Something to think about that even a 12yr old could figure out. Lets see people using Paypal to buy gold coins who just happen to get the EXACT same amount of sweeps cash they pay for those gold coins and that Sweepscash is W/D through Paypal.. Come on dude a friggin kid could figure out this is somebody playing games trying to hide the actual fact they are in fact running an illegal poker site and using Paypal for cash in and out.. The fact Paypal has been this stupid is shocking although part of me thinks PP doesn't care as they are getting a cut of the money going in and out more then likely and wont take action till they are forced to when somebody makes a huge stink (ala the chargeback moron who for all intensive purposes is trying to take down a site simply because he's a fish who has no clue how to play poker and wouldn't last an hour at a live table with a max single buy in)

In some states DFS isn't legal now as for ClubWPT their model is nowhere near comparable to what GlobalPoker is running. You pay a fixed fee monthly to play tournaments.. You have a daily allotment of certain kind of chips you can use to play in tournaments that can win real prizes including buyins to WPT live events.. The play chips they offer you can buy are totally separate and you can not use them to buy into the events that can result in real prizes.. So youre comparing apples to oranges with ClubWPT Vs GlobalPoker.. GP is clearly running a real money poker site since they are giving sweeps cash in exchange for purchases for 'gold coins' and the sweeps cash is IDENTICAL (they aren't even trying to hide it) to the amount spent for the coins.. Again you have to be laughably naïve not to call a spade a spade..

Many people have said that when PayPal has their epiphany that Global is a gambling site they will drop them. No, PayPal will take and process every single transaction they can do without stepping on the wrong side of the law. If online lotteries and sweepstakes were to become outlawed, PayPal drops Global in 3 seconds.

Correct, that is why they function inside the laws of sweepstakes and not gambling of which poker has been legally declared a game of skill. There is no grey area. It is 100% defined and laid out in sweepstakes laws, 100%.



Truly wise, he must have read the business plan and followed up with further due diligence to come to that conclusion. You will notice the first line that is in bold where I stated that you do NOT deposit but you make a purchase. The purchase negates the need for a segregated account since there is zero fiduciary interest. Global Poker has sold the buyer gold coins. Does the hardware store segregate consumer's money when they make a purchase?

Read and learn what constitutes sweepstakes laws in the US. They are very very clearly inside of them and not coming close to any grey area. The $weepsCash have
absolutely no value outside of GP. You are thereby not playing with any recognized currency. Those are not my rules, they are how the law is written. Anyone can receive free entries, the 'no purchase necessary' aspect of the sweepstakes by merely sending in postcards asking for money.


Well, for the SEC for one since they have filed paperwork with them. ASIC in Australia is another. They misrepresent what they claim and off to prison they go. They voluntarily filed their paperwork with regulators. They raised money in a private placement and also produced certified audits.




No, not really. I felt stronger several months back, as far as making an investment in their parent company VGW, but the handful of issues that have gone unresolved tempered my enthusiasm since then. Simple things like not having to seek out the RNG certification that every other site lists and addressing the problem some had with making deposits, etc... should have been tended to fairly quickly.

I am very very pro facts though. The problem with the internet is people spew various things and it gets legs. The next thing you know, they becomes half truths and it is a battle to correct. I point out facts and support them with links to back them up. There is just no logical argument that could be made that GP is doing something that the SEC, ASIC, PayPal's legal team, US law enforcement, etc.... did not pick up on yet somehow some random people posting on a public forum were able to pick it up, Occam's Razor and all. I did not come to some personal conclusion that the company was engaging inside the laws of sweepstakes and online lotteries. I spent a fair amount of time reading the actual statutes and cross referencing them with the corporate business plan. Then I went a step further and asked our in-house corporate counsel to verify what I found as being correct. I really had no understanding of the sweepstakes laws prior to this whole adventure in learning their business.

Well, that is an opinion that is refuted fairly easily by understanding the sweepstakes laws. They have direct competition in online poker games from ClubWPT. Do you realize the consequences for a bank to process a transaction to a gambling site in the US? Yet, somehow you can purchase, NOT deposit, with Global Poker using your credit/debit card. Has the legality issue slipped by those banking institutions, too? All the entities with the risk are wrong and fail to understand what the members posting in a public forum see? Do you really believe a single iota of that?

I'm not going to go back and find all the links to prove what I said in the past and re-iterated here, but some info for you....

