redarmi Staking Issue: Sports betting

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[sonour]

Could we move the vouch debate to a separate thread please. If someone cleverer than me could start a couch thread I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

[arbboy]

Let's just stop the vouch nonsense all together.  It has nothing to do with this and wouldn't even be happening if my skype conversation hadn't been copied and pasted on here without my say so.  Anyone would think i was a salesman for stu and didn't have a substantial chunk of this myself.

[RED-DOG]

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?

Because you have every right to say "As far as I know he's fine but that's just an opinion. It's a lot of money so it's your call."

[BigAdz]

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.

It really gets my goat when people come and and basically say others aren't allowed an opinion, and then go and express an opinion. Are you better than us?

[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?

Because you have every right to say "As far as I know he's fine but that's just an opinion. It's a lot of money so it's your call."

I don't owe a duty of care to a total stranger who i have never met before when he approaches me asking me information which is going to potentially make him rich and me skint with no upside.  He can ask me anything he wants but i don't understand why i should be libel for anything he chooses to believe which i told him.  Let the buyer beware.  

[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.

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?

'Total strangers' is, imo a very dated way to look at it given you're both part of the same online community.

You totally freerolled yourself though. No stranger did that to you.

You did not have to answer any questions if you didn't want to. You could have also just said, 'In terms of people I've ever interacted with, I'd be most surprised if anything ever went wrong here' and that could have told Pleno what you think of Redarmi whilst being totally clear that you're not vouching for anything. As it turned out several of your iron clad statements were totally untrue and I'd have been most disappointed if I'd made a decision based on any of them and also if I'd made any of them and this happened, I would feel responsible.

[RED-DOG]

Could we move the vouch debate to a separate thread please. If someone cleverer than me could start a couch thread I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Oops sorry. I didn't know it mattered what aspects of this we discussed on here but you are one of my absolute all time favorite people on blonde so out of respect for you I'll butt out.

[BigAdz]

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?

Because you have every right to say "As far as I know he's fine but that's just an opinion. It's a lot of money so it's your call."

I don't owe a duty of care to a total stranger who i have never met before.  He can ask me anything he wants but i don't understand why i should be libel for anything he chooses to believe which i told him.  Let the buyer beware. 

Has anyone actually suggested you are liable(Libel being a lol slip, I thought)?

I definitely don't think you are liable, but agree that the wording used was overly positive. I agree with your Buyer Beware analogy, fwiw

[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.

It really gets my goat when people come and and basically say others aren't allowed an opinion, and then go and express an opinion. Are you better than us?

Sorry your goat has been got.

Where in the line that you highlighted does it say people aren't allowed an opinion? I never said that. There have been many good posts in the thread.

I'm very confused by your post.

[BigAdz]

Not sure how you decide people are enjoying the thread/drama of the situation?

Unless you have some sort of emotion detector on your laptop to detect enjoyment, I guess it must be from the fact people are joining in, ie, contributing, therefore expressing an opinion, ergo....

[GreekStein]

Not sure how you decide people are enjoying the thread/drama of the situation?

Unless you have some sort of emotion detector on your laptop to detect enjoyment, I guess it must be from the fact people are joining in, ie, contributing, therefore expressing an opinion, ergo....

silly post.