Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
I tried that link when you posted it, and as someone else mentioned at the time, it wasn't working. Now it is, and there's no way I'm wading through that entire thing to try and find out where you're getting your interpretation from. I did have a look at the page you suggested (64 I believe), and it certainly doesn't lead me to the absolute conclusion that it does you.
You are correct in your conclusion. If you read that specific page, simple comprehension says they are talking about Chumba Casino and not real money poker, although they do mention they are working with 'real money specialists' in another subsection. The problem is some people are looking at bits and pieces of the prospectus and then using layman's definitions and/or understanding of what things mean.
A prospectus lays out specific definitions as to what various words mean. If they say that a 'sweepstakes' is defined herein as glitter farting unicorns, that is what it means. To take a general understanding or definition as to what it means in reading it is pointless.
In being very specific, it clearly discusses the sweepstakes and social casino aspects pertaining to Chumba Casino. Since you cannot access Global Poker through Chumba Casino, there is zero conflation in discussing one with the other. It is very clearly written out if you know how to read a prospectus. They are written by attorneys for attorneys.
There is also no US law against gambling per se, although US law does define it. State laws are the issue. The various wire Acts that pertain to gambling mostly fall behind the UIGEA. That pertains to both gambling and games of chance. Poker does not fall under its umbrella based on a ruling from Judge Weinstein declaring both poker and fantasy sports as skill based games. If Adelson and the diminshing clown car occupants supporting RAWA have their way, the loophole will be closed.
With Judge Weinstein's interpretation, convictions were vacated and/or appealed and overturned. He set precedence, the foundation of US law. For another judiciary finding to reverse it, they would have to successfully argue that there is no skill involved in either. That is not going to happen.
There are other models that use the sweepstakes guise as a means of allowing real poker, that too is precedence as to understanding what the intention is at VGW. A layman's definition provided by Merriam-Webster has no place in reading a prospectus.
Where Global is lacking is in the T&C. They seem to have copied and pasted from the Chumba Casino onto the Global Poker side or haphazardly pieced it together. Some of the terms have no bearing or have been outright violated on the poker site. It says that no cash prize can exceed $5,000. Well, there isn't a prize on the poker site and there have been pots won much larger than the 5K cap that is claimed.
A prospectus states it cannot be copied or read in part, for just the reasons that some are discussing here. It is an 'in whole' document and only relevant in its entirety and without any outside discussion or understanding taken into account. It specifically discusses the definitions of sweepstakes, social sweepstakes, etc... and what they pertain to by meaning. They are tied to the Chumba Casino, throughout the prospectus. Since Global Poker is not accessible through the Chumba Casino, none of that discussion has any ties, associations, or bearing on the Global brand, model, or game.
Your desire for someone to show a law or proof of any claim will go unfulfilled. The absolute closest anyone can come to it is having a strong feeling about it.
VGW could and should distinguish between Chumba and Global on their own website, from a governance perspective. They should also update their T&C on the Global site since some of them have nothing to do with the poker site and could technically disallow and large pot won over $5,000.