blonde poker forum

When I first got into poker/gambling if you vouched for someone either for a loan or for staking, if they did the dirty on someone you owed the debt.

Personally I would like a return to that system.

It might make people a bit more careful who they give references for and save poor unwitting stakers doing their money in cold blood to a grimmer.

As far as I was aware this was the case anyway. It's certainly the way I understand and apply the word but I know many people don't feel the same way.

Personally I'd vouch for a sum total of 1 person on this forum. There's lot's of others I'd trust with my own money and would provide a reference for but I'd never go as far as acting as a guarantor.

I'd definitely like to see it applied properly though but to be honest if someone's providing you with a financial guarantee they should be entitled to a cut the same as with any form of insurance.

what is a vouch though?


"i vouch for X"

OR

""

I think any post which encourages others to buy a piece in someone could/can be considered a vouch.

Perhaps it's something that could be incorporated on the staking thread.

Clearly post vouch or reference if you are making a post in support of a staking thread.

logic fail, one of these statements is false.

However, I do agree with this:

 and the general sentiment that a vouch should be a serious business not undertaken lightly.

@pleno: if I were grimmed by someone you vouched for in either of those ways, you'd be getting a call

Think vouches have to be official tbh. E.g. When I was arranging my backing deal my backer asked for references from people - who they then contacted personally. This is voching - just posting a comment like pleno did on toms thread - cnt see this as a vouch - just as a comment from a respected member that its a more safe bet than some.

In my world you have to say it, but when you do, it's binding.

"Ill stand for him"

It comes back to me"

"On my word"

"Down to me"

Etc etc...


It works the same if I send someone that you don't know to your place. I am responsible for his actions as if they were my own.

Tom,

If you vouched for someone and they died before they paid back a debt, would you owe in that case too?

Or would his relatives/estate owe?

fwiw, it would just result in being zero vouches.

theres 20+ people that I would say "this guy is a good guy" and act as a reference, but obviously its just a complete reverse freeroll for the voucher, as who know wtf may happen, ala tom.

and lets say 10 people back player x, 9 of them would have anyway, but the 10th guy only did it because of the vouch/reference. does this mean the guy saying the "nice words" would then have to pay the other 9 guys who lost out but would have helped out anyway?

I'd take zero vouches over a million worthless vouches.

Only just seen that Tom thread, it is a bit out of the blue but that's why people should be careful and vouch with caveats, e.g. "I've only known him 10 months and just over the internet, but he's never knocked me" rather than "he's the most trustworthy guy I could imagine", that is unless he really is the most trustworthy guy you could imagine of course.

As to your '10th guy' question, why not just don't say 'nice words' unless you're sure? And as the total amount being borrowed goes up, be more sure. Finally, you could always say "this isn't a vouch, but I think the guy's trustworthy" and people could put as much or as little faith in that opinion as they like.

I would expect his relatives or estate to pay, but ultimately it would be my debt and if need be, I would honour it.

Eh? How do you work that out?

Take yourself as a perfect example of one of these people.

"I'd happily stake James Keys in to something and trust him with with my money."

"I'd never act as a guarantor for James Keys in any kind of staking venture."

Which one of the above statements is false? They both look spot on to me.

If you wouldn't act as a guarantor, you don't trust me with your money.

I guess Pleno should be more careful with his wording, but I didn't read that thinking Pleno was on the hook.  People shouldn't assume that words that mean something in their circles mean the same thing to people from a different generation and move in different circles.

Doesn't this all distract a bit from the person that stole the money?   It isn't Pleno's fault, isn't the fault of his stepfather,it is entirely the stakee's fault.  

I don't think pleno should have to pay everyone, but I do think he and people in general should be more careful with vouching.

Rubbish, what Matt says is spot on for me too, I'd do the same as him.

I only trust 3 people on the planet 100%...and one of those three is me. 

Have watched too many friends, grimmed by 'trustworthy' sources over the last couple of years.  Just don't loan folks.  Only sure fire way to avoid hassle. 

Staking is different.  If you toss your money in hoping to make further gains, but it all goes tits up...not much different to playing the lotto imo. 

Either way, nice to think the person will be straight up, but foolish to assume it...no matter what anyone says.

+1, obviously. There's a lot of difference between buying 1% in someone's Main Event package and being on the hook for the $10 million first prize when your horse ships it then goes missing, all because you said "I've lent/staked them money in the past, and it's all went fine".

