FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP) - Page 111 - Poker News

Mycology · 09-01-2011, 06:59 PM

vamoose I think you are over-estimating the ability of the rest of the world to pressure the United States.

Previously I wanted the entire world to get paid, but now, it seems there isn't much left to go around if we are going to get anything at all, and frankly, the rest of the world can still play online poker on the bigger and now much better pokerstars. Americans dont have that option, screw the RoW.

Bene Gesserit · 09-01-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jweez

Alright, enough with the sarcasm already, sheesh...

Sorry!

Got football to watch. back in AM to see if anything exploded! You're right We should just take smartmouth and move on. No more from me I promise you!

insidemanpoker · 09-01-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamooose

Assuming FTP were illiquid before BF, the DoJ may have known this was a good time to strike. If this can be evidenced in court, it will be apparent that the DoJ knowingly seized (assuming legal case successful) the sole remaining funds which included ROW player funds. This after DoJ playing bogus processor to catch them out.

The governments of the other 216 legal countries that FTP serves will not merely stand by and wave adiós to the tax their residents would have paid on that income. Nor will these governments allow the DoJ to place their residents under US law that do not apply in their resident country.

I doubt very much that ROW will be paying for US indecision / inability to regulate / keep the casinos happy

You are clueless.

The DoJ would like nothing more than for FTP to be operating today outside the US and making billions doing so. The more money FTP makes, the more money they can hope to get in their court case so your claim that they intentionally struck when FTP was at its most broke makes no logical sense.

akem · 09-01-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insidemanpoker

You are clueless.

The DoJ would like nothing more than for FTP to be operating today outside the US and making billions doing so. The more money FTP makes, the more money they can hope to get in their court case so your claim that they intentionally struck when FTP was at its most broke makes no logical sense.

but guatemala is going demand the doj to return pablo's $2200

DoTheMath · 09-01-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LedaSon

Our debat is not about FTP, its about IOM allowing Pokerstars to operate while they were almost surely committing Bank Fraud in the US. We didn't say it, but it goes for AGCC as well.

By what date do you believe a reasonable regulatory authority should have concluded that PS was engaging in bank fraud in the US?

sleight_hand · 09-01-2011, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycology

Americans dont have that option, screw the RoW.

Yep, cause we should pay you our hard earned because your government won't let you play online, makes sense.

Posts like this do my head in. With all the rampant posts about FTP being crooks and thieves and ruining people's lives, it seems that if the shoe was on the other foot some people would happily act in the same way just to see their money again.

Have a hard look in the mirror, seriously. Events like this should bring the players of the world closer together, not turn us against each other.

spino1i · 09-01-2011, 07:11 PM

Realistically how does the RoW get paid? The problem is that the owners are all Americans, and so the American lawsuit of TT would clear first.

Mycology · 09-01-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleight_hand

Yep, cause we should pay you our hard earned because your government won't let you play online, makes sense.

Posts like this do my head in. With all the rampant posts about FTP being crooks and thieves and ruining people's lives, it seems that if the shoe was on the other foot some people would happily act in the same way just to see their money again.

Have a hard look in the mirror, seriously. Events like this should bring the players of the world closer together, not turn us against each other.

I dont want Your money, but if everybody getting paid gets us all 1 cent on the dollar, i'd much rather the RoW get 0 cents on the dollar so americans can get 10 cents on the dollar... why? Because you can go take your 50 pesos and deposit on pokerstars and have a HUGE field to play with and make more money. Americans do not have this option, so for those of us who depended on online poker as main or side income, we need a bit more than 1 cent on the dollar.

AlphaScorpii · 09-01-2011, 07:15 PM

Sent e-mail to jeff:

"
I don't know. I do know that right now Ray and anyone else in Dublin is fully focused on closing a deal with one of the investors at the table.

