when i hear the word "vouch", to me it means that I will pay for that person/cover the tab if he rolls/scams people out of money.

am i alone in this thought?


also, i think it's fine lipo if you go into threads and state your thoughts on people, and if you dont want to buy a piece, just give a brief explanation why. doesnt need to be an essay. can just be "i got a lot of money tied up in other things/staking/hookers" seems fine.



i personally dont buy pieces of to many people for a lot of reasons. I think i have come into a share selling thread once and said something to the effect of "good investment at this markup blah blah blah" and at the time i felt a little weird cause i didnt buy any (even though i felt it was a good price). i have been asked by a few people to go into their threads to say a few words, but i generally dont like to and havent recently. just puts me in an awkward spot.

I would do that for ppl I vouch for, but I don't vouch for many ppl.

EDIT: This is assuming I vouched for their trustworthiness, not if I vouched for them being a good player or whatever.

This is absolutely my definition of vouch, and one reason I have never vouched for anyone in here (most people I would feel comfortable vouching for aren't looking for tournament stakes).

That said, it's clearly not the definition of "vouch" that reigns in the marketplace and I accept that.

Maybe read his post?

I did open another thread to sell another couple of tournament I felt I could put in to my schedule. I had put some thought into it first. I don't know that it is always such a bad thing to sell a second package. Especially if there was a lot of interest in their first thread after it has already sold out. Would you say it would be in good form to consult the people who have purchased shares in the previous thread first before posting another thread or is opening a second package always just frowned upon.

I could vouch for my Grandpa as an honest person, but that doesn't mean I would in an effort to sell poker shares for him.

I feel like if you're going to vouch for somebody, you have to comment on their integrity and their EV in whatever they're selling action for. Why would anyone ever vouch for someone they didn't think were trustable AND profitable, and not just one or the other.


In terms of EV, there are a lot of things that are +EV that people pass up on. I didn't have an extra $500 online to buy a piece of Jorj, but damn I wish I could've. If CTS was selling HUPLO action against scout at 200/400 I probably wouldn't be able to take his minimum amount required to invest. Poker staking is a VERY high risk investment, and better suited for those with a larger bankroll. Also taking a bunch of small %s in very hectic in regards to taxes for both backers and horses, so a lot of time even if I feel something is +EV, I'll pass on it as it will be easier for everyone if I don't take a small %, and one of the bigger marketplace backers can get 5-10% chunks.

Great post. The bolded is a really good way to look at the situation. In terms of a potential buyer, are you saying it's okay to openly question a seller's mark up figure without valid reasoning or just okay to offer a lower price?

First I would like to apologize for my post that I made VERY LATE last night. No excuse for being so hateful and tilted but I was.

I should have taken a more direct and mature approach and will do so in the future. Not a very good way to get a point I was trying to make across. The reason I singled out who I did because he in fact trolled one of my share selling threads a few months ago and basically ruined it.

Somebody mentioned above also that Markup can/should be negotiated if people are interested but don't want to pay that much. Against my better judgement I made a thread and tried to sell shares. I was unaware at the time of the with/without ESTIMATED rebuy and addon expense on OPR. My 2008 and 2009 OPR's were both positive. 2010 at the time I was breakeven. I sold shares for 174 dollars worth of tourneys and just thinking make the math easier plus the fact I was feelling confident in having a good day I decided to make it 200 total 14 percent markup.

Instead of people passing on the thread I got troll after troll with their self important posts and this is what my thread turned into after probably ten deleted posts. Mostly from people who said they would buy shares with no markup but disappeared when I offered that. BTW I reported 0 posts and they were deleted by I think Bobo for one reason or another....

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...05/?highlight=

I am not the greatest tournament player around here I will be the first to admit that. I have won some and lost many. I have done my fair share of cashing too. I would like to think that my reputation on 2p2 when it comes to handling money is spotless though. When the markup was questioned and people were saying(one donkey in particular) ZOMG you are charging 14 percent markup and I would have bought shares if you didn't blah blah blah.....

I immediately offered to drop the markup to 0 as I really wanted to play that day. Guess what happened then? Nothing I guess the troll was too offended that I even had the gall to charge markup in the first place. I mean give me a break with that crap. The dude seemed like he was legit mad at me. Read the thread...

Lastly I would like to point out that a lot of these threads being made in the marketplace especially by unknowns should obviously be subject to scrutiny. There is no question about it. I mean it's pretty amazing that someone can link an OPR with good stats and people are ready to jump on it without doing much more due dilligence regarding character. Moreso in the past I think than in the present and future I am sure.

One particular supposed females thread proves that. I mean we all know how online poker is. A link to an OPR can be misleading in some cases with all of the ghosts/sharing accounts that goes on out there but whatever. All I can say is that every single hand/tourney I have ever played on my account has been by ME. Drunk or sober lol.

I would also like to think if I ever binked a 100k plus score I wouldn't need a 12 dollar 180 stake ever either but that is just me... Have a nice day gents I gotta get back to work.

there is exactly 1 person i would vouch for on 2p2, and its my business/staking partner. we handle a lot of each others money all the time and there is a lot of mutual trust there. (free pageh656, btw)


i know in the sports "discussion" threads, when someone says "i vouch for this guy", that means if the new guy doesnt pay up on a bet, it's on the reg who vouched to pay for it.

When you are asking some to Vouch, are you asking them to vouch for how trustworthy that person is or are you asking them to vouch for the money. I feel like when you ask someone to vouch, you are asking them can i trust this person and if they are someone notable and they trust them you feel like you can trust them too.

^^^^^^^^ This is what i think with regards to the staking thread. Works differently in different places.

They come hand in hand -- if you vouch someone, you are saying they are trustworthy AND paying up on the debt if you are wrong -- in the gambling world. Most of the people in the marketplace don't use the term that way though.

I think what i said is a little off. What I am trying to get across is that I think people are looking for references for honesty and trustworthyness (my own word) and not for someone to vouch for the money. I think you would see a huge decline in people vouching if it worked that way in this thread.

i think that's a good thing not a bad thing

i think its a great thing.

It was rhetorical, not specific to TLF

I agree, but i don't think you will see anyone doing that. It's unnecessary risk.

What is the person vouching getting out of this.

Yeah if you use the word "vouch" I have always known it to mean you are essentially a co-signer on the whole deal, meaning you will pay in the case the original party defaults.

I think that's 100% standard in the gambling world, and obviously people here use it a lot looser.

Being a reference for someone doesn't mean you have to vouch for someone either. It's completely fine to post something like, "Every business transaction I have had with this party has gone smoothly, and I wouldn't hesitate to do business with him in the future."

why do you keep quoting and responding to your own posts.



people who vouch get nothing out of it. vouching for people shouldnt be something done a lot or taken lightly.

Something interesting would be if people were really vouching, as in guaranteeing the stake, that the seller would pay the voucher for his vouch (possibly as a % of the stake) in exchange for taking the risk of default. I think there would be a market for this actually, and people could definitely sell at a higher markup (or sell at their current price more easily) if there was a guarantee on the stake from a reputable poster, so it would be beneficial to the seller too.

Sorry will edit in next time. Just saying that I would never vouch for anyone unless i was getting something out of it. It is risk that i don't need. It's not to say that I don't trust the person, but there are other things that can go wrong besides someone just fleeing with money.

That idea is good, but how would you value someones vouch.

that's for the market to decide

Opening a can of worms imo - then you have to factor in the credibility of a vouch as well as the seller so you need a vouch of the vouch in essence.

Agreed it would work for very high profile players but it's not practical on a consistent basis for the marketplace.