RNG certification...
http://itechlabs.com.au/certificates...a_15022017.pdf

Their publicly filed prospectus
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/2016010...wkvqbww4kk.pdf

Their filing with the SEC
http://form-d.findthecompany.com/l/3...w-Holdings-Ltd

Not that I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweepstake

In the United States, sweepstake sponsors are very careful to disassociate themselves from any suggestion that players must pay to enter, or pay to win, as this would constitute gambling. Sweepstakes typically involve enticements to enter a consumer promotion with prizes that range from substantial wins such as cars or large sums of money to smaller prizes that are currently popular with consumers. There should be no monetary cost to the entrant (although some sweepstakes require entrants to subscribe to a promotional mailing list, potentially exposing the entrant to an increase in junk mail, spam email, or telemarketing calls) and sweepstakes winners should also not be required to pay any kind of fee to receive their prizes.


Some white paper on US Sweepstake law
http://files.ali-aba.org/thumbs/data...nett_thumb.pdf

Entrants can win $weepsCash with no purchase, they hold randomly chosen winner giveaways on FB, do not offer any poker games with or for valid currency, etc...they are well inside a sweepstake corporate model and that is why the argument that PayPal will drop them for being a gambling site is little more than folly.

lol

thanks for sharing your knowledge

I think dewd has pretty succinctly laid the smack-down here folks. GP's infrastructure/interface issues aside, they're obviously operating within both the letter and spirit of the law.

+1

There is no "consideration" because no purchase is necessary, see?

No purchase is necessary to play a very small amount.

The vast majority of $weeps Cash wagered on the site was received because people bought them (and yes, they bought them -- I don't care if they were technically buying Gold Coins.)

If the vast majority of items being wagered there were purchased, then yes, consideration applies.

The fact that people think you can pull this lame "sweepstakes" trick and then run an online gambling site of your choosing is just LOL.

Sweepstakes law is not a "trick", nor is it lame. And what's LOL is those people you are referencing are lawyers, regulators, the SEC, and such. Can't figure out if you don't comprehend a dewds posts, or are just too lazy to read them.

Sweepstakes law was not written for the purpose of clear gambling sites circumventing anti-gambling restrictions by calling them "sweepstakes".

Various forms of the "Nobody's gambling, they're just wagering free tokens" trick have been tried before. None of this ever flies long-term because it either fails or gets shut down by authorities.

If it were this simple, we would have "legal" online sportsbooks, casinos, and poker sites using this BS sweepstakes model. We don't because its legality is very murky and very questionable.

You can't just give away a few meaningless entries, claim "No purchase is necessary", and expect to skirt tough anti-gambling statutes.

If they ever become big enough, the hammer will fall on them.

But I expect them to either go belly up or get thrown off Paypal way before that happens.

The market for sites like this that require some effort is not infinite, so the belief that there should be tons of sites everywhere is a false premise. This site had proper financial backing, and is run by people who actually have proper experience trying a venture like that. 99%+ of people who try to start any site in this industry fail those tests at the start.

The industry has a lot of inherent risks in it, that has always been the case, but that also is nothing new. I admit I have not ever listened to the podcast that was mentioned, but if you are claiming you run it without having an agenda I would find that to be surprising. While you are hardly as yellow sticky notes/red strings on a wall as some of the posters in this thread (the every all-in is a coin flip variety) - you certainly have a very strong personal bias and agenda about sites like this.

Well, that is correct. The law was written to define what is considered sweepstake, though, and that is the part you neglect to understand. A marketing company offers a free widget to one random person that retweets or likes the comment. That is part of the requirement for being a sweepstake as defined by law. Yet, the law was not written for companies to offer free merchandise to one lucky person that re-tweeted their comment, was it?

ClubWPT, FanDuel, DraftKings, ChumbaCasino, RiverSlot, etc....to name a few that are doing just that. ClubWPT is about a decade old. Perhaps the authorities will hear of the small franchise, World Poker Tour, that has sneaked under the radar to offer real poker via a sweepstakes style business model.

Completely false. The law is clearly written. That gives companies and entrepreneurs the ability to create their business inside the law. It is only murky to those that cannot comprehend it or choose not to read it at all.

Actually, you can do exactly that. In fact, it is one of the qualifications to be deemed a sweepstakes game, 'no purchase necessary'. Law makers cannot prosecute on random hunches. They have to show proof that a law was violated. A law that states it is legal to offer online sweepstakes if a set of conditions is met can only be argued if one or more of the requirements do not exist. That is legal understanding 101.

