Re: The Lodge

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not keen on playing in a card room that has a sign on/near the front door warning not to bring a firearm in with you, which tends to suggest that a not insignificant number of people are carrying. (Pretty sure I saw the sign in a poker vlogger's video.)

Not sure if it's actually policed, e.g. are there pat-downs and/or metal detectors when entering?

I don't mind watching that kind of potential good 'ol fashion cowboy shootout on a movie, I just don't want to be in the movie.

This is starting to get ridiculous. That sign, and ones like it, is posted in business establishments of all sorts all across the Austin area—owing, one would guess, to the all-but-nonexistent gun control laws in Texas.

I think there is a LOT to question about Polk’s conduct in all of this, and I want to know more, but these posts are silly.

Am I missing something…

Doug is a shill ya but he’s not making the decisions to under collateralize.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what his roll was but I thought he was just in the marketing side of things and nothing to do w actual decisions.

Wouldn’t this obvious fact absolve him from any liability. He’s an lol poker player not a financier.

For me the issue is that in the past Doug has called out others who promoted such products that turned out to be giant failures.

In this instance, a lot of folks believe that for Doug to have pushed so heavily a product that had an advertised rate of return that many believe wasn't realistic, either indicates Doug was aware/complicit in what he promoted, or he was ignorant. I'm not sure there's another way to look at it, and either option paints Doug badly.

His response video lacked any hint of empathy for those affected, and instead came across as completely defensive and deflecting, while also trying to garner empathy from the viewers because he's going to make "less than zero dollars" on his ambassadorship if the token goes belly up.

That may well be the case, but you're more likely to have a gun pulled on you for hitting a one outer in a $10K pot and then looking at your opponent the wrong way in a poker club than you are for something minor that might happen in a grocery store.

I think it is relevant, because as a previous poster said, although maybe he was going a bit overboard with mentioning Doug Polk "flipping" and testifying against others in any federal case should it ever happen, is making a valid point that if Coinflex turns out to be a big fraud, then everyone from the telephone receptionist, to the web developer, to the promoters/ambassadors, to the owners and investors, could come under investigation, primarily to ascertain if they knowingly facilitated any fraud that may have happened, and in doing so the investigators would quite likely take a broad spectrum look at each individual's business dealings.

I also made the point, because it may point to Doug Polk's general approach towards business, which I think it quite a cavalier one, e.g. being an ambassador/promoter for an unregulated crypto trading exchange / crypto yield farm, and not giving any warnings to investors when promoting it I think is cavalier.

I also think it's cavalier to be a part owner, or to have any sort of business interest in an unlicensed poker room. The potential that some players are carrying is one reason why I think this, also the fact that no overseeing body is monitoring the way the club operates and the game integrity, and thirdly that there is always the potential that it could be raided by the authorities and that player's chips and money could be confiscated.

Now, maybe having a financial interest in an unlicensed poker club is just "a thing" that many poker players would consider doing, because poker players are gamblers/risk takers, or is this a pattern of business ethos specific to Doug Polk....... an unlicensed poker club, and an association with an unregulated crypto trading exchange / crypto yield farm.

Where is Doug Polk's business line I wonder? Does he have a line, or is anything game as long as it isn't technically breaking the law.

Pretty much sums up my view on the situation. "Legally" speaking, hes probably at no fault, but hes clearly at fault philosophically.

That's the big issue for me. He didn't just mention Coinflex and briefly explain it. Like Doug turned into the biggest shill for it! The excitement in his voice as he is describing it and then what still gets me is touting the BS 20% returns. And the icing on the cake is when the sht hit the fan, no empathy at all, acted like he was a victim all of a sudden, took no responsibility for his shameless promotion.

Just terrible on all fronts.

in Doug's video with Papi GTO he says that FlexUSD is backed 1:1 by USDC, and he says that CoinFLEX doesn't use your money to make money, your money just provides extra liquidity to the market.

Does that actually make logical sense? If they're not using my money, why are they paying me 15% or whatever?

If they are using my money, then surely it doesn't make sense that I can burn it into USDC whenever I want?

Why do you assume that The Lodge is not operating legally ?

You seem to rely upon that word "unlicensed" a lot ? I've practiced gaming law for many years. If a jurisdiction does not require a specific license for a specific type of business, generally a general business license is all that is necessary.

