Interesting last two posts guys. Will wait to see what comes out in the end here.

Ancelotti, I thought Ipoker's fish/shark ratio stuff was going into effect September 1st, or did they have a system like that already in place prior to Ipoker 2.0 changes taking place?

Shark/fish + win/loss ratio has been in effect already since late 2009 or early 2010. It makes it damn near impossible to start up a new skin with a rakeback/high player rewards approach, and is probably why there aren't as many small operators on iPoker relative to many of the other networks.

Yeah, there have been a few controversies in the Zoo with winning players getting booted from certain iPoker skins over the last few years because they were trying to get into compliance with network rules.

Yes, the ratio is quite difficult to uphold. Back when I looked at it the skin needed five fishes for every super shark (there are 5 different tiers I believe). Which is obviously not easy to get in if you do no marketing besides using value-oriented affiliates.

If a shark also plays mid-high stakes and winning they will mess up the win/loss ratio as well, in effect costing the skin many many times more than what they rake as the fines are X times daily overall rake.

Ah, so that would explain why the lack of freerolls, casual affiliate marketing and casual fish promotions on Moore might have worked against them.

Even if they weren't going above other Ipoker skins (Jamie indicates he thinks they might've, but even if they did not), they could've lost enough money bringing in too many sharks and not enough fish that they could be in a situation where they don't have the funds to repay and/or are suspended from operating on Ipoker?

Just to make sure I have that right (not saying that's the story, just another potentially valid reason on why they can't pay).