[x] fraud
[x] scam

[ ] Understands the obvious fact that I wasn't likening the would-be documentary maker's idea to that of any Ponzi scheme, even though it is arguably a scam by some people's definition of the word.

[ ] Understands that the post was made in response to the other poster's belief that intentionally mis-leading people with outlandish and ridiculous claims is simply "selling oneself."

[ ] Understands the definition of the word "misnomer."

"I'm not trying to split hairs here, but people keep saying it's illegal to film in a casino and that's a misnomer"

[X] Has probably been incorrectly using the phrase "suppose to" instead of "supposed to" his whole life.

"...most good documentaries film where they aren't suppose to.."

[ ] Has an overall pretty good grasp on grammar for someone who likes to type a lot.

[X] Believes the film maker's claim that backers can "...feel free to send [him] questions you want to ask top pros, like Daniel Negreanu or Phil Ivey, and [he’ll] ask them your questions and document the interview" and that Phil Ivey will be more than happy to spend a few minutes on film answering "What's the most you've ever won?"

[ ] Should spend more time reposting multiple near-identical comments to let everyone know his stance on the legality of the documentary.

[X] Recognises that he is prone to "ramble on way to [sic] much" yet still rambles on way too much.

[X] Likes to use these ****ing stupid check box brackets to look funny and/or smart, whereas his failure to correctly comprehend the comments to which he is responding makes him look like a ****ing idiot, and leaves himself open to attack by some sad **** with too much free time on his hands.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about this guy being ratted on. That's really not even possible.

If you were walking to your car after work and saw me breaking into someone's car and reported me to the police, I have been ratted out.

If you overheard me talking to a friend about how I was going to break into some cars and reported me to the police, I have been ratted out.

If I make a kickstarter asking the public to help me raise funds for a ski mask and crowbar so that I can break into peoples' cars and double their money, advertise the kickstarter on Twitter and Reddit, and someone makes a thread about it on 2+2, I haven't been ratted out. I'm just a huge moron that broadcasted my hugely moronic plan for everyone to see.

Exactly^^^^^^^

+1. Until people have actually contributed something, their destructive criticisms should simply be deleted.

I want to try the theory that he has the money to buy-in on his own and thought as a filmmaker why not document. This could be his way of getting publicity for it before it happens. The news picks up maybe he gets an interview or two from the poker media there and a mention on ESPN when it airs. Then all of a sudden he has a documentary that people might watch. He could just invest his money into himself via indiegogo a little at a time. I can't really believe that people are buying a piece of a dude with basically no results and has never played in 10k into a 10k with 6,000 people.

Publicity stunts come in all forms.

Being such an innovative, ground-breaking project, I'm sure the media will be climbing all over it.

Not cool to out this guy SrslySirius. Nobody likes a rat. You can justify it all you want but the guy is no scam artist. He's just trying to bend the rules to get people to pay for his main event.

[x] Troll behavior exhibited by zachvac

Except making a documentary is not illegal. Breaking into cars is illegal.

You mad bro?

You aren't worth further engagement as people with anger problems such as yours simply deny logic in an effort to vehemently stand by their ill conceived stance derived from knee jerk a knee jerk reaction to an idea.

[X] People who have no argument degenerate to attacking someone's grammar and spelling errors.
[X] People with extreme anger issues cannot help but to resort to flinging obscenities at people with whom they disagree.
[X] Attacking people for rambling on while simultaneously rambling on is asinine and ironic.
[X] Misnomer: "a wrong or inaccurate name or designation." as in calling that which is legal, such as filming a documentary, illegal.
[ ] Documentary backing arrangement is a Ponzi scheme or even remotely resembles a ponzi scheme
[X] Zero is how many #%*&'s I give about spellcheck or grammatical errors whilst navigating through my online poker screens to post corrections to your illogical posts itt and keeping an eye on the Game of Thrones marathon I'm watching.

You're really going to post this after starting a derail over the use of the word "illegal" and then going after him for "ponzi scheme"?

Enough already. Thread title is changed, let's move on.

Grunching, but all this guy seems to be doing is selling pieces of himself (with no markup). How exactly is this different than what people are doing in the 2p2 marketplace? (Except for not charging 1.2x based on a .10 / .20 HEM chart?)

(unless he angles it by pocketing the $6K if he doesn't raise the 10.8K instead of fronting the rest of the entry fee himself....which...he's allowed to do, yes?)

Yes, the difference between legal vs. illegal, in my opinion, is a very important distinction to make regarding the conversation going on, the documentarian isn't doing anything illegal. Calling the discussion of legal vs. illegal a derail completely misses the whole point of the thread to begin with imo. Correcting the grossly overreaching comparison of the documentary to a Ponzi scheme is also very important to the heart of the thread. There is nothing remotely close to a Ponzi scheme in his arrangement and calling it such is completely misleading. Anyone selling action at a super high markup would be running a Ponzi scheme by this comparison which is ridiculous.


Whatever, I'm done with this thread, people don't want to discuss logically, just fling obscenities, attack spelling errors, and grossly misrepresent what the guy wants to do by throwing words like "illegal", "fraud" and "ponzi scheme" around to incite the senses.

Nobody likes a rat around here unless you are ratting out a internet poker company that is scamming people. So no ratting ratty Mc Ratterson.

There is no difference between ratting out a murderer or a guy who stole a candy bar. We don't like it and will not tolerate it sir. I said good day sir.

Crap, guys, I think he's serious.

He should be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.

Finally. A post of yours worth reading.

Really? Someone says that they are going to break the rules (any rule, doesn't matter to me which one) and the people overhearing this shouldn't say something to the casino staff?

If the person is willing to break one rule, why wouldn't he/she be willing to break more than one? How about some sort of cheating, in order to make the documentary more interesting, perhaps? I'm not saying that this is planned or going to be planned - but where does the line get drawn?

I say kudos to SrslySirius for bringing this up. Strikes me as being a case of good reporting.

Lee

this

I received this e-mail 5 minutes ago:

Now the campaign is not visible anymore

lol at anyone that thinks SS ratted the guy out.

rats will be rats

I guess that makes me a terrible criminal too. I took a picture of Johnny ****ing Chan in the cash game in Macau, which is against the rules. That puts me right up there with Russ Hamilton, Annie Duke, and the guy that was going to secretly film a documentary at the WSOP. As a matter of fact, we should all be taken to Guantanamo.

The indiegogo page shows it is flexible funding. Meaning if he does not reach the $10,800 goal he still will get the funds that were raised.

If he does not make the goal but still receives the funds, what will he be doing with the funds as he will not be playing in the Main Event and thus not be making a documentary about it...................