Instead of talking about this on here and arguing, lets start a damn protest...

Doesn't it get frustrating arguing back and forth on a forum?

Bottom line, US players, we'll get our money when we get our money and it will be whatever percentage the DoJ decides on.

ROW players, you get access to your accounts Nov. 6th. I'm jealous!

There really isn't any room for discussion, it is what it is.

****Now bring on all the "GTFO's"

I think the answer to this is more complicated than just pointing at who will ultimately be "distributing" the ROW funds (and US player funds as well).

The DOJ sued FTP and PStars for $1B. In a 3 way "deal" FTP agreed to forfeit certain assets to the DOJ in exchange for settling the DOJ $1B civil suit. I think it is clear therefore those assets had some intrinsic cash value . But, since the DOJ does not operate an online poker site, not to the DOJ who would have "owned" them after the forfeiture. So, in the simultaneous and mutually beneficial settlement they agreed to transfer those assets to PStars in exchange for what amounts to cash. How much did PStars pay the DOJ for the FTP assets? Let's try this scenario:

PStars agreed to "accept" the forfeited FTP assets and to pay what will ultimately amount to somewhere around $730M. $547 of that is to be paid directly to the DOJ and $184M is to be "made available" to FTP ROW players. If we assume, and I think it is reasonable to do so, the costs of settlement were apportioned equally to each company then each company should have paid $365M each. Clearly however, PStars paid (will pay) the total settlement amount of $730M. Fortunately for all they had the cash. All FTP had left were the forfeited assets. Anybody paying rake on PStars would likely agree PStars is not a charity therefore, I think it becomes an easy argument to make that PStars must have valued the forfeited assets and the included business benefits of owning them and "FTP" at somewhere near the $365M share of the FTP "fines" they paid to settle.

Consequently, if FTP owed ROW players $184M and US players $159M for a total of $343M. I see where a case could be made that FTP's assets were sufficient to cover the repayment to all FTP customers and it is in fact FTP assets that are being distributed to the US and ROW players.

I have had some time to read and study the agreement and I have to say I think it was brilliantly done. I seldom see a settlement that is win-win. I don't think I have ever seen a settlement that is win (PStars) win (FTP) win (DOJ) win (ROW) and win (US FTP Players). I wish the DOJ would have let PStars payout US Players in the deal so we could realize our win sooner rather than later, but in life a win is a win and I consider us EVER getting FTP deposits back a huge win!

That the DOJ has enough money to pay us our full balances could not be more unrelated to whether they will or not. The DOJ has enough money to pay us all 3x our balances, so by your logic, why won't we all get 300%?

That might be true but I wouldn't count on counting on our government to do the right thing here. Nobody knows anything at this point, including the PPA? From what I understand is that they have asked politely and their proposals have been taken in consideration. I think TE would say they don't know much either at this point. I do appreciate all of the work that they do though.

In the end, I just hope the throw us some Vasoline because I don't expect this to go smoothly and I have been optimistic throughout. I am now starting to unravel.

That's the beauty of this being a gambling forum. I'll take 100% and you get 5%. If US players get 100% I win, hell I'll even give you anywhere from 4-6% for you to win. Will bet any amount. Alternatively we can see who is closer, 100% or 5% (so you get under 52.5% I get over). Again I will bet literally any amount.

What input will PPA be providing for the DOJ in their upcoming meeting as far as the remission process? Can we lobby for priority for larger balances?

Going by faulty memory alone, I believe it was about $330M before BF and a net of another $30M on BF. I say "net" because I think they froze more and then unfroze some.

Yes.

That is essentially correct.

The money seized on or before BF was forfeited relative to the UIGEA, bank fraud, illegal gambling and money laundering charges. These are not the offences that caused players to lose money, so the forfeited funds are not used to compensate players. The player loss was caused by wire fraud against them. While the FTP settlement covers more than the wire fraud, the DoJ has allowed the forfeitures from that settlement - brand name, software, servers, domain name, player records, etc. - to be treated as if they are all related to the fraud against players. Hence any proceeds the DoJ receives from the sale of these forfeited assets can be used to compensate players, sicne teh forfeited assets are related to the offence which caused the loss. Stars agreed to pay the DoJ > $500M to settle their own case and purchase the forfeited FTP assets. It is not specified how much of that payment is for the purchase of FTP assets (I wonder if that is the source of the mysterious $159M?).

Love it! Back in your hole, Frenbar.

Even as someone who defended Chinamaniac's right to post, this right here should be a borderline thread-bannable offense, IMO.

Are do the math and ford in a contest to see who can post the longest posts? The second I see over 3 paragraphs I stop reading.

Ps where's my money DOJ??

Nobody.

US players will be paid money that is not theirs, because their money has been taken from them and is not available for return, and because the US government has decided to be nice to US players.




I don't need to re-read anything. I saw all the exchange. It started because your nice helpful answer was wrong two ways and NTBS corrected you.

FTP owners/directors have US players' money, and the US government does not have the players' money.

If you had replied instead that would have been close enough to accurate to not need correction.

No, you were referring to who is paying money, not to who is paying back the money. Calling it paying back imples that a debt is being repaid. That is not what the DoJ is doing. Calling it the money implies that the money to which players have a right and which they temporarily lost is the money they are being given. That is not the money that is being paid. These distinctions may seem trivial, but they are important to understand, because the difference in the nature of payments is behind the difference in the timing of the payments.

The DOJ is not paying back the money owed to US players. It is compensating the players for their losses due to an offence against them.

It suggests that US players will get their whole balances as long as the US government also has enough money to cover the expenses of the remission and to cover any claims from any victims who are not players.

