Hello 2 + 2 Forum,

Adam Slutsky here... I've been a feature contributor to Bluff Magazine for approx 5 yrs and a huge fan of poker (brick & mortar, online, teepee, mudhut, etc.) for all of my adult life (and most of my prepubescent life, too).

It saddens me to see household name players like Jesus, Lederer, Ivey and others -- players who many of us have put on a pedestal in some way, shape or form -- turn out to be nothing more than common criminals.

While it's true that we may not know the full story yet, I think we know enough of the story to understand they stole from their friends.

Period.

I'm a bit surprised that Durrr would take the stance on natl TV that FT was more about gross mismanagement than what amounts to a Ponzi Scheme. Either that's a "circle the wagons" statement or a CYA statement.

These guys committed financial rape. And they did it to people who not just supported them (literally) but, worst of all, admired and respected them.

Pretty sick.
Pretty classless.
Pretty pathetic.

I know Rafe Furst issued a statement saying he couldn't comment because of the charges/suits pending but, the heck with that... If I were implicated in something as serious as he was and I was innocent, I'd go to the ends of the Earth to clear my name, regardless of what my attorney told me.

I think if any of the named entities were TRULY innocent, they should call a press conference at the Rio or any other major cardroom casino and open themselves up to questions from any and all poker players out there.

If they don't, they're cowards.

And criminals.

While we're on the subject...

I'm just curious why, after Russ Hamilton was outed as an absolute cheat of the worst kind, Huck Seed continued to pal around with him as a regular golf buddy?

Sure, it's guilt by association but still...

I've never been on the golf course without gambling...

If anyone wins a dime of Hamilton's $, they're winning $ he stole from other poker players.

While poker is the last bastion of legal combat, and we're all trying to destroy one another on the felt, there is still an honor and, dare I say it, an elegance to the way the game is played.

Sadly, some of the best and brightest in the biz just destroyed that.

All these people who are admired in some way or another, use deception and lies to leech money from the inexperienced and weak.

Gambling as a profession is by no means a moral profession.

The best one can expect morally, are gray areas.

It is realistic for someone to believe that the most successful ones are those that have no moral qualms and can freely step beyond the gray areas, and in this line of business if you are not on the gray side you can only be on the black side.

No surprise for me.

I'm still pretty shocked that they did what they did also. But hopefully we all see justice upheld soon.

Well put.

I agree

When i watch some of these guys on tv i have often wondered what seperates them from most people and the only conclusion i can come up with is they would rob the eye out of your head !
on this occasion they may have took the money but it wasn't clever because they wont have anywhere to hide .. I'd rather be broke than have enemies all over the world

I think the truth is some where between the DOJ and the Big name players. What the DOJ and most people don't think about is that FT was turning over a HUNDRED BILLION dollars a year on their tables and earning profits estmated as high as $100,000,000 a year.

Let's not forget the business they were in. They ran the game collecting ~$1 a hand, dealing a hand a minute, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. One table was pulling in ~$50K aper table per year and they had THOUSANDS of tables.

As I write Poker Stars has 32K cash palyers and 130K players total on line. Just the cash game comes to over 3,000 tables AFTER BLACK FRIDAY. It was 50% higher before. When DOJ squeezed FT by stopping direct transfers from reputable banks they made the choice to skirt the law, trusting others to collect and pay. They were making so much money they could afford to lose a little. The problem is the numebr was just too big. They were moving ~$100 million a month. When the music stopped the DOJ siezed some, the shaddy operators stole some and the big boys hid some.

The big thing to remember is that I got my money back from Poker Stars and they are still in business. If it was a onzi scheme as the DOJ claims, why is Poker Stars still here?

Although I like to watch Ivey and the other play I wouldn't say I saw them as role models. They are just skids who are good are poker. Yea sure its fun to watch them but at the end of the day they aren't pro athletes or celebrities. Poker on TV is only popular because of the NHL lockout, they needed something to put on TV.

I agree with most of the OP except that you include Ivey in the list of nothing more than "common criminals." I haven't seen anything implicating him in the scheme.

Lol....how come tgis thread seems so familiar?

Good look on the whole witch hunt thing!

Dont matter to him...which is common all over 2+2...i thought it was jus nvg

nice post man. Im not a US american nor have I lost dollars on FTP but even I am totally disgusted by this whole thing.

Btw though this is the same kind of ponze scheme that banks are pulling on people all over the world. Like tom dwan stated: "I never wanted to be affiliated with something that runs very much like a bank without the money to cover everyone's deposits. That's just ridiculous."" Different topic anyways though, but seems like very often there comes corruption with a position of power sadly..

Too big to fail, then they fail, such a common theme atm

I don't agree with this at all. Every profession has it's crooks and scumbags who will do anything for money (or with money), from doctors (Micheal Jackson's, for one) to professional athletes to lawyers to CEOs to politicians to used car salesmen to poker players. That does NOT mean that everyone in the profession, or that everyone as the top of their profession, is crooked or immoral.

I concede that many poker players at the top of the food chain do some very strange things with money (playing underrolled, selling pieces, bracelet bets, etc.) Some of those things could indeed affect the integrity of the game, for example, if you had an investment or bet involving someone at your table.

