The way it was put forward / worded by the manager was that they (the skin) had "negotiated" with Microgaming and were now given the goahead, which I guess would mean that the skin is prepared to forfeit their share of the rake and needed the same from MGs end. My son was in touch with the VIP-manager there (because of another matter), mentioned that he had friends that were involved in this mess, and was told this by the said manager. The manager said that he could forward this to his friends, so it sounded as if though it was already decided upon and would be declared officially this week. I wouldn´t mind naming the site or manager, but need my sons approval first just in case. I dont think that the manager would come out with such a delicate statement in this pretty delicate time if it were not final (I could be wrong).

The more I think about, the more this seems like a smart idea. IF it is done properly, which unfortunately I doubt it will be. Here's how I think it should be run in a way that would be good for both the site AND the player:

The player should be allowed to work towards 200% of their "in limbo" bankroll. This would make up for the fact, as I mentioned above, that the player would be receiving 25-50% RB at another site. It should more than make up for it, which is good, because there should be some sort of incentive for the player to take this deal. Ideally, the site would offer 100% RB to earn this money, but it might be workable with 90-95% so the site can at least recover costs while the player is earning this. Obviously, the higher % the site can give, the more likely players are to buy into the arrangement willingly.

Deposits are another problem. Will players be willing to deposit onto another MG site with the hopes of getting all their money back? Many won't. Some players probably aren't even able to, as a large portion of their roll is tied up. Perhaps some kind of no-deposit arrangement could be made. MG would have to become involved to make this work, I think, and they would have to be willing to risk some money.

In return for this arrangement, the player would of course give up on any claim on their original roll. I think the only way a player agrees to this is if it happens AFTER they have earned the full 200%, or they cash out a portion thereof. They can't cash any out until they agree that 50% of the "RB" they've earned is to be removed from any claim they might have. If the site can't make this work, they may have to insist the entire amount is earned before the player can cash out. Either way, it has to be arranged so neither side will screw the other.

From the skin's perspective, I think it looks pretty good. They have a chance of earning the loyalty of some of the players...of course many will finish the offer, cash out and never come back, but if they are treated well, others will stay. As long as the future revenues of retained players > the costs of the program, they win.

For MG, they might already be looking at refunding this money...this is much more painless. Even if they aren't planning on doing so, their formula is the same as the skins...they win if future $ > current cost. Actually, for them it's a win if future $ > (current cost + potential losses in lawsuits and reputation hit).

For the players, it's more of a mixed bag. This probably works very well for low limit grinders who don't have large amounts of money tied up. It may also work for many others, but there will obviously be lots of players who won't be happy with this arrangement. Players with $x00,000 tied up will probably have a hard time buying into it, for example. The best way to run this is to make it optional, IMO. Make it as attractive to the players as possible, and clear that many claims off the books. Then decide how you're going to handle the remainder.

Sadly, I fear this is not how it will go.

Since MG doesn't allow RB, I doubt they'll see the wisdom of offering players substantially, if any, more than 100% of the money that is tied up. If they don't intend to make good on any money Tusk defaults on, they likely wouldn't want to incorporate the no-deposit idea either. If this comes to fruition, but only becomes 100% RB until you get 100% of your roll back, I think it's lose-lose. The only players that should be taking that deal are those who need the money soon and can't afford to risk never getting it or getting involved in legal wranglings if it comes to that. 100% to 100% is certainly not a fair deal. It also doesn't help MG that much, since the only players they're taking off the books are the ones that probably wouldn't make legal trouble for them anyway, and if they're not getting a fair deal, they'll be gone forever the second they clear the 100%.

I hope mg will solve this problem or im gonna do everything that no stupid slightly thinking person will play on this network!

Well all I can say is that if Microgaming have agreed to this, they are even more of a shambles than I thought.

As I said before, this whole mess started when Microgaming closed down two Tusk sites for RAKEBACK VIOLATIONS! Now they are willing to let one or more skins give 100% rakeback to "compensate" the players? Is it only me that sees this as ludicrous?

It was rumered to be rakeback violations but the fact is the money people lost there ecorga licence so there was obviously something not above board happening and microgaming pulled them. Personally i wont deposit there again unless i get my money back. And i will never ever keep more than 10bi on a site bar pokerstars again. Thats one thing ive learned from this crap.

Microgaming only pulled two skins, the two skins that were openly advertising rakeback that did not conform to Microgaming's rules. Coincidentally (yeah, real coincidence) they were the two most profitable skins - oops.