----- Original Message -----
From: XXXXX
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 03:56 PM
To: Jeff Ifrah
Subject: Qestion regarding Full Tilt Poker

Hello,

I have seen your posts on 2+2 forum. I have just one question. Do you
know will the FTP pay the players atleast some percentage if they won't
have money for restoring the company?

Thank you,

xxxx

DoTheMath · 09-01-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LedaSon

IOM, as I have said before, if the best of the worst.....

Just because PS was able to repay anyone does not mean that that the IOM system protected them - it may just means that PS had that cash reserves to pay.

They had the cash reserve because they were required by the IOM GSC to have the cash reserve, and the IOM GSC took steps to determine whether they had met that requirement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LedaSon

Clearly segregation is better then not segregating. But by allowing PS to operate in fashions inconsistant with the law of the US, they potentially put all player money at risk. We do not know how much money is or was in transit on a daily basis.

How much money was in transit is not relevant, because the amount in the segregated account had to cover the amount in transit.

How is money in a segregated account at risk?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LedaSon

... PS and IOM would not have faced these issues if as a regulator IOM had said...'hey should you be doing this? It could result in fines, jail, trouble with the US DOJ, etc..' ...

By 'this' I presume you mean engaging in bank fraud. How can you expect any regulator to have detected the activites that have given rise to the allegations of bank fraud?

How is what your saying any different from a demand for omniscience?

sleight_hand · 09-01-2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycology

I dont want Your money, but if everybody getting paid gets us all 1 cent on the dollar, i'd much rather the RoW get 0 cents on the dollar so americans can get 10 cents on the dollar... why? Because you can go take your 50 pesos and deposit on pokerstars and have a HUGE field to play with and make more money. Americans do not have this option, so for those of us who depended on online poker as main or side income, we need a bit more than 1 cent on the dollar.

Yes, you do want my money. If you want 10c on the $ at the expense of the ROW seeing any, you want our money.

Again, we are not liable for where US players can and can't pay. Your argument is absurd.

coolnout · 09-01-2011, 07:17 PM

why did Ifrah even show up here? I remember someone posted his contact info to ask him questions is that what brought him here? It just seemed like he couldn't answer our questions so there wasn't really a point in doing it.

vamooose · 09-01-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycology

vamoose I think you are over-estimating the ability of the rest of the world to pressure the United States.

Previously I wanted the entire world to get paid, but now, it seems there isn't much left to go around if we are going to get anything at all, and frankly, the rest of the world can still play online poker on the bigger and now much better pokerstars. Americans dont have that option, screw the RoW.

Yeah, that not ROW fault thou eh! You feeling the same way if the Chinese DoJ sat on your roll?

Let's lighten the mood with some Al Murray on Brits and Americans (all clean comedy)....

http://youtu.be/xUdaPNXC_68

j_crowhurst · 09-01-2011, 07:31 PM

It's probably worth pointing something out at this point:

IFRAH NEVER ACTED FOR FTP IN THE CLASS ACTION SUIT.

He represented 13 defendants, including Howard Lederer, Erick Lindgren, Chris Ferguson, Allan Cunningham, a few other people, a few corporations, but he didn't represent FTP or Phil Ivey or Raymond Bitar or 8 of the other 24 defendants.

I practise in Canada, not New York, but here (and everywhere else I know of) these kinds of motions are pro forma -- they are granted in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

He could have any number of reasons for withdrawing, including that his retainer has been exhausted, that by representing these defendants a conflict of interest has arisen that would prevent him from representing more valued clients, or that -- straight up -- it's an unreasonable financial burden because the case is drawing too much in the way of his (or his firm's) resources away from more lucrative files.

EYESCREW · 09-01-2011, 07:33 PM

**** is getting pretty ugly for Full Tilt.

wrt to the $70 million figure that the principal shareholders of FTP were willing to infuse back into FTP. I for the life of me can't remember exactly where I heard it. Could it possibly have been mentioned by Mike Matusow in his Quad Jacks interview? If he didn't mention it then I don't know where it came from (maybe my imagination?) so just disregard that I mentioned it.