Obviously, there are alot of posters including yourself that would not mind playing with real money against players that are freerolling with nothing to lose, in addition with no way for you to collect your winnings if you beat the freeroller. I volunteer to play any of you, for any amount as long as you put up real money against my phantom money, for as long as a session as you want.

This was happening on full tilt and you still think the games were legit? Thats amazing.

the players played in good faith, but the games were not provided in good faith. The results of the games were not honoured. Only the first few players to go the cashier cage got cash for their chips.

The games stopped being legit when FTP started defrauding the players. The fact that you continue to insist that the games themselves were legit just shows how thoroughly you have been duped by FTP's fraud.

It is not important that the PPA insist that the results at a fraudulent table count. It doesn't matter if the RNG was rigged, the deck was stacked or the payouts were never made. What is importnat for the PPA to do is insist that people get back the money they are entitled to. People who were tricked into giving money to FTP are entitled to get all of it back, not just the portion that they didn't notionally lose at the sham tables where wiers did;t receive teir notional wins. People who were told they won at those tables should be entitled to get what they were told that they won, but not at the expense of the people who were tricked into handing over cash to FTP.

The fact that you would use the term "weaseling out of their bets" after the explanations I have given today is evidence of an intellectual defficiency (whether it is of capacity or honesty I cannot tell) that is consistent with your advocacy of a position that disadvantages the vast majority of the people whose interests you claim to represent.

Bzzzzt! Wrong again! A dealer stealing chips is not the same as the casino commiting fraud. The player would have no case for a refund from the casino. He may have a case for damages from the dealer, which he probably would not be able to collect.

Again, you take high level falsehoods and write books about them. You keep trying to use this sweeping label of fraud and claim to know what it means, how it was committed, and how it should be resolved. I think you're wrong on most counts.

You characterize the games as "shams" yet ignore, because it doesn't suit your argument, that many people withdrew money and made a living on that site for many years. If the games were a sham, how did people ever withdrawal? That's a pretty critical detail to the novels you write.

I think you're pretty narrow minded to think that the instances of "fraud" in this case constitute a "do-over" for every losing player who played on Full Tilt poker. It certainly should cover every players' account balance for all of the common sense reasons that have been stated.

We'll hopefully find out next month the real plan.

This example is pretty spot on close to what you are trying to do with Full Tilt poker. You are taking an isolated case of wrong doing and trying to unilaterally apply it to every player, winner or loser, across the board. It makes no sense.

I'm glad you have your eyes open and can see why the player in that example would not be entitled to get his money back. Just jump 3 feet farther and see why losing players on Full Tilt do not qualify to get their money back - aside what is in their account balance.

It's the same concept. "Fraud" by itself is not reason enough. The actual, specific fraud has to justify it. If the games were played fairly, it's simply an accounting issue to restore account balances, not original deposits.

You don't know that. I'll admit it is possible that the DoJ might conclude that winners don't deserve their winnings - that notion is what started this thread. It is not the position I am advocating.

Yes they were. They were not fraudulent in the sense that the deal was rigged or that some players were given a peek at hidden cards. They were fraudulent in the sense that a signficant portion of the results of the games was not honoured, and the site offering the games knew this to be the case.

This is the heart of your error. The fact that a player's notional balance was adjusted to reflect the result at the tables does not mean that money was actually won or lost. Once the fraud began, money was only actually won in those cases where a player successfully completed a withdrawl. Just as in a Ponzi scheme, there have to be a few apparent winners to keep the marks coming. For most players, the money had already been lost the moment they deposited. And many winners never received the money they were told they had won.

Back to Joe and Bloggs. Bloggs never won any actual money - he never received any actual money. Both of them lost their deposits the moment the deposits were made, and Bloggs lost a further $500 when he was told he had won $500 but got no actual cash for the win.

Well you got that right. It really is simple to you. Wrong, but simple.

Woah, I think I just traveled through time.

and you have a clear track record that establsishes the value of your thoughts on legal matters.

Can you understand real world examples? There are many people, other than co-conspirators, who "made" millions of dollars off their "investments" in Madoff's fraud. That doesn't stop Madoff's activities from being a fraud.

