blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 06, 2015, 09:11:27 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2037730 Posts in 63547 Topics by 18546 Members
Latest Member: StokeDegen
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
Dusk Till Dawn Poker
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]

 91 
 on: Today at 03:33:25 PM 
Started by pleno1 - Last post by arbboy
I really didn't want to get into the debate of this thread as the only thing I want to see from it is that Redarmi sorts himself out and makes things right with investors. There are already far too many people enjoying the thread/drama of the situation which is most disappointing.

However, Arbboy, you seem to be somewhat missing the point of what is being said to you.

You have said:

live:jockfourthree: he is 100% good for the money

he would never grim anyone

live:jockfourthree: i can gtd 2 things
[04/01/2015 03:56:34] live:jockfourthree: he will never ever grim anyone


You really shouldn't use phrases like these unless you really are willing to put up the money if things go wrong, imo.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, investors may have been swayed by such words and if it was me who said them I know I would feel on the hook for that money and in turn get my buddy to settle with me.

Why should total strangers feel they have the right to put me in a position to cold call me and ask these questions then free of charge and totally freeroll me?  Why do i owe the stranger anything?  He is the long term EV winner in this whether on a one off occasion he does his money or makes money.  He is getting additional information for free.  What do i get out of the situation.  Nothing when it works 99% of the time and all this ear ache the 1% of the time it doesn't. 

 92 
 on: Today at 03:30:25 PM 
Started by pleno1 - Last post by RED-DOG
If this is the case and you have to pay in full when it goes wrong then you might as well just provide the investment in full at the start and have all the potential rewards if you are going to take 100% of the downside if it goes wrong.  Why is this so obvious i keep banging my head against my laptop trying to work out why people don't see this like i do?

Can someone with these old school views answer the above for me?  I posted it earlier but no one has provided a reply.



A for instance.

My mate, who I trust absolutely, needs a Hiab lorry to lift a shed over a fence.

I send him to a friend of mine and say, "Tell him I sent you".

Then I get a phone call..

"Tom, there's a bloke in my yard who want's to borrow my lorry new Hiab lorry for an hour, he says he will look after it and bung me £100 when he brings it back. he said you would vouch for him".

I say, "Yes. If anything goes wrong, it's down to me".

This is, in effect, like I was lending him my new Hiab lorry, and that's what I call a vouch.

There is absolutely no benefit to me except I'm doing my mate a favour, but I know that if anything goes wrong, that mate will make it right with me.

This is the key.  I never said anything along these lines.


And for the record, I never suggested that you did. I was just explaining what vouching means for me.


Sure.  That would be my definition of vouching for someone as well.  Which is why i would never do it for anything other than a trivial amount of money and both parties would have to be close friends as why would i provide 'insurance' for a party to a transaction i don't know.

Because your downside risk as you view it is not the full £10k on a £10k investment. It's probably closer to £10 as you just don't see it as being more than a 1000/1 shot or you wouldn't vouch in the first place.

That's how I see the "old school" view at any rate.



Absolutely right. In my mind there is zero risk of me losing because I TRUST THE PERSON I'M VOUCHING FOR 100%.

I'm just transferring that trust to a third party because he doesn't know my friend as well as I do.

I don't know why Arb can't grasp this concept. My turn to bang my head on the wall.

 93 
 on: Today at 03:30:02 PM 
Started by pleno1 - Last post by GreekStein
I really didn't want to get into the debate of this thread as the only thing I want to see from it is that Redarmi sorts himself out and makes things right with investors. There are already far too many people enjoying the thread/drama of the situation which is most disappointing.

However, Arbboy, you seem to be somewhat missing the point of what is being said to you.

You have said:

live:jockfourthree: he is 100% good for the money

he would never grim anyone

live:jockfourthree: i can gtd 2 things
[04/01/2015 03:56:34] live:jockfourthree: he will never ever grim anyone


You really shouldn't use phrases like these unless you really are willing to put up the money if things go wrong, imo.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, investors may have been swayed by such words and if it was me who said them I know I would feel on the hook for that money and in turn get my buddy to settle with me.

 94 
 on: Today at 03:24:51 PM 
Started by pleno1 - Last post by AlunB
If this is the case and you have to pay in full when it goes wrong then you might as well just provide the investment in full at the start and have all the potential rewards if you are going to take 100% of the downside if it goes wrong.  Why is this so obvious i keep banging my head against my laptop trying to work out why people don't see this like i do?

Can someone with these old school views answer the above for me?  I posted it earlier but no one has provided a reply.



A for instance.

My mate, who I trust absolutely, needs a Hiab lorry to lift a shed over a fence.

I send him to a friend of mine and say, "Tell him I sent you".

Then I get a phone call..

