Greg Raymer (again) proposes lousy staking deal on YouStake

[Dan Druff]

I just removed 43 shitposts from this thread.

Please do not post in this thread unless you have something to say which is relevant to the topic. Thank you.

[zealanddonk]

Raymer has never shown any 'scammer-esque' tendencies during the course of his past and present behavior in the poker community

And that's what they said about The Templar, Jasep and CLA just in this forum alone.

[tyde]

I just removed 43 shitposts from this thread.

Please do not post in this thread unless you have something to say which is relevant to the topic. Thank you.

but you have no problem leaving at least 3 times that many shitposts and blatant troll posts in the Pickering thread

alrighty then

[mulva]

all raymer has to do is post what tourney's he's using the money for.

[abrown83]

all raymer has to do is post what tourney's he's using the money for.

The problem with that is he doesn't know which tournaments he is going to play, it is based on him getting casinos to buy his training seminars so he gets his lodging and travel for free as well.

[mulva]

all raymer has to do is post what tourney's he's using the money for.

The problem with that is he doesn't know which tournaments he is going to play, it is based on him getting casinos to buy his training seminars so he gets his lodging and travel for free as well.

only thing he or an assistant has to do is track of funds so the investors know what's up. sounds like a pita unless you only play tourneys.

don't really like the cash game angle and possible rape investors might occur from it. (if he does use $$$ for it)

i'm sure he has some type of structured spreadsheet emailed out to investors. if he isn't keeping track and paying different games willy nilly like...then lol.

somebody should email him for details and ask where the money is going and how things will be tracked

[Prodigal son]

Raymer has never shown any 'scammer-esque' tendencies during the course of his past and present behavior in the poker community

I'm disappointed in this thread

better find some more convincing proof

this thread borderlines on slander/libel

unsubstantiated rumors and accusations with little to no verifiable substance

not cool

He was not broke before. A broke guy in a casino is a different animal. Hungry animals can be dangerous.

[Lord of the Fraud]

Greg Raymer stinks off piss.


Irrefutable.

[Dan Druff]

all raymer has to do is post what tourney's he's using the money for.

The problem with that is he doesn't know which tournaments he is going to play, it is based on him getting casinos to buy his training seminars so he gets his lodging and travel for free as well.

I understand that excuse, but it also is somewhat of a cop-out.

If he doesn't know what tourneys he's going to play, he shouldn't be collecting $100k in advance.

Or at the very least, he needs to promise a minimum number (that is, value) of tourneys played, so people don't feel they're being freerolled with that last $50k that supposedly came from him and "investors".

And the cash game part needs to be eliminated completely.

If he really wants to play cash, why doesn't he just do that on his own $20k (or his $20k plus some of the outside investor money), and use the stakes just for tourneys?

This whole thing smells bad. I don't care if it's Greg Raymer, Chino Rheem, or Jesus Christ. It just has way too many loopholes that can be exploited without detection.

[jsearles22]

The problem with that is he doesn't know which tournaments he is going to play, it is based on him getting casinos to buy his training seminars so he gets his lodging and travel for free as well.

I understand that excuse, but it also is somewhat of a cop-out.

If he doesn't know what tourneys he's going to play, he shouldn't be collecting $100k in advance.

Or at the very least, he needs to promise a minimum number (that is, value) of tourneys played, so people don't feel they're being freerolled with that last $50k that supposedly came from him and "investors".

And the cash game part needs to be eliminated completely.

If he really wants to play cash, why doesn't he just do that on his own $20k (or his $20k plus some of the outside investor money), and use the stakes just for tourneys?

This whole thing smells bad. I don't care if it's Greg Raymer, Chino Rheem, or Jesus Christ. It just has way too many loopholes that can be exploited without detection.

In your opinion should players be allowed to do cash stakes? It doesn't feel like you think they should, which is an odd opinion, IMO

[Dan Druff]

I understand that excuse, but it also is somewhat of a cop-out.

If he doesn't know what tourneys he's going to play, he shouldn't be collecting $100k in advance.

Or at the very least, he needs to promise a minimum number (that is, value) of tourneys played, so people don't feel they're being freerolled with that last $50k that supposedly came from him and "investors".

And the cash game part needs to be eliminated completely.

If he really wants to play cash, why doesn't he just do that on his own $20k (or his $20k plus some of the outside investor money), and use the stakes just for tourneys?

This whole thing smells bad. I don't care if it's Greg Raymer, Chino Rheem, or Jesus Christ. It just has way too many loopholes that can be exploited without detection.

In your opinion should players be allowed to do cash stakes? It doesn't feel like you think they should, which is an odd opinion, IMO

People should be "allowed" to offer what they want.