Would it change your "Heavens to Betsy" outlook to know that such "no firearms" signs are common at licensed, regulated casinos and gaming establishments in Nevada ? You want to make something out of that too ?

Give them a break, after bitconnect trading bot it takes a lot of imagination and word salad to justify all the infinite money we will all make in crypto land. My wife still thinks it's a scam, WHATAIMGONNADOOO?

She's still cool about marriage though, right ?

Probably not with him.

The firearms issue is just one component, no overseeing authority to check/regulate/police how the establishment is being run, and game integrity, is another component. In summary, according to some basic research I did, poker clubs in Texas operate within a legal gray area. My opinion on it is that if you play in such a club you are basically playing in a home game, a very well organised home game, but a home game nonetheless.

This thread is discussing Doug Polk's involvement, relationship, or otherwise, with Coinflex, so I think it is relevant to introduce his other known businesses when we are in the process of discussing whether this seemingly hitherto very sharp and savvy guy was simply hoodwinked into believing that Coinflex was super safe to send unlimited amounts of your Crypto to, or if he knew it might not be, but thought "***k it, buyer beware" because the rewards were attractive to him, or, if he understood all aspects of the risks and lack of safety in sending Crypto to Coinflex and deliberately didn't state them when promoting it/flexUSD, either for fear of damaging his own rewards/pay, or for other reasons.

So, basically, the "no firearms" sign that had your knickers in a bunch is just one component ? One that would keep you from ANY poker rooms operating in Texas.

As for your tirade about crypto, do you feel the stay about Phil Helmuth back when he was shilling for Decent.bet, and then, after that cratered, went back to the well and shills for another crypto coin?

Stay at home, under the protection of the Nanny State wherever it is you prefer to play.

If sticking to what they are supposed to be doing, they are not using your money, they are custodians of it / of your Crypto, if you deposited Crypto with them.

It is correct that when you deposit with them that you are creating liquidity because they will always be net long (owners/custodians) of all of the USD and all of the Crypto that has been sent to them. They can then lend this money out in USD on their Repo market to people who want to borrow it.

And they will always have USD, either straight USD deposited with them or USD they can realise by selling Crypto that has been deposited with them, which they can then sell for USD.

They are also using your money (all depositors' money in a wider sense) to create liquidity in their future's markets, because a certain proportion of people who deposit money or Crypto with them will not just do so for conversion into interest earning flexUSD, some depositors will then also use that flexUSD to speculate or trade on the Coinflex future's markets.

There is zero wrong with the business model, it is all fine and dandy, except.........

You have to trust the people running Coinflex, a) to never have a trading position themselves (remember, they are custodians of your money, and they should not be speculating/trading/gambling with your money), b) Nor should they let any client trade beyond the client's own margin (collateral) limits, because that would be allowing a client to in effect be speculatiing/trading/gambling with yours and other clients' money, and c) You have to trust them to never rug pull, or a lesser version such as what seems to be the current status, that there is a defecit.

So just the 3 things that you have to trust will be done properly. Basically, it is a massive pile of BS and needs to be properly regulated.

Well yes, a lot of the gaming industry is very sordid, and going up a level or more, these Crypto farms and unregulated exchanges etc are even worse than unregulated poker sites or betting sites, because some/many of them are targeting people's entire life savings or big chunks of their net worth.

I love playing poker and other forms of financial speculation, but I also like to do it within a regulated arena, Doug Polk, and you for that matter, appear to not be so bothered or concerned about whether things are regulated or not.

Gun control is non-existent in Texas because that's how the vast majority want it.
I think if you lived on a ranch, a mile or two from the next person, where cops are 20 minutes away minimum,
you'd feel differently about not being able to protect yourself that once in a lifetime night you might need to.
I have family in south dakota and they explained it to me and it made all the sense in the world.
If they see a cop on patrol once a week it's rare.
I live in Chicago so I have a bit more nuanced view of the issue.
When you live in an urban area the case for gun control makes a lot more sense.

Most every big, contentious issue have valid reasons on each side, refusing to acknowledge this, is the sign a of a weak-mind


This was meant more for the guy you were responding to, than you sorry,

How did this thread turn into talking about guns

OR option C: He was overly excited about crypto like most crypto cult-members who are always under 35 and always tell me "it's GUARANTEED! Put all your money in it" and talked about the best possible outcome since for 10 years that's all that ever happened? Crypto has been on a decade long sun run until about 6 months ago.

