Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Transaction Feedback & Disputes For 2+2ers to provide feedback (positive AND negative) and settle disputes with regard to transactions (sales, swaps, stakes, etc.) between 2+2 members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2019, 12:40 PM   #1
msusyr24-new
centurion
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 195
fred_volpe/Pocarr Dispute

Name: Frederico Spilimbergo Volpe

Pokerstars: fred_volpe

Party: nha_benta

Stars.es: fred_volpe1

Fred intentionally played lots (40+) of off-stake games with our funds. He took $2,000 of our money and loaned it to his brother. He was not completing the study component of our agreement.
msusyr24-new is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 06:21 AM   #2
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by msusyr24-new View Post
Name: Frederico Spilimbergo Volpe

Pokerstars: fred_volpe

Party: nha_benta

Stars.es: fred_volpe1

Fred intentionally played lots (40+) of off-stake games with our funds. He took $2,000 of our money and loaned it to his brother. He was not completing the study component of our agreement.
I do not agree I took 40 tournaments off my grid as they say (I have many prints to prove this).
I did not get 2000 USD. I'm not a thief.
As for Rod Ferez, Manager of the pocarr, he struck me, where he cornered me in a crossroads, where I should pay another 2000 collateral to continue playing with the pocarr (I already paid 1000, as other players pay 200 etc.). Anyway, they were not forced to take me away, so much so that they gave me the choice to leave me on the team and steal me another 2000 dollars, obviously I denied it. Besides being intolerant, because I was very little time in the Latin pocarr, and needed to adapt to me, they waited for a very propitious moment, to file a blow to me not wanting to return my collateral, and moreover wanting to charge me losses. (obs: in 2 months of agreement I was over 100k up), and they deny me of all the costs to pay me my 1000 dollars, besides, to try to denigrate me with untruths. It is noteworthy that the Latin pocarr broke more of 6 items of the contract with me, and did not have any damage with that.
As for the studies, I also have audio proofs with Rod Ferez, where he understands my situation, and accepts, that is, we agreed to start the study items in February. In the first week of February I had already done 4 study items .
All that I say I have to prove, including the Agreement which I signed, I wonder if the pocarr can prove such charges against me, and if they have the right to rob me of the 1000 dollars they name as collateral.

Last edited by fred_volpe; 02-23-2019 at 06:29 AM.
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 06:48 AM   #3
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Thumbs down Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by msusyr24-new View Post
Name: Frederico Spilimbergo Volpe

Pokerstars: fred_volpe

Party: nha_benta

Stars.es: fred_volpe1

Fred intentionally played lots (40+) of off-stake games with our funds. He took $2,000 of our money and loaned it to his brother. He was not completing the study component of our agreement.
Defamation without proof.
I felt scared and stolen by the poop.
They stole my $ 1000 collateral, and they just blocked me in the social media.
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 07:11 AM   #4
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Contract breaking of the pocarr!
1-https://gyazo.com/2acef397628e55990e5b1e75cfb80460
Pocarr, continued to expose my images and interviews on their social networks even after I closed the deal, until I repeatedly asked them to take it, that I did not want to be associated with this "CIA", not accepting to pay another two thousand dollars of collateral.

2-https://gyazo.com/0ff3110e0c390650f0ab2cc4d00b290c

Both parties were not in agreement, so it should continue without being charged another 2000 dollars of collateral, or else since the exit was unilateral, since they put me at the crossroads and taking into consideration that I did not damage (to the contract).
I insist that the "Cia" Pocarr owes me 1000 dollars.


3-https://gyazo.com/e0b4fefde9f8233a30357d9c8be66aec

The "Cia" was not sensible and much less understandable with my selection of games, volume, hard work, and mainly Result, not raising my stakes, let alone having tolerance with my short time of stay in Pocarr.


4 - https://gyazo.com/04fcdad0302146bc68faf9a4411f3ce2

The "CIA" did not send funds to me in a timely manner, so much so that I had to "borrow", buying dollars from my own money, without charging interest from the company to play.


5 - https://gyazo.com/caf6498c3d648ba82d1b9ccb41e221fd

The "CIA" was not forced to take me away from the team, so much so that it gave me the choice of continue in the team and to pay another 2,000 doalres of collateral, which obviously I did not accept. And much less did I harm the pocarr.
Reinstatement that Rod Ferez was completely intolerant and took advantage of the situation so who knows how to keep my money dead.