All Pleno's done is say that the guy's 'v trustworthy'. He's expressed an opinion which I'm sure has now changed.

I can't see anywhere that Pleno has actually vouched for Tom.

I guess it depends on your own use of the word vouch. If the word isn't expressly used then I don't see an actual 'vouch'. A vouch to me is a guarantee and there clearly isn't one here.

All of This  +1

tbf i hashtagged to monda

#justavouch

but we were playing, anyway lesson learned, will stay v clear in future.

No Way...you dont need to stay clear ...You cannot account for every eventuality  !

Your Comments were well intentioned as are a lot of other peoples on this forum . Unfortunately things have gone wrong this time but as in life these things happen  !!!

As Doobs has  suggested it may be prudent to think about ones choice of words when "vouching" for people but its not your fault Pads   FFS

Definitely this. You're one of the people I would trust with a stake despite not knowing you at all. I would also trust your opinion on someone's suitability for a stake.

That hasn't changed one bit because of this incident. All that happened is you got one wrong. Believe me there will be loads more in your chosen profession.

Disagree Fraser

Pleno saying #justavouch could easily swing someone elses decision to stake (rightly or wrongly)

I actually dont think Pleno formally vouched for him in this instance, but I do think he was a nats piss away from doing so!

I would say it for no-one on here, and its got nothing to do with strength of friendship IMO. I would only vouch if lets say I had a significant investment, but we needed more to make it work and I believed in the guy 100%. Cant see this arising in poker for me

Fwiw I obviously don't think Pleno bears any responsibility for the money in this case, but I do think his post might have swayed someone who didn't know the player to trust him and buy a stake.

It just put it my mind that people should be very careful who they vouch for and how much better it was back in the day when if you vouched for someone, you owed if they grimmed.

I am the only one responsible for this and who will pay back all the money. Not pads, think its ludicrus that he is even being questioned about it. People will get their money back via me because of my mistakes and my wrong doings not because pads says nice stuff and thinks im a good investment even with the word vouch used.

I had already invested but plenos post certainly made me feel better about my investment.  I think people say positive things about other players on here a bit too lightly when it comes to staking etc often having only dealt with them a few times and not knowing them personally.  It is impossible to vouch for or even really recommend someone if you don't know their personal situation and even when you do sometimes it goes wrong ala Blatch.  I have financial dealings with a few people on here and if someone asked me about one of them I would just tell the person what I had done and if they seemed okay ie." I have sent money to and received money from Keith on plenty of occasions but rarely more than a thousand.  I would trust him with more up to a limit and he always seems honest about his situation and others I trust seem to trust him too"  Now I trust Keith more than almost anyone else on this forum but I would never vouch for him beyond what I just said.  I don't know whether he has a good relationship with his wife, whether he is stretched with his mortgage....so many variables I just don't know to suggest anything more.

Think we're perhaps getting caught up in terminology.

Think in general people are quick to trust/back people up when they've only really skyped. What dealings did Pleno actually have with Tom to say his is v v v trustworthy?

I have had hundreds of dealings with tons of people including pleno alot of which i dont know involving all different amounts of money with not one discrepency before this including bigger packages/holdings/payouts than this one.

I guess the difference between now and then is the internet.

In the days I was on the road, I had 3 or 4 really close friends who I travelled with, roomed with and shared financial dealings with.

I would have vouched for any of these guys up to a limit of pretty much my whole bankroll because I was certain (well as certain as I could reasonably be) that this guys were 100% trustworthy and I think they would have done the same for me.

Nowadays poker is so huge and the internet has meant so many players are friendly with each other.

Players often have multiple financial positions with lots of different players, but the simple fact is, they don't really *know* hardly anyone well enough to make a vouch.

Pads made a post which if Tom hadn't fcked up would have been totally forgotten.

But unfortunately he did fck up, so that post looks pretty bad.

I guess what I'm trying to say is be careful what you post, and only say things which you are sure about when recommending you stake someone.

Fwiw Keith I wouldn't be surprised to see myself post something like pads at some point despite not quite meaning vouch. But there are several people I would/have vouched for and would 100% pay back in the event of an issue. Oldschool still has problems though.