DTM, do you really have that much free time?

There is simply no way that an organization that represents poker players is going to support, or even seriously consider, a position that essentially claims that the results of an otherwise fair poker game should be ignored or disregard because 1) some players got some of their chips without actually having to pay or 2) the operator of the game was not actually capable of redeeming all the chips in play.

As TE said, we poker players respect the results at the table and only seek to change those results when there was cheating in the game. FTP ran a fair game. As it turned out, a "fair game" was about the only thing they were able to provide. End of discussion.*

Skallagrim

* as far as poker players and fairness are concerned - the DOJ is not a poker player.

.

I'll buy that. So what is the actual specifc fraud? FTP published, effectively to all their past, present and future customers, false statements about the segregation, safety and availability of player funds, in order to induce current players to keep funds on the site and in order to induce players to make deposits on the site. Then they knowingly failed to keep enough cash to cover player balances, while simultaneously distributing deposited player funds to owners and others. That means that every balance kept on the site after that publication and every deposit made on the site after that publication was a fraudulently induced tranfer of something of value from the players (the victims) to FTP (the fraudster). The fraud of each particular victim took place at the moment the balance was retained or the deposit made. A victim of fraud is entitled to be compensated for what he lost due to the fraud. What the victims lost due to the fraud was the value of the deposits whose transfer to FTP, and the balances whose retention by FTP, was thus fraudulently induced, less any cash actually received from FTP by the victims. The results of games affect this amount only as they reflect the increases of balances of winners. Actual completed withdrawls are the only mechanism by which any player obtained actual money from FTP, so only these reduce the amount of the fraud.

If FTP had not made false inducements, many of the games would not have been played. The money would not have been even notionally put into play, because playerd would not believe they had anything of value to wager at that site. It is an open question whether a game in which the chips are actually worthless or of variably but greatly discounted value, but nearly all players believe the chips have real value, can reasonably be deemed to have been played fairly.

DTM have you ever seen The Matrix? You live in THE MATRIX BRO.

Only yesterday and today. My current client is experiencing technical difficulties which temporarily prevent them from availing themselves of my services. If all goes well, I should be back with them tomorrow, much to nearly everyone's relief ITT.

The results of the game are irrelevent to the calculation of the amount of fraud loss suffered by losing players. The only money they lost to fraud was the money they handed over to FTP. The results of the game should not be disregarded when calculating the fraud losses of winners, because winners not only lost to fraud the money they handed to FTP but also the money they won at the tables.

You ought to be respecting the usual method used to calculate the amount by which a victim has been defrauded, which is the money given by the victim to the fraudster due to false inducements, less any money actually given by the fraudster to the victim in respect of the fraudulent scheme. Transfers of funds by the fraudster to a creditor of the victim do not reduce the amount of the fraud, especially when that fund transfer does not actually occur.

What matters is who the DoJ consider to be victims, but of course, any actual victim that doesn't consider themselves a victim will manage to disqualify themselves from any compensation.

Didn't realize Rich was actually arguing over the start date. He just raised the matter that my approach requires that a start date be designated. Since this is easy to do, it isn't a problem.
Nope. Every player gets the same number of cents back per dollar of fraud loss. Seems fair to me. The PPA approach is unfair because it would have winners get 100 cents on the dollar of fraud loss while losers would get 0 to ~99 cents on each dollar of fraud loss, with most getting close to 0.
I don't understand why recreational players should have fewer legal rights than serious players.

Also, I don't believe the PPA purports not to represent recreational players. The numbers they claim make it clear they purport to represent the interests of recreational players, who would form the large majority of their total represented base. Your suggestion of serving only the interests of serious players seems to be more in line with what they are actually doing, rather than what they claim.

What makes you think it is not possible?

In your scenario, the real money player wouldn't be at a disadvantage at the table to the freeroller. He/she would be at cashout, of course, but the action on the felt would be fair.

You seem to have bought into the fallacy that a person with nothing to lose would somehow have a higher EV than someone playing with real cash. If that's the case, you should play like your chips are valueless...and profit.