But would I suggest doing a live cash stake for anyone except for a very very close friend or family member whom you trust with your life? No.

There are too many opportunities to shave winnings or overstate losses. As Prodigal Son mentioned, a broke gambler is a very dangerous animal. Nobody on this site knows Raymer well enough to state that they are certain he wouldn't skim from a cash stake. I mean, the guy was willing to cheat on his wife with a hooker, so obviously he's not above taking self-serving action. There are very very very few people in this world I would trust to do a cash stake.

Giving someone a cash stake is literally equivalent to leaving them alone with a pile of uncounted money, and trusting them not to steal from it.

Let's say you gave me a cash stake. One of the reasons you would probably trust me not to screw you is because you know I don't really need the money. But if I were broke and needed every penny I could get to support myself and my family, you would be a fool to give me a live cash stake. I'm not saying that I would steal, but you would be naive to believe that an otherwise honest broke gambler wouldn't be highly tempted.

At the very least, Greg should separate the cash stake from the tournament stakes, should promise a minimum total value of tournaments entered, and drop (or separate) the 20% and 30% "seed money" already present in the stake pool.

The fact that he's not doing this despite ongoing questioning/criticism is very suspicious to me.

[abrown83]

The problem with that is he doesn't know which tournaments he is going to play, it is based on him getting casinos to buy his training seminars so he gets his lodging and travel for free as well.

I understand that excuse, but it also is somewhat of a cop-out.

If he doesn't know what tourneys he's going to play, he shouldn't be collecting $100k in advance.

Or at the very least, he needs to promise a minimum number (that is, value) of tourneys played, so people don't feel they're being freerolled with that last $50k that supposedly came from him and "investors".

And the cash game part needs to be eliminated completely.

If he really wants to play cash, why doesn't he just do that on his own $20k (or his $20k plus some of the outside investor money), and use the stakes just for tourneys?

This whole thing smells bad. I don't care if it's Greg Raymer, Chino Rheem, or Jesus Christ. It just has way too many loopholes that can be exploited without detection.

I agree entirely

One of the scammy parts is he is going to update the outside investors number as needed. Aka if I collect 45,000 my investors will magically show up with 5k more.

[zealanddonk]

Just found out, he's going to be doing an exclusive series of videos after each cash session, live from the casino for backers only.

[GrenadaRoger]

Druff...I listened to you discussion on the radio show about why Raymer is seeking a stake...your assumption is that he is broke...

while that is quite possible, another reason is:

his wife has told him that he could no longer risk their money playing poker, otherwise she divorces him and leaves him very little of the marital property plus monthly alimony...consider her concern: Raymner and her are too old to earn all their money all over again...so indeed the happy wife, happy life could have some validity. And she has already cut off his poker money, so he has to rely on outside funding.

why this issue is more than a sideline is him needing money implies his poker skill is poor/unworthy of staking

[Dan Druff]

Druff...I listened to you discussion on the radio show about why Raymer is seeking a stake...your assumption is that he is broke...

while that is quite possible, another reason is:

his wife has told him that he could no longer risk their money playing poker, otherwise she divorces him and leaves him very little of the marital property plus monthly alimony...consider her concern: Raymner and her are too old to earn all their money all over again...so indeed the happy wife, happy life could have some validity. And she has already cut off his poker money, so he has to rely on outside funding.

why this issue is more than a sideline is him needing money implies his poker skill is poor/unworthy of staking

Maybe you misunderstood the point I was making on radio.

I was saying that he's either broke or his funds are low enough to where his wife has gotten uncomfortable with further risk. The latter is equivalent to what you wrote above, right?

Two years ago, I also suggested that maybe Raymer is "house rich but cash poor", and doesn't want to lose the house in a divorce.

The wife story probably isn't completely fabricated, but he's pushing it as his wife simply being uncomfortable with the risk after winning for 23 consecutive years in poker, which is LOL.

[GrenadaRoger]

Druff...I listened to you discussion on the radio show about why Raymer is seeking a stake...your assumption is that he is broke...

while that is quite possible, another reason is:

his wife has told him that he could no longer risk their money playing poker, otherwise she divorces him and leaves him very little of the marital property plus monthly alimony...consider her concern: Raymner and her are too old to earn all their money all over again...so indeed the happy wife, happy life could have some validity. And she has already cut off his poker money, so he has to rely on outside funding.

why this issue is more than a sideline is him needing money implies his poker skill is poor/unworthy of staking

Maybe you misunderstood the point I was making on radio.

I was saying that he's either broke or his funds are low enough to where his wife has gotten uncomfortable with further risk. The latter is equivalent to what you wrote above, right?

