyway

yh i mean it's pretty simple, don't lend money to people you don't trust! that's nothing unique to gamblers lol.


Not when your livelihood is making the most of +EV spots as they arise without knowing in advance for sure they will arise.

its all common sense to me .....

lend to a mate not a near stranger ......

if they don't pay you back don't lend again and tell the world there a bad debtor and don't lend to them .....simples!

i am neither a lender or a borrower by the way ..apart from close friends which IMO is different!

A big part of the problem is that the financial institutions don't offer anything like the money movement capability that swaps and loans between players can achieve.  I am far from nose-bleeds, yet I have lots of swaps with players (saving me and/or them getting nailed on currency vig)

If you are in Vegas with £10k and want to turn that into $15,500 ~ you might be slightly disappointed that the casinos/banks either don't want to touch it or want to give you closer to $15k for it.  If you can swap/borrow etc and calculate that the long run "cost" of counterparty risk is less than the vig the financial institutions are charging anyway, then you have an easy decision.

I think after a few years in poker land you learn who you can or can't swap money with and sometimes you have to learn it the hard way. I've borrowed money to a few people and it has took me months and months to get back and the funny thing is, they know not to come back again. The reality of a story is that if you lend some money of someone (now and again) and you pay it back when mentioned, then they can come back as may times as they want. I've heard so many stories about this person and that person, it just becomes laughable in the end, I've been on the recieving end of a few people taking money of me for a few days and not getting it back for months or in one case, not at all.

Fortunately, I and I assume many others learn from their mistakes. Along the way gaining some friends in poker world is valuable and those are the ones you can borrow or lend money, etc. I can honestly say they are a handful of people that I do this with.

Also, saying no is a valuable skill too! :D

It's a good article but I don't think it's anything ground breaking. It's just common sense.

I do think the line is good about everyone over estimating everybody elses' net.

Personally, I don't like lending money at all to people. There's a few people who I wouldn't think twice about lending 5k to if they were having liquidity issues. And some who I wouldn't really wanna lend a tenner to.

Like Dave said, there's people like my housemates - we're constantly owing each other money, and it's not really important when it get's paid, we never feel the need to call it in, but if ever we needed to call it in, I know 100% I'd be able to get it almost instantly in one form or another. This is usually £300 here, £50 there, maybe up to like £1k. With my backers, they often owe me maybe 1k, 2k, 3k at a time for buyins, but the operation is run extremely smoothly, I never feel I have to ask for that back. Also, if I do a bink, they know that they're getting the £, and don't care or nag if I don't get round to shipping the £ for a week or two.

I think I have a pretty good feel for who to trust and who not to. But then again, I've not been stung yet.

I almost got bitten about 8 months ago, but my instincts were telling me that this person wasn't to be trusted. We'd been hanging together for months, spend loads of time together but a few things about his past lead me to believe that it was a bad idea to lend him money. He made me feel really bad and it played on my concious a lot with comments like "I just need some money for food", really hard to say no, especially when I was doing well for myself and young and inexperienced.

A few weeks later, he'd done a runner, deleted everyone from facebook/phone, and is nowhere to be seen now. He's left behind a lot of debt and a lot of people very pissed off. Really glad I trusted my instincts and said no in the end.

I think the tough spots arise are when a fish has gone broke in a game (I don't mean broke broke, I mean they've done their money for the night) and they ask for (or even if they don't even ask) a loan to carry on.

When they're really bad it's hard to say no, since they're almost certainly gonna lose that money. But of course you don't trust them to pay it back 100%.

In the article Galfond talks about being comfortable lending money to people he trusts 100% and many young guys itt have talked about people they trust 100% as well. I wonder what % Haralabos trusted his pal Lindgren to lend him millions? Prob 100%. So I agree all this beware of the charming bogeyman stranger is a bit basic as advice goes. The problem is more complex because it is almost certainly going to be someone you trust 100% who skanks you for the big bucks.

Haralabous didnt lend EL money it was almost exclusively gambling debts afaik

I'd rather trust a few people 100% and get stung than trust no1 100% ever.

+1

Yup

I think it is an issue too of only lending what you can afford to lose and as said before to people you 'trust'. Galfond mentions we can't for sure know the financial situations of anyone without hard evidence, so if there are any problems with a lending at least you have found out on the cheap that they are no longer worthy of your acquaintance.

Dave wins thread