6- https://gyazo.com/bf2bad7b0f9431daaca3290fdca2cc43

The "Cia" itself allowed me to play tournaments outside the minah range (on my own) and also charged me with fees for any profits, which in fact, I paid all the% required!

Last edited by fred_volpe; 02-23-2019 at 07:35 AM.
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 07:20 AM   #5
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Thumbs down Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by msusyr24-new View Post
Name: Frederico Spilimbergo Volpe

Pokerstars: fred_volpe

Party: nha_benta

Stars.es: fred_volpe1

Fred intentionally played lots (40+) of off-stake games with our funds. He took $2,000 of our money and loaned it to his brother. He was not completing the study component of our agreement.
Easy to accuse without proof.
In my humble opinion. I played poker for 20 years, about 8 years for the team, and in all my career, I had never seen anything like it. Where 10 players enter each day, and 10 players leave the team per day. That is, something is wrong in this huge movement of players in and out, taking into account the "collateral" that the player is required to deposit in order to be accepted into the team. I imagine that many of these players do not have the necessary experience to defend themselves and it is important to warn the poker community about a possible blow that may be being applied to Pocarr, taking into consideration that they have not paid me back my 1000 dollars of " collateral ". I insist that I did not give the "Cia" Damages, quite the opposite (100k up in less than 3 months of contract), the 'Cia' had no tolerance whatsoever with my little experience in the pocarr. referring specifically to Pocarr Latina, which is directed by Rod Ferez, who has injured me morally and financially. I try to imagine what they should not do with players who do not have much experience and I imagine that this should be avoided.

Last edited by fred_volpe; 02-23-2019 at 07:40 AM.
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 07:47 AM   #6
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by msusyr24-new View Post
Name: Armando Sbrissa
Stars: Zareta
888: Zareta
Party: Zareta
Stars.es: Xempss

Armando joined us in July 2018. He agreed to complete 10 quality study items per month in a document we can track, as well as play 300 normal speed scheduled MTT's per month.

In his 7 months with us, Armando missed the study every month. In his final 3 months with us, he missed the volume in each of those (November 2018, December 2018, January 2019) as well.

On November 8th a manager made a call with Armando and he understood that things needed to improve.

On December 5th after seeing no progress we reduced Armando's stakes.

On December 11th a manager made another callw ith Armando and he understood exactly what was required and what we needed to see going forward.

After missing both study and volume in both December and January after these two calls it was clear to us that things were not going to improve.

At this point we felt it was necessary to part ways with Armando. As agreed upon beforehand, we asked that he set up a repayment plan for his makeup given he's continually breached our agreement. He refuses to do this.
maybe another "casual"(convenient) kick player by pocarr!!!
really outraged at the stance of such a "CIA"
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 12:40 PM   #7
msusyr24-new
centurion
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 195
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred_volpe View Post
Contract breaking of the pocarr!
1-https://gyazo.com/2acef397628e55990e5b1e75cfb80460
Pocarr, continued to expose my images and interviews on their social networks even after I closed the deal, until I repeatedly asked them to take it, that I did not want to be associated with this "CIA", not accepting to pay another two thousand dollars of collateral.

2-https://gyazo.com/0ff3110e0c390650f0ab2cc4d00b290c

Both parties were not in agreement, so it should continue without being charged another 2000 dollars of collateral, or else since the exit was unilateral, since they put me at the crossroads and taking into consideration that I did not damage (to the contract).
I insist that the "Cia" Pocarr owes me 1000 dollars.


3-https://gyazo.com/e0b4fefde9f8233a30357d9c8be66aec

The "Cia" was not sensible and much less understandable with my selection of games, volume, hard work, and mainly Result, not raising my stakes, let alone having tolerance with my short time of stay in Pocarr.


4 - https://gyazo.com/04fcdad0302146bc68faf9a4411f3ce2

The "CIA" did not send funds to me in a timely manner, so much so that I had to "borrow", buying dollars from my own money, without charging interest from the company to play.


5 - https://gyazo.com/caf6498c3d648ba82d1b9ccb41e221fd

The "CIA" was not forced to take me away from the team, so much so that it gave me the choice of continue in the team and to pay another 2,000 doalres of collateral, which obviously I did not accept. And much less did I harm the pocarr.
Reinstatement that Rod Ferez was completely intolerant and took advantage of the situation so who knows how to keep my money dead.