"Tom, there's a bloke in my yard who want's to borrow my lorry new Hiab lorry for an hour, he says he will look after it and bung me £100 when he brings it back. he said you would vouch for him".

I say, "Yes. If anything goes wrong, it's down to me".

This is, in effect, like I was lending him my new Hiab lorry, and that's what I call a vouch.

There is absolutely no benefit to me except I'm doing my mate a favour, but I know that if anything goes wrong, that mate will make it right with me.

This is the key.  I never said anything along these lines.


And for the record, I never suggested that you did. I was just explaining what vouching means for me.


Sure.  That would be my definition of vouching for someone as well.  Which is why i would never do it for anything other than a trivial amount of money and both parties would have to be close friends as why would i provide 'insurance' for a party to a transaction i don't know.

Because your downside risk as you view it is not the full £10k on a £10k investment. It's probably closer to £10 as you just don't see it as being more than a 1000/1 shot or you wouldn't vouch in the first place.

That's how I see the "old school" view at any rate.

 95 
 on: Today at 03:24:37 PM 
Started by The Camel - Last post by Knottikay
For those who still have an interest on Adz's bet Weird Al Jankovic,

It is quite a good game

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/32630759


Edit Radwanska 7-5 first set and Murray has started...


Shooo....go away and leave her alone.


No bokking here please.


I am on this (someone vouched for Adz, lol).......so watching at work with sound on mute so missing the grunt noises FML....

 96 
 on: Today at 03:24:16 PM 
Started by RED-DOG - Last post by RED-DOG
Hey Tom , can you guess which reader of your diary made this beauty ?




Wow! That's impressive.

Now who might be capable of that?

 97 
 on: Today at 03:23:23 PM 
Started by The Camel - Last post by BigAdz
For those who still have an interest on Adz's bet Weird Al Jankovic,

It is quite a good game

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/32630759


Edit Radwanska 7-5 first set and Murray has started...


Shooo....go away and leave her alone.


No bokking here please.

She was already losing when I posted.  Trying to reverse it by getting thread behind her


lol

 98 
 on: Today at 03:22:48 PM 
Started by pleno1 - Last post by arbboy
If this is the case and you have to pay in full when it goes wrong then you might as well just provide the investment in full at the start and have all the potential rewards if you are going to take 100% of the downside if it goes wrong.  Why is this so obvious i keep banging my head against my laptop trying to work out why people don't see this like i do?

Can someone with these old school views answer the above for me?  I posted it earlier but no one has provided a reply.



A for instance.

My mate, who I trust absolutely, needs a Hiab lorry to lift a shed over a fence.

I send him to a friend of mine and say, "Tell him I sent you".

Then I get a phone call..

"Tom, there's a bloke in my yard who want's to borrow my lorry new Hiab lorry for an hour, he says he will look after it and bung me £100 when he brings it back. he said you would vouch for him".

I say, "Yes. If anything goes wrong, it's down to me".

This is, in effect, like I was lending him my new Hiab lorry, and that's what I call a vouch.

There is absolutely no benefit to me except I'm doing my mate a favour, but I know that if anything goes wrong, that mate will make it right with me.

This is the key.  I never said anything along these lines.


And for the record, I never suggested that you did. I was just explaining what vouching means for me.


Sure.  That would be my definition of vouching for someone as well.  Which is why i would never do it for anything other than a trivial amount of money and both parties would have to be close friends as why would i provide 'insurance' for a party to a transaction i don't know.

 99 
 on: Today at 03:21:46 PM 
Started by Tonji - Last post by Tonji
Awful lot of shredded jerseys & battered bodies about.

 100 
 on: Today at 03:20:04 PM 
Started by pleno1 - Last post by RED-DOG
If this is the case and you have to pay in full when it goes wrong then you might as well just provide the investment in full at the start and have all the potential rewards if you are going to take 100% of the downside if it goes wrong.  Why is this so obvious i keep banging my head against my laptop trying to work out why people don't see this like i do?

Can someone with these old school views answer the above for me?  I posted it earlier but no one has provided a reply.



A for instance.

My mate, who I trust absolutely, needs a Hiab lorry to lift a shed over a fence.

I send him to a friend of mine and say, "Tell him I sent you".

Then I get a phone call..

"Tom, there's a bloke in my yard who want's to borrow my lorry new Hiab lorry for an hour, he says he will look after it and bung me £100 when he brings it back. he said you would vouch for him".

I say, "Yes. If anything goes wrong, it's down to me".

This is, in effect, like I was lending him my new Hiab lorry, and that's what I call a vouch.

There is absolutely no benefit to me except I'm doing my mate a favour, but I know that if anything goes wrong, that mate will make it right with me.

This is the key.  I never said anything along these lines.


And for the record, I never suggested that you did. I was just explaining what vouching means for me.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]
Dusk Till Dawn Poker
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.46 seconds with 16 queries.