Actually physical control of the money isn't that relevant to assessment of trust status in a Commonwealth jurisdiction.
If MG made sure that the TOS used provided that player funds ought to be held in trust by their skin then they would almost certainly be classed as trust monies on liquidation and players would have first claim on them (in front of the liquidator) and also be able to trace them had they gone missing or (in some cases) even been used on the skin's legitmate expenses. I know this because I'm an corporate/banking attorney with 20 years experience in a Commonwealth jurisdiction by the way - not because I use 'logic' or am a pub bore.


Of all the threads to spend lots of time and effort posting in - threads on religion, abortion, whether it's ever correct to open limp, who the biggest winner is at Stars $400, where the best country in the world is to play poker, which babe is the hottest etc. you choose to spend post after post defending a network who have dropped the ball so spectactularly that it has cost the poker community (many of them here on 2+2) in excess of £6m!

Why?
You either have some financial incentive to talk up MG and its network or you are the biggest tilter at windmills since Don Quixote.

As I said above - now that Ladbrokes has joined MG's network there is at least one safe place on it to put your money - there may be others but you would need to take a close look at each skin in turn.

But as the whole the network has proven itself to be just about the least sensible place in online poker to deposit your monies.

Ah, so now we are getting a proper explanation of something MG might have done. Quite different from a non specific "they should have done more".

Assuming MG could have enforced such a stipulation and also assuming that the legal mechanics would have worked across all jurisdictions involved.

I'm perfectly happy to accept what you say as an expert. That's quite different from a non-expert who just decides that he's got the (in some vague way) solution and pontificates from a base of zero knowledge.

Had you made this post at the begining of the thread then, well, there probably would have been a much shorter thread.

I would defend any skin/network/room against accusations made without valid explanation of logic or evidence just as I defend various skins against the succession of rigtards who make accusations which, although possibly correct, are based on poor logic and no evidence.

Because the three people (who have also made post after post after post ) who have been mainly attacking the network didn't have anything to back up their 'armchair expert' opinions.

I'd stick with a network that's been taken on the simple basis that as they've lost out to one rogue they are likely to have tightened up whatever they can.

You can, according to what you said above, put your money on UB/AP

I feel it is important to point this fact out. As excession has already done so (that most defending microgaming have somethign indirectly to gain or have ties to skins).

When TUSK first went down the individuals who consolled players told us tha MG was a reputable casino and that no skin had ever gone down and lost money. They said everything would be ok and Microgaming would bail out the players. If you don;t beleive me just start reading the thread from the begining.

When it was later decided that MG would not bail out players then MG defendants chimed in with talk about how MG had no reason to help players. No one initially was backing up microgaming here (they all agreed MG should bail players out and that time to do so was the only issues). It was only once microgaming informally decided not to reimburse players that people started taking this stance along with them.

The same people who told us that microgamign was a safe network and would save the players are the same ones who now claim microgaming has no responsibility to the players now...

Microgaming has literally recieved thousands of dollars from my rake? Why am I not getting this money back? Why can they keep money that I contributed to their network? At the very least they owe me that... Why doesn;t MG offer any compensation to players? Why are people defending these actions? I think its pretty obvious...

Just something to think about...

qpw

I suggest you take the time to read the tusk thread if you are going to comment on this. Many of us posters have read every single post there and additionally have received behind the scenes info to what was going on with microgaming. Reading that is a good start and will let you see just how horribly microgaming has handled this.

Because they SHOULD be ring fencing it, for the umpteenth time, we know what they do now, we are saying what they SHOULD be doing FFS. Not a single person, or at least certainly not I, have said that MG control the funds.

I'm also not saying that the funds are held by MG, it is simple to have segregated player funds, no matter how often you bleat that it is not simple. I do however wonder if you are simple.

OK, I'll do that.

BTW if you are expecting to find a post on there from MG don;t waste your time. MG has never really responded to this incident. Not a single post or email to the players. There was an obscure message about liquidations well hidden on their homepage. But you would never find it unless you looked hard for it.

While you certainly won;t have time to read the entire thing, its pretty interesting if not only just to see the progression of how it all developes. I still remember to this day reading the thread for the first time on 2plus2. And trying to sit back down at a table after taking a break for supper, and having the moderators at MG telling me they had no idea what was going on, luckily some players who were sitting at the table explained it to me.

I think one would have to be utterly stupid to attempt to defend MG since for any post suggesting that it's unfair to lay into MG without knowing a lot more details than was posted on this thread there are about 6 screaming that MG are hopeless so as an attempt to increase their business mentioning them here is so -EV it doesn't bear thinking about.

My interest has never been to defend MG per se, it's more to question people who seem to be just joining the bandwagon and lashing out.

As often happens with threads like this there's a lot of ill informed ranting from people before you actually start to get real useful information. You need to wade through unfocused rhetoric from people like fatshaft and davemcg before people start posting useful information.

I made my initial comment not so much with the intention of defending MG but because I thought it utterly ludicrous that people were effectively suggesting that others should not use Ladbrokes (no, I'm not involved with them) who are such a solid company it's untrue (yes, I remember Northern Rock, Lehman Bros et al).

I'll admit I've been at fault for not researching the Tusk incident properly but my focus, internally, has really been that it's absurd to suggest that money isn't safe with a Stock Exchange regulated company just because the network they have chosen had problems in the past.

qpw,

yes you are likely right that money is safe in ladbrokes. I didn't bother reading much of this thread, but there is no doubt that Microgaming could have done a much better job of handling the tusk incident (not to mention taking steps to insure that such a thing never happened).

I believe the Entraction network controls all the players money, maybe except
NOIQ. But the thing is I feel much safer signing up at a small skin at that network,
knowing my money is controlled by the network. MG should learn from this network.

No-one, not a single person has said that. Why do you keep refering to posts that haven't been made?

And your first post WAS in defence of MG, not anything to do with Ladbrokes. I guess as you say, you just didn't know all the facts of the Tusk case, how could you defend them? Seems you were like the guy in the pub who was just relating an uninformed opinion?

Liar!

After Ladbrokes had been identified as the new skin in post #3, this was stated in post #4:

"Don't play on Microgaming's network because your money is substantially more at risk than in other, safer sites/networks."

That clearly includes playing Ladbrokes and that is absurd. My entire involvement stems from there.

Again you are twisting the truth.

I said: "Being realistic, how can a network be expected to handle the situation if a skin goes bust?"

This applied to any network, after a skin has gone bust.

All I was doing was asking you to stop your blowhard: "They should have done something" when you clearly have no idea of the inticacies of the particular case.

Although it has been suggested that a network can insist that a skin's TOS state that players money be held in trust it's unclear whether that would actually have been of any help - dodgy companies are pretty good at arranging their affairs (e.g. by which parts operate under which jurisdictions), to avoid effective regulation. Look at the never ending stream of posts we get here from people who (although usually actually guilty of something) would have no realsitic chance of legal recourse against even the biggest sites.

'fraid not.

It was still mainy yourself who was screaming "they should have done something" - you still are - and yet you still have no idea of what would be involved nor how effective it would be. You're still just an 'armchair expert'.

Can any microgaming/ladbrokes players comment on how or if the games have changed since the merger? Specifically looking at $100/$200NL

Will they be increasing the number of tables on each level or make it possible ot start new tables? this might be possible already but I've only played on microgaming recently and havent figured it out. Last night the waiting lists where 6+ deep on all tabless at 50nl.