redarmi Staking Issue: Sports betting

[The Camel]

Come on Camel - there shouldn't be a negative light on people's values that they aren't willing to underwrite the credit risk of others?  It's not a character issue.  

I'm not putting any negative light on his values!

He doesn't trust trust anyone enough to guarantee a loan for. That is totally fine.

I do. Red dog does. That's totally fine too.

He seems to imply that I'm an idiot or naive for doing it, but I wouldn't do it lightly and would never guarantee more money than I could safely afford to lose.

[the sicilian]

Has anyone called the police?

where's Cos?

[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.

[The Camel]

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.

Because, obviously, the investment doesn't suit but I'm 100% certain the person I'm vouching for is not going to do the dirty.

[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.

Because, obviously, the investment doesn't suit but I'm 100% certain the person I'm vouching for is not going to do the dirty.

But you would only gtd money which you could easily afford to lose so why not make the investment yourself as you must have money at this level lying around if you can easily afford to lose it otherwise how else are you going to pay if it goes wrong? Then you can take all the upsides of the investment rather than just doing ur cash?

Don't you realise how illogical your statement sounds from someone who makes a living from risk/reward?

[The Camel]

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.

Because, obviously, the investment doesn't suit but I'm 100% certain the person I'm vouching for is not going to do the dirty.

But you would only gtd money which you could easily afford to lose so why not make the investment yourself as you must have money at this level lying around if you can easily afford to lose it and take all the upsides of the investment rather than just doing ur cash?

I would never guarantee an investment was sure to make money.

I would guarantee my friend wouldn't scam investors though.

Those are obviously way different things.

[GreekStein]

Has anyone called the police?

where's Cos?

 

[DungBeetle]

Come on Camel - there shouldn't be a negative light on people's values that they aren't willing to underwrite the credit risk of others?  It's not a character issue.  

I'm not putting any negative light on his values!

He doesn't trust trust anyone enough to guarantee a loan for. That is totally fine.

I do. Red dog does. That's totally fine too.

He seems to imply that I'm an idiot or naive for doing it, but I wouldn't do it lightly and would never guarantee more money than I could safely afford to lose.

I'm not really sure what we are arguing about any more to be honest.  Yourself and Red are willing to be guarantors to a select group full in the knowledge that you are giving up something as a favour.  Myself and Arb wouldn't.   Nobody is "wrong".  The only danger here is that vouch means one thing to you/Red and another thing to Arb/me which is a potential recipe for disaster if that difference in understanding is extended to the whole community!

[The Camel]

Come on Camel - there shouldn't be a negative light on people's values that they aren't willing to underwrite the credit risk of others?  It's not a character issue.  

I'm not putting any negative light on his values!

He doesn't trust trust anyone enough to guarantee a loan for. That is totally fine.

I do. Red dog does. That's totally fine too.

He seems to imply that I'm an idiot or naive for doing it, but I wouldn't do it lightly and would never guarantee more money than I could safely afford to lose.

I'm not really sure what we are arguing about any more to be honest.  Yourself and Red are willing to be guarantors to a select group full in the knowledge that you are giving up something as a favour.  Myself and Arb wouldn't.   Nobody is "wrong".  The only danger here is that vouch means one thing to you/Red and another thing to Arb/me which is a potential recipe for disaster if that difference in understanding is extended to the whole community!

Exactly. And it's why I got scammed for nearly $1000 a couple of years ago. A guy said he vouched for the player I was buying a share in and when he grimmed me, he refused to take on the debt.

I would never have bought a share without the vouch, so I felt very very sore.

At least I learned other people have a different definition of vouch than I do!

[the sicilian]

Has anyone called the police?

where's Cos?

 

Phew feel safer now... as you were

[Omm]

Come on Camel - there shouldn't be a negative light on people's values that they aren't willing to underwrite the credit risk of others?  It's not a character issue.  

I'm not putting any negative light on his values!

He doesn't trust trust anyone enough to guarantee a loan for. That is totally fine.

I do. Red dog does. That's totally fine too.

He seems to imply that I'm an idiot or naive for doing it, but I wouldn't do it lightly and would never guarantee more money than I could safely afford to lose.

I'm not really sure what we are arguing about any more to be honest.  Yourself and Red are willing to be guarantors to a select group full in the knowledge that you are giving up something as a favour.  Myself and Arb wouldn't.   Nobody is "wrong".  The only danger here is that vouch means one thing to you/Red and another thing to Arb/me which is a potential recipe for disaster if that difference in understanding is extended to the whole community!

Exactly. And it's why I got scammed for nearly $1000 a couple of years ago. A guy said he vouched for the player I was buying a share in and when he grimmed me, he refused to take on the debt.

I would never have bought a share without the vouch, so I felt very very sore.

At least I learned other people have a different definitoion of vouch than I do!

Maybe that's it though Keith, One is to be a Guarantor for the transaction the other is to vouch for the person, seems like  two different things to me.

Hope all concerned get their money back.

[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.

[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.  If i had decided to take on a 'bet' where i couldn't win but could lose by making that statement then i would obviously pay up.  I am not in the business of having bets where i can't win but i can lose.

[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.

[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.