So you think the DoJ doesn't prosecute money-losing companies that break the law?

Dtm I'm using the terminology directly from their financial statements.

I think the doj went after the poker sites ( after waiting 5+ years ) because they finally realized how much money was at stake.

I think we can just agree you like to disagree with everyone and leave it at that.

Even if FTP wasnt profitable in the years before its demise, Im sure PokerStars would be able to run it a lot better than those crooks ever did and make it a profitable business once again. PLEASE STARS, ILL PLAY THERE EVERY DAY!

its not FTOPs but it will do in the meantime
won a virtual braclet at PS lmao

Um, I believe you will find that it is pence, not dollars, and that the share price is down about 40% from its three month high. Issue price was 1,160 pence, so it is now trading at about 9% of that.

At the end of last year, market capitalization was barely more than wind-up value. This is not a stock that has a lot of market confidence behind it. If the market believed that this company was going to be massively profitable, we 'd be seeing a price about ten times this current price (i.e. they thought it was going to be quite profiable when it went public).

All except "profit margin".

And you have as much evidence for that belief as you have for your belief in the degree of profitability in online poker sites.

I can't agree with that .

There are lots of posters here that I agree with. They tend to be well-informed. I don't bother to post "+1" or "Yes, I agree" posts very much because they don't add value. I'm sure some people would disagree, but I think posting corrections to misinformation does add value.

Also, I don't disagree with people, I disagree with what they say sometimes. There are times I have even agreed with something you've said .

Let me ask you this dtm

Was FTP worth more than what they owed players on 4/15/11

Or put another way could ftp have been saved by now...


Also you are right sometimes but we were arguing semantics / pointless Ik

I still believe odds of us getting paid are greater then the odds of this pathetic thread ceasing as we know it. I'm just as guilty as the next at fueling this cluster ****

I think we will hear something big this week. The pot is brewing.

Here's a different spin on the FTP/BF story than I have seen previously. I don't think it changes anything but it is interesting to see a news source do something more than parrot the DOJ line:
http://townhall.com/columnists/katie...ys_strip_poker

That article is completely laughable. Fourth amendment? Really? That's a heavily-biased article written by someone pushing an automatically anti-Holder stance, trotting out the same tired constitutional artugments to back it up.

"Holder could be answering Congress’ questions regarding Fast and Furious. Instead, Holder’s DOJ is denying America thousands of jobs from the $6 billion U.S. online poker industry."

Good lord.

Anybody who thinks that playing online poker for a living is a "job" and uses the term "job" as though it's some kind of productive addition to society needs a serious reality check, and should probably not be listened to about much.

Surprisingly enough regulated online poker will provide more potential jobs than simply professional player.

This is possibly the largest distortion/inaccuracy I've ever read here, among many distortions.

It closed Friday @$1.75 up +$0.05.

trading @$1.75

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PYGMF

Not parroting the DOJ line because she is against anything this administration does.

Here is some of her expert legal opinion.

"Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment forbids Holder from snatching private property from American gaming entrepreneurs like Bitar and his Full Tilt founding partner, professional poker player Chris Ferguson.

The Fourth Amendment grants all Americans the right “to be secure in” their private property without the threat of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” And private property includes intellectual property, such as internet domain names and online businesses."

Here is an accurate portrayal. No mention of Bitar deeds.

"So it appears that the government played a role in exhausting Full Tilt’s funding and is now accusing Full Tilt of running a Ponzi scheme."

Wrong one buddy

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BPTY.L

Trading at... 108.

[QUOTE=black_friday;33664327]Wrong one buddy



Business Summary

bwin.party digital entertainment plc operates as an online gaming company. It primarily operates in four product verticals, including sports betting, poker, casino, and bingo. The company provides sport betting services under various brand names, such as bwin, an online sports betting service in continental Europe and South America; PartyBets.com for poker tournaments, entertainment, and current affairs; and Gamebookers.com, a live betting offering for soccer, tennis, basketball, and ice hockey. It also operates PartyPoker.com, a poker Website; bwin poker, which provides live poker tournaments; PartyCasino.com, an online casino site that offers casino games; bwin casino for chance-based fortune games and skill games; and bingo sites, such as FoxyBingo.com, PartyBingo.com, and Gioco Digitale. In addition, the company provides game software, hosting, player pool access, responsible gaming controls, and service management tools, as well as the business intelligence needed to deploy them successfully. Further, it offers InterTrader, which enables customers to access the financial markets using contracts for difference and spread bets; and World Poker Tour programming. The company was formerly known as PartyGaming Plc and changed its name to bwin.party digital entertainment plc in April 2011. bwin.party digital entertainment plc is based in Gibraltar, Gibraltar.

that is NOT $108 or &108....it's 108 pence, right ?

is there some kind of deadline that is about to expire? I thought there was a "1 week" thing going on but there doesnt seem to be much of a count down in this thread

Its in pounds read the fine print about delayed quotes

Yes, it's listed in London in pence.
Listed in U.S. in dollars...$1.75/share.

No
Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise. Currency in GBp

I wouldn't want to defend this article, and I'm sure I disagree with the politics of the news source; however, it is a good example of the role politics plays in choosing prosecutions and the extent to which the press, and the public, reflexively back the administration in power.

They're busy debating how price of one Bwin share being 1.75 dollars vs 108 pounds effects the FT deal.

The fact that one person talks violently out of their ass as a counterpoint doesn't automatically make the mainstream viewpoint less legitimate/unbiased.

Nooo

Was debating how bwin going from 160 down to 108 was a reflection of FTP deal being imminent... obviously tinfoil hat conspiracy but hey, a man can dream right?