I'll keep this to three short paragraphs then, just for you.

There is no contest. I have a lot of respect for what 1938ford posts here. Actual content takes more space than vacuous comment.

Pity about your attention span. People with longer attention spans tend to learn more.

DTM, thanks for the reply. In my simplistic little world I find it strange that the DOJ were (afaik) not put under any pressure to use that ~$360m to repay the FTP customers! In the end Stars stepped in to save the day, but knowing that the DOJ had seized an amount roughly equal to the total amount owed to law-abiding players around the world and (presumably) had no intention of doing anything other than keeping it is kind of annoying.

Thank you TheEngineer, you are someone who works hard to protect Poker player's interests, and I think you are beginning to realize just how toxic and unhealthy this situation is for those of us with much needed amounts of $ owed to us by Full Tilt. Your work, and your updates (however vague, can still be trusted to be honest) are very much appreciated.

I'm glad you've noticed.

If you think this is funny, you're a troll and need to get banned. If you're being honest you (obviously) are a troll and need to get banned. People trusted (and shockingly still trust) you to give them some insight on to something that seriously affects them. You've shown enough times that you don't have a source, and now you're purposely trying to rub salt in our wounds. Quite the sadistic trait, almost a prerequisite for being a troll.

Yes.

i haven't been paying attention to any legislative news at all but is there a chance if romney gets elected he can simply put the kibosh on the whole thing of US players getting paid back/even kill any chances of online poker legalization in the US completely? the president has the power to do that single handedly right

In theory he could do either or both. Remission is at the discretion of the AG, who is nominated by the President. In practical terms, it is unlikely that the President, through his AG, would interfere in an administrative decision. I think it a bit more likely that the President would veto a bill that had a carve-out for online poker. But I think it is unlikely that an electorate that would elect Romney would elect a Congress that would pass a bill that allowed online poker, so a veto will probably not be needed. It would be difficult for the President to prevent intrastate poker being approved by individual states.

Listen buddy. Someone pooked fun at me with a joke, I poked back with a joke. Thats it, nothing more. If you read either way a troll, well, its to bad for you.

I know my source didn t pan out and yes thats the price I pay. Maybe I shouldn t said anything. I tried to help, god knows it was needed.

I must take issue with these comments. Whether a post has actual or vacuous comment is a matter of opinion and it does not necessarily take longer to espouse the former.

Attention span is not a quality that one person has more than another person. It is determined by the amount of interest that person has in the subject.

Concisely written non pedantic posts will reach a greater audience ( should that be your wish) read blizzuffs posts for an example

Who was your source? Since it didn't pan out, it shouldn't matter anymore.

Not to take up the gauntlet for DTM but, I think with your post above you have in fact illustrated how concise a completely vacuous post can in fact be. Congratulations!

With respect to attention span perhaps you should take your argument to Doctors, Educators and Psychologists who generally agree that the ability to focus one's attention on a task is crucial for the achievement of one's goals. Estimates for the length of human attention span (both focused and sustained) are highly variable and depend on the precise definition of attention being used. Attention span can be measured in various ways, which in and of itself, should suggest therefore that it varies from person to person. There have been many studies researching exactly why some people have better attention spans than do others. Doctors even have medicines available to them to help people improve their attention spans. There are innumerable homeopathic treatments available that claim to help with improving attention span.

I personally don't see DTMs posts as unimaginative, or particularily pedantic. I read them all, even the long ones, and appreciate the effort he puts into them. I think he often provides valuable information and that this forum is better off for his being a member here. Also, I don't necessarily agree with your proposition relating to audience size and concise posts. But, I do agree that is a matter of personal opinion.

As for myself, it may not be evident in my posts but I do try to relay what I hope is helpful and relevant information, thoughts and ideas. I do it as best I can. If the posts are too long for yours, or others, attention span I am sorry. But, hopefully some people here have a long enough attention span to get through them and find them at least informational and perhaps even thought provoking. That is why I usually post.

I can't but wonder though exactly what valuable information or insight you were hoping to add with your post?

The main focus of PPA contact with the DOJ is provide the DOJ with a player's perspective and to help make sure that the process is as "player-friendly" as possible.

Basically, we have to remember that online poker is a relatively unique phenomenon and most people, especially people who work for the Asset Forfeiture department of the DOJ, have little familiarity with our game or how we participated in it. The dialogue between the PPA and the DOJ aims to overcome this knowledge gap and ensure that the process the DOJ decides upon doesn't require something of players that would be difficult for most players to comply with and/or otherwise slow down or limit the return of player funds.

That said, the DOJ has indicated a willingness to listen to all of our concerns.

But I have to say that asking them to try and create a process with a priority for higher balances is not a request I have heard or considered before. I'd like to hear your reasoning for this request. My basic inclination is to support the process that gives the most the fastest regardless of who that puts first, but I am willing to listen.

Skallagrim

My reasoning would be that the majority of total player balances are held by a large number of accounts containing relatively small amounts. If there was an expedited or separate payment process for the small number of larger accounts, then those whose quality of life was/ still is dramatically affected by black friday would be able to recover their funds without having to endure further hardship throughout the remission process. Also, since there are so few large balances, a separate remission process probably wouldn't make a huge difference in the time frame for smaller account repayment... so I don't really think this is unfair to anyone.

Eli has claimed nothing more than to have a source, yall are so anti social to not understand how gossip works

If Eli heard from Suzie that Billy and Judy are breaking up and tells you
about it, then they decide to get married, you don't throw a fit because it was wrong