6- https://gyazo.com/bf2bad7b0f9431daaca3290fdca2cc43

The "Cia" itself allowed me to play tournaments outside the minah range (on my own) and also charged me with fees for any profits, which in fact, I paid all the% required!
Due to feedback from people on this very forum, we have improved our hiring process of new players. With players that do not speak English as their first language, our agreements are cleanly translated into their native language. We have manager's in different languages to help with communication. We have Portuguese manager's for Fred to speak with.

Additionally, from certain players we require a video from the player where they must state they have read and understand all terms, understand this is not a get-rich-quick scheme, and that we expect hard work with study and volume. Fred made us such a video.

With applications that we deem higher risk than normal, we may ask for money up front to hold as collateral. This amount varies based on the risk and is completely optional. If the player is not interested, they can follow our advice on how to improve their application and apply after doing those things in the future.

With Fred, for reasons that are determined internally and private, we asked that he give us $1,000 to hold until the completion of our agreement. After a successful agreement, we would return this $1,000. He agreed and understood the terms.

So Fred joined us, read through a contract in his native language, made us a video stating he understood the terms, and provided us with $1,000 knowing that we would keep this if our agreement was not upheld.

Fred started out strong by chopping the Sunday Million. He sent us our share without issue.

We do not move players up and down based on short-term results. We look at metrics that are more substantial and better-representative of a player's skill set. Based on those, it was determined it was not appropriate to increase Fred's stakes. Those included feedback from coaches, evbb/100, frequencies, study habits, results in smaller field tournaments where results converge quicker.

Fast forward several months and we were having to continually remind Fred about the study component of our agreement. He signed a contract and made a video that emphasized the importance of this. Our coaches were concerned, and his evbb/100, frequencies, and results in small field tournaments suggested there was a lot of work to be done. We were reminding him every single month for many months.

Fred then played nearly 100 off-stake games (I said "40+" in a previous post but after speaking with a Portuguese manager found out I was mistaken) with our funds that we did not agree on, many of which were completely intentional by his own admission. He justified the intentional ones by saying they were small stakes hypers. For us, there is no way to justify intentionally playing games with our money that we did not agree to prior.

Fred had approximately $2,000 more than his starting bankroll. It is standard procedure that when player's have excess funds they send it back to us to reduce makeup. We asked Fred to send this money to reduce funds. He replied that he had sent it to his brother and could not send. He said that he had plenty of money in his bank account and not to worry.

Whether intentional or not, it was during this time period where Fred sent his brother $2k that he was not updating his financial rail.

At this point we decided that the risk with Fred had increased. He was not completing the study component of our agreement and our coaches were concerned. For many months in a row we would encourage Fred to improve his study habits and there was zero improvement. He was intentionally playing games we did not agree to with our funds. He had just sent $2k of our money to his brother. He was not updating his financial rail.

He had broken terms in our agreement requiring him to update his financial rail after each playing day, complete 10 quality study items per month, only play on-stake games with our funds.

We told Fred that we could either:
1) Part ways with him repaying 75% of the makeup due to too many breaches of our agreement.
2) Continue, with him sending an additional $2k to be held as collateral which would be returned upon the successful completion of our agreement.

A Portuguese manager spoke with Fred about these options and gave personal advice that he take option 1. This manager felt the odds of Fred, given his track record and rationalizing of breaking our terms, would mean that the likelihood of him continuing without issue was low.

Fred was unwilling to agree to either. As such we dropped Fred and asked that he send us ~$5k for the makeup. We reduced the amount by the $1k collateral that we held.

To respond to the 6 points above that Fred says we breached:

1) We had congratulated Fred on his Sunday Million score on social media. The first time he asked us to take this down, we did so within hours. It's unreasonable to expect us to remove social media posts any quicker.

2) Fred breached our agreement. There is a term that states if this happens we have the right to end the agreement.

3) Fred is upset we did not move him up after his Sunday Million score. I've addressed this above.

4) We complete top-ups at the same time each day. If a player does not submit their requests on-time, they may be left waiting until top-ups are completed the following day. In this instance, Fred did not put in his request on-time and therefore had to either wait or deposit himself. Even when this happens, in most instances we're able to send a top-up if the player messages us, however we cannot guarantee this and were not able to in this instance.