It really is that simple. You make an interesting point here and there, but at the end of the day, the membership wants a balances-based remission, so that's what PPA will do. Anyone with a different opinion is free go to the DoJ to seek remission based on their notion of fairness.

Interestingly, albeit off topic, this illustrates why the poker advocacy effort on the Hill is a very tough fight. Many players seem to think we players can go to lawmakers, debate them, and have them change their mind just like that. Others have frustration that lawmakers haven't come around, believing that shows lawmakers aren't listening to them. The reality is that these lawmakers are listening, but may believe their constituents oppose online poker. That's why the daily action plan is so important. It shows numbers and organization.

It changes the risk equation and the value of the chips. It is not an equal game by any stretch.

Scared money always loses.

I do think if the majority of people play chips like they are valueless would do better. Just like the majority of golfers would play better if they pretended nobody was watching and it meant nothing.

Living in fantasy world.

If this was all a fraud as DTM intimates, then wouldn't there also still be the option for claw-back for ALL the money that people won and cashed out.

Is it a crazy notion to think that the DoJ will start going after all winnings just to make everyone equal?

Again, not every recreational player thinks it's honorable to look for technicalities to undo the action at the tables. Your idea of having two classes of victims -- winners and losers -- does not address this, as winners would not get 100 cents on the dollar. under that plan.

I completely disagree.

If you play within your roll, you won't be scared money.

Go watch some "play money" games if you want to know what it's like for people to play with valueless chips. Those guys aren't exactly utilizing
optimal game strategy.

The only advantage to playing with free money is you'll take stabs at higher stakes than you otherwise would.

DoTheMath has no idea what he is talking about. Do not humor him.
If a bank is acting fraudulently and can not pay out customer balances, then the correct amount they owe is the customer balances.
There are a million simple logical problems with what he is saying, but the bottom line is this: Anyone who does advocate the repayment of the Full Player balances to all player accounts is a scumbag.

It's not a question of fairness. Rather, that's a major leak the player ought to address to improve his or her EV.

Is it still considered fraud at this point? Even though FTP has managed (despite a massivley inept management) to acquire, or rather accumulate through selling to Stars (a shotgun wedding at the behest of the DOJ), an amount large enough to pay all players?

Seems more like a bunch of very stupid people making very stupid decisions to overcome a very stupid situation (UIEGA).

Cro

His argument isn't crazy. I think its hard to argue that depositors should be reimbursed and the players that won the money should be reimbursed (either the game results should stand, or they shouldn't stand), but everything else DTM writes has logic to it.

The problems, in my view, are

1) There is zero evidence a push for a refund of deposits is supported by PPA members at large. Im sure if tens of thousands of recreational players and dues paying PPA members asked for a different solution the PPA would (or should) consider it. Instead the vast majority of feedback is to advocate for repayment of balances. I dont see why the PPA should be doing anything else. They represent actual members who pay actual dues and give actual viewpoints, not theoretical players and what they might want.

2) The assumption that all the money paid by Pokerstars to the DOJ can be used for remission and that paying out deposits will increase the amount of $$$ paid out to players. I dont think that is the case. The DOJ is going to pay out of the pool of money specified for remission. Paying out deposits is going to mean paying a lower percentage of balances.

3) Paying out balances is going to be much quicker and easier than any other method of paying out players. Particularly since there would have to be pro-rata payments involved in any other method of payout.

4) The issue of fairness cuts both ways. If Full Tilt had been properly segregating money, the player that deposited $100 and lost it would still have $0. The player that deposited $100 and won $100 would now have $200. Restoring everyone to the same place they would have been if the money was properly segregated seems fair to me. I understand the argument that some games included pros who, in some respects, weren't risking their own money to play. On balance though, poker is still poker and I think that represents a relatively small percentage of total play.

That's not to say DTM's arguments don't have merit, they do. I just, on balance, still think that paying out deposits is the more fair way to go.

Disclaimer: I come out essentially the same way if deposits or balances are refunded.

You must be a fantastic poker player.