AP Visit: I'm going to Costa Rica

[Phil153]

There's two separate issues that I think most people agree with. The first is that no one has a problem with Nat getting paid expenses + some fee. I think most people baulked at the fact that

- he asked for a fee after consulting his lawyer
- the fee is probably substantial.

I don't know how much it is but no one would have a problem with 5K for a week's lost time. More than that and it's starting to look a bit off, for obvious reasons.

The second point is, why Nat? There's no indication that he's remotely qualified to get anything useful out of the trip. Yes he's smart, and involved in poker a lot, but if the community wants to send someone, it should be someone with street smarts and experience, who can sniff out what's really going on and understands how shady people operate. I suspect Nat will be as clueless as schoolgirl when it comes to understanding these people. If the community is going to send someone then we need a seasoned person who's been around for a while. People like Mason, Sklansky, Zee, Diablo, and maybe Druff (though I don't know enough about him to say). These people may not be interested but there must be a better choice.

The stipulation that he can't see anything related to the cheating accounts already indicates that this is something of a joke, and that Nat is in over his head when it comes to this stuff. It's a slap in the face, and someone with a different set of principles would have told AP to f off after stipulating something like that. He's basically getting paid to run around Costa Rica for a week and get played by AP management. Again, no offense to Nat, he's smart and talented, but he's also 25 and doesn't have the mindset to sniff out hardened frauds, IMO (I'm the same age in case anyone wants to flame for that comment).

[snagglepuss]

phil,

i am renowned for my sniffing out abilities

[El Diablo]

Josem,

Your arguments would be very valid if there was a reasonable expectation that he would get an honest view of the culture and employees when down there. Given what we know by now, though, it's not reasonable to expect that. Let's say for example that the culture is one where all day they point at rich morons depositing lots of money on the site and yell across the room about undetectable ways they can steal that money from these poker novices. I'm sure that none of that would go on when he was there. And anyone who they felt would not come off in a good way or would not act the way they told people to would not be around in the office for those days. That's why your reasons are imo largely irrelevant in this specific situation.

[Josem]

ED,

re: lying

hence, in my first post in this thread i suggested insisting on being able to speak to people individually.

there are already people inside AP who have opened up to Nat; that trust has value.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most people baulked at the fact that

- he asked for a fee after consulting his lawyer
- the fee is probably substantial.

I don't know how much it is but no one would have a problem with 5K for a week's lost time. More than that and it's starting to look a bit off, for obvious reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you make these claims.

It would seem obvious to me that when negotiating an arrangement with a company to consult a lawyer. That seems to be fairly obvious.

I do not understand how you have the ability to value Nat's time.

I do not understand how you can claim that the negotiated fee is too high, without knowing what it is.

This seems to be another case of people claiming expertise when they don't have it.

[ QUOTE ]
The second point is, why Nat?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he understands the issues of cheating involved; because he is credible; because he is available.

Absolute Poker can make any arrangements they want with people. If you don't think any report by Nat would be useful, you don't need to value it.

Other people obviously will value it differently to you or I. That's the beauty of free thought and free speech.
[ QUOTE ]
There's no indication that he's remotely qualified to get anything useful out of the trip. Yes he's smart, and involved in poker a lot, but if the community wants to send someone, it should be someone with street smarts and experience, who can sniff out what's really going on and understands how shady people operate.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "community" is not sending anyone. Absolute and Nat are sending someone (or rather, were sending someone).

Nat's trip has more value to more people if he takes input from more people. That is why this thread would have increased the value of his trip to more people.

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect Nat will be as clueless as schoolgirl when it comes to understanding these people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect that this claim is as baseless as the three claims in your opening few paragraphs.

[ QUOTE ]
If the community is going to send someone then we need a seasoned person who's been around for a while. People like Mason, Sklansky, Zee, Diablo, and maybe Druff (though I don't know enough about him to say). These people may not be interested but there must be a better choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
What attribute makes these people better? You seem to think that they are more "seasoned" or have "been around for a while."
[ QUOTE ]
The stipulation that he can't see anything related to the cheating accounts already indicates that this is something of a joke, and that Nat is in over his head when it comes to this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is no such indication of the sort.
[ QUOTE ]
It's a slap in the face, and someone with a different set of principles would have told AP to f off after stipulating something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because it is not the point here. The point is not for Nat to conduct an audit; as you noted, he's not qualified to do so, and Gaming Associates already are.

The point is for Nat to look at other areas of the operation.

[ QUOTE ]
He's basically getting paid to run around Costa Rica for a week and get played by AP management.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, he's not basically getting paid to run around CR for a week. That's just not true.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, no offense to Nat, he's smart and talented, but he's also 25 and doesn't have the mindset to sniff out hardened frauds, IMO (I'm the same age in case anyone wants to flame for that comment).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you can make this claim with a straight face. What experience with Nat do you have to make this?

[El Diablo]

Josem,

"I don't understand how you can make this claim with a straight face. What experience with Nat do you have to make this?"

Well, he might have just read what Nat wrote earlier: "That being said, I'm a 25 y/o kid. Am I really expected to be able to catch them in lies and coverups? It's going to be hard, if, in fact, that is what's going on."

[Slider]

Like I posted in the other thread, I'd seriously go.. You can be assured that I would provide an unbiased opinion as I have an interest vested in this case - I lost money to Graycat and Payup.

[Josem]

Clearly Nat is not a live, walking, lie detector. He may not even be the best person in the world for this. But he's clearly intelligent and coherent.

But, like they say in the Castle, it's the vibe, your honour, that he needs to look at.

[Phil153]

Nothing to say to your other points, but:

[ QUOTE ]
What attribute makes these people better? You seem to think that they are more "seasoned" or have "been around for a while."

[/ QUOTE ]
Experience, pure and simple. Experience with fraud, with dishonest dealers, with shady business owners, with card sharps and colluders. There's no substitute.