There is no proof of this.

How the hell can you claim this?

This is just idiotic. It deserves no more response than that.

Because she's female, she's not allowed to play high stakes heads up?

WTF sort of rationale are you putting forward here?

It was a hypothesis Josem. No one knows what is really going on here. It makes sense to me though, maybe I am crazy.

OK.

Test each part of it, and determine whether there is any proof of any of it.

Of course I cannot prove any of it based on what I know about sillysal (nothing).

However, this has been done several times in the past. Male criminals often use female cohorts as fronts for their crimes. Females are generally seen as naive, and unknowing of such scams and not likely to partake in them.

Not sure how it detracts but anyway let's not nitpick on a particular phrase. Do you seriously not think you could sort out a new user name and post here from a different IP address. Come on?

So have a lot of other posts but 40 seems to be the problem. No other info she posted was new (oh apart from she knows Johnny Chan - and?)

Whatever new info she has. How about what other things FTP have said? If she wants FTP to post here she should be willing to post everything herself.

No hurdles just an update not how old she is.

Josem, I know my view on this matter is not a popular one but unless someone can post a proper update then the normal speculation continues.

If somebody starts a thread that causes so much interest the least they can do is keep the thread updated. It was sillysal that said she was no longer posting (without giving a reason).

The rest of my post I still think is relevant. The silence on the issues is deafening. I think we all have our own ideas on who is telling the truth here. My view is pretty obvious but I don't discount the fact that I may well be wrong. But opting to stay silent, whilst a person's right, tends to raise more questions than it answers.

Rek and some others are really out of line.

You have no ground for your speculations and discredit of Sillysal.

If FTP have grounds, they should present them in some form. As it is now, the only ground we have is to suspect that FTP is out of line aswell. It is so out of proportion to accuse someone for cheating, confiscate 47 000 USD and refuse to present any evidence. The burden is on FTP. And I expect FTP to come out with some form of statement in this issue.

Needless to say, cheaters shall be punished and that include Absolute Poker aswell as single players who violate rules and laws. In fact, they should be brought to court if that is possible. But no one shall be accused without grounds.

And that is precisely why we need the on-line industry regulated in this country. Regulation isn't nearly as much about regulating the players as it is about regulating the companies who provide the games.

I am not accusing anybody. It is postings like yours that keep implying FTP are in the wrong.

• Perhaps FTP do have grounds
• Perhaps they have presented them. They have certainly supplied some information but nobody wants to post it here and I understand that.
• Why do you think FTP is going to present evidence on the forum (that would be completely inappropriate).
• Sillysal started this thread – why is she not disclosing exactly what FTP has presented?
• Why has sillysal been silent until accused of being 40?

We can only go on what we know and as I see it:

• FTP were suspicious of sillysal’s account for whatever reason.
• They suspended her account pending an investigation.
• Sillysal posts here about the time scales and many people took her side that this should be quicker (I accept on this point FTP could have handled this better).
• Completion of investigation by FTP seems to indicate sillysal was using some kind of bot.
• Some evidence has been supplied but we don’t know the full details.

Now, on the evidence to hand we can only take a view on who is the guilty party. As I see it there are 3 alternatives:

1. Sillysal is guilty and deserves everything she gets
2. Sillysal is innocent and FTP have made an error. I think it is correct that sillysal can challenge this and she has said she is still in contact with FTP. So they are not just ignoring her concerns.
3. FTP are deliberately fabricating evidence and should be closed down if this is the case.

To my mind the easy option for FTP was to never have blocked sillysal’s account. They could have warned her that they suspect botting and she could have withdrawn her money and gone elsewhere. Nobody would be any of the wiser and FTP do not have a deluge of complaints. Whatever the truth is I can only conclude that FTP are acting in good faith albeit their timescales stink. On the other hand we have a player saying she did not bot – well she would say that wouldn’t she. I cannot think of a reason why FTP would lie. It certainly is not to keep $47K – as I have said before sillysal probably generated more than that in rake in a year.

rek - sillysal commented on more than just her age. She was responding to DanDruff's post as a whole.
A couple of us ran with the whole 40 thing just to be silly.

Perhaps the reason she is not updating on what info FT has given her is because they haven't given her anything.

DanDruff's and gehrig's thoughts on this are somewhat interesting. She is mostly not going to comment right now possibly based on her lawyers' advice and I don't think that is the end of the world.

I do agree that i would like to know more about Mike Haven's findings. But he said FT was going to get back to him and perhaps they haven't yet. Possible that FT is looking into it more closely and prefer he not comment on the data they sent him until they have had a chance to look into his observations themselves.
Stuff like that.

You are making way more out of sillysal's post then necessary and your tone about her gracing us with another post is not necessary and I don't think is winning others to your point of view.
She didn't just comment on being 40. She added info on her live-play background and confirmed that DanDruff's post was pretty accurate for the most part.

When someone came up with more info saying, "Hey, I know that person" she confirmed "Yup, that's me."
When somebody had questions about her not playing live she explained that she has indeed played live.