5) We cannot stake someone that is intentionally playing off-stake games with our money, not studying, not updating their financial rail, and sending our money to their brother. Multiple terms were breached and the risk on our end had increased to the point that we needed either more collateral or to part ways.

6) Fred had asked as a one-off to play some extra off-stake games. After winning the Sunday Million we felt it was appropriate to allow this in exchange for us receiving a small freeroll. We provide excellent coaching and Fred would prioritize higher games he has 100% of over our own. It is not a breach of our agreement to allow this when both sides agree.

Last edited by msusyr24-new; 02-23-2019 at 12:58 PM.
msusyr24-new is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 12:59 PM   #8
david negus
grinder
 
david negus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 445
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

"failed to complete study items, requested all of makeup bc its against our contract, oh he doesnt have it all right away? heres a negative feedback post so his career is ruined"

the guy won the sunday million and sent you instantly and you try to ruin him over playing games on his own (with your money, which it really wasnt was it) and small transfer. shame on you and your 1000 posts in this thread.

maybe these blackmail tactics and exploitative contracts are the only way to run a profitable stable. but it stinks.
david negus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 06:06 PM   #9
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by msusyr24-new View Post
Due to feedback from people on this very forum, we have improved our hiring process of new players. With players that do not speak English as their first language, our agreements are cleanly translated into their native language. We have manager's in different languages to help with communication. We have Portuguese manager's for Fred to speak with.

Additionally, from certain players we require a video from the player where they must state they have read and understand all terms, understand this is not a get-rich-quick scheme, and that we expect hard work with study and volume. Fred made us such a video.

With applications that we deem higher risk than normal, we may ask for money up front to hold as collateral. This amount varies based on the risk and is completely optional. If the player is not interested, they can follow our advice on how to improve their application and apply after doing those things in the future.

With Fred, for reasons that are determined internally and private, we asked that he give us $1,000 to hold until the completion of our agreement. After a successful agreement, we would return this $1,000. He agreed and understood the terms.

So Fred joined us, read through a contract in his native language, made us a video stating he understood the terms, and provided us with $1,000 knowing that we would keep this if our agreement was not upheld.

Fred started out strong by chopping the Sunday Million. He sent us our share without issue.

We do not move players up and down based on short-term results. We look at metrics that are more substantial and better-representative of a player's skill set. Based on those, it was determined it was not appropriate to increase Fred's stakes. Those included feedback from coaches, evbb/100, frequencies, study habits, results in smaller field tournaments where results converge quicker.

Fast forward several months and we were having to continually remind Fred about the study component of our agreement. He signed a contract and made a video that emphasized the importance of this. Our coaches were concerned, and his evbb/100, frequencies, and results in small field tournaments suggested there was a lot of work to be done. We were reminding him every single month for many months.

Fred then played nearly 100 off-stake games (I said "40+" in a previous post but after speaking with a Portuguese manager found out I was mistaken) with our funds that we did not agree on, many of which were completely intentional by his own admission. He justified the intentional ones by saying they were small stakes hypers. For us, there is no way to justify intentionally playing games with our money that we did not agree to prior.

Fred had approximately $2,000 more than his starting bankroll. It is standard procedure that when player's have excess funds they send it back to us to reduce makeup. We asked Fred to send this money to reduce funds. He replied that he had sent it to his brother and could not send. He said that he had plenty of money in his bank account and not to worry.

Whether intentional or not, it was during this time period where Fred sent his brother $2k that he was not updating his financial rail.

At this point we decided that the risk with Fred had increased. He was not completing the study component of our agreement and our coaches were concerned. For many months in a row we would encourage Fred to improve his study habits and there was zero improvement. He was intentionally playing games we did not agree to with our funds. He had just sent $2k of our money to his brother. He was not updating his financial rail.

He had broken terms in our agreement requiring him to update his financial rail after each playing day, complete 10 quality study items per month, only play on-stake games with our funds.

We told Fred that we could either:
1) Part ways with him repaying 75% of the makeup due to too many breaches of our agreement.
2) Continue, with him sending an additional $2k to be held as collateral which would be returned upon the successful completion of our agreement.

A Portuguese manager spoke with Fred about these options and gave personal advice that he take option 1. This manager felt the odds of Fred, given his track record and rationalizing of breaking our terms, would mean that the likelihood of him continuing without issue was low.

