No argument in this thread matters one little bit.

Hell I've always been a "Nut Hugging Ass" fan boy of yours., man, but I must keep my posting clear of " him that cannot be named anymore" because SGT RJ has already likely just had about enough and I don't want to get my "Nut Hugging Ass" thrown off the thread You can handle this and you are not on your own.

Assume PI has $40 million and he wants to do what you suggested right away. He calls up Full Tilt (Ray Bitar) and says he wants to give them back the $40 million he took. What exactly is the next step?

Scenario A: Full Tilt saying "great, wire it over, we'll ship the players 10% of their money right away." He'd be an idiot to agree to give $40 million to the guy who caused this whole situation and trust that he would or could do what he says.

Scenario B: Full Tilt saying "ok, we'll contact the DOJ and see what they say to do." DOJ responds, sure, give it to us, we'll use it to repay players. Do you get your money back any quicker under this scenario? No. You get your money back either through remission or when the Pokerstars sale is done. Though, if the pokerstars deal fails, then the DOJ might go after the money for us themselves, I'd hope.

Scenario C: Full Tilt saying "ok, we'll use it to knock off $40 million from Pokerstars purchase price." Under this scenario, you still get your money no faster. Pokerstars would love this. But we benefit from this in no way. We don't get our money any faster. I don't think $40 million in a $750 million to $1 billion dollar deal is the major sticking point, nor has anyone reported that money is the major holdup.

If the sole purpose of him coughing up $40 million is punishment, then sue him for it after this is all over. Sue all of the owners for the money you have missed out on over the past year. But until then, realistically, there is no point and you receive no real benefit from such an action, even if there were a good way to do it.

That would seem to put you more in the camp of Bitar et al, than in the camp of "normal honest guys."

I think you should care about the laws that apply to this case, because they are likely to be instrumental in whether you get your money back. The personal feelings of posters ITT regarding who is responsible are not going to affect whether you get paid.

Well, it seems likely he is a guy, but even more obvious that he is not normal. As to his honesty, I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude it varies significantly from that of the average professional poker player. I'm not an Ivey nut-hugger. I was quite skeptical about his actions when he sued FTP and skipped the last WSOP.


I think you are confused about a few things.

Firstly, you have no idea about my economic policies or management abilities (besides my weakness WRT brevity).

Secondly, you seem to be unable to distinguish between hiding behind laws and relying on the poper administration of the legal system.

Thirdly, the reason that your bank CEO analogy is so bad is that it ignores the whole reason why we cannot at this point assign blame to Ivey and other non-director owners. A CEO must, by virtue of his postion, have been involved in the decisions that led to the negative utcomes, and therefore ought to be held responsible. A shareholder is not automatically assumed to be involved in the decision-making. Saying that Ivey ought to be held responsible is like saying Warent Buffet should be held responsible for the banking crisis, rather than the CEO you mentioned.

I also "admit" that you stated it in a misleading manner. While I think I know why you think it is important, I expect many readers of this thread do not. Unexplained, they are likely to be led into the same fallacy that bedevils you.

That he is an owner and received improper payment is not relevant to people getting their money back, nor is it sufficent to support the argument that Ivey has a real obligation to pay anybody.

You ought to now why it is wrong to assert person B has a moral obligation to pay person C's losses when person A already has a legal obligation to pay them and it has not yet been shown that A will not pay them.

PS is going to buy FT and substantially pay off the players.

Why should Ivey or any other owners contribute any $ to the deal if PS if going to put up the money?

Oh whats up Howard

Anger > reason #itt

If Pokerstars doesn't buy FTP and we get no money back. Anger = reason.

That may be what you thought you were doing. You failed. What you actually said (In context to show what you didn't actually say) was:
You missed out entirely the first half of the predicate (bolded above). In the absence of that predicate, the conclusion takes on a different significance. I took issue with the apparent assumption of the first predicate, not with what you now say you intended.

Once you add in the first predicate, you get something that comes close to a useless tautology: If Ivey had the money and was willing to return it, he could. It leaves only the matter of practical difficulties - something else which you choose to assume away or ignore.

????????

Source?

I think we have assumed that the distributions paid were proportional to shareholdings in Tiltware LLC. I don't remember seeing anything that actually stated that the distributions were actually made by Tiltware LLC. I think there is some reason to believe they were paid by either My West Nook or Kolyma (possibly in an effort to avoid taxes).

updated

The Japanese government had to pass a law against Phil Ivey swimming in the Sea of Japan. He was responsible for too many tsunamis.

haha too soon?

OK, here is what you should do.

Go to the Rio. Wait for Ivey to win a giant pot. And after he stacks all his chips up ... You knock them all down. That will sure teach him a lesson!

So I'm rewatching some old UFC fights while I grind, and I noticed in the highlight reel that Nick Diaz was sporting some serious Full Tilt Poker swag.

Some of the internet tough guys ITT need to find this guy and get our money out of him IMO.

For all we know, he got an ownership stake for wearing that and is just as responsible as Bitar and the like. #imbeingridiculous

lmao sweet sweet justice

FYP

when was it "rumored" that stars was going to buy FTP? How long has it been since that date? And how long was GBT in negotiations for? I just kinda wanna get a feel for how long this might last..

.. in before never gonna happen.

i dont have as much tied up in this as you (but still 5 figs) but i honestly suggest that you just stop browsing NVG because it's not healthy to anticipate soemthing developing everyday.

PM china to give you a heads up on any real developments.

April 24th was the first rumored date. Tapie was in from late September through roughly that same date.

Where is Doug Lee to lead us to victory????

is it bad that i've been to two of the mcds in the past 2 months?