redarmi Staking Issue: Sports betting

[BigAdz]

"That thing called life getting in the way again" sounds like a Frank Sinatra song.

Anyway why does that thing called life stop people replying to emails etc? Or is that a pro gambling thing 9-5 folk wont understand?

Just caught up with thread and something dawned on me as I read it.

Its a forum, and without opinions and comments it would die. However, it seems the "professional" gamblers on here, seem to have issue with that, when it comes to others daring to look into "their" world.

Us "normal world" folk couldn't possibly understand the world of honour and tough beats they live in.

You would think, reading some of the guff on here, they are a special breed. Clearly some have been put on a pedastal, because as shipitgood points out, pads has paid out a chunk on the advice/reference of one person. When you read the content about bad two years/change in circs, most would be leaving well alone.

Its not aftertiming to think that, and it doesn't take Hercule Poirot to spot the danger signs either.

I don't for one minute think, or even suggest arbboy is in on it, or there is anything to even be "in on", but it's a brave leap to invest on a few words of advice written on here, and one persons say so.

They also seem to think calling the rest of us "aftertiming C***s" is somehow their domain, and very clever . I'm not sure how we can talk about it before this though, if we didn't know about it???!!

I get on with most people on Blonde, and there are some great people on here, but it was only on reading the last comment that the penny dropped, and I realised the only people on Blonde that have a real vocal beef with me, are our "professional" gamblers, not, I hasten to add, the guys that play poker for a living, their rules seem a little different, in a good way.

They don't seem to like others with opinions that differ, or people who can make money without applying their rules.

Redarmi, seemed to be in this little group. What good judges of character these people seem to be........

[DungBeetle]

I don't understand the logic behind this vouching.  It's like selling credit default swaps without premiums!

If I had invested in this I had credit risk to Redarmi.  If Arb had vouched for him to my mind all that does is allow me to make a clearer judgement about that Redarmi credit risk.  If I wanted Arb to underwrite the credit risk then that's a valuable transaction and Arb would have to be compensated for taking on that risk.

I take Tom's point about doing someone a favour in business, but what he's doing is effecively giving the customer/supplier a freebie by underwriting the credit risk of the person he is vouching for.

The default position of a vouch should surely just be a credit reference rather than credit underwriting unless it is expressly communicated.

[bobAlike]

This is just my two cents and is not intended as a judgement on anyone.

In my world, (Or in my day, I'm not sure which) if you vouch for someone it is because you trust them implicitly, so much so that you are prepared to honour their debts and as far as possible make good any wrongdoing.  

It's not something that you would do lightly because you are putting your own good name on the line.

Now if someone asks me something like, "What do you think about so and so?" I might say "Yeah, I think he's OK".

That is not a vouch. It is an opinion.

If they say "What do you think of so and so?" and I say, "Yeah, I'll vouch for him". That means his debts, to the person I vouched to only, are my debts.

In my younger days when the world was not quite so PC, a lot of business men would tell you to fuck off if they knew you were a Gypsy, but my name was good everywhere, so I was often asked to vouch. Mostly this was a case of someone rocking up at a business and saying "Tom McCready sent me".

The thing was, I pre warned everyone that unless they heard it from my own mouth, I had not sent them, and therefore, was not responsible for them.

If, on the other hand, I had sent them, they were afforded the same trust as I was. No one cared if they didn't make good because the onus was on me.

What you have to remember is vouching for someone is a big responsibility. It's like going to a loan company and saying "Yes. you can lend him the money and sign me up as guarantor".

Also, remember, asking someone to vouch for you is a big ask. They have to put their good name on the line for you.  

The vouching system is a fantastic tool, and I have benefited from it many times, but for it to work it has to mean something, otherwise it's just a waste of time.

This absolutely spot on. Too many times in the poker/sports betting world meanings are watered down to an extent that they bare no reality to real life situations. Maybe this is acceptable in this domain??

[DungBeetle]

"I don't see this situation to be a grim, as far as I understand the word to mean. "

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the word "grim".  If 30k goes unaccounted for and the person isn't responding to emails then I'm not sure how this can be looked at in a sympathetic light. 

[Doobs]

I don't think words are watered down, they just mean different things to different people.  This is in addition to the language simply evolving over time.  Though I am the same age as Keith and know lots of big gamblers, I'd use vouch completely differently to him.  That is probably because until very recently our circles never really crossed.  Vouch has always meant the same as reference to me.  I don't think anybody is wrong, and both uses are just as valid.

Good luck on getting the money back.

[Horneris]

Why doesn't Stu just borrow the money he needs from his nephew Junior Hoilett?

[bobAlike]

Why doesn't Stu just borrow the money he needs from his nephew Junior Hoilett?

May be he needs someone to vouch for him

[MattyHollis]

There are so many trolls on here just come on to stir/bask in other persons misfortune. I do hope all investors get repaid however do find it odd how people can react one way to one person grimming and another to other people in the past grimming - i'm not just talking about arbboy's reactions etc but more people not involved in this situation reacting completely different to the blatch/railtard/boldie grims - The only reason I can see why is because these people have some form of relationship with Redarmi/respect for him? Surely a grim is a grim, how do peoples morals change from one to the next?

[JoeBeevers]

I don't believe that I made any generalizations or disparaging marks regarding people that go to work for a living, or regarding any other forum posters for that matter so I'm not sure any sarcasm is necessary. I certainly meant no disrespect.

I can not disagree that Stuart has handled this badly and he should have dealt with this better. However to get a couple of points straightened out. There is not 30k unaccounted for and emails have not stopped (there may have been some periods of slow response, but that is not the same thing).

