You mean I was freerolling my deposits on FT all those years?!

keanu.jpeg

I really don't see how they can do this when last year American's were allowed to withdrawl their whole balances from Stars, and us from FTP would have been able to if FTP had the money. That part seals the deal on what has to happen.

With all respect for Nathan Vardi, but there is really no reason for this negative speculation.

I wonder why Ifrah would make a comment like that.
US players getting their balances back is their main concern now.
If the DOJ doesn't pay back, what can he do about it?

We have a saying "who pays decides" and since PS paid they decide.
May be not officially for whatever reason.
But the DOJ will pay guaranteed, it's an unwritten rule.

Simple

Stars players last year weren't victims of any crimes... they get 100% of balances

FTP players are victims of crimes... they get less than 100% of balances

Makes perfect sense

the fact that they could possibly be thinking like this is scary

This is funny stuff.

I hope American players get their balances paid. I would be putting pressure on those who will decide how remittance works. PPA will provide guidance I am sure. The concern I would have is if the religious right started advocating that you sinners should not be rewarded.
No idea myself what the best strategy is but American players should be aware. Best of luck to those affected.

They should and I hope so I made my entire bankroll of 300$ on ftp from working my way up from freerolls...I didnt even deposit once

nit

Look, I think that the DOJ doesn't get poker like we get poker so when they say deposits they have no clue what they're talking about. Their not having a clue doesn't speak to whether they will pay the full account balances or not. So I don't think that we should put too much stock in their wording atm. I think they just don't know what they're talking about yet.

I'm not really worried about this.

Paying people back their account balances would cost about $150 million.

Paying people back their deposits would cost how many billion? And would be far more complicated, and would be wildly inconsistent with how they've dealt with PokerStars US/ROW and FTP ROW players. It just wouldn't make any sense, would be way more expensive, and way more challenging logistically.

They could never cover anywhere near the total amount of deposits, so they'd be writing a few million people checks for $0.17.

Maybe it's a mistake to think a government agency wouldn't be this stupid.

I think the DOJ would be wise to pay people their full balance. They are still going to be making a huge chunk of money from the guys who had less than I'd say 300 on that site. Most people will say F it, and the DOJ will get a huge amount of that money left as well.

I can just imagine players not getting paid in full and becoming this huge politicized group that organizes rallies and street protests.

We could call the movement "Occupy Preet Street"

Paying back everyone's deposits would cost much more than the player's balances.

DOJ just wants the right to determine which would cost less. I have a very hard time believing that the average American poker player is not only beating the rake but also never withdrew their winnings.

Hopefully this is solely because of the implications doing so would have wrt the criminal cases against the principals of full tilt. otherwise, it's inconsistent and ludicrous

exactly.

Those saying they will pay back full balances because deposits>balances are very shortsighted. This is the money laundering and asset forfeiture departmentwe are talking about here.

They can base the payment back on whatever they want. They could base it on deposits from the last 6 months, they could base it on the lesser of all deposits or balance, they could only repay the balances of net losers etc. etc.

These are the same people that took (tried to take?) viffer's cash and watch at the airport. They could just decide that every dollar in an account was there illegally and it should be forfeited and then the burden of proof is on us to prove it is ours.

As others have pointed out, Preet and the people that made the deal want us to receive full balances but they aren't the ones making that decision.

So if they pay back only deposits then this turns the fish into winning players. Well played fish.

If "Those saying they will pay back full balances because deposits>balances are very shortsighted", what does that make the people saying "they could do this if they wanted to, therefore there's a good chance they will"?

I don't think they are going to accuse Full Tilt of being a ponzi scheme, trying to steal our money, and then doing so themsevles.

lol im pretty sure that if the doj aren't willing to give players there winnings back then im sure the players at least deserve the rake they paid back. illegal to play/illegal to operate = it works both ways.

players can play and pay rake but aren't entitled to their winnings?

I am just trying to get people to realize what could happen so that we all follow the PPA daily action plan and influence this as best we can.

It is far from a lock that they just pay us 100% back when a) who makes that decision hasn't been decided yet and b) there are confirmed sources in the DOJ that are against paying back 100% of balances.

Is someone forcing you to read it?

So we have two stated sources reguarding deposits being paid back versus balances being paid back:

Numerous sources close to the matter told me the decision could go either way and was too difficult to call.

This one is pretty ambiguous...."several people close to the keg said it was still half full. At this point it is up in the air as to how much beer is left"

“The section that is in charge of the remission fund hasn’t decided that question clearly and that is the next big issue,” said Jeff Ifrah, a lawyer who worked for Full Tilt Poker.

This one is a direct source...an attorney for a company known to have scammed half a billion dollars? I wouldn't put great weight in what he has to say.

I can't imagine a scenario where they would attempt to crunch the numbers for pro rated deposit payouts versus paying the balances using a single database of username/real name/address/dob/soc sec number

Everyone is saying there are complex issues to be figured out here. In my mind there are only 3 complex issues.

1. Players that moved out of the us to continue playing and verifying the dates and addresses involved.

2. Players that are still in the US but have moved within the US since BF and their address information no longer matches up with what is on file at FT.

3. Phantom deposits that were never collected on. I think this is the biggest issue. Should a player be entitled to real money winnings that were gained from monopoly money?

Disclaimer: My FT account was dead empty at the time of closure....and I would never accept one dime of deposit money back. I lost it at a poker table and it isn't mine anymore.

It seems to me, working with one database of username/real name/address/dob/soc sec number would clear up 90% of payouts. Simply send out mail notifications with a form to fill out and/or have an online form that can be filled out.

This is not to say that the gubbermint always take the least complex path....but in this case I think it's the only one that makes any sense.

In a few days this will all be a moot point since the DOJ will have come out with some sort of statement...but if you have a large balance on FT....I would just try to breathe, calm down and wait for some official word....Keep in mind forbes likes having large amounts of traffic to their website and sensationalism is one way to get it.

WillCK I think that's a very reasonable post. I, too, had no balance on FT as of BF, having quit online about a year earlier.

I agree that they will have to work off of some database and issue a mailer or some sort of publicly disclosed manner of making a claim. Which database to choose? The one that showed player balances at the moment they took it over? Or the one that shows deposit history?

If they choose the former, they reimburse winning players for having played on a site they maintain is illegal. If they choose the latter and if everyone made a full claim, then the fund could not coverall of the claims and they'd have to prorate it.

I can easily see them choosing to pay back a prorated amount of claims of lost deposits rather than balances at the time of the seizure just because it is most consistent with their claims in the case and the sense that there is no obligation on their part to distinguish between winners and losers.

My own disclaimer: I won't be asking for my deposits back, either, if that's the route they choose to go.