As for the Ecorga licence - seems to me it's worth Jack ***** if they can pull a licence and that company/casino goes out of business almost immediately leaving its depositors in the lurch. How is that safeguarding anyone?

damn right!

I don't want no 100$% rb, just give me my goddamn money back, you thieves!

A rakeback solution would not work for me, I already am on another prima skin with RB and bonuses to clear. It will be two months probably before I exhaust the bonuses (and maybe not even then, since I think they have some bottomless bonus thing if you play enough) and I got rb on top of all that. So ummm, my prima play is already booked, unless they are going to give some additional bonus that doesn't impact what I am already getting.

I will just wait until the liquidation is over if that is their current quick fix solution. I really don't care if it takes a few months as long as I get my money back, and I think I eventually will.

I want my ****ing Money back and no ****ing Rakeback

100% rakeback would be pretty useless for me since I don't even have any money to deposit, so I could't even get my money back that way

If, as Microgaming have hinted, all the affected players are going to have to make individual claims to the Tusk liquidator, that must mean that Microgaming don't have records of player balances doesn't it? After all, if they DO have records, they'd be giving the liquidator all that information right? Surely as a reputable, trustworthy company they wouldn't allow anyone to get shafted just because they got a procedure wrong or didn't read 2+2?

OK, if Microgaming don't know our balances, I think I will accept the 100% rakeback for the $350K I had in my account.

Of course MG know the balances

Where are Battlefield Poker and the others now? No sign of them doesn't look good, does it?

They probably just don't have anything new or substantial to report.

Any rakeback "solution" from MGS would bolster any possible Tusk legal case against MGS for destroying their business by pulling BFP and R9's for rakeback violations. I have a hard time believing that MGS' lawyers would let them do this unless it was a part of a larger negotiation with the liquidators/Tusk.

Personally, I think just a simple offer of 100% rakeback is pretty insulting. A solution where MGS offered us our balances on another skin but imposed withdrawal restrictions along with 100% (or greater) rakeback (as suggested above) is a workable solution. Hello 10-table grinding...

100 percent rakeback is also useless looking at it from MGS perspective. Since MGS gets nothing out of it and has to pay out of their own pockets. They would be just as well served to pay us our balances slowly in installlments over a few weeks/months without any rakeback qualifications. It would provide the same result and players would be much more happier/more likely to continue playing with MGS. This is of course assuming we are all winning players. If you are a losing player changes things substantially

BTW I agree with transferring balances to another skin with some restrictions for withdrawing would be a viable solution. Only problem is it may screw other players with very large bankrolls.

Maybe if MG wants to offer 100% rakeback AFTER we get our money back, I MIGHT be interested...

-I just can't really trust MG now so any "offer" they would put out I would be very skeptical of; their website said our money was safe and secure but really it's at the whim of whatever parent company owns your poker skin.

We have nothing new We call the liquidator every single day. They either are "Out of the office" (The lady we need to talk to) Or "Not at her desk". We probably call 5 times a day, everyday. We have spoken once, they said they wouldn't even talk to us until we sent them a copy of our contract, which we did and now we wait for them to respond.

No news from MGS
No news from Tusk

Without the liquidators help, our hands are totally tied as both sides have said the same thing "Talk to the liquidator".

I keep up with this forum (Thread) daily and will continue to do so until this is resolved.

Battlefield Poker

??

What are they paying out of their own pockets? If they are giving 100% rakeback, that means they got the rake in the first place. They are just giving back money they raked from the player. The only cost to them is whatever their overhead is for the player at the table. This could be easily mitigated by the benefit of keeping the player after they are paid out.

Paying the balances, on the other hand, DOES cost them money without getting any rake in return. They might keep some players this way as well, but at a much higher cost.

There are a few reasons this probably won't work, but I don't think yours are among them.

#2!!!!!!

Edit: I hope noone abuses this thread for an April's joke. This topic is way too serious for any jokes and I hope everyone respects this.

Thank you for your reply.

You are correct, I've been sick the last week and not thinking straight lol. The cost to MGS though is loss in expeted earnings fromt he rakeback. If they paid the players in full they'd likely get all that back in future rake anyways (except for some very high rollers). That was the point I was trying to get across but did a poor job of doing.

You know who the liquidator is. You know where they are.

Why don't you get on a plane and turn up at their door?

is golden riviera a safe place to play or should all prima sites be avoided?