This is definately an interesting thread and I was looking for a thread like this to be stickied. I haven't given too much thought into the issues raised in this thread yet, however I do wish to see a the topics discussed to at least lead to a guideline.

My immediate thoughts thoughts are

1) i feel I should have the right to comment about markups and let others in the community know as well

2) markups should be clearly disclosed

3) please don't change the percentage that you will sell without first getting the ok from other backers approvals. There are some stalers that like to see you have a investment in the game as well

4) I am neutral towards allowing or not allowing reserves.

5) I do not see "vouching" as a guarantee where you would be cover in case someone else does not pay up. The word vouching is used too loosely to have the meaning of a guarantee. One would want to make it clear and say so if they have the intentions to cover in case someone else doesn't pay up.

I think the idea of vouching meaning you cover the $ if the person gets scammed is a little crazy. I think when vouching the person should state whether they are vouching for their ability, trustworthiness, or both. However, if I'm vouching for someone in both regards would I be expected to cover losses if they made some awful play in a MTT? If I vouch for someone all it would mean is that in all my past dealings with the individual they have proven to be at least a competent poker player and that they handled my money in a responsible manner. I don't think I should be held accountable for all their future actions because there are a myriad of ancillary factors that could effect their ethical decisions, for which I have no control over.

vouch (vouch)
v. vouched, vouch·ing, vouch·es
v.intr.
1. To give personal assurances; give a guarantee: vouch for an old friend's trustworthiness.
2. To constitute supporting evidence; give substantiation: a candidate whose strong record vouches for her ability.

This just reads that you don't know what the word means

I have used the word vouch a bit too loosely in this forum, and I agree that in the future there should be a clear difference between acting as a reference and vouching. I won't use that word again unless I'd feel comfortable backing it up with a guarantee.

I don't think there's any problem with acting as a reference/vouching and not buying a piece, there are a million reasons why someone might not want to buy a share of someone in a tournament/series of tournaments.

Lol how can anyone 'vouch' for any one of the WSOP packages if it means assuming all financial responsibility in the case of scamming? Do you all have $10million+ to give away should the person decide to run off?

This model of vouching does not work for MTT staking. For prop bets and lending money yes it's absolutely reasonable and should be standard, in this case it's completely stupid.

cts, I think the comments by ULOST2AKID, JP OSU (having previously used the word vouch "too loosely"), and others shows that the term vouch is just used too broadly these days to constitute a guarantee. If anyone is guarantee anything it should be very explicit

And that's why responsible people don't use the word vouch too often.

No it means i understand its meaning perfectly in the context of the marketplace. Every HS reg uses a bunch of others as ref's/vouches who I doubt would cover if they scammed some1. I think the main issue is that you are on in different situation than a lot of the people in the marketplace b/c you invest much larger amount of money so a "vouch" takes on a greater level of significance to you.

edit: also to jorj, i am already aware of the dictionary definition of the word "vouch," unfortunately no one in the marketplace vouches for anyone else in a literal sense. The reason for this is that there is way too much liability for which you receive no benefit. I think it is much more likely/prudent for us to use a word like "recommendation" or something similar, because in reality that's as far as most would ever go

another edit: to go along with what jp said, i think most ppl in here just equate a reference to a vouch (not saying that is right, just stating my opinion).

I don't know about other buyers, but when I "reserve" shares of someone, I have almost always done all my research and am committed to buying.

When I reserve instead of send, it's because I need some time to move the $$ around or because I am in need of some references and I want to get in before it sells out.

I don't think I have ever pulled out of a reserve, but I think that if you do, a reasonable explanation needs to be given.

thats the whole point. if you cant back it up with a guarantee, than dont vouch for someone.

people ask me to vouch for them all the time. i never have and most likely never will. i know exactly 1 person who i would vouch for in the poker world. it's not cause i dont know a ton of people, and i even trust a lot of people in the poker world, but using the word vouch is just another level and shouldnt really be thrown around lightly like it is in the marketplace.



this "model of vouching" works for mtt staking just fine. you can be a reference for someone, you can tell people your past dealings, you can also tell people how trustworthy you think he is, but to use the word vouch is different.


a few times a friend of mine has asked me to come into his thread and be a reference to him. i told him i would. i told the thread my dealings with him and that i thought he was trustworthy and would be a great investment. this doesnt equal me vouching for him.

I think right now the system actually works pretty well because most people are doing what you are doing, but I do think it leaves a lot of potential for abuse. Was just a thought.

In terms of the vouching issue:

Words obviously can have several meanings and are dependant on context, but from what experienced buyers/sellers have said so far it is akin to a "Bank Guarantee" where a documented guarantee is given to a specified transaction.