I don't understand the issue with just reading the facts. Anyone that comes to the conclusion that they somehow have a better understanding of the law/s over that of legal teams, federal regulators, and large billion dollar public companies is clueless. They SEC has a Form-D on file that the company sold shares to US investors. If it was illegal, how the hell was that accomplished??

I get that you want to err on the side of caution, especially with the prior online poker scams that have happened. To think that somehow a company that has voluntarily notified authorities of what they are doing, raising money from the public, and has agreements with other large public companies like Facebook and PayPal is somehow going by unnoticed is asinine. I bet it took PayPal's legal team a month or more to sign off on everything with Global. Hey, don't take my word for it, feel free to not contact or research Louise Pentland, Ryan Burch, John Muller, or Ho Andrew on the matter. Long standing records of corporate general counsel record that are PayPal's main legal team. I am sure they would be very happy to have it pointed out that they are so clueless as to what PayPal is doing and would welcome your expertise on this matter.

So yeah, you can do all of the above that you say cannot happen. You yourself could do the same thing. Someone that is ambitious and wants to enter into the market will do the same thing, too. The real drawback is the online poker community doesn't fully understand it so it is tough to draw them over. Global has such a large player base largely due to offering free 2 $weepsCash to anyone that sees them on Facebook. Most of that gets put back into the player pool and draws in more fugazi coin purchases. Their marketing plan works because they raise several million dollars for it.

Take the couple of hours and read through the links I posted above. At the very least you will become familiar with what they are doing and possibly even understand the legality of it. Either way, it isn't going to be a negative to learn more about something. You have a voice and a following, why not ask someone from the company to come on your show for an interview and even a Q&A so it can be explained fully. Then ask them to address the 5 or 6 recurring issues mentioned in the Global Poker thread that needs to be fixed. That would be good for your listening base, Global's growth, and the existing players that have to put up with lags, missing buttons, low audio alerts, etc...

You cannot come to a logical conclusion/opinion from conjecture and illogical reasoning. The facts/truth is available for all.

<sarcasm>
How could you possibly say that he has a bias against Global????? He has NEVER EVEN ONCE said out loud or publicly in a forum that he doesn't like Global!!!! NOT EVEN ONCE!!!!! He isn't taking sides, he is just reporting, he claims, so how can you believe this?!?!?!?!?!
</sarcasm>

Oh yeah... you have a brain that works, and can see the bias super clear through everything he writes and all of the facts he ignores. If only other people on this forum would use common sense above their personal opinions..... I won't name names publicly, but rhymes with Tilowatt.

(Side note, in making that statement I haven't ACTUALLY said anything or taken a position, but I bet the reader can figure it out.)

Dan doesn't have a bias against Global. He's always like this.

You guys are getting freerolled engaging with him IMO.

This may be true in theory but legally they are operating within the law. Paypal has lawyers working for them and have vetted the company and its legal setting to operate in the U.S.

Paypal would have to have a good reason to reverse their decision and I don't see why they would.

I don't have any idea who he is, nor will I in the future, so if he is getting some emotional freeroll from this, then good for him. Internet gives anyone with a loud voice a forum, so if he is using it for his emotional needs, that's fine. Just pointed out that the "if it was this easy everyone would be doing it" is flawed, because starting a company like Global Poker is just not easy, which was a common sense based reply to the thread, more than directly to him. I never think people like him change their minds, and I tend to not worry about it.

The reason Dan is being so obtuse is because he's made a business out of "poker fraud alerts". A legitimate poker business operating fully within the law is bad for his business.

The idea of a business dedicated to weeding out and alerting poker players to scams, frauds, and sham sites is a noble one. But a true poker fraud alert mission requires the ability to research, do due diligence, be impartial, and keep an open mind... things that don't seem to be priorities for Dan's business model.

So then it is excusable? We should just let him babble unchecked?

If someone is notorious for being uneducated on a topic and unwilling to be reasonable, we should just let them run amuck because after all "He's always like this"? Surely that is not what you are trying to say.

Or should we point out the flaws so that the people behind him who don't know "He's always like this" are actually educated on the topic? Those that aren't posting here, but are reading these comments.

Personally I don't make these posts because I think Kilowatt will change his mind about Global. He is proven to me that is unlikely at best. The people I aim my comments at are the people who are on the sidelines reading all of this and believe that he actually has credibility, which he would have if no one refuted his ridiculous arguments. So, no, him "freerolling" us as you state isn't really part of the importance of the equation.

I have a hunch that my statements are also true for the others who are pointing out his logical flaws left and right. I also believe they don't believe they will ever change Dan's mind. Nor are they trying to. They are arguing for people to use their brains the way they are intended to use them, and see with just a little bit of critical thinking and research the sky isn't as dark as some proclaim it to be.

All it takes is 1 manager at paypal quitting/retiring/getting fired/getting promoted and another person being in charge of the "does paypal do business with GP decision" for paypal to quit.

Or 1 senator/congressman/politician writing an open letter to paypal and applying enough pressure that paypal snap folds and decides to not even "have" the battle since GP is such a tiny piece of their business.

And if paypal stops, what is GP going to do? You really think they'll be able to switch to some other payment method in any sort of reasonable time? You really think they have player funds segregated? (oh wait, they're a sweepstakes site, they don't have to even in a "moral" sense let alone a legal sense)

I play global but I keep as little as possible on there and cash out non stop to prevent building up too big of a roll on there. I'd love for GP to be around 20 years from now, but I'd bet a LOT of money they won't even be around in 10.

All it takes is one large meteor to hit Earth to end all life and civilization ends as we know it.

I get why people use the "all it takes" reasoning to try to overestimate a theoretical point of weakness/failure, but the reality is that for many ventures, likely including this one, some planning is done ahead of time to help prevent that, or work with any change. Lots of people thought the industry was over on Black Friday, when for non-Americans it actually represented a shortish term time of extreme value, and the industry has managed to carry on.

A semi-older episode of the TV show Survivor featured a player who was about to be voted out saying if they did that what would happen if xxx won immunity next week (was 5-2 alliance at that point, so the xxx was the other in the 2), and the leader of the 5 gave an eyeroll of someone who already had 3 backup plans if that actually happened.

People get energized talking about potential failures of large, and apparently successful companies, and people should certainly keep an appropriate bankroll online for what they feel is the risk (again, in Black Friday a lot of non-Americans snap cashed out their Stars rolls, held it close to themselves while in the fetal position, missed out in over $1,000 worth of deposit incentives short term along with very soft games, and then rejoined at no benefit).

I agree if PayPal changed its position, Global would be in a lot of trouble. And there are other issues as well, which is again why I tell people to invest wisely. Don't keep life changing money in accounts that are inherently risky.

But I would also argue things aren't as fragile as some would have us believe. And in some area's they are more fragile than we know. So what do I do? Play on Global as long as the games are good and the payments come through. When either one of those things stop, believe me I will be gone. I don't have an amount of money on there that if it disappeared, my life would fall to pieces. I would be bummed, and get up the next day and move on with my life.

And I would lay a big bet on ANY company not being around in 20 years. That is the nature of business, ESPECIALLY on the internet. That statement in no way is a hit against global, its just how things work. I would happily lay a large bet against Facebook being around in 20 years. And we can't imagine life right now without it. The internet has always been, and likely always will be a fickle place.

I'm not quite sure how 1 disgruntled paypal employee can change the direction of the company as guided by their legal team, but yeah that would suck in the short term. Like Monteroy said though it's likely they have other options since they are in compliance with the law.

I'm not quite sure how 1 politician could exert that much pressure on paypal such that the company would turn away lucrative business when it's legal team is comfortable everything is above board legally. But that would suck too short term (at least it might be interesting to watch).

I am sure however that the large meteor hitting us would end all life and civilization on the planet. That would really suck. And ironically, it would also immediately cease all paypal transactions for Global poker. I'll bet GP doesn't even have a back up plan for that one.

Monteroy wins.

lol, how is a former disgruntled employee any different than some random individual posting in a forum? That would still mean that they somehow are aware of something that the corporate counsel missed out on, how is that even said with a serious face?

A politician can get as pissed off as they want, still need to operate within the statutes. Things just don't work like that. Are people really unaware of how things work?

PayPal could change their mind based on a corporate decision of some sort, but it is beyond asinine to even hint that some super genius in a forum or blog has noticed something that groups of qualified people all missed en mass.

Sheldon Adelson has been trying this for years hasn't he? How successful has one of the richest human beings on the planet been with that approach?

When companies are doing business within the law, they are not afraid of politicians who are not knowledgeable about a subject. The pressure they are trying to apply bears no weight.

Kind of an ironic question. Threads like this validate that a good chunk of humans have no idea how things work, but that rarely stops them from having strong beliefs on how things work. The person who posted that a disgruntled employee could change everything still believes that, even if that is not how the actual real world works in situations like this.