i would say a strong and reputable ub is good for online poker in general.

im pretty on the fence about this tho.

I've heard that some Israeli guy/family owns Stars.

Full Tilt, as we all know, is owned by the Wizard of Oz, who hires a group of high profile poker pros to "consult" on the site.

ok, come on. his choice to support a company that is probably corrupt or criminal is exactly what everyone has a problem with, and rightfully so. i think it makes him a bad person. you don't? you can take the 'respect his hustle' stance, though it would be difficult since sheets says that this deal is not about the money at all.

also, in this case, i think your simplification is correct. it is that linear.

i hate to suggest this because it's entirely possible it's not true at all, but please don't be just defending a friend here. whether you like it or not, your opinion is almost definitely the most valued opinion on this site, in fact many people were specifically anticipating your response to this issue. everyone wanted a shaniac rant on this, and I'm personally surprised it wasn't there. not that i can assume your opinion on something, but your Cardrunners/FTP stance compared with your stance on this issue is kind of curious to me.

as poker players, we in the business of makin money, thats it

if this is bringin in the green then why shouldnt he do it, he can still play on other sites too so it seems like a pretty rational decision to me.

This may sound super simplified...but I really think this entire situation boils down to one thing for me.

Had UB released something last week stating how the newest superuser issue had been found, and players funds were going to be returned, and how they were entering some kind of super great time of fairness in their games.....I probably would welcome Bax joining them with open arms.

But they haven't released this. They haven't acknowledged anything. They haven't taken responsibility for anything. Now maybe they TOLD Bax they were going to, and that's wonderful. But if I were Bax, I definitely would have waited.

It seems like this relates back to his ability to make good decisions and his overall ethical judgment.

When this guy runs the largest back team of poker players and suddenly he makes an ethically questionable business decision - is it not fair to question his judgment in other areas? How do we know the entire team is not going to move to UB and take over the MTT schedule?

Very well put.

pleez post less ty

Am I the only one that was most offended by the revelation that Bax tells people to "die of aids" in the chat?

As much as I am flattered by it, I didn't ask for and don't enjoy the responsibility of "the most valued opinion" here, since it's obvious I have my own personal biases.

Trying to put aside my bias, I still don't see why Bax should become the scapegoat for all of UB's prior transgressions. Up until now, I considered Ultimate Bet to be a complete mess--unreliable, untrustworthy, nonsensical. It's such a stain on the online poker landscape that I prefer to think that it doesn't exist at all, and I mostly ignore it.

Ultimately though (no pun intended), it's better for the online poker world if sites like UB weren't such a mess, but instead were regulated, or, short of that, honest by default or by discipline.

Since it's become obvious that sites like AP/UB are able to do incredibly scandalous things and still remain vibrant entities on the market, it seems like our best bet is to hope improvements get made and that the base-level of integrity in this industry rises to an acceptable standard. I can't see how the involvement of someone like Bax in their company will do anything other than help to elevate these standards. (On the other hand, it's complacency like Shaun Deeb's that allows these sites to get away with murder).

We can see that Bax has opened himself up to a ****load of extra, unnecessary scrutiny with this move. When a man who distinctly values his privacy takes a step like this, I'm willing to give him some amount of the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best, rather than assuming he's polishing the brass on the Titanic or, worse, agreeing with that awful engineer guy who insisted the boat go faster to make record time.

I usually would stay out of these things, but Sheets' post rubbed me the wrong way in one aspect. Sheets claims that the money from UB is a 'rounding error'. That is almost certainly complete nonsense. It is consisent with a baller image to claim you make so much money playing poker that even very large sums of money are of no consequence. Everyone accepts that as part of the bluster of a BBV thread, but the truth is that high stakes poker players live on an income stream that is uneven and at constant risk of disappearing. Getting a steady income source, like an endorsement deal, is a godsend to those players who have the maturity to recognize that their future poker success isn't assured. So how much are we supposed to believe UB is paying Bax? $10k, $50k? What is so small that he wouldn't notice it if it appeared in his bank account?

If he is really doing this for nearly nothing then he is a terrible businessman. Sheets may be even worse for letting it happen. There is a significant risk that UB folds under the weight of the cheating scandal and taints Bax's other businesses by association. The basic tenet of business is that you get paid to take risk. The bigger the risk you agree to accept, the larger the payment needs to be. As he is a guy with a business background it strains credulity that he would take on this risk for a 'rounding error'. Sheets peddling that line insults my intelligence as well.

Why not just say that you got a ton of money and that you will do your best to make sure the players get a fair shake? Bax is selling his name to UB at a time when they need it the most. I am hardly going to respect him for not having the good sense to get paid.

This is a really poor decision on Bax's part. People with supposedly good character can't associate with sites like UB or AP. It brings their character and morals into question.

interview him?

That is a very reasonable and popular 'take' on the issue.

Shane, when you sign on to a site and become one of their pros, you are using your reputation to drive business to that site. Bax is leading uninformed poker players, telling to play at UB when the site is run by...well at the very best morally questionable incompetents, and most likely flat out thieves.

Above, someone quoted a timeline of events with regard to the UB scandal. I've seen a lot of wishy-washy BS from UB apologists about 'well maybe they'll eventually do the right thing'. It's been too long. Any organization led by individuals with honest intent would not have behaved in that way. If there was some corruption below the top of the company that could be forced out to fix things, an honest and capable overall leader would have plenty of time to accomplish that by now. They haven't.

That anyone (especially you) would defend this endorsement is ridiculous. Does Bax have the right to make his own business decisions? Of course. Will this endorsement likely lead directly to innocent players getting cheated/scammed/mistreated by UB? Very likely, yes. Does that make endorsing UB a scummy move?

YES.

You act like poker is a noble profession full of persons with high moral character.

What is the value of a good reputation? Many of you are either overvaluing it as a commodity or are frustrated that this deal seems to work against a thirst for UB's blood.