Two years ago, I also suggested that maybe Raymer is "house rich but cash poor", and doesn't want to lose the house in a divorce.

The wife story probably isn't completely fabricated, but he's pushing it as his wife simply being uncomfortable with the risk after winning for 23 consecutive years in poker, which is LOL.

yes, we agree on that point...and given the infidelity, she could well be close to ending the marriage and prohibiting any risk to what they have built up during the marriage....but given the cheating, i don't think she would stay married if they were broke... a cheater with money can be endured, a cheater without money is given the door.

[Jayjami]

When players ask me to stake them, I think: (1) here is someone who is not patient or talented enough to earn his way to the big time, or (2) got there and was to undisciplined to preserve his bank roll (usually by playing at too high of stakes and got wiped out by variance). Needless to say, I have never, ever staked another player, nor have I ever asked to be staked. If you all want to stake someone like Druff for the fun of it, fine, but don't kid yourself into thinking there is any positive EV in the deal.

[FPS_Russia]

Let me show you how absurd this is.

Let's say I went completely busto, but none of you were aware of that.

And let's say that I came up with an aggressive plan to enter big tournaments, but estimated I would need a $500k roll this year to be able to play such tournaments. I am not providing a specific schedule nor justifying the need for $500k. I just say that I need $500k, and I am selling pieces to accomplish that.

Then before it all begins, I claim that I am buying $200k of myself (40%), and got my dad to put up another $200k (40%). So all I really need is 20%, which I offer to sell to people on PFA.

I promise to pay you 60% of all profits on your piece.

So a bunch of you on the forum collectively buy $100k from me, for the "final" 20%.

In reality, I do not have $200k, nor did my dad give me a penny.

In reality, my bankroll is $100k, which you chumps sent me.

I then hit the tournament trail, playing a variety of $2500, $5000, $10000, and $15000 events. If I start off well, then I'm playing with profit, and my lack of $400k behind will never be known.

If I start off losing, I cool down my schedule to where I never am $100k in the red, claiming not to want to travel, feigning illness, claiming not to like the field of the bigger buyin events, etc.

So if I finish the year losing $98k, I return the remaining $2k to you guys, and have lost zero of my own money.

If I somehow do well and win $500k, you guys are only entitled to $60k of that (since you only bought "20%", and I'm taking 40% off the top), and I keep the other $440k to pay both myself for my agreed upon 40%, along with the phony pieces that I pretended to buy for myself and my dad.

So basically you will have put up my entire bankroll and taken all the risk, and yet find yourself entitled to just 12% of my winnings, while I keep 88% of the winnings.

Seriously, that is exactly what I could pull off in such a scenario. This is what Raymer could be doing on a smaller scale.

This is a HUGE issue.

The only way to combat this is for a third party to collect all the money up front (so it's clear the money invested by Raymer and his "outside investors" is real), and then for a proper tournament schedule to be set which actually requires a 100k bankroll (which means way more than just 100k of tournaments, where it's agreed that if the roll is busted, Raymer just stops playing and the stake is over).

You can't just collect 50k, claim that the other 50k came from you and other investors, not provide a schedule or proof of your own investment, and then keep 50% of the investor's share of the 60% they're supposed to get. That's what Raymer's doing.

So sick and nobody else noticed this loophole.
I really wish there was a way to know what Raymer had planned.
Innocent oversight or perfect freeroll? I know what i'm leaning towards but I'll keep it to myself.

[IAmProfessionalTalk]

If you have 20% risk in my $500k BR and I shoot off $100k, I now owe you $80k not $0.0

[ftpjesus]

If you have 20% risk in my $500k BR and I shoot off $100k, I now owe you $80k not $0.0

Looks like Raymer hasn't gotten a whole bunch from folks. Heres what the site shows as far as backing and whos given what.. Most are very small other then one guy who backed for $1k roughly.. Theres an Eric in there.. Hmm could that be one of our PFAers??



01/03/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$20,000.00





Outside Investors

01/03/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$30,000.00





YouStake Discount

01/03/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$2,500.00





Eric

01/03/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00





Frank Allen

01/03/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00





greatbrit

01/04/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$210.00





SMP

01/04/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$210.00





Oliver

01/04/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00





Brian Kleinknecht

01/05/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$210.00





Chris

01/06/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$210.00





Chris

01/06/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$210.00





Scott

01/06/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00





jlehrer

01/06/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$1,050.00





Christopher

01/06/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00





Alex

01/07/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$210.00





Thijs

01/07/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00





dan

01/07/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00





indigorose

01/08/2016


Enter any $ amt or Choose

$105.00