I'm not seeing any change in terms here. It simply says "Will Donald Trump Be The Next President Elected. They're guilty of potentially ambiguous betting terms, and continued ambiguous communication as to when the result is final, but not of changing terms after the bet.

Isn't it quitelikely that they mean they will pay out at one of the official points (presumably Dec 14th, Jan 6th or Jan 20th), but might decide to pay out earlier if Trump concedes?

If that is the case, they might be guilty of poor communication, but that settlement strategy is not a big deal, IMO

FWIW, the Betfair exchange odds on Biden are currently 1.04, with over 2m EUR available at those odds. That one is defined as the composition of the electoral college, BTW, so faithless electors won't even count.

His problem is lack of comprehension and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You bet that candidate B wins an election and site agrees to pay out when there is a winner.

Candidate A wins 95% of necessary votes. Candidate B wins 105% of necessary votes. Historically, in all elections in the modern era aside from 2000, the candidate seemingly on the losing side concedes they lost and the rest is just semantics. In 2020, like in 2000, the perceived losing candidate has not conceded the election. In 2000, the media was all pro patience and let things play out. Bush allowed the same. It ended up in the SCOTUS and the rest is history. Gore conceded on Dec 13th.

This go around, the media feels no need to wait and has managed to convince the less knowledgeable populace that they have determined who the winner is. That is not how elections work and not even close in the US. Unlike Bush, Biden has decided that nothing else matters, Constitution be damned.

The election is highly likely to end up with Biden winning. That does not mean Trump does not have the right to pursue all legal courses of action. It is likely to end up, again, in the SCOTUS. After all, over 40% of the voting populace feels there was some scammy **** happening. Almost no sane person trusts a member of Congress and virtually every sane person has faith in SCOTUS.

IF the case ends up in the SCOTUS, they could rule that the certifications are null. It will be up to Trump's legal team to argue the point that many votes be denied. That will be very difficult. My guess is one argument is that governors decided to enact rules on their own and they are not allowed as legislators draw and pass those, not the executive branches.

The Justices will not rule lightly on the matter. Whether you are a Framer or believe the Constitution is a living document, the right to vote is very highly held belief. To rule against so many votes being counted is not very likely. That also means there is a chance they could hence the delay on settling bets.

PoliceState is rather dense and ots for autistic screeching vs educating themselves on how the process works. Could WPN have been clearer in their wording? Sure. Should any individual with a higher double digit IQ be aware of what determines a winner? Absolutely, buyer beware and all that.

If SCOTUS hears the case and rules in Trump's favor, the vote then goes to a Contingent Election. That swings the result to Trump as he won 28 states.

This....

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ection-process

Has a background and links to further explain it. PoliceState will not read it, but if they were able to read and comprehend, they would quickly notice that the media has no part in determining who the election winner is.

The "game start" time in my open bets has changed at least once. When the original date passed (I believe it was 12/2/20) it was changed to 12/25/20.

And yes, I completely understand that has NOTHING to do with when they pay out, just suggesting if they change one thing they could change another.

I had an odd experience with Pokerstars NJ and I'm trying to get a handle on whether or not it's a widespread issue.

I was in NJ for thanksgiving a couple years ago and I made a small deposit on Pokerstars NJ. I either ran it up or down a little, but then I left the state and didn't really think about it because the amount was small <$100. A couple weeks ago I got an email from Stars telling me that the funds in my account had been seized because I hadn't logged in for 2+ years. Under NJ gaming regs, they have to provide notice before seizing the funds in the account, but they didn't reach out to me beforehand. When I called them on it, I got the money back.

But I am curious if others have had their Stars funds seized without warning, particularly if you 1) didn't try to fight it; 2) didn't know about losing your balance; 3) argued with them but they wouldn't return the money.

Thanks!

SCOTUS just refused to hear the case. Pretty much a wrap at this point, just lawsuit from Texas remains.

Hopefully it will shut up all the screechers claiming the court was stacked to help Trump. Doubt it though...

Stars fault if they didn't warn you by email. As far as I know Stars ROW is one of the few sites that don't do something like this after a long period of inactivity.

In NJ they have to by regulation. Pretty sure the money goes to the regulators anyway, not their pocket.

I had a few of my NJ casino accounts(other sites) closed after a year of inactivity when I moved. Some of them didn't send emails.

Hi guys,

does anyone of you have experience with how good the new M1 Macbook or Mini works with running GG Poker, Pokerstars Aurora?

Currently my 2017 Macbook Pro is maxing out at 4 tables Aurora and Performance with 4 GG tables is also very bad...

Cheers

Yes, I suspect so. Just as when they say it could be paid "after inauguration", I would expect they mean once he's inaugurated, they'll pay, as opposed to at some indeterminate date afterwards. I assume it will be paid that day, and sooner if they feel they can. At least I hope so.

That's the way you do it - clearly define what constitutes a victory (or loss).

To be clear, I wasn't doubting it was possible they could have changed it, but I asked whether there had been clear terms available because there had been no indication thus far that there were.

A little OT, but this is an odd comment. I mean, the courts have been stacked for Republicans recently, as each party does when they have control (although I suspect the Reps have been more aggressive about this), and I'm sure Trump hoped that might help him here. But yes, I would expect that "screeching" will of course die down as courts stop being an option. Now the focus will shift to the EC and possibly the Congress floor.

Court bias is more boogeyman than reality, especially at the SCOTUS level. When Bush nominated Robert's, the cloud screamers whined about end of civilization. Since then, he has ruled for and against for conservative and liberal cases. Judges are far more honorable than the slimeballs in Congress.

