Post them and let's get them analyzed !

So the point of posting the PayPal link was to ask why PayPal would agree to process for a company that either breaks their ToS or violates the UIGEA. This also goes along with your question about the deal. If it was dealing cards then it would definitely violate the UIGEA. In order for it to be a sweepstakes the results have to be completely chance or else it is considered a contest which would make it not a sweepstakes which would violate the sweepstakes laws they claim to follow.

First of all once again 20k hands is not a significant enough sample once again...the guy who did his analysis over 30 hands just has to be a troll I'm hoping.

Squid, I have an idea though to test this. Let's sit heads up at a table. You open shove every hand and I'll call when I feel like it. Deal? According to your theory, even if I select top 50% hands against you we will still end up each winning half. I'll even pay you back 10% of whatever I win if I win so the deal is +EV to you given your theory. Willing to play any stakes with this strategy, PM me as this is a huge +EV move for you

My understanding is that Global is an approved merchant with their model. Given that if they were violating the UIGEA, Paypal could be risking exponentially more revenue than they would generate working with Global, I'm pretty sure their legal team is very confident the law isn't being broken.

You keep mentioning laws you're suggesting they'd violate by dealing an honest game. You're such a firm believer in this, you've even started this thread declaring Global Poker to be "fake". One would hope that for you to be making such bold declarations, you would at least be able to link the laws in question, yet you've been unable to do so. How can you possibly offer an educated opinion on a law that you can't even cite?

I think the "fake" and "illegal" s tatements in this thread are inaccurate. I think a more appropriate term would be "misleading". Given the sweepstakes laws and the wording, I honestly don't think "rigging" the hands to produce WAY more action than normal online poker sites (which is blatantly and obviously happening) is breaking the law. So the bottom line is they are just duping people into believing their site is setup like historically normal sites, where an RNG determines the runout, not a predetermined, setup hand.

Sure. The day the feds decide to close the loophole, its over. They don't announce intentions, they announce made decisions. They know it exists, but its small potatoes. They know US citizens are playing at Merge and WPN, but it isn't a priority to them. They were never after the players, just the networks. Of course, their actions crushed the players and left the networks alone.

Given that almost two dozen states either have or are considering online poker, I cannot see the feds acting further. If they did, states like Nevada and Jersey would file a law suit within 24 hours. The only real concern is they collect their rake, taxes. If that was a lock, they could careless if people lost their life savings. It doesn't prevent them from closing the brick and mortar casinos.

I know there is paranoia buy some of the industry rags like PokerSnooze Daily, but it is a joke. The government is obviously aware of bitcoin. They know most transactions, if not all, are to circumvent some law or regulation, if only taxation. They could seize all the .com sites related to digital currence tomorrow. The answer is they just aren't concerned with it much. Are they really going to prosecute me for sending or receiving a thousand dollars to a poker network? Now multiply that by tens of thousands. It is why they never went after a single depositor. Even the government isn't stupid enough to spend 10K to collect 800 in taxes. Bitcoin is anonymous, except they have been able to arrest people for buying quantities of illegal goods via coin. If they want to really find it out, they can.



Global is an approved PayPal merchant and it is with advice of their counsel, according to papers on file. PayPal is no harbinger of high morals. They could careless what you do, buy, or sell through their network as long as the government cannot screw them for it. If you fill the loophole smoothly, then they forward the money. You can use PayPal prepaid card to deposit on WPN. It shows up as some foreign oddball named seller. As long as it doesn't say poker, gambling, drugs, firearms, etc... out goes your money. To suggest that they would be concerned of any actual business underlying the transaction is folly. As long as they can say that they had no idea, "Payment sent" is the message you get. The verbiage VGW uses gets around some of the provisions of the UIGEA. They state how in their filed prospectus with other governmental agencies. They could connect the dots if that was their goal. Their goal is to collect the fees.

Bobo, Stars doesn't want to try this b/c it's too much of a makeover to their business model? They'd rather spend time/$$$ litigating their way to the US?

