.

.

^ Bettercallsaul indeed

that apology is total garbage

and for the record i agree with aejones and tommyhawkers.

anyway enough with the ghosting/coaching/ethics derail, save it for its own thread.

below are the pertinent posts copied from the NVG thread that aren't already x-posted above:

--
scum

Is it true that dogishead was supposed to pay the victims their money if he was left out of this?

lol jose.

Apology is obviously extremely calculated, playing in to certain things that people might be sympathetic towards (him being young, other players who have erred and continued on to be respected professionals, taking it like a man and confessing seemingly completely/posting here to take his lumps, etc). It's also very clearly another attempted hustle especially when you look at the attitude present in those skypechats.

I was waiting for DIH and Jungleman to post something, can't say I'm very impressed with what they have to say. Vouching for someone as strongly as they did, and then reacting the way they are when **** hits the fan is pretty close to a scam too.

You guys are obviously two of the top online character and you are proving that 'vouching' in the poker world means absolutely nothing.

completely destroys any possibility that there's even a microscopic semblance of authenticity to his apology. ****ing human garbage that deserves serious real life repercussions

And not surprising that this scamming little bitch's middle name is Maria

Jose got in trouble because "his backer" logged in his Lock account and now this?

The whole thing is so shady.

The scary thing to me is that I don't think I would have believed the original post until I got to the final part where Girah confessed.

****ing hell. You can't trust anyone in this devil's game.

No? Where'd you get this from?

true i know but what is to be expected from a game where the whole aim is to take money off other players?

interesting

yikes.. I really don't understand the incentive. I don't buy that a high profile player that's obviously good and successful at poker and has won a bunch of money would do something this scummy for what has to be much < 5% of his net worth. There has to be more to this imo..

no, it means that all vouches come with a "take it for what it's worth" caveat and you can never fully vouch for anybody other than yourself b/c who knows what lurks in the hearts of mean

I guess we might never really know. I haven't played Girah myself, but I've discussed strategy a bunch with him and he seems very, very competent and intelligent, which makes it so weird and incomprehensible as to why he did this.

Kleptomania of the Gifted.

Awesome slip, and I beg to differ. Vouching implies taking responsibility for the person's actions, that's the true definition of the word in that context and the way most people would take it.
I think the caveat you mention exists only in your head and in those of Haseeb and Cates.
In the future, please let people know in advance that your vouching for someone holds absolutely no value at all.

Edit: Let me give you an example. If I make a bet with someone and you literally tell me you vouch for that person's integrity, I take it as meaning that you're "good for it", and that you'll pay me what the person owes me if he or she defaults on the payment.
That's what it's always meant in the gambling world and I can't believe that a HS player of your prominence doesn't know or chooses to selectively ignore that.

Jungleman literally vouched for that kid, and now you're saying that it doesn't mean anything and that he should not be held accountable for anything? This really shows some more than questionable ethics on your part. Please explain the discrepency (that is, if you even agree with my bet example).

Your post is completely delusional and calling out my ethics because you don't understand what vouching means is ludicrous. There's a HUGE difference between interpreting "I vouch that this guy is good for a 20k swap" as roughly "I have had a lot of experience trusting him w/money and it's always worked out well" and interpreting it as "I vouch that this guy will never do anything scummy"

Nobody interprets the HSNL xfer thread vouches as the latter and it would be crazy to do so

Similarly, to use your example if I vouched for somebody for a bet and they welch, I'll pay. if I vouch for them for a bet and you then trust the person enough to invite him over and while you're taking a dump he downloads a keylogger and hacks all your accounts, I think you would be bat**** crazy to tell me that I vouched for his integrity wrt his paying out on a bet and that I owe you your lost $

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but some things here are definitely out of place. There is no way that this actual person is as intelligent and knowledgeable as so many (presumably intelligent people - high stakes players) seem to think he is, when he performs this kind of poor and obvious scam.

He is either dumb, but does a very (very) good job of impersonating intelligence and knowledge, or more people are involved. Hopefully the truth will reveal itself soon enough.

Edit: Ok, just saw your post in the other thread. I didn't know that the "I vouch for that guy" post had been taken out of context.

Obviously changes things quite a bit, although I honestly still think he should apologize for having pushed this guy down our throats so hard with Haseeb, because even though he didn't literally vouch in that context (which again, certainly makes a big difference), his words definitely induced a lot of people into trusting Girah more than they ever would have.

Right, and it was in the context of a 20k swap. Reading "I vouch for this guy" out of context is a huge mistake

And I agree that he owes an apology if, for nothing else, making a bad judgment call when a lot of people take his word as gospel. No doubt about that, but ascribing him responsibility for this in the "if you vouch for somebody and they stiff the guy you owe the full amount" sense is ludicrous

I know you are smart but you are being vague and some idiot might interpret this wrong.

What you are saying is you can only vouch for someone's "character" so much.

Say a player, lets call him Jose, is doing a P2P trade, a piece buying in a tournament, a stake, or something and they ask for a well respected person to vouch. (such as fwf for example) And you vouch for Jose in the thread or to me.

Then Jose steals.

Then you owe me the money that Jose stole.

Have a funny story about this. An old degen friend of mine and BBV/HSNL legend HIV asked me to vouch in his marketplace thread for his WSOP. I responded that I couldn't vouch because I didn't have the money to pay if he won the main event and stole the money.

(He ended up degenning/stealing the money)

Its sometimes vague, but a lot of times a vouch means purely that the debt is ON you if the person scums. (Like Mike, Worm, and Gramma in Rounders)

lol....we posted at the same time.....

its a moot point anyway, Jose paid back the 30k + another 30k right?

Thanks for helping me be clear, I'm discussing so many points b/w the two threads that at times I may not be putting it perfectly, but yeah, this