Can you remember the Tmay scandal on 2+2? With the guy not seeing the action and giving the middle finger to the people whose action he cancelled. There were several Tim is a good guy posts at the start of that thread and that turned out horrifically, it is hard to judge people over the long term and in certain situations.

Why can I not post on the referenced thread?

Need 300 posts to post in the staking sections

Yeah, I remember the TMay thread well.

Amazing he still has any friends left after that.

Scumbag.

I think you need 300+ posts to reply in the staking sections of the forum.

Ok, I didn't know that.

The first thing Tom should do is send over the hh files/ playing history from that session, to one of the stakers, to corroborate his story.

If you are trying to imply that I have cashed out and rubbed the money on my tittehs then you are absurd but i will happily show cashier histories to prove this. Whole hh's seems a little erratic. Not that this has anything to do with you.

I wasn't implying anything, but I would want to be as open with the stakers as you can be. You made a mistake and want to make amends, that is good.

Disgrace, it will only continue whilst these guys are protected/not ousted from the community.

TL, I believe you will and hope you have some luck making this right.

This seems a bit of a contradiction ?

I would happily wish someone the best of luck on here, and say how great a player they were if I knew them/seen them play, more of a 'friendly' thing.

Vouching is a whole different ball game tho. I would happily vouch for The Camel, as although I've only met him twice, we have had large financial dealings, and I just know hand on heart, he would never grim anyone.

He is old school, like a few others on here, ie, Channing, Thewey, Dubai. And lots of young, aspiring successful poker players would do well to learn a few things from these men. Saying that, Toby Lewis, Jake Cody, Lil Dave, Keys, Pleno the list goes on, are all young and they all seem like they know the score when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Don't think it has anything to do with whether you are a 'bad person' or not, or whether you are a 'degenerate gambler. Basically it's knowing that no matter what happens in your life, however angry/upset you are, if you are holding other people's money, u just don't spend it on stuff you shouldn't be, effectively it is stealing, whether you intended it to be that or not, it is stealing.

Pretty absurd thread imo.  People should just take responsibility for their own actions instead of lumping the blame onto someone else.  Id have given the same recommendations for Tom as Pleno did having met him a few times and had smallish financial dealings with him, would I ever have vouched for him to a point where it was on me too? No, but there is nobody on this forum I would vouch for like that.

Im pretty sure anyone ever giving a recommendation on here meant it with the best of intentions and never as a "and if something does happen its on me" type of statement and in an internet forum where the majority of people dont know each other very well or even at all its ridiculous to expect many people to vouch for anyone else in this way.

 Imo, very naive of anyone to expect a recommendation like plenos to be anything as extreme as taking on the financial burden if something happens and if so, where does it end?  If i say someone is a good player and they donk it off in a tourney would I be expected to refund the stakers?  The people that were mugged off by blatch from the beginning, would they be expected to pay back the people who came on board later if his parents hadnt bailed him out?

Why is it such an absurd thread? - Camel's just starting a thread giving his opinion on something he thinks should be re instated from back in the day, in recent light of what has gone on.

I don't think anyone is blaming Pleno for anything regarding Tom, but even Pleno has said in his recent posts, he will tread more carefully in future in what he says about players. I suspect Pleno just feels bad for ppl, just in the way you would, if u had wrote such high compliments on my staking thread, and then I did the same thing.

It's definitely a terminology issue and its clearly coming up repeatedly across the poker community as these types of rolled stakes are something that happens with unfortunate regularity (probably not here as much as in other places simply because of the nature of the staking for).

Clearly some people will use the word vouch without believing it has the specific implication it does to others, when really what they are providing is an opinion or a reference (either on someone's ability or on their character) with no intention for any sort of financial implications for themselves. Although even this is problematic because this kind of post from a respected poster will likely influence people's opinions of whether to invest and can often be based on minimal financial dealings and limited personal interaction.

The key really is to be very clear about why you are posting in these type of threads if you are not investing personally, as transparency eliminates these after the fact conversations.

Of course it's not absurd.

It's standard practice in the Gypsy community and used to be standard in the poker/gambling world.

People are making vouches or giving references for players they don't really know.

This is a dangerous game to play.

If they were made to pay financial penalty if the person they vouched for fucked up, they would be a lot more careful who they vouched for.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Vouching for someone is a much stronger endorsement than a reference.

