NY attorney generals office shuts down e check processor?? - Page 9 - Poker Legislation

phils08 · 06-09-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnWithTheShow

Thanks to Jay Cohen for the info. What does everyone expect the PPA to do? Everyone got conned into voting for Obama and nothing has changed. This is the same basic thing that bankrupted Dutch and Pokerspot but luckily the sites now are rich enough to afford the hit. It's just a few days rake at the most.

These processor issues will never go away.

can you refer me to his post or something, i missed what he said.

3betu · 06-10-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnWithTheShow

Thanks to Jay Cohen for the info. What does everyone expect the PPA to do? Everyone got conned into voting for Obama and nothing has changed. This is the same basic thing that bankrupted Dutch and Pokerspot but luckily the sites now are rich enough to afford the hit. It's just a few days rake at the most.

These processor issues will never go away.

sy guy but 30 mill is more than a couple days rake.

LetsGambool · 06-10-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3betu

sy guy but 30 mill is more than a couple days rake.

More like 10 days. Give or take.

OnWithTheShow · 06-12-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Also, all of this type of thing had nothing to with Pokerspot going belly up. The reason Pokerspot failed looks back at Dutch every time he looks into a mirror.

Actually, it is exactly the same thing that happened to Dutch. A processor stiffed him and he didn't have the money to remunerate the players. The processor(s) couldn't make good on their obligations to pay so the sites have to step up and take the hit. Dutch couldn't afford to take the hit and that was the end. There is no difference other than the depth of the operator's pockets.

Uglyowl · 06-12-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnWithTheShow

Actually, it is exactly the same thing that happened to Dutch. A processor stiffed him and he didn't have the money to remunerate the players. The processor(s) couldn't make good on their obligations to pay so the sites have to step up and take the hit. Dutch couldn't afford to take the hit and that was the end. There is no difference other than the depth of the operator's pockets.

Actually not really... pokersites like banks have to come up with a plan for risk management. Obviously Dutch's site failed to do a good job in the area. I am sure Pokerstars had this on their radar as a possibility and made sure that the harm caused was not more than they could handle.

senjitsu · 06-12-2009, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uglyowl

Actually not really... pokersites like banks have to come up with a plan for risk management. Obviously Dutch's site failed to do a good job in the area. I am sure Pokerstars had this on their radar as a possibility and made sure that the harm caused was not more than they could handle.

according to host paul in the echecks thread a year ago, stars keeps enough funds in the segregated player account to cover all player money -- including money in transit.