The attempts to tie the guy who is paid to promote it to how he is also supposed to verify the nuts and bolts of being fully collateralized at all moments is embarrassing

Like how often was he supposed to verify this? Monthly? Weekly? Daily?
Should the CFO send Doug a daily screenshot showing "yep, see here Doug, were good, everything is covered"

Is everyone supposed to be on top of every other department's inner workings?
That's the CFO's job, not Doug's

If Tesla had an equivalent Doug and then we find out Tesla's self-driving function sucks and a few people crashed, is that Doug responsible for not doing his own field checks of FSD? And how many must he do to be in the clear by you guys who are desperate for your pound of flesh?

Your Tesla analogy doesn't work, because it may or may not be known whether certain aspects/parts of the engineering or electronics have faults or weaknesses, whereas it was absolutely known by numerous people, including people who directly told Doug Polk on Twitter and to one of whom he scoffed at and offered odds of 100/1 on a bet, that Coinflex definitely has a lot of faults and weaknesses which make it an unsafe investment and platform.

I don't think Doug was intentionally misleading people, he simply drank the kool-aid and was blinded by his opportunity for profit.

What some seem to miss is that he wasn't forced to endorse this company. Nobody put a gun to his head and said you must endorse some sort of crypto yield-farming stablecoin operation (or w/e the correct terminology for this "enterprise" is). He chose to endorse them after doing what he apparently believed was sufficient due diligence. He also had the option of not endorsing them, due to them not providing sufficient information to him or due to his lack of knowledge about the industry (or at least the niche in which CoinFlex "operated"). Saying it's like an employer that can only due so much to screen employees is disingenuous, because the employer needs to hire employees to properly run their business, and must do so in a relatively timely fashion.

Now he (and some of his stans) want to pretend that:

A. He shouldn't and/or couldn't have done (or attempted to do) more due diligence on CoinFlex
B. He's not at all responsible for his followers trusting him and losing $
C. He shouldn't need to apologize to his followers (whether or not they invested in CF) for having the wool pulled over his eyes, getting conned, and leading them and others to also be conned
and D. His non-poker reputation (at minimum) will not be harmed by the fallout from this implosion

I don't see how A, B, C & D can call be true. Doug thought he was the smartest guy in the room, which he is when he's alone podcasting, and often is when he's playing HU NLH. His ego is too large to admit any sort of fault in the matter and/or he believes doing so would not be the best long-term strategy legally, financially, and/or socially.

In criminal cases it is not at all about knowingly or unknowingly; it’s about being able to prove in court if someone knew or not, and I’m pretty sure eyewitness testimony is still being used as evidence in criminal cases. The prosecution will threaten you with more time if you are a problem and offer you less time to cooperate. If Doug doesn’t wanna say he knew and the other people knew , then they will just find someone else that will say it. It’s literally how the feds work.

And if Doug’s poker room was legal, wouldn’t they be charging rake per hand, or is that illegal?

Doug keeps people around him that are “yes men”. This is a great example of what happens when you don’t have anyone critiquing your actions.

Your Tesla (coinflex) analogy doesn't work, because it may or may not be known whether certain aspects/parts of the engineering or electronics (hedging or collateralizing) have faults or weaknesses,

See how easy that is to throw right back at you?

"You're being charged Mr. Polk for not believing randos on twitter who warned you this could happen" is a heck of a world you want to live in.

Yea but it is known that hedging a pegged currency is expensive.

It is known, because they have the potential to rug pull at any moment and they can do whatever the hell they like with client money.

I don't think they were randos, I think they were people in the crypto space, at least some of them were, and they said something along the lines,
of "not your keys, not your crypto".

He then offered them odds of 100/1 on $1,000 against there being a rug pull.

The odds now are about 7/2.

I am basing this on the current market quote of the wondercoin, "stable" coin flexUSD which is ~32c, so about a third of its supposed pegged against the dollar value.

32c doesn't make it a 2/1 shot that they'll rug, because part of the pricing takes into account a possible partial settlement value of flexUSD by Coinflex to its clients.