There's lots of people on here I would give a positive reference for - whether it be I think they are a good player or I have done financial dealings with a person and it went smoothly or I would usually buy a piece in this player in this event but for some reason I cannot this time.

But there are only about 5 I would vouch for, and none I would vouch for to the extent I would have vouched for my travelling companions back in the day.

From an online dictionary

vouch [vaʊtʃ]
vb

1. (intr; usually foll by for) to give personal assurance; guarantee


If you are giving a guarantee or personal assurance with nothing to back it up, the guarantee is essentially worthless.

I want to stress I am not picky on Pads personally here.

I don't think he bears any liability in this issue, because times have changed.

And he bears very little responsibility other than being careless with his choice of words.

It's a shame that there is no online version of a hand shake really don't you think?

It was a punt after all though. Kind of like a good word from a stable.

Yep, it was a punt.

And if Tom turned out to be a terrible player and spunked his chips off there would be absolutely no comeback.

It would be like getting a tip from a stable lad for an unraced two year old and backing it for next years Derby and finding out it had broken its leg a week earlier and would never race.

You don't mind doing your money if it had a chance, but if you lost your money when the horse couldn't possibly run let alone win, you'd be justifiably angry with the stable lad. Right?

What are you looking for?  That nobody says anything about anyone on staking threads unless they're willing to vouch for the money if something goes wrong?

No, I'm looking for people to use words which actually mean what they say.

If you aren't prepared to vouch for someone, don't say "I vouch for him".

Say "I have bought pieces before in this player and the dealings have been smooth" or "I trust this guy" or "This is a really good player".

All can be factually correct without going as far as vouching for them.

It's def a terminology thing here, like when people class others as heroes etc. They mean it, but they don't mean it like they mean it to mean. Know what I mean?

Definitely.

But when you say someone is a hero or is sick or whatever, it doesn't really matter. No one is going to buy a piece in a player because of those words.

Saying you vouch for someone is a personal guarantee as far as I understand.

That is saying something pretty emphatic I think and might tip the balance as to whether a piece is bought or not.

Just an unfortunate choice of words.  Think that people really need to just take 2 mins before making each post to make sure it doesn't come back to bite them.

As Keith says, just state the facts from now on and I'm sure everything will be alright.

Correct of course.

I mean on a forum? Do you not think its a bit of a punt?  Or factor in possible grimmage/ unprofessional BR management into your portfolio?

It's old school for me. I have played with you live in events a few times and knew you were a formidable online player and have kind of read a lot of your stuff and Channings for years online. Really enjoyed it too, especially gambling stories.

Seems unlike you to be whining. Anyway lets hope the guy communicates and gets himself out of the shit.  You are pretty well respected by anyone over 35 years old who plays poker.

Not really whining, I'd just be pissed off in this case if I had read pleno's post and it had persuaded me to buy a piece.

Just would like people to be a bit more careful in the future with what they post.

Ryan's post sums it up really

Just lol.

As said in the other tread blonde community is very different to most as everybody knows everybody.

If this was a guy off pokerstrategy who nobody had met then I would snap offer to stump up the money for all involved.

In this case almost half of the action was sold before I woke up almost everybody has probably met the guy before, he is v active in the uk poker scene and he is also a prolific online grinder (top 1% in terms f volume of blonde posters)

The reasons that you can speak so freely is because of the community on blonde of it was for everybody then I'd understand but it's for 300+ posts.

Ithis/other thread definitely made me see things completely differently here, I'll be I guess policing every one of my posts/not posting as much.

Anybody who invested after I posted in the tread can pm if they have a problem as I don't mind sorting it out if they genuinely invested because of me then I will cover the money. My pride/reputation worth a lot more to me than ( in the grand scheme of things) a little bit of money.

All of this can be done completely anonymously.

Looks like:

Beaneh
Stato
Leatherman
SharkyUk
Yian
Alex goulder
Dan Morgan
Gasman
Tomsom (300 posts?)
Paul h
Bulldozer
Honeybadger

So for all above if you have never bought in Tom before and you wouldn't have bought a piece of it wasnt for me then pm me and I'll pay your money off forum and I'll sort with Tom separately.

pads yu're taking this a bit head on mate, no-one is accusing you of any sort of wrong doing, all you've done is made a lil slip up in terminology and it highlighted something I know a lot of people do as a mistake. When I began gambling and someone asked me to vouch for someone then I took that v seriously, and it meant i was gte'ing the debt. I've provided plenty of character references - people have msgd me saying "have you dealt with X" and I can say yh i have it all went smoothly - BIG DIFFERENCE.

