How many judges do you think play poker? I find it funny that a judge will be determining the legality of online poker, who probably plays in a backroom game the likes of which police are busting up (except the police chief probably plays in this one as well so it's safe :-p). Something just seems wrong that there are any charges other than Full Tilt owners having to face up to the 330 million they stole from their players.

well lets just say that if the deal falls through it will not be a positive thing for Pokerstars reputation.

I'm not going speculate as to my reaction to alleged actions whose existence is not supported by any facts. Further, my experience and knowledge of PS strongly indicates what your describing would never happen.

I question anyone who blames Pokerstars for the fact their Full Tilt money is gone.

The guys at Full Tilt took your money. There is an outside chance that Pokerstars might give you a total Christmas present and pay you back out of their own pockets. If they choose not to, that doesn't make them responsible for the fact that you got robbed.

As for a "GBT type deal", if that's what you want, go play on ipoker. Ipoker right now is offering you the same deal GBT wanted to give you (actually better, since ipoker will give you the deal forever, and not just for the total amount of your FTP balance).

Deal is done, wait is over, iPoker will return your FTP balance to you in the same manner as GBT wanted to. Happy now?

Ok. Even though I don't have as much confidence in PS as you, I surely hope your "experience and knowledge of PS" prove to be right.

Wow.

So I can contributed to this thread? !?!?!


Tyfor the response

You forgot GBT would have paid 80M that will go to player repayment. I don't know which world you are from. In my world, 80M dollars>0 dollar.

I think, generally, a prior ruling within the same district is considered to be binding precedent on other District Court Judges within the same building. The SDNY District Court is also bound by Second Circuit Court of Appeals rulings because they exist within that district. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is bound by Supreme Court rulings.

This might help, DF:

"Although rare, sometimes courts overrule a precedent. Even if a lower court disagrees with a precedent established by a higher court, the lower court remains bound by that precedent until it is overruled by the higher court. For instance, a U.S. District Court cannot overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court may make a decision that, in effect, overrules itself. Courts within a given District and Circuit are bound by precedents within their own Districts and Circuits, respectively. However, they are not necessarily bound by precedents in other Districts and Circuits. Only U.S. Supreme Court precedents are binding on all courts. Often, the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear a case because different U.S. Courts of Appeals have come to different conclusions on the same legal issue."

http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/04...ct-vs-fiction/

In my world 80m =/= 16m.

I think that 16m is on top of the 80m GBT has to pay to DOJ. So it is 96M in total.

He said player repayment.

The guys that support now the GBT deal are just saying that its better then nothing, no one can really argue with that, can they? I know the deal was crappy but even that IS better than not getting a single penny.

You don't think all the 96m will go to player repayment directly or through remission process?

It just never fails to amaze me that there are still so many people ITT arguing this simple math fact.

These links were originally posted in a thread in poker legislation by tamiller866.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic..._medium=twitte

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/l...#ixzz1ztX1FEos

We have no idea what the $80m being payed to the DOJ would have been used for. Most of us assumed it would somehow be used in a remission process but I don't recall there being anything concrete to say that. All we know is that GBT were going to spend 16m upfront on ROW player repayment. I have to say it would've been pretty gross if I only got $100 back from GBT and the US players got $0.50+/$1 from some kind of remission process from that 80m.

You can get the deal GBT was offering RoW players on other sites. That deal was completely insulting. I'd rather FTP go through the discovery process so that the owners can be subject to as much embarrassment as possible.

the ONLY person that has "details" on the GBT payback scheme was/is DF NOBODY else ever posted what that deal was to have included.(AFAIK)
for some reason "source" was/is never mentioned with DF (maybe good reason) but the way I see it only lawyers or those working for GBT or lawyers and those working for DOJ had access to this alleged payback scheme.

Now since nobody from GBT made public what the offer was then somebody from the DOJ "leaked" this information---this in no way makes it a "fact"
I find it hard to believe that somebody from the DOJ would leak a "confidential" document like that (but who knows.)

JMO

please provide PROOF--other than from DF or someone quoting DF as to what the deal entailed.

It's entirely possible ROW players would be better off from a remission process with money seized from Bitar, Lederer etc than under the GBT deal. We know that Bitar has over 20m in cash/assets which if seized completely is already more than GBT was going to give us.

Edit: The only real plus side to the GBT deal was the possibility of the site actually running again with decent traffic and software. Of course given the utterly terrible plan they came up with I would have fully expected GBT to run the site straight back into the ground.

RoW players would have been able to apply for remission most likely. GBT wasn't paying 80m. There is reportedly 40m locked up in FTP bank accounts. GBT secured repayment of some loans to pros. Both of those things would be presