He only played 8 of the 11 events listed in this package.

Nice pic, just looks like he would be duechy scammer, ugh

The reference and vouching system has always sucked. It should be disallowed in OPs and early replies to threads, and only something like "references available upon request via PM" or the likes permitted.

Posting names people will recognize is a much bigger benefit to the people seeking stakes than it is to the community. It should stop. Arguably, a list of people you know that outshines your own results or standing in the community should be a potential warning sign for everyone.

Forcing people to actually inquire- which in turn forces someone seeking money to do things like respond in a timely and thorough fashion to specific questions about the relationships- is better.

I think references should be ok only on the condition that those referenced actually come into the thread and say a few words. How many of the posters in this guys OP would have actually spent the time to say "Yea this dude is trustworthy and won't blow your money"

But lets be honest, only the naive read his OP and said, "oh ok he listed a bunch of people so my money must be safe with him. This is an excellent investment!"

If the current system benefits shady people to the detriment of the less savvy and could be changed to benefit the shady less, it should be.

Not having mods would be to the detriment of the less savvy also, but some things just improve the community. I've never been persuaded by arguments like "well those people would find a way to lose their money anyhow".

I just think there should be some larger requirement wrt posts, length of time registered, or references before someone posts a $10k+ package. I'm not sure how much these things lower the incident rate, but they certainly help in conflict resolution.

Some things along those lines would be worth discussing also. I'd note that both sets of ideas seek the same goal- to better protect the community and make the marketplace a place people want to work with.

It's not just about incident rate when it comes to vouches/references. I've always said that getting a stake thru the marketplace should be as hard as feasible. Vouching is easy and costs almost nothing. References are currently easier than they should be. Only one party gains from that, and it's the party for which the marketplace process should be the hardest.

tacos is worthless
He stayed at my house before with a bunch of other young internet players a few years back and was obv broke. Despite buying him meals the whole time he stayed, he was probably the most ungrateful person I have ever encountered. A lot of the people that came stayed for a really long time, I had to make tacos leave because my paying roommates said they would quit paying rent/move out if he stayed any longer. I didn't buy any of this package, but just thought I would drop in and share my experience. Even though it really didn't have anything to do with this thread.

***oh I was Drinking Buddy on FTP and he definitely did not ask to list me as a reference. So thats cool.

I new Joe before I bought this package and was always a nice pleasant kid. I was also very close with his former backer and who assured me he was trustworthy. This is pretty disappointing obviously and its not about the money, just disappointed that Joe would be this reckless. I hope he pays everyone (including me) back soon.

had talked to him a few times online before and hung out with him once at o'sheas where he and another guy were degenning pretty hard at 3card poker. wasnt heaps of money but were pretty roaded and making absurd bets, up to $100 or so. it was only one night for an hour or so but meh.

really sucks that this stuff happens. hope everyone gets paid

It might require more mods in the MP, which I personally wouldn't mind, but maybe a pre-approval process before each package would work.

What I mean by this is that each poster will first post required prerequisites to selling a package in which a moderator will look over and approve that the poster can sell. All of this process will be left in the thread. So it would look more like sections or stages of selling.

Not sure how much extra work this kind of thing would take by all or the time delays in selling last minute, etc. Obviously it would be a pain to go through an approval process pre-selling but hey, better than being ripped off.

this is really disturbing.

the whole vouching and name dropping system is absurd. if someone isnt willing to cover the $ or a % of it or something then the vouch should not be considered credible. ive only vouched for a few people on here in my life and i was 100% they wouldnt scam because i dont wany my rep ruined or other people getting scammed on my recommendation

Tbh, if more people did vouch for others then it would be like the Gestapo on people's asses when they rolled on a package. No one will obv vouch for anyone they don't physically live with or around their village or whatever makes them feel close to someone. Therefore, if you had to have like 2-3 sponsors, who were also your vouchers, for each package you sold people would feel a lot more pressure to do things right because their friends or whoever probably won't want to have to pay for a **** up. Ofc if there is any honor left in the poker community any debt owed will be covered by the 2-3 sponsors and perhaps they can work something out with their friend/acquiatiance after the fact as far as repayment goes. Then its not left up to a jury of investors who mostly only piss the subject off and never receive any funds back, ever. However, friends or vouchers would be people who serve as the safety net and maybe a guardian of investment also. Perhaps a voucher is closer to a bail bond in what I'm describing.

On the other hand I can see this idea back firing completely as team scams can/will be attempted and successfully carried out eventually. But I don't see how it's any different now, the risk that is. At least in this case people will undoubtedly become much tighter amongst the group of people they would vouch for especially during wsop, etc. Keeping tabs on others and so forth. After all, we are human, most of us young, ignorant and arrogant.

The only key to the idea is having strict guidelines drawn up and followed explicitly and of course, people willing to vouch.


The marketplace clutter will be nothing. Threads will have already been viewed 20x and mistakes corrected/edited before threads are even posted live.

A new system certainly needs to be reviewed and implemented soon.

Would it be possible to hold "vouchers" responsible for atleast the investment portion not anything won as they might not be able to cover a big win. And then if the "voucher" doesn't pay ban them also. A person could say "Joe" is a great and honest guy I'll cover 25 to 100 percent of his package if he doesn't pay. It would make people think twice about vouching for someone.

From the get go a person selling 80% of himself is basically free rolling when mu is applied to the package..its just crazy all the high profile names this person listed in this package which would assume off the bat this is 100% trustworthy investment..

I agree with you on this point. I would be very hesitant to invest in someone that is trying to sell more than 50 percent. If they aren't comfortable putting their own money on the package why should I feel comfortable investing mine?

I think 50% is too low, but I would agree, and never ever buy shares of someone with a freerolled 20%.

I understand hesitance to let someone freeroll but 50% for big buy in events at markup still requires a significant risk (sometimes in the several thousand dollar range) for someone who plays a $50-$100 average buy in schedule online. Not to mention the fact that since you can only play one live MTT per day or perhaps two if you bust the first one quickly means that the variance will take a lot longer to overcome. It's a bit different risking a few thousand dollars on a live MTT when you're a retired hobby grinder as opposed to someone who is grinding out a living in large field/high variance MTTs.

I was all for outlawing vouching a couple years ago. I still think it should be completely done away with. It's the ultimate laziness in a forum where lazy gets magnified in the form of other's money disappearing.

That said, I don't think a system that attempts to make it always "your money is on the line by saying it" is practical for several reasons.

Vouching by default means nothing in the marketplace. It's more practical to say no more than it is to try to make it mean something.

Did this ever get settled? Joe actually owes me $500 as well which he said "I will never get" despite having a chat log with agreements to a bet we made months ago. I'm pretty sure he is also playing 1/2nl full time at Sands casino as well so he must have some sort of money. Hope this gets settled.

I know the situation isn't funny but he prolly donated it to livestrong seeing thats the only bracelet he will ever own hehe. I do hope everyone gets paid though

Weren't you two pretty good friends? very odd, hope everyone gets paid back

That pic is from Borgata, I can easily tell. Is he a reg there?

Professional 1/2nl grinder ? Can someone make a living @ this level?

Depends on your definition of living.

No this never got settled

and ShowIfIFold, if you or any of Taco's buddies that actually believe a statement like this to be true please lmk, I'd be willing to sell you Joe's debt to me at a nice discounted rate if youre so sure that "he'll make it right"