redarmi Staking Issue: Sports betting

[BigAdz]

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.

FWIW, I would consider vouching for someone a recommendation, or a tick in the box for their proposal, I would in no way consider it a guarentee to become the fiscal backstop, as I would consider the rest of the transaction, the private business of the two principles.

[Karabiner]

I think it depends on whether you vouch for the person's good character or vouch for the investment imo, if it's the latter then you are guaranteeing the amount should the person default.

[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).

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...

Very strange.

If I'm interested enough in a forum to read the posts, I'll join up.

You clearly followed a thread 3 years ago closely enough to know the opinion of a poster you've never met (and remembered those opinions all that time too) and yet waited 2 1/2 years to actually sign up?

Excuse me for not believing you.

[The Camel]

I think it depends on whether you vouch for the person's good character or vouch for the investment imo, if it's the latter then you are guaranteeing the amount should the person default.

Karabiner says in one sentence what I've been trying to say in about 4 very long posts!

[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...

Very strange.

If I'm interested enough in a forum to read the posts, I'll join up.

You clearly followed a thread 3 years ago closely enough to know the opinion of a poster you've never met (and remembered those opinions all that time too) and yet waited 2 1/2 years to actually sign up?

Excuse me for not believing you.

I'm not telling you what to believe so you are excused. All I do know is that you have tried to divert from my first two posts with this because you know that the railtard thread was aimed at a lot of comments you have made there and here and how they differ. Situations are almost identical in that both parties have waited plenty of time for payment before posting on here, only thing I can see is that redarmi owes approximately 6x more than railtard did at the time and you wanted his head on a stake.

I don't understand how ones opinions of a situation can change like that other than personal hatred for one person and respect for another? Imagine if this happened in every court of law.

[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).

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...

Very strange.

If I'm interested enough in a forum to read the posts, I'll join up.

You clearly followed a thread 3 years ago closely enough to know the opinion of a poster you've never met (and remembered those opinions all that time too) and yet waited 2 1/2 years to actually sign up?

Excuse me for not believing you.

I'm not telling you what to believe so you are excused. All I do know is that you have tried to divert from my first two posts with this because you know that the railtard thread was aimed at a lot of comments you have made there and here and how they differ. Situations are almost identical in that both parties have waited plenty of time for payment before posting on here, only thing I can see is that redarmi owes approximately 6x more than railtard did at the time and you wanted his head on a stake.

I don't understand how ones opinions of a situation can change like that other than personal hatred for one person and respect for another? Imagine if this happened in every court of law.

I don't hate railtard at all. In fact I like him.

I was disappointed in what he did and maybe because I like him and I would have trusted him I was over the top in criticising him.

And as I have said numerous times, I am not condoning what redarmi has done at all. He's bang out of order and he knows he is.

[arbboy]

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.

Far too sensible for this place dung.

[MANTIS01]

I can 100% guarantee I'm not trolling. And I can vouch for BobAlike as well.

[Simon Galloway]

Sorry to hear about this mess.  I hope complete restitution is forthcoming shortly.

'Guarantee' and 'vouch' are very strong words, I'm with the old school on this one, don't use them lightly.

[shipitgood]

If a voucher is held responsible for any debt, why would any1 ever vouch for any1? Taking on a liability without any possible upside. It just makes no sense, as with all things staking is a case of buyer beware. All the if some1 vouches they are responsible for a bad debt is a nice idea to make staker feel safe in their investment, but in reality is not realistic. Why should some1 with no financial involvement be responsible for any debt? Simply the whole idea of vouching is flawed in this context. Would any person having read this thread ever 'vouch' for someone? It just wouldn't make sense on any level whatsoever

[bobAlike]

If I was to vouch for someone I would be putting my own reputation at risk.
Would I do this for no financial gain? Yes I would if I wanted to help a friend.
Would this mean I would cover his bad debts? Yes it would.

Would I vouch for someone who I had good dealings with? No but I would state that I have not had a problem previously.
Would I honour a bad debt in this scenario? No

I think we are all pretty much on the same page just terminology differs.

[The Camel]

If a voucher is held responsible for any debt, why would any1 ever vouch for any1? Taking on a liability without any possible upside. It just makes no sense, as with all things staking is a case of buyer beware. All the if some1 vouches they are responsible for a bad debt is a nice idea to make staker feel safe in their investment, but in reality is not realistic. Why should some1 with no financial involvement be responsible for any debt? Simply the whole idea of vouching is flawed in this context. Would any person having read this thread ever 'vouch' for someone? It just wouldn't make sense on any level whatsoever

You would only vouch for someone you trusted implicitly as a favour to them or because it benefited you in some way.

That's why it really meant something in the old days if you vouched for someone. It was far more meaningful than a positive reference.

[Simon Galloway]

It isn't generally a good idea to vouch ~ therefore it isn't something you do lightly or without serious consideration.  But for those that can never see any upside, that is just a very very quantitative outlook.  There are several non-quant reasons, some of which already given by Keith.  Those reasons do come into play from time to time in gambling/staking.

[nirvana]

Poker staking I get completely. Sports betting staking seems a whole other sort of silly. Is it really that common for solid winning punters (rather than competent theorists) to get staked. Be really surprised if it's very common. Can't see how enough can be put on via normal channels for it to work

[arbboy]

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.

