Vouching for someone

[fizix87]

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.

[The Camel]

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?

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.

[The Camel]

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.

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.

[The Camel]

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.

[The Camel]

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.

[gouty]

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.

[The Camel]

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?

[Boba Fett]

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?

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.

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?

[The Camel]

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?

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.

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.

[celtic]

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?

[The Camel]

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.

[scotty77]

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.

[gouty]

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 it's 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?

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.

[The Camel]

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 it's 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?

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 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.

Just state the facts from now on and I'm sure everything will be alright.

[pleno1]

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.