In the property development scenario, a development company would gain a bank guarantee for "X" which effectively ensures that if that company renegs/goes bankrupt, then there are funds obtainable under that guarantee to either remedy the development to either it's conclusion, or to demolish what has been already constructed/remove partly built structures.

It is serious business. And people have a legal liabilty.

I am no lawyer so am unsure of what legal obligation (if any) someone would have for vouching in writing on a forum, but I would say at the very least you are putting your reputation on the line.

So not something to take lightly as Zima and other's have stated.

Yeah guys you are better off understanding the concept now to avoid getting into a sticky situation later on. The word "vouch" in any context within the gambling community means a 100% guarantee on all debt of the party you are vouching for. If you vouch for someone in the Marketplace and that person then cashes for $100k and owes 80% to investors, you are on the hook for that entire $80k until it has been paid out.

I was actually about to post this very thing to show why you can't expect anyone who "vouches" to be financially responsible for the transaction.

You've picked one particular definition, what about the second one, "give substantiation"? The problem is that not everyone understands the word in the same way as many of you do. It never would have occurred to me that when someone says they vouch for someone else in a staking thread that I would hold them financially liable. Seeing the way it's used here, I'd take it to mean they are supporting the person. Way too many people vouch for others when it's obvious they don't know personally and have no reason or incentive to take on financial responsibility for them.

So what's the goal here? If we make the word "vouch" mean they are financially responsible, what does that do? First off, some people won't realize it, even if we put it in the stickies, and then we end up with messy situations. And the ones who do realize it just start using different language instead. Is it that important?

No, they are on the hook for exactly $0, and if you really expect anything else will happen, you're deluding yourself.

If you want to know if someone intends to be on the hook when they use the term "vouch", ask them.

Bobo of course I don't think that 99% of the people in the MP who "vouch" for someone will actually pay up if the person they are "vouching" for runs. The point I am trying to make is that in the gambling community that word doesn't have multiple definitions. It means exactly what I said. The fact that people don't know what it means and use it here without having a clue is just something that should be mentioned. In practice I guess it really doesn't matter all that much since nearly everyone is on the same misinformed page.

I have seen it many times and never said anything because in the end it doesn't really matter in this MP since the expectation of a "voucher" isn't what it actually should be. It's just something I'm glad was brought up in this thread as people using that term in almost every other applicable situation in the gambling world are going to be fully expected to cover the debt if the guy they are vouching for doesn't pay/runs.

Yeah, fair enough. Basically, it's a pet peeve of many here, and I can understand why. But at the same time I think most of you recognize why it's not realistic to expect a resolution of it.

We could insist people use more accurate terms like "reference", but I don't know if it's worth the trouble.

if you/others notice that someone is abusing the whole "reserve for me now, will send later" thing, bringing it to the mods attention/pm'ing that person would always be a great way to try and stop the abuse of the system.


hopefully it doesnt get to that point though.

Great thread with some great points. Nothing really much to add that hasn't already been said. Just wanted to express my appreciation to those who took the time.

I utilise reserving as I read the forum whilst playing, and don't have the time to go through the rigmarole of xfering. I haven't noticed many people reserving then backing out, is this prevalent?

Not sure if this was already mentioned but during the scoop I invested in a few sellers packages who missed at least 1 tourney, and a couple missed at least two tourneys. I think that because investors have entrusted their money in someone to play a tourney and then that tourney is not played that something is due to the investor. I think there should be some sort of penalty, possibly money back for the tourney + 5% (to a maximum of $100 per tourney).

I think generally when the tourneys haven't been played in my investments it is due to a tough field rather than laziness. I think passing on the tourney in this instance is a GREAT thing -- actually taking the time to honestly evaluate edge. When klink10 passed on 2/2 tourneys I was impressed and happy rather than upset.

A penalty for not playing isn't feasible. If someone repeatedly does this and it bothers you I would pass on their packages in the future.

ye this would be a very bad idea. People have a lot of issues to deal with and sometimes unforeseen circumstances arise, but they should not be penalized. As long as they ship back the correct amount (including MU) they receive no benefit from skipping a MTT

That's not true. There is a major benefit from skipping an MTT in a package, but since it doesn't really happen much here like cts was saying I'd rather not get into it and put ideas in some people's heads.

Yeah as long as they don't like earlier have a package of tough/easy ones that people believe is +ev then pass on the easy ones and just play the tough ones there shouldn't be an issue. But like if I sell a wcoop package with a bunch of $200's then also the 5k ME and I skip most of the $200's then play the ME and charged a markup obv investors would and should get pretty upset. No idea what actually happens in practice though.