Yeah. the last sentence I always had believed to be true, but I have to admit that as a Canadian who follows American politics somewhat closely, I was expecting the Rep/Dem judge issue to be more problematic in general. Roberts has been a bit of a pleasant surprise to me. Still think the conservative slant could have repercussions in the future with other issues, though.

This is no longer accurate.

1) Formerly, PokerStars ROW would let your account balance sit there indefinitely.

2) Then, some years ago, they decided to take all dormant (inactive for 1 year) account balances to add to their corporate balance sheet, but would refund you that balance on demand. This obviously created a new revenue stream for PokerStars, but at no cost to anyone who actually remembered and wanted their account balance.

3) Now, according to Section 10.11, they still do (2), but "reserve the right to charge an inactive account fee" if an account is dormant for more than 30 months. I've not seen any online discussion of this new clause of the PokerStars Terms of Service, so I do not know when this new provision was introduced.


All of this is covered in Section 10.11 of their Terms of Service online here: https://www.pokerstars.com/tos/

"Less knowledgeable populace?" You really think you know things don't you lol.

* 2000 was one state and 537 votes.

* 2020 is 5 states and tens of thousands of votes. MI alone is 140k.

Not only this, but the 2000 Florida controversy was about hanging chads, ie which votes counted because of a tiny piece of paper not being cleanly punched out.

2020 is a coup attempt with no evidence. Gore wasn't screaming fraud with zero evidence and sending his personal lawyer to fart up the court room.

You're disingenuous at best or just unable to differentiate between two distinct fact patterns.


BTW I didn't report you and I got a warning so if you got one too, just know it wasn't my doing. I perfectly happy telling you what a screeching ***** you are, and having you tell me I've got an Uncle Daddy or whatever you spewed repeatedly.

I repeat. If the terms had included a loser's concession I would not have placed the bets.

Bovada and several others paid, fyi for all bettors.

You don't get it. I'm not surprised.

Whether you believe there is anything legit or not has no bearing on reality. There is no official winner. Period. It is also contested, clearly showing there is no winner. The fact that many state AGs are now jumping into it increases the likelihood of SCOTUS involvement. The division is massive and the US really needs a stable voice to intercede. The media profits from it, as do the politicians. IF, a rather big if, SCOTUS rules to toss electoral votes and it goes contingent, Trump is almost a lock to win.

Your feelz re OrangeManBad and all things Blue are right do not matter the slightest. Gore had a right to contest. He did and lost. Trump has a right to contest, he did and will probably lose.

You probably got warning for derailing the thread and over pollution of the same thing. If they did not do that and delete those comments, 2+2 would be a mess. Only thing I've ever really reported is the morons spamming for free bitcoins and crap if you click their links. Might be worth it to calm down, let the process play out, and then get your winnings, like a big boy. No one on 2+2 has anything to do with bets paid out. If someone tries to explain a reason for delay, take it at face value instead of attacking them like someone with an uncle daddy would. If I did bet, I'd bet you get paid. It would also be a logistical nightmare for a site to try and get the money back if it turned out Biden loses.

The actual election rules are meaningless though.. aren't they? Cause the entire time my problem has been WPN stating that Trump needed to concede for them to pay out. That's not true is it? So all this drivel, all this endless word vomit from you about rules, it's just you needing attention?

I am not the one talking feelings. Thus far you've called people who say the court was stacked "screechers." You've stated you hate all pols. You stated you think both Biden and Trump are dumb. You've state that Bush waited for the process while Gore did not. You've stated that the media doesn't decide anything. You've stated 2000 is like 2020 cause the losing candidate protested and implied that Bush was reasonable and Gore was not.

You have SOOOO many personal feelings and only once have you actually broached the subject, which is the terms of the bet being changed. Does the losing candidate need to concede? Nope. DId WPN say that needed to happen in order for me to get paid? Yep.

The only thing you've had to say on that matter was "No, I imagine that's not what they're doing." BEFORE you even saw the multiple responses from WPN. You're so repulsive lol.

Here genius

https://ballotpedia.org/How_and_when...lized%3F_(2020)

Now you can be edumacated. Its complimentary when prokaryotes try to engage in a battle of wits and yield to insults. I won't push Bobo any further with responding to your drivel.

Still can't stay on topic lol. Repulsive..

OK, but you claimed there was a change in terms, so what were the terms before? How was a winner to be determined? Or was their no clarification/explanation of that previously?

I've posted both the terms and two times (i have more) of WPN stating they would not pay out until both sides accept the outcome.

Now.. does that mean if Trump does not concede they simply wont' pay out after inauguration day? Probably not. But I daresay.. there's a chance. A much larger chance than Trump invalidating votes and stealing the election. Which is what you and everyone is basically arguing is a valid reason not to pay me.

I came to inform that Bovada and others had paid, while WPN was refusing to with a batshit reason behind it.

Can anyone who plays in Costa Rica please help me with what withdrawal methods you use?

It seems I can't really use any E Wallet (like Skrill) to transfer money to a CR bank.

I also am having trouble with a bank wire right now and the bank found out it was poker related and is saying poker transfers are not accepted ever.

Any help much appreciated

Search for "costa, rica" in thread titles. Hopefully, you'll find the info you require in one of the many threads you'll discover.

Unfortunately, I've been searching for quite awhile and not seeing it. My post was moved to here from elsewhere. Is there a more appropriate place to post this type of question where it will be seen?

Try emailing the woman (Kristen I think?) at Poker Refugees. She knows a lot about playing online from Costa Rica.

Agreed, stuff.

Also, often, the Travel threads are good for info.