But that's not everybody. As far as I know, Kathy Leibert has never done any of those things, and she's done very well. I'm sure that there are many others like her, who, because they're not a degenterate, or hot, or flashy, or annoying, don't get same amount of publicity as a Bellande or Hellmuth or Tony G.

totally agree

I just wanted to point out that you do not go to the ends of the Earth to clear your name if you know anything about conspiracy laws. There is so much complexity to them that you could be criminally responsible even if you think you are innocent. Just for starters, there is this concept called "conscious avoidance" which means that if a "reasonable person" would have suspected something was fishy then you should have firmly concluded that you were acting illegally. So, no. You listen to your attorney and keep your mouth shut even if you are innocent.

Russ Hamilton is still a piece of **** - And so is Huck Seed as far as I am concerned.

Never liked the guy anyway.

why do people bust on Seed so much? Ive played with him a few times and he is one of the most laid back guys I have ever met. I know about him going busto and the drugs and stuff but he never really tried to hide it from anybody. The last time I played with him we were actually playing 1/2 NL live and he actually remembered busting me in a tourny four years prior. He remembered what place I finished and what cards we held on the bustout hand. I asked him why the heck was he playing 1/2 when there was a 10/25 running and he just looked at me and laughed and said " cuz im broke". Didnt seem to upset about it.

It totally blows my mind when I hear about some touring pro who's gone broke. We always hear about how smart they are (most of them anyway, Hellmuth didn't get a lot of credit until this year's WSOP). An awful lot of those smart guys have no clue about how to manage their own money. Someone who makes a million or more in one year can HIRE someone to manage it if they aren't capable of doing so!

When I decided to play poker full-time, my wife managed the 35K per year that she made for our family of five, including paying down our debts (it's been years since we had a car payment.) That gave me the freedom to build enough of a bankroll to play with a decent cushion.

Perhaps my wife should get a job helping the pros manage their money.

This is an extremely naive post. Virtually all attorneys representing clients in this type of situation will tell them not to say anything. In fact, that's the first thing they will be told. So the fact that these people don't comment, even though we wish they would, does not mean they're criminals.

Also, in our country, there is something known as the presumption of innocence. There are good reasons for this rule and we should all accept it.

Now this doesn't mean that you are wrong. Perhaps it's true that some of those you idolized are as bad as you say. But it's my opinion that we should let the legal system do its work, even though it may take some time.

Mason

The rule means nobody goes to jail without a trial. It doesn't mean people can't believe what they wish about other people. Specifically someone can believe that someone's acting as a guilty person would act.

innocent people can and do go to jail. Talking can change an innocent person's odds of going to jail from 1% to 5%. Would you really advise a client to do that just to satisfy the masses? As much as I wish they'd speak up I realize it would be incredibly ******ed for them to do due to legal concerns even if they were completely innocent.

Completely agree.

Game theory, saying nothing is always dominant strategy regardless of your actual guilt / innocence.

How does talking increase your odds of going to jail?
I am honestly curious, I have never understood that.
Also where do those percentages come from 1% and 5%.
Honest questions - just curious.

On a side note I will throw this out there and see what people think:
IMO it doesnt seem like Howard and friends at FT intentionally stole money. They were running a company and doing some illegal stuff. I am pretty sure they didnt intend to rip people off. If anything they wanted full tilt to run forever. DOJ stepped in and it was game over. I guess my point is that these guys probably didnt steal intentionally. This was a badly run company for sure. But I dont think they every intended to not pay people and run their company in to the ground. IF DOJ never stepped in I think FT would still be running as it was before and no one would be the wiser.

From a legal standpoint, there may not have been an intent to defraud their customers (even if there was a intent to defraud banks by filing false documents) but there was almost certainly negligence.

1. The owners or managers, knew, or should have known, that player funds were not safeguarded by segregation, or by some other generally accepted finanical method of protecting client accounts. They failed to act to correct this.

2. The owners or managers knew, or should have known, that they could not contintue to withdraw millions of dollars in bonuses without adversely affecting the company's balance sheet. They failed to act to correct this.

Yes i agree. After the fact there wasn't much done to correct things.
Just seems like they get too much credit for being way more diabolical than they really are. They ended up screwing their business and reputation.

I just completely made up the 1 and 5% it was just an example of how even small probability to small probability could make a huge difference. The bottom line is though that talking to the public has a 0% chance of helping you in court. No judge is going to accept "well I told the public this" as evidence that it is true. However if the opponents are able to show a disconnect in facts presented at the trial and something said to the public, even if it was a mistake or something taken out of context or whatever it could legitimately hurt the defense. So the only upside is in popularity while there is a downside in probability of facing fines/jail time even if they are innocent. I know I'd keep my mouth shut in a situation like that.

eh even before the DoJ they were suffering cash shortages and now that we find out what the real figures are it's clear they were extremely short even per-seizures and that although the DoJ didn't help them it certainly wasn't the deciding factor as they claimed for awhile. Obviously this is pure guessing based on the few facts out there but it seems like they thought as long as enough people kept balances and delay cashouts for a month or w/e they were doing, they could eventually get themselves out of it and no one would even know. Then comes a run on the bank and there's no money. I don't think they ever intended on stealing any and some of the losses were through risks that they thought were +ev but should not have been taken since they were taken with our money, not theirs.