Some monies have already been paid back and some agreements exist for the balances to be paid, myself included, and others are being discussed.

A grim to me is a cheater, a scammer, someone that intends to defraud. I don't believe this to be the case here.

[The Camel]

I don't think words are watered down, they just mean different things to different people.  This is in addition to the language simply evolving over time.  Though I am the same age as Keith and know lots of big gamblers, I'd use vouch completely differently to him.  That is probably because until very recently our circles never really crossed.  Vouch has always meant the same as reference to me.  I don't think anybody is wrong, and both uses are just as valid.

Good luck on getting the money back.

It is the specific use of the word "vouch". To me it has always been far stronger than a reference or even a commendation.

To vouch for someone you are guaranteeing that person. Exactly the way Tom describes it.

Arb said "why on earth would I do that?".

Well, in the situation I found myself in a player was looking for backing in a specific, one off tournament. The semi famous player who vouched for him had a share, but also was owed significant amount of money. It was in his interests that the player entered the tournament.

I bought a share in the guy I hardly knew because I thought that if he grimmed me the guy who vouched for him would see me right for the money.

But when he did the dirty the famous player refused to accept the debt and I was left being grimmed.

My understanding of the word "vouch" is why I have given plenty of references but virtually never vouched for someone. I accept now though that "vouch" has changed it's meaning and it does mean what I understood it to mean.

Looking at that chat log it must be really uncomfortable reading for arbboy. It does look like he's encouraging Pleno to buy a share for whatever reason. Whether he's doing Stu a favour or whether he thinks with a bigger bankroll Stu is more likely to be successful and arbs investment is worth more.

[The Camel]

There are so many trolls on here just come on to stir/bask in other persons misfortune. I do hope all investors get repaid however do find it odd how people can react one way to one person grimming and another to other people in the past grimming - i'm not just talking about arbboy's reactions etc but more people not involved in this situation reacting completely different to the blatch/railtard/boldie grims - The only reason I can see why is because these people have some form of relationship with Redarmi/respect for him? Surely a grim is a grim, how do peoples morals change from one to the next?

You've only been a memeber of blondepoker for 6 months, yet you seem to know a great deal about the history of the site. No one has mentioned railtard for the whole thread, and I've not seen mention of his affair for ages.

Are you banned member with a new username?

As for your post, I don't think we can call this a grim yet. Out of order sure, but a grim? Not yet.

As Joe said, redarmi has paid some money back and has made arrangements for the rest (possibly encouraged by this thread).

[BigAdz]

There are so many trolls on here just come on to stir/bask in other persons misfortune. I do hope all investors get repaid however do find it odd how people can react one way to one person grimming and another to other people in the past grimming - i'm not just talking about arbboy's reactions etc but more people not involved in this situation reacting completely different to the blatch/railtard/boldie grims - The only reason I can see why is because these people have some form of relationship with Redarmi/respect for him? Surely a grim is a grim, how do peoples morals change from one to the next?

A confusing post, as I see the people that you are calling trolls agree with your point.

Some people just love to use the T word though. I consider a troll to be someone out to cause trouble all the time, I think everyone posting here has more than enough decent posts on Blonde to warrant an opinion.

[MattyHollis]

There are so many trolls on here just come on to stir/bask in other persons misfortune. I do hope all investors get repaid however do find it odd how people can react one way to one person grimming and another to other people in the past grimming - i'm not just talking about arbboy's reactions etc but more people not involved in this situation reacting completely different to the blatch/railtard/boldie grims - The only reason I can see why is because these people have some form of relationship with Redarmi/respect for him? Surely a grim is a grim, how do peoples morals change from one to the next?

You've only been a memeber of blondepoker for 6 months, yet you seem to know a great deal about the history of the site. No one has mentioned railtard for the whole thread, and I've not seen mention of his affair for ages.

Are you banned member with a new username?

As for your post, I don't think we can call this a grim yet. Out of order sure, but a grim? Not yet.

As Joe said, redarmi has paid some money back and has made arrangements for the rest (possibly encouraged by this thread).

I set up the account however many months ago yes but that doesn't mean I didn't see what went on before. Did my mention of railtard hit the spot seeing as the comments you had for him were completely different to these...?

At what point IS this a grim? This thread surely wouldn't have been made had pleno thought he had a chance of getting his money back or that this was bang out of order...

[bobAlike]

For the record I have had no involvement in this or any other stake that has gone awry. I truly hope Redarmi sorts this out amicably. My only interest in this thread is to understand the valid meaning of the word 'vouch' as I do regularly stake others. In the past if someone vouched for a stakee I would expect the voucher to be true to their word, whether or not I would call that in is a different matter dependent upon circumstances. I will tread more carefully in future.

[MattyHollis]

There are so many trolls on here just come on to stir/bask in other persons misfortune. I do hope all investors get repaid however do find it odd how people can react one way to one person grimming and another to other people in the past grimming - i'm not just talking about arbboy's reactions etc but more people not involved in this situation reacting completely different to the blatch/railtard/boldie grims - The only reason I can see why is because these people have some form of relationship with Redarmi/respect for him? Surely a grim is a grim, how do peoples morals change from one to the next?

A confusing post, as I see the people that you are calling trolls agree with your point.

Some people just love to use the T word though. I consider a troll to be someone out to cause trouble all the time, I think everyone posting here has more than enough decent posts on Blonde to warrant an opinion.

Maybe trolls was the wrong word and opinions are fine, it's more the basking the glory of someone else misfortune that I was trying to get across. The one sentence told you so's etc for nobody's benefit but their own and bring nothing else to the thread/situation.