I think just need to be v v careful that's all, like adam says he could easily see himself making the same mistake you did, no1 going to expect a penny from you on blonde cos its a nice community but you'd have people ready to collect of you on  2+2 for defo. Highlighting this mistake now just to stop others making it. No need to post less or take anything personally.

yeh and thats what I was trying to say in my post that the community is very different, ofc on 2p2 I would say things extremely different, or if a friend who you guys dont know, lets say imfromsweden then i would for sure insta pm everybody and offer them the $.

If someone vouches, it's still a buyer beware issue.

How much do you trust the person doing the vouching?

How sure are you that his understanding of vouching is the same as yours?

It's definitely an easy mistake to make.

Personally I actually didnt know that saying "I'd vouch for him" meant what Keith etc are saying it does. So I could've easily made the same slip and would've been mortified if I were pads and got this reaction (not this thread I mean even the suggestion that he could be held responsible seemed ridic to me)

To me it meant "yeh he's a good egg, good player, dealt with him a lot in the past, would recommend, is trustworthy imo" etc.

For the people that feel plenos post swayed them into staking - you have put your faith in his opinion / judgement and it's not worked out - you should simply learn fr that for next time. You can't place any blame on pads offering his opinion which pretty sound imo.

And people should definitely not be discouraged from offering opinions on people in the future. It's hugely helpful if a staking thread has such opinions.

For example, whollyflushs thread a few months back - I didn't know him at all either in person or online, but the people that have references were so sound and reliable imo, that I would've been happy to buy based on that. And I certainly wouldn't have considered them responsible had it gone tits up.

The word "vouch" should obviously be more carefully used in the future, as different generations obviously have different understandings of its meaning.

Vouching is big for the poker community when money is swapping hands.

Twice I have lent money to people without any vouches when they have caught me after a win and I didn't see that money for months.

The next a guy asks for £200 until next week. Some guy vouches for this guy & the guy in question was looking in every casino to pay me, got paid no problem.

Vouching for people is massive, espcecially in our community, we have all been caught short at times, so definitely a point of you needing to make a rep.

If I say "I vouch for someone" I am 100% committing myself to paying the full amount owed should anything go wrong, no ifs or buts, my name, reputation and sometimes even more is at stake. I am the guarantor on my best mate's loan, being the guarantor for that is in no different to me simply saying "I vouch for him" to someone, obv this was a decision I did not take lightly and I don't think a #justvouching is suffice..

I think a lot of the gambling world life lessons are missed when you go directly from playing poker behind a computer screen to hitting in casinos gambling with the old timers. Ignorance is not bliss though..

Doesn't mean what it used to mean, don't think I've ever used the word, at least not with something I couldn't repay - a win in a Scoop for example.

Younger population of players see it used (just like heroes, legends, so sick, etc etc exaggerated) and of course use it with increasing frequency meaning of "I vouch for this guy" - I guarantee his poker abilities are great and this is a profitable investment. As opposed to - I will cover this mans debt, I have the ability to do so and  I trust him so.


Nobody uses the word vouch to increase action or miss lead others imo.

And as it's use is so widespread on 2+2 and every other forums where there are disputes everyday it's true meaning is lost and unlikely to come back.

Can we put this to bed?

The word has several meanings, and not one true meaning.  One person could be vouching for his character, another could be vouching for his trustworthiness, another for the debt.  All could be using the word correctly.

I am from Camel's generation.

this fwiw.

for example, i would 100% in a heartbeat do the oldschool vouch for pleno for pretty much anything up to my entire net worth.

this doesn't mean I can afford to pay out $200k+ if he won $some_tournament and didn't pay up immediately or whatever.

Tbh, I think people need to be more adult about 'needing' a vouch in the old school sense -- if it's not right without a guarantor (for more than the initial amount -- I know, this means there's a small % freeroll chance) then don't do it in general -- build risk into the portfolio in total, not on a case by case basis if what I'm saying, I guess.

You get as much information as you can and you try and make good decisions - do that and you don't need this debate. Why? Because I'm equally as unable (as the voucher) to see into the future as anyone else.