As best I can tell, she was directly responding to many of the observations that DanDruff brought up.
If you have issues about her commenting on playing live then blame DanDruff, not her. He's the one who brought it up.

MicroBob, perhaps you are right with your assumptions but it would not hurt her to say so. Seriously though, there have been untold posts since she said she was no longer posting and the only real clarification she gave was that she is not 40.

Look, I have tried to be impartial and I still say she may be innocent but the silence is very stange. I will take my leave from this thread because I only seem to be annoying everybody.

sillysal, if you are innocent I sincerely hope this gets sorted and you are reimbursed. If you are guilty well thats for you to live with.

OMG you mean Annette15 is a cyborg experiment for a mad (male) Scandanvian who has merged her brain with a poker bot?

I didn't know!

i hate tilt

so i dont want to read through 32 pages of this stuff, anyone have cliff notes? did the guy get his 47 grand back?

It was a hot girl not a guy

She did not get her money back and that was around 300 posts ago. Why this is on the front page every day IDN.

This subject is of a lot of interest to anyone who has funds in accounts at Full Tilt. For obvious reasons.

Especially if somone has funds in several accounts on full tilt, it's even more interesting.

Damn all my years of law school and practicing wasted.

Or maybe you are just making all of that up based on no knowledge or experience....

1. Do you know everyone who has sued a poker site? Otherwise, what is your ZERO figure based on?
2. Are you a lawyer or do you just play one on TV? Have you ever heard of long arm jurisdiction? A default judgment? that most countries enforce foreign judgments?

For most people it is not worth paying an attorney to do all of the work, but that doesn't mean it could not be done. There are channels whereby you could sue and collect from most corporations in the world.

The main obstacle is whether a court would consider online gambling legal in your jurisdiction.

f full tilt i hate full tilt poker they cheat so much f them take them too court dude

Run on sentences FTW!

Not necessarily - perhaps you could apply what you learned in 1L Legal Research & Writing to come up with some authority for your apparent position that offshore casinos can be successfully sued in U.S. courts by individuals?

It's easy to attack a poster who claims that the chances of success are nil, but I've personally never heard of any case where a person with money seized has sued & recovered the seized funds - neither has the person you replied to. But rather than attack him on the grounds that you're a lawyer (not alone, by the way - lots of attorneys post here), come up with proof that he's wrong - it ought to be easy to do, if true.

Why no success? I don't know - it could be no one's sued, it could be they lost on the merits, or it could be that they won, but recovered nothing. At any rate, if he's wrong, prove it. It's easy to prove if there is a case, but how could he prove there isn't, except by saying he's not aware of one?

I would like to believe that we could sue offshore casinos, and have a meaningful chance of recovery. Perhaps the Bodog patent case points the way to forcing them into our courts? But my wishful thinking for accountable casinos won't make it so.

That's an unnecessary low blow. I'll take a stab at answering your questions to him:

a. Like many of us, maybe he keeps up with poker news - both on these forums and elsewhere. I generally am aware when gambling hits the news, particularly in the courts, be it local grannies being busted for running a weekly bingo game, people challenging the UIGEA, Jamie Gold's case, or the Absolute Poker scandal.

b. The lack of any reported case in the usual gambling news areas is not conclusive, but since they report on a host of other seemingly minor gambling news items, including litigation, it does suggest there's nothing else out there.

Another unnecessarily low blow.

How about the choice of forum clause? Para. 11 of the FTP EULA states: "The Agreement and any matters relating hereto shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of Alderney. Each party irrevocably agrees that the relevant courts of Alderney shall have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to any claim, dispute or difference concerning the Agreement and any matter arising therefrom and irrevocably waives any right that it may have to object to an action being brought in those courts, or to claim that the action has been brought in an inconvenient forum, or that those courts do not have jurisdiction."

I've never heard of Alderney (according to Wikipedia, it's a Channel Island), but it seems pretty clear to me - by playing on FTP, you agree that actions will be brought in that jurisdiction, not in the U.S.

But, assuming you could even overcome that provision, get service of process, and proceed in U.S. Courts - how would you collect on any judgment? You assert that most countries enforce judgments, but can you name the countries with which we have treaties re: the enforcement of foreign judgments? (Last I heard, it was zero).

Does Alderney enforce U.S. judgments, or would the local courts there take umbrage at an American bypassing them by suing one of their own in U.S. Courts, and obtaining a judgment in violation of the choice of forum clause?

Agreed. Regardless of legal implications, there's nowhere near enough money in most people's situations to justify throwing good money after bad trying to sue, then collect.

Instead of tearing this guy down, how about being productive, and using your superior legal skills to outline the process under which you think an American could learn who to sue, file suit, overcome the choice of forum clause in the EULA, then, assuming prevailing on the merits, recover in Alderney?

Cheers, Carl.

Great job, Carl. I look forward to seeing PoorLawyer's response to everything you wrote.

Sounds like the guy is big on theory but a bit lax on practice.

I'd love to see one example of legal remedy being brought against a poker site. Until that occurs, I will remain very skeptical that such an avenue is practical.