"Everybody got paid" is the excuse of a thief anyway.

It's still theft even if you made restitution. And they didn't make restitution did they? Didn't stars do that themselves in a play to become the top dog of online poker?

No. **** those clown criminals.

You have no evidence that Ivey did not know(and his claiming not to know is not evidence). If I pay you 100K for driving my car from Mexico to California you do not get to pretend you are an innocent when they discover the contraband that made that pay reasonable. When you get reasonable pay you may claim I did not know; when you get unreasonable pay only a fool believes it when you claim I had no idea.

I never received my payout.

Not that I want it because I gotta hold on to my angst. I preserve it... because I need it... It keeps me sharp, on the edge, where I gotta be!

Back in the day a bank robber played in my local 15-30 limit hold'em game. He was terribad and spewy. I didn't know he was a bank robber, but I was happy to take some of the money he was spewing. (It turned out that the casino manager saw his picture in a police report and called the cops, and that's how I found out the dude was a bank robber.)

But the question is, knowing that the money I won from him was stolen from a bank, ought I have given it back?

Gus gave the money back in a way.

It's pretty rare to have evidence of a negative. Kinda up to you to prove Ivey knew, not for him to prove he didn't.

As for "reasonable pay" ? By all accounts, poker sites were making money hand over fist during the boom. I think Ivey would have a good argument to say "I thought the pay I was getting seemed reasonable given that I was getting a couple million to be the face of the site that I thought was making hundreds of millions" immediately followed up by bringing in his pal Daniel to say "I was getting a couple million to be the face of a site I thought was making hundreds of millions" which was actually true.

If the bank robber was your friend.... and we saw you two doing things that basically amounting to handing you the money at the table, like bet-folding and laughing about it. I think the bank should go after you to get the money back, sure.

lol

You are right. I cannot prove a negative. If you do not understand why this matters, I cannot help you.

NO
f those coward criminals

Of course I do not have evidence that Ivey did not know. It is called trying to prove a negative. It is impossible. You are asking for the impossible. That is not how it works. Guilt has to be proven, not innocence.

Do you have any evidence he did know his paychecks were coming from players funds? If you do, I will eagerly use the Sword of Shame and smite him.

Your, example fails fue to the fact that pre-Black Friday, players getting paid lots of money for sponsorships was not unreasonable, especially someone like Ivey who was considered the biggest name in the poker world.

Yeah I don't think if you are a sponsored player you know where the money is coming from. You being sponsored doesn't mean you know what's going on behind the scenes, you are just a marketing tool. No idea why anyone would blame the sponsored pros.

But Ivey was not a Full Tilt sponsored pro. He was a founding shareholder.

There was all sorts of Table Trash that got sponsorship deals from Tilt and some few of them got small ownership shares, like one or two percent. But Ivey was part of the ownership group. As I understand it, he provided much of the initial financing and was the single largest shareholder, ahead of Lederer and Ferguson and others. Matusow, Andy Bloch, and Jennifer Harman were also part of the ownership group in smaller degrees, as I recall.

They collectively pulled about $400 million out of Full Tilt, and from a legal standpoint they mostly got away with it. But the sad truth for them is that if they had played it straight, they probably could have flipped the Full Tilt property for $$Billions$$, just like the Sheinbergs did with Pokerstars. They could have walked away with far, far more cash and with their reputations intact, if only they hadn't been selfish greedy short-sighted dirtbag gamblers.

If you think guilt needs to be proven not innocence you have never seen or heard of civil suits(read about preponderance of evidence). Actually proving he did not know would be relatively easy if there were documents showing the company was trying to hide facts from him; exactly the same level of proof you seem to think I need to show to demonstrate he knew. You feel the number was within reason; I do not. Given what we now know about these sites I know who got proven correct.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of him being a major share holder. That changes the situation a bit of course. However I still think he probably didn't have much knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes when it comes to accounting and similar stuff.

I agree, if they were not short-term greedy they could have sold it in time before poker got shut down and walked away with billions.

I think part of the anger against them is: Would poker have even been shut down had their public shenanigans and appearance of corruption not brought the attention of the Feds in the first place?

Supposedly he was at arm's length from the the company and had no involvement the day-to-day operations.

It beggars the imagination that any person of even moderate intelligence could be the largest shareholder of a company worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars and have absolutely zero knowledge of anything to do with anything about said company, but that was his story and he stuck to it.

They just deposited one or two millions$$ in his personal bank account every month and he was fine with that.

That is a complete distortion of the legal system.

Even worse, you haven't even shown a preponderance of evidence. You haven't shown any evidence at all.