Isn't the swing always 800k and not 1million? If he bubbles, he loses 250k. If he does not bubble, he wins 550k (250 he paid + 550 profit). 550 - (-250) = 800. This is different from a prop bet, where both parties put up an amount and there really is that big swing.

Edit: Mike, you're not boycotting Venetian?

Nah, my beef isn't the $10 staff appreciation add-on. It's how it's collected and accounted for. When I reg'd for the $300, the ticket clearly stated $300 + $45 + $10 on the reciept and it was all collected at the time of registration.

They gave me proper accounting and the appropriate time to decide if I wanted to register for the event or not. That's a far cry from forking over a $20 bills going into who knows who's pocket minutes before the event starts so I can start with the same number of chips as every else.

I assumed the question about boycotting Venetian had to do with Sheldon Adelson opposing legalized online poker, not a staff appreciation add-on.

lol'd at freudian slip 53:10

Maybe I missed it, but did Mike/Adam ask either Nick or Steve about why the rake is ridiculously high at PLO25 to PLO100?

Awesome show as always guys. Appreciate your analysis and thoughts on markers and money owed to FT/GBT at the beginning.

Mike: Your rant re GBT and the FTP player loans was offside, imo.

In an asset purchase M&A transaction, it is 100% standard for the buyer to assume collection of receivables, promissory notes and other non-cash assets such as player loans. Typically, such assets are valued at a discount based on good faith estimates of collectability. Very often, there will be a negotiated post-closing adjustment based on the actual collections experience. These matters are always addressed in the detailed terms and conditions of a deal prior to closing.

In this case, GBT seems to be attempting to assess the value of the FTP player loans in a pre-closing due diligence exercise. It would be reckless for GBT to accept FTP's estimate without some independent process, and it is likely that FTP agreed to allow GBT to contact specific FTP player-debtors about their debts owed to FTP.

Whether or not GBT violated any non-disclosure agreements by posting on the Interweb and calling out specific players in public is between GBT, FTP and the individual players. However, the possible harm to FTP player-debtors seems miniscule in relation to the wider impact on FTP player-depositors who stand to benefit from a successful closing of the proposed GBT-FTP deal.

Clearly it isn't just between those three parties as GBT knows full well that this deal involves thousands of people that are also owed money that are watching this deal unfold closely. If GBT didn't know it would get the poker community all riled up, they wouldn't have gone to the media and leaked out a select few of the names on the list, they would have just contacted the players behind the scenes. Further, for GBT to out these players as being deadbeat welchers when GBT weren't the ones who originally loaned the money(provided markers) and don't know any of the specifics of repayment terms, whether the numbers are even close to accurate and other details is offside on their part, IMO. Also, GBT should have come up with an adjusted value they were happy with for the 16.5m in staledated markers before they originally arrived at the $80m asset purchase amount back in December. Nothing has changed since then. I stand by my belief that if the likes of Layne Flack and Mike Matusow paying back gambling debts carries any kind bearing on making or breaking the deal, then the initial asset purchase agreement wasn't that real in the first place.

Is it ironic that the EPL's "ethics committee" was successfully sued by a registered sex offender after only its first season?

What happens if they come back for a second season? Should we expect a war criminal to bring assult charges on Annie duke?

Between EPL's ethics and Ultimate Bet I just have to shake my head and wonder what the hell goes through peoples minds. Its gotta be some sick joke, at least then it would make sense.

Clearly GBT is putting public pressure on these players to pay back money that is in the final analysis owed to the players. We should do everything we can to support them in this.

Of course GBT went public to put pressure toward collection of these debts. But it's not like the debts aren't real; GBT is buying the paper and they are entitled to their due diligence process to ascertain the value of what they are buying. You have no idea of what discounted value was placed on these assets, or what type of collection and adjustment process has been agreed upon between FTP and GBT. You are ranting based on a series of assumptions that are flawed at best.

Other than that, I'm a big fan.

Yep, this! I will not even give a restaurant or shop of theirs my patronage if the owner keeps being a hypocrite and coming out against online poker.
Plus the M, too!

laser

Thx for listening.

GBT is negotiating with the DOJ, not FTP. FTP is forfeiting all assets. GBT is purchasing assets from a 3rd party. As far as we know, they could have asked for these players debts to be excluded from the asset purchase entirely.

You say 'of course GBT went public' as if it was an ethical move and that any company considering buying these assets would have done the same thing. I disagree. Many companies that are negotiating a purchase of assets with a NDA involved would never do that. GBT are making plays with the knowledge that they are the only hope for a deal and as such, traditional business rules are out the window, and they know that the poker community will always side with them based on their hate-on for FTP and their desperate hope of getting their br's cashed out.