Not necessarily. If you look at the link I gave of their prospectus, the 'sweepstakes' refers to the fact that no money is used to buy into the game. Like WPT, if you purchased a monthly membership for $20 then the games are included. There loop around is you are buying 'funny money' that has no real value. That funny money gets you chips in a game to fool with. Once you are done using the funny money, you can turn it in and get the proceeds. It is all legalese and a way to circumvent it.

You reasoning/argument is solid, but the legal use of the wording allows for it to happen. It is on page 94 of their prospectus. Around page 64, it explains the business model of sweepstakes. The 'chance' you take is that you may not have chips left to turn in for more of the on-site monies. Since those monies have zero value anywhere but the site, they hold no value.

It only makes sense in the way it is written from a legal standpoint. Logically speaking, your explanation makes complete sense. The definition they use for 'sweepstakes' is not the same one used on a wiki page or a standard dictionary. They define it in the submission and that is the 'understood definition' for the purpose of the discussion in the prospectus. That is also the one that was forwarded to PayPal and every other agency.

This may be a dumb followup question. Are the fees we pay to PayPal for a withdrawal set up for tax purposes?

I actually noticed this as well and it had me pondering along a similar line. Not quite opening shoving every hand, but Illusive pushes action super aggressively and tends to come out on top.

No, that's part of paypal's business model. We'll let you transfer money to family and friends free of charge but for business transactions we're going to charge a fee for using our services. Credit card companies do the same thing, many people don't realize it though because in the case of credit cards the business pays the transaction fee.

This was debated once before. He pushes action very aggressively. I have seen him run hotter than the sun before but I have also seen him drop multiple buy ins in a short time span.

Yes, I've seen Illusive lose a lot as well...but that was months ago. Theoretically this strategy would not prevent you from losing multiple buy-ins, but is ultimately still +EV if you can push out more winning hands then ones you allow to go to show down.

I've put in numerous hands with illusive at 10/20 plo. Lost and won multiple 10k pots with him. Have seen him win and lose huge amounts. Nothing fishy going on. I've ran hotter than the sun and colder than the moon on this site. The RNG seems the same as my experience with stars, full tilt and bovada.

I'm not saying nothing is impossible as we have all seen things happen in online poker history. I'm saying at first I was very skeptical about global but so far they have honored everything they said they would. We should give them the benefit of the doubt.

I also wanted to add that paypal actually does business with other poker websites outside of the US. They are open to gambling as they have changed ownership and split with Ebay it seems like. Before my first cashout I was very fearful and paranoid. But as the Global reps have proven very responsive it has eased my doubts. We are all scarred by the events of black friday and certain websites going rogue but we should still be open to new opportunities.

Right. They have a poker site that makes them millions of dollars; replacing it with something like this would indeed be a massive makeover, and I doubt it would make them more money.

No idea what they do or don't spend in the US, but at least it doesn't hurt their non-US business.

+1 - I have played probably 100k hands on the site (and millions and millions of online poker hands) and everything seems fine to me. The skillful players are the ones ending up with the money and the fish are busting and leaving tables.

+1, my volume is less than this Bozo's, but my experience the same.

So you guys are saying the EV for every player in a hand is always distributed equally among all players still in the hand? All you have to do is push push push, get all the fold equity, and then always have an equal chance of winning at showdown no matter the cards....millionaire!! Somebody go ahead and give it a shot and let us know how it goes.

Go watch illusive play

I've played with Illusive a decent amount. He is aggressive but I have seen him lose big quite often. The way he plays there are going to be huge swings both ways, especially in PLO. I have seen nothing abnormal about his style/results.

If you think you have their "rigged" system solved then go exploit it and get rich.

Funny how Global continues to ignore this thread and yet nobody thinks it's suspicious at all.

All you rigtards who figured out the system go exploit the **** out of it then and get rich. I already said I'd challenge that dumbass squid to a heads up match giving him 10% of any of my winnings plus I'd pay for rake at any stake and he denied me. He doesn't even believe in this and he's spewing about. My heads up challenge stands for any of you rigtards.

Lots of talk for someone who gave up on online poker and his PG+C.

Totally, and to clarify, I wasn't saying I thought Illusive is cheating. I was saying that if their theory were correct, his style of play would benefit.