Fred was unwilling to agree to either. As such we dropped Fred and asked that he send us ~$5k for the makeup. We reduced the amount by the $1k collateral that we held.

To respond to the 6 points above that Fred says we breached:

1) We had congratulated Fred on his Sunday Million score on social media. The first time he asked us to take this down, we did so within hours. It's unreasonable to expect us to remove social media posts any quicker.

2) Fred breached our agreement. There is a term that states if this happens we have the right to end the agreement.

3) Fred is upset we did not move him up after his Sunday Million score. I've addressed this above.

4) We complete top-ups at the same time each day. If a player does not submit their requests on-time, they may be left waiting until top-ups are completed the following day. In this instance, Fred did not put in his request on-time and therefore had to either wait or deposit himself. Even when this happens, in most instances we're able to send a top-up if the player messages us, however we cannot guarantee this and were not able to in this instance.

5) We cannot stake someone that is intentionally playing off-stake games with our money, not studying, not updating their financial rail, and sending our money to their brother. Multiple terms were breached and the risk on our end had increased to the point that we needed either more collateral or to part ways.

6) Fred had asked as a one-off to play some extra off-stake games. After winning the Sunday Million we felt it was appropriate to allow this in exchange for us receiving a small freeroll. We provide excellent coaching and Fred would prioritize higher games he has 100% of over our own. It is not a breach of our agreement to allow this when both sides agree.


in the face of so many nonsense, just a truth. My English is bad. But I am a man, and I do not go out in social media. I do not know in Canada, but in Brazil Defamation is a crime:
CRIMINAL LAW Crime of defamation (article 139 of the CP) Defamation is considered a criminal act by art. 139 of the CP. According to the legislator, "defaming someone, counting him offensive to his reputation" is a crime.


In addition to seriously damaging the labor rights of my country.
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2019, 06:14 PM   #10
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Thumbs down Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by msusyr24-new View Post
Due to feedback from people on this very forum, we have improved our hiring process of new players. With players that do not speak English as their first language, our agreements are cleanly translated into their native language. We have manager's in different languages to help with communication. We have Portuguese manager's for Fred to speak with.

Additionally, from certain players we require a video from the player where they must state they have read and understand all terms, understand this is not a get-rich-quick scheme, and that we expect hard work with study and volume. Fred made us such a video.

With applications that we deem higher risk than normal, we may ask for money up front to hold as collateral. This amount varies based on the risk and is completely optional. If the player is not interested, they can follow our advice on how to improve their application and apply after doing those things in the future.

With Fred, for reasons that are determined internally and private, we asked that he give us $1,000 to hold until the completion of our agreement. After a successful agreement, we would return this $1,000. He agreed and understood the terms.

So Fred joined us, read through a contract in his native language, made us a video stating he understood the terms, and provided us with $1,000 knowing that we would keep this if our agreement was not upheld.

Fred started out strong by chopping the Sunday Million. He sent us our share without issue.

We do not move players up and down based on short-term results. We look at metrics that are more substantial and better-representative of a player's skill set. Based on those, it was determined it was not appropriate to increase Fred's stakes. Those included feedback from coaches, evbb/100, frequencies, study habits, results in smaller field tournaments where results converge quicker.

Fast forward several months and we were having to continually remind Fred about the study component of our agreement. He signed a contract and made a video that emphasized the importance of this. Our coaches were concerned, and his evbb/100, frequencies, and results in small field tournaments suggested there was a lot of work to be done. We were reminding him every single month for many months.

Fred then played nearly 100 off-stake games (I said "40+" in a previous post but after speaking with a Portuguese manager found out I was mistaken) with our funds that we did not agree on, many of which were completely intentional by his own admission. He justified the intentional ones by saying they were small stakes hypers. For us, there is no way to justify intentionally playing games with our money that we did not agree to prior.

Fred had approximately $2,000 more than his starting bankroll. It is standard procedure that when player's have excess funds they send it back to us to reduce makeup. We asked Fred to send this money to reduce funds. He replied that he had sent it to his brother and could not send. He said that he had plenty of money in his bank account and not to worry.

Whether intentional or not, it was during this time period where Fred sent his brother $2k that he was not updating his financial rail.