It is not uncomfortable reading for me in the slightest.  Let me get a few things straight about the whole affair and go back to the start.  Stuart approached me late last year with a spreadsheet and business plan he had written without any input from myself (or anyone else as far as i am aware - Stuart is more than capable of writing a decent detailed business plan from his previous PLC director level appointments in business) for a 6 month staking plan with a view to extending it if it was successful.  His comments were 'people do this in poker why can't it be used for sports betting although no one has ever done it'.  My answer was it can be done if run correctly and i had a look at the numbers and projections were totally reasonable on the basis of sufficient legwork being put in to get the bet volumes on and finding sufficient positive ev bets to invest in.  That wouldn't be a problem as TFT has proven over the years.

It was going to be sports betting only based.  It was a detailed 6 month business plan with cash flow forecasts and bet volumes which all stacked up on paper to being achievable.  If anything i thought the projects were conservative if he was willing to put the leg work into the project getting round the shops to make it work.  His project was based on a £30k investment and to last 6 months then would be reviewed.   He had been struggling over the past few months financially with life expenses and the logic of him having extra investment to do what he was currently doing on a smaller bank roll made sense to provide an increased return for everyone involved.

I said i would take a percentage (it was early January and i had a huge % of my roll tied up in ante post stuff across numerous sports) otherwise i would have invested substantially more.  I knew he would have no trouble shifting the £30k relatively quickly so i said to two profession poker playing/staking friends that i was investing in an opportunity with Stuart.  They both knew of Stuart via myself, BE etc and asked me if the margins were achievable and i said 'yes if the work was put in to get on'.  They both agreed to take decent percentages.  I know Stuart sold other % himself to people who he knew and had financial dealings with including Mrs Bandit and Joe.  Within a couple of days he was pretty much sold out then i got the skype from pads asking about Stu etc out of the blue.  Therefore to imply that i encouraged Pads to invest is not true.  He approached me via skype for my opinion when i have literally one skype convo with pads previously.  I can't even remember how he has my skype previous to this because i have never had any financial or personal dealings with him.  The second point about getting additional investment on board to help boost the return on my % is also nonsense as the business plan was fixed at £30k investment and was never going to go higher so me 'selling' it to pads was irrelevant.  If pads hadn't have taken his % one of my other two guys who were involved would have simply took it.  The bigger of those two investors just said to me 'i will take whatever is left over'.  This was a relatively small staking investment for him.  He stakes numerous poker players for years both live and online so this was totally just another day at the office for him.

The reason the fund failed was from the start Stuart never put in the leg work. It really is as simple as that.  It is debatable whether he ever intended to put in the leg work looking back.  The betting turnover for weeks was at a tenth of the projected business plan and there is no actual proof received that the bets he said he placed were actually placed.  As far as i am aware Stuart hasn't provided any audit trail for where any of the £30k capital has gone to any of the investors since the end of March.

 He wasn't even betting in races/events where there were huge obvious mathematical edges (think 16 runner hcaps in racing for instance).  He came out with excuse after excuse about moving to Dublin for his new job, family issues etc and he got a bit of time to sort that out.  After a couple of months it became more and more obvious that this just wasn't going to happen due to his lack of effort/change in circumstances or just the fact that this money was never raised for this reason and the fund stood at £26k per his daily results sheet.  My two investors alongside myself decided enough was enough and we wanted to end the agreement as Stuart hadn't got anywhere near producing what he had suggested.  We asked for the £26k of the £30k fund to be distributed back to the investors and we would take the £4k loss as a bad bet and move on.  If I hadn't decided to ask questions at this stage and put an end to the stake there would never have been any mention of the £12k being stolen.  This only came to light once I asked for our %'s to be refunded out of the remaining fund.  Stuart has been completely dishonest about this stake since he received the cash.

This was when the bullshit started about £12k being 'stolen' from a friend of a friend , £3k being owed by a poker player who was putting on for him and no mention of where the other £11k was which should literally have been sitting in his bank to repay instantly.  It was pretty obvious when no monies were received in the forthcoming weeks that this had effectively been a £30k interest free loan to Stuart which was needed for whatever reason, maybe we will never know.  He was in no position to repay money even though after all the excuses of £12k being stolen etc etc there still should have been circa £11k sitting in his bank doing nothing now the stake had finished.

I have no doubt if Stuart had done what he had originally planned he would have made the returns his business plan stated.  The bottom line this is all on Stuart to explain why it never happened both from a workload angle on the actual plan itself as he just didn't put the leg work in having easily raised the investment and secondly where the actual money went to.  Every investor was investing their money to get a decent return not to provide an interest free loan to Stuart for 7 months and counting for £30k which is effectively what has happened.  There is no one here, including me, who needs any bad press about this.  Stuart is 1000% in the wrong on every level of this project and should take all the flak.  I actually think we will get our money back over time however the investors are not in business to lend people £30k interest free until it suits them to pay it back.  Sorry to sound harsh but this is the reality of the situation.  The irony of the situation is if he had come to me and said 'I am skint Mark, i can't get a loan from the bank and really need £30k quickly but i can't tell you the reason' i could have gone to the same two investors and they would have happily lent him £30k at commerical interest rates if a legal contract was drawn up to ensure repayment.  We have effectively done the same thing in my eyes but it could have been a lot more civilised for everyone involved.

As Trigg said i don't see why i shouldn't have said what i said having known him well for over 10 years professionally.  

I don't have anything else to say on the matter now the above is all out in the open for all the investors to see.