Battlefield Poker and 27 other Microgaming skins to close? - Page 11 - Internet Poker

ArcticPoker · 02-29-2008, 12:55 AM

Hi, thanks for that.

This letter does not actually state that 'Tusk' will no longer be a part of the network, it merely states that BFP and R9 will no longer be part of the network. I would like to know if this is all that happenned why has our room and all the others been closed too? It seems there is more going on than just the rakeback violations.

Fulzgold · 02-29-2008, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcticPoker

Hi, thanks for that.

This letter does not actually state that 'Tusk' will no longer be a part of the network, it merely states that BFP and R9 will no longer be part of the network. I would like to know if this is all that happenned why has our room and all the others been closed too? It seems there is more going on than just the rakeback violations.

I also would like to know more but that's all the letter i saw said..
Tusk probably decided they can't exist without their two biggest skins maybe?

acethiest · 02-29-2008, 01:31 AM

I'm also wondering if microgaming knew tusk was in financial troubles and used the rakeback excuse to try and get rid of them before they declared solvency (so microgaming could claim they wern;t responsible for cash holdings).

Black winter day · 02-29-2008, 01:43 AM

If Battlefield and RedNines are to blame, why other sites were getting punished?

I get this sick Pokerspot like feeling...People were lyed to, nobody notifed anything and suddenly everything is shut down and funds are in unknown situation.

Feel frustrated here...

bigt2k4 · 02-29-2008, 01:49 AM

I thought battle reduced everyone to 30% a year ago?

unluckyone · 02-29-2008, 01:54 AM

Yeah battlefield did set everyone to 30% a while back but there are a lot of affiliates advertising rakeback higher than 30%. I've seen battlefield adevertised with 60% rakeback.

I guess you could point the finger at the affiliates for causing this whole mess...

acethiest · 02-29-2008, 02:11 AM

With all due respect I don't think the affiliates are to blame at all. They are simply advertisers. They don't have access to money in accounts or software, it's not like the affiliate can magically set rakeback at whatever they want and then the skin then gives it to that player. The skin/tusk/microgaming clearly take the blame for rakeback and issues regarding player funds.

I still don't believe rakeback is the sole issue. But I beleive microgaming will use whatever excuses possible to wash their hands of this fiasco and try to place the blame on tusk or the skin owners. While the skins and tusk are no doubt partly responsible microgaming is clearly not innocent.

bigt2k4 · 02-29-2008, 02:11 AM

Are we certain with Tusk liquidating their business that any current cheques that have not been deposited yet, but have been issued will not be returned NSF?

unluckyone · 02-29-2008, 02:20 AM

No statement from tusk yet so nobody knows.

orlov · 02-29-2008, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unluckyone

Yeah battlefield did set everyone to 30% a while back but there are a lot of affiliates advertising rakeback higher than 30%. I've seen battlefield adevertised with 60% rakeback.

I guess you could point the finger at the affiliates for causing this whole mess...

I had 60% rakeback there from rakereduction, the affiliates arent to blame since they can't offer more rakeback than the room allows anyway

If people dont get their funds back I rly doubt any 2p2 will ever play again on a microgaming skin, so its in microgamings interest to get this thing solved somehow.

But then again that was the common consensus after absolute scandal and now so many 2p2ers play there again lol.

But I guess this could be different since loosing your account balance affects everyone will superusers dont.

acethiest · 02-29-2008, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double_Nothing

Googling Tusk+Microgaming brings me here:

Microgaming - About Us, Our Case Studie
Global Approach Ltd (formally Tusk) launched into the online casino marketplace 5 years ago using software powered by Microgaming, therefore when the ...
www.microgaming.com/casestudies.php - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Clicking the link doesnt show the qouted text though (so its rescently removed obv)

This is what I found on Global Approach Ltd:

http://www.globalapproach.com.au/

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/C...on&asxCode=GLO

From a 2006 business plan:
Global Approach Acquisition Update
JUM is a substantial shareholder of Global Approach Limited (ASX:GLO) with 18.0% of the shares. GLO
announced on the 29th of March 2006 to acquire Tusk Investment Corporation (Tusk) for AUD$19.3
million to create one of Australia's premier online gaming companies. GLO yesterday announced an
update to the progress of this acquisition.
The main points of the Acquistion are:
• Purchase Consideration $19.375 million through the issue of 155 million fully paid ordinary GLO
shares at an issue price of 12.5c per share.
• Tusk anticipated results for the 12 months to June 2006 include Revenue $7.1 million and
EBITDA $2.5 million.
• Post acquistion gaming operations will consist of 5 mature online casinos and 3 online poker
sites.
• Number of depositing players is expected to grow from 42,000 to 151,000.
Mr Mike Veverka, CEO of Jumbo and Alan Phillips, Chairman of Jumbo are both non-executive directors
of Global Approach Limited. Jumbo Corporation Limited currently holds 11.6 million ordinary shares
(18.0%) of the fully paid ordinary shares in GLO. The full GLO announcement is attached.
Jumbo Corporation Announcement - Page 4 of 4
For further enquiries, please contact:
Mike Veverka, CEO
Email: mike@jumbocorporation.com
Web: www.jumbocorporation.com

I found this earlier and was going to comment on it.

Global's only press release for this year is a change of contact information which occured one day before thsi whole mess started. It could be a coincedence. Anylegal recourse to go after global if tusk goes down?

unluckyone · 02-29-2008, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acethiest

With all due respect I don't think the affiliates are to blame at all. They are simply advertisers. They don't have access to money in accounts or software, it's not like the affiliate can magically set rakeback at whatever they want and then the skin then gives it to that player. The skin/tusk/microgaming clearly take the blame for rakeback and issues regarding player funds.

No but affiliates can pay their players directly without the skin knowing. That means the skin has done nothing wrong as 30% is all the player sees in the poker client. The rest comes directly from the affiliate.

I believe the skins are innocent. The blame lies somewhere between tusk and microgaming for the financial accountability and I believe that the affiliates who were advertising rakeback greater than 30% caused the whole thing as I can't see any rakeback advertising at all on battlefieldpoker.com or rednines.com.

Nothing personal against the affiliates, just calling it as I see it.

Self Made · 02-29-2008, 02:28 AM

Global no longer owns Tusk.

Black winter day · 02-29-2008, 02:42 AM

If people don't get payed, Microgaming is done.Superusers are one thing, the security leaks can be fixed, etc.

But not getting your money is the worst nightmare to a poker player and i think the network will fall if that happens.

Fulzgold · 02-29-2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unluckyone

No but affiliates can pay their players directly without the skin knowing. That means the skin has done nothing wrong as 30% is all the player sees in the poker client. The rest comes directly from the affiliate.

I believe the skins are innocent. The blame lies somewhere between tusk and microgaming for the financial accountability and I believe that the affiliates who were advertising rakeback greater than 30% caused the whole thing as I can't see any rakeback advertising at all on battlefieldpoker.com or rednines.com.

Nothing personal against the affiliates, just calling it as I see it.

I'm going to try to confirm this tomorrow but i've heard rumblings that rednines and Battlefield are owned by the same people who own some big rakeback affiliates so it makes sense that the rakeback companies f'ing up would cause those two skins to get shut down..