At this point we decided that the risk with Fred had increased. He was not completing the study component of our agreement and our coaches were concerned. For many months in a row we would encourage Fred to improve his study habits and there was zero improvement. He was intentionally playing games we did not agree to with our funds. He had just sent $2k of our money to his brother. He was not updating his financial rail.

He had broken terms in our agreement requiring him to update his financial rail after each playing day, complete 10 quality study items per month, only play on-stake games with our funds.

We told Fred that we could either:
1) Part ways with him repaying 75% of the makeup due to too many breaches of our agreement.
2) Continue, with him sending an additional $2k to be held as collateral which would be returned upon the successful completion of our agreement.

A Portuguese manager spoke with Fred about these options and gave personal advice that he take option 1. This manager felt the odds of Fred, given his track record and rationalizing of breaking our terms, would mean that the likelihood of him continuing without issue was low.

Fred was unwilling to agree to either. As such we dropped Fred and asked that he send us ~$5k for the makeup. We reduced the amount by the $1k collateral that we held.

To respond to the 6 points above that Fred says we breached:

1) We had congratulated Fred on his Sunday Million score on social media. The first time he asked us to take this down, we did so within hours. It's unreasonable to expect us to remove social media posts any quicker.

2) Fred breached our agreement. There is a term that states if this happens we have the right to end the agreement.

3) Fred is upset we did not move him up after his Sunday Million score. I've addressed this above.

4) We complete top-ups at the same time each day. If a player does not submit their requests on-time, they may be left waiting until top-ups are completed the following day. In this instance, Fred did not put in his request on-time and therefore had to either wait or deposit himself. Even when this happens, in most instances we're able to send a top-up if the player messages us, however we cannot guarantee this and were not able to in this instance.

5) We cannot stake someone that is intentionally playing off-stake games with our money, not studying, not updating their financial rail, and sending our money to their brother. Multiple terms were breached and the risk on our end had increased to the point that we needed either more collateral or to part ways.

6) Fred had asked as a one-off to play some extra off-stake games. After winning the Sunday Million we felt it was appropriate to allow this in exchange for us receiving a small freeroll. We provide excellent coaching and Fred would prioritize higher games he has 100% of over our own. It is not a breach of our agreement to allow this when both sides agree.



Alex carr told me:

https://gyazo.com/e3c0ce5d3a9156bec8d570b73bdb5eeb

And know??? Not more Rod Feres??
My name is wrapped here for everyone Rod ferez, Hey man I do not hide behind the screen!
Rod Ferez blocked me during our negotiation, when he realized that he had no argument, he simply blocked me and stopped responding, just as this same postman complains that some horses simply block them, Rod Ferez blocked me during the contract termination process. Who is wrong? I will prepare a detailed dossier in English, of course my English is not good, but it will be prepared, with many things about the blow applied on me, and probably to other players. Defamation is crime, Mr Rod Ferez, and he lives in the same country as me. We face the same laws !!
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 01:26 PM   #11
UnbanMePlz
centurion
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 104
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Pocarr has had ****ty practices and screwing people any way they can to save few thousand through collateral. Complete joke of a company, only thing you have going for you is you have giraf.
UnbanMePlz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 08:56 PM   #12
coinflipper
veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ACA/QRO/BKK/SGN
Posts: 2,020
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

nowhere in freds response does he dispute that he sent stake funds to his 'brother'. . also played games not permitted on stake (lol hypers obv degen). doesnt matter if he chopped the SM the previous 10 weeks in a row he still broke the rules. those 2 specific rules he broke that i pointed out are standard for any stable not just pocarr

the other thing about collateral is pretty lol and ive never heard of such a thing, but if he agrred to it and made video and contract agreeing to it then cannot complain.
coinflipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 10:35 PM   #13
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by coinflipper View Post
nowhere in freds response does he dispute that he sent stake funds to his 'brother'. . also played games not permitted on stake (lol hypers obv degen). doesnt matter if he chopped the SM the previous 10 weeks in a row he still broke the rules. those 2 specific rules he broke that i pointed out are standard for any stable not just pocarr

