Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyJones
you would think freeroll winners would want to meet the playthrough requirements. I'm sure they can with cash games; don't know if it is the same with tourneys.
Until I saw this I had no idea there was any play through requirement for freeroll money. I had to go back and read the agreement. So now I have
a small BR that I really can't do anything with. This is something else that needs to be mentioned at the freeroll lobbies. "ANY MONEY WON in this game must be played through before it is allowed to cash out." Is this money transferable to another player without play through?
I don't disagree with this policy btw. It is still a great way for players to try out the software and pick up a few bucks to play on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgebushda3rd
That's what i been trying to get happening let them earn there way into a freeroll not just let them not deposit I deposited a long time ago. This is bullchit.
Freerolls with miniscule amounts of prize money are great ways to get new players to try the software. It costs Chuck less than $200 per week. The problem is that not enough people are trying it. The question that needs answering is, "Why not?" I only signed up last year after losing the option to play on PS and FTP. I didn't care for the Cake software/lobby enough to ever think of depositing. I like the changes so far but the new software still has too many glitches and features that need attention. It is kind of the chicken/egg scenario. Does PPN need more players and rake coming in to justify making the software better or does the software need to be better for players to justify coming to play? Unfortunately, the only answer that works for the players is the software has to run exceedingly well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgebushda3rd
I really don't think that any more sites will be touched IMHO b/c mostly everyone switched to .eu and i don't think the DOJ has any juristiction outside the U.S..
Hopefully, you are correct but don't be surprised at what the DOJ feels it has jurisdiction over. I felt they should not have been able to control a website run by a company in a different country as I thought domain names were outside the bounds of their reach. They could ask a host or even get a court order to compel the host to stop doing business with the company but actually taking it over just seemed insane to me.
Had the domain registration agency not been US based this might not have happened.