the other thing about collateral is pretty lol and ive never heard of such a thing, but if he agrred to it and made video and contract agreeing to it then cannot complain.
In the version of pocarr's shop, where I sent 2000 dollars to my brother, so I sent them, bought them from astropay and friends and put in the box the due 2000 doalres of the pocarr (a period of less than one hour). When they asked me to send this amount to them to make-up replacement, I could only send part of it. Because Politica at pokerstars does not allow any trasnferencias and purchases other than prizes to be transmitted. Let us be clear here, that at the time of the occurrence, this was treated naturally by the board of such "cia" and I have as proof, since I had to print in the history of my box, and that it was already restored. They said it was not serious, since I had already responded instantly. What they did not say, is that they replenished 100% of such funds, after less than 24 hours requested. It is not necessary to say that the horse paid in 24 hours, everything that should be of the bank of the pocarr. I have not seen them mention it at all, for it is not in their interest, as well as everything they say.
I really screwed up to get a hyper turbo of 2.20 usd (hyper turbos are not really allowed on the grid), Alias ​​I lucreed in this one tournament that I caught off the grid of the puddle. (not that this takes away my guilt), first of all, a tournament of 2.20 in my common sense among the 1000 tournaments I played for them, and as they themselves say, I did not use any amterial studies of this "cia" (due to particular problems, where we were agreed that only proceeded with the study in February, which I actually did). But according to the contract of the pocarr itself, this does not imply disengagement from the team, require him to pay 2000 dollars to continue playing for this stable that most resembles a bank loan. If in your vision playing tournaments hyper turbos are from DEGEN, I regret your ignorance a lot, as many players live on their profit, which in fact is not my case!
I made a video saying that I accepted the terms of the contract, which the company broke more items than I said it would respect the agreement, and I never said in the video that I would be robbed of 1000 dollars, it was all the profit they had with me, and they definitely did not have any apportionment. No study material, the money I played out came from my $ 1000 guarantee,
#Page_fred
Again, sorry for my stupid English

Last edited by fred_volpe; 02-24-2019 at 10:56 PM.
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 03:13 AM   #14
gay_on_tse
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 606
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Pocarr, if you don’t mind:
how many horses has posted collateral?
how many collateral have you confiscated due to breach of contract?
are you the sole arbitrator of contract disputes?
gay_on_tse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 04:01 AM   #15
U shove i call
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,346
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by coinflipper View Post
the other thing about collateral is pretty lol and ive never heard of such a thing, but if he agrred to it and made video and contract agreeing to it then cannot complain.
I think he can complain for the following reasons. Any contract has to be fair for both sides not stacked in one sides favour. Most of these staking contracts basically say if horse breaches any one of 40 plus rules the contract is null and void and the horse owes full damages. If one of these disputes went to arbitration outside of the poker world or to a court of law the contract terms would be laughed at.

The second thing is half of the people who end up in this thread are busto gambling degenerates and stakers dangle the carrot of getting back in the game all you have to do is sign a contract and make a video. Im sure most of them would make a video saying the sky is green if it allows them to get their gambling fix.
U shove i call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 12:20 PM   #16
coinflipper
veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ACA/QRO/BKK/SGN
Posts: 2,020
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by U shove i call View Post
I think he can complain for the following reasons. Any contract has to be fair for both sides not stacked in one sides favour. Most of these staking contracts basically say if horse breaches any one of 40 plus rules the contract is null and void and the horse owes full damages. If one of these disputes went to arbitration outside of the poker world or to a court of law the contract terms would be laughed at.

The second thing is half of the people who end up in this thread are busto gambling degenerates and stakers dangle the carrot of getting back in the game all you have to do is sign a contract and make a video. Im sure most of them would make a video saying the sky is green if it allows them to get their gambling fix.
so what? that doesnt change anything. if you are the owner of a stable and his future potential backer the info listed here is EXACTLY what you are looking for, so its served its purpose. doesnt matter if the contracts are slave labor or how desperate the broke degen gamblers are, nobody cares. this isnt humans rights thread for broke degen gamblers.
coinflipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 01:08 PM   #17
fred_volpe
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by coinflipper View Post
so what? that doesnt change anything. if you are the owner of a stable and his future potential backer the info listed here is EXACTLY what you are looking for, so its served its purpose. doesnt matter if the contracts are slave labor or how desperate the broke degen gamblers are, nobody cares. this isnt humans rights thread for broke degen gamblers.
visibly, you have the same profile as the pocarr .. is it a chance you work in the puddle?
And what about my explanations of what you expected, you did not answer because?
Against facts there is no argument. Pocarr is not a stable, but a "CIA" dedicated to apply scams, charging the advance of their horses, so at the right time leaves them at a crossroads (or you give me your mother, or I'll have to expose on the internet) , I already said that I do not hide behind the screen like Rod Ferez, and I'm going after my rights, yes. They owe me 1000 dollars of the loan that the company asked me for, plus all the amount owed for moral and financial damages that he gave me and will give me! And no one here talked about human rights, and nobody cares if you're fiddling with human rights, that's not the point here! Why deviate from the main theme with such narcissistic comments! Typical of the pocarr. I really could not expect anything different.
fred_volpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 01:11 PM   #18
Michael Buble
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 306
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by coinflipper View Post
so what? that doesnt change anything. if you are the owner of a stable and his future potential backer the info listed here is EXACTLY what you are looking for, so its served its purpose. doesnt matter if the contracts are slave labor or how desperate the broke degen gamblers are, nobody cares. this isnt humans rights thread for broke degen gamblers.
It does change something. While Pocarr claims to be in the right their practices are deemed illegal and sometimes even criminal in virtually every jurisdiction on earth. Thus Alan Carr can be right according to his own terms, but he is a scumbag illegally exploiting broke degen gamblers at the same time. That's something I'd care about as feedback about him, if I didn't figure it out myself already.

Staking as a whole is a market mostly geared towards broke degen gamblers with some potential. This whole thread and the turnover of stakees at Pocarr is prove of it.
Michael Buble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 03:45 PM   #19
gay_on_tse
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 606
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

if many have posted collaterals, it somewhat explains the extremely high turnover of Pocarr.
gay_on_tse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 07:25 PM   #20
coinflipper
veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ACA/QRO/BKK/SGN
Posts: 2,020
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Buble View Post
It does change something. While Pocarr claims to be in the right their practices are deemed illegal and sometimes even criminal in virtually every jurisdiction on earth. Thus Alan Carr can be right according to his own terms, but he is a scumbag illegally exploiting broke degen gamblers at the same time. That's something I'd care about as feedback about him, if I didn't figure it out myself already.

Staking as a whole is a market mostly geared towards broke degen gamblers with some potential. This whole thread and the turnover of stakees at Pocarr is prove of it.
illegal in every jurisdiction on earth? so what? what are you going to do about it? the staking market is free and their are plenty of options available. i have played and currently play for a group that doesnt use predatory practices. if your a good player you can shop yourself around, if not you take the bottom of the barrel. the contracts dont have to be fair. if you dont like whats in them dont agree. i read this thread purely for its entertainment value, but always find it hilarious when the sjws come in defending the obvious degens
coinflipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 07:03 PM   #21
lonelyvirgin
stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 2
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

high-five to coinflipper.

Only proof Michael Buble is that people are stupid. Why would someone after binking 100k go back to playing $11, you gotta degen, right? Obv ego issues.

It is clear that Fred lacks any basic logic. And tbh I can't tell what he is more outraged about. Pocarr taking the collateral and ending the deal or that Pocarr stood up after Fred broke simple rules set by stable, thinking managers gonna miss that or close eyes after big score.
Whatever the deal was he agreed to it, noone forced him. Deal is a deal. You're embarrassing yourself Fred. Don't seek sympathy from other degens.
lonelyvirgin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 03:06 AM   #22
Bobo Fett
2+2 Ad Man
 
Bobo Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada, eh!
Posts: 48,036
Re: **NEGATIVE Feedback Thread (for Marketplace and all Subforums)**

Fred, is there anything you did wrong here?

I have a hard time understanding some of your posts (that's not a criticism - your English is far better than any second language of mine), so I'm honestly not sure if you're denying absolutely everything or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Buble View Post
It does change something. While Pocarr claims to be in the right their practices are deemed illegal and sometimes even criminal in virtually every jurisdiction on earth.
The Transaction Feedback & Disputes resident lawyer has spoken.
Bobo Fett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2019, 01:23 PM   #23
msusyr24-new
centurion
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 195
Re: fred_volpe/Pocarr Dispute

We are resuming our staking deal with Fred. We are going to exercise more patience and he will improve in the areas we outlined as issues.
msusyr24-new is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2019, 10:49 PM   #24
MasterOfPoo8
journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 340
Re: fred_volpe/Pocarr Dispute

am i the only one who wouldnt trust either party.. why does pocarr need collateral and what did they find out about fred that makes them need it? or is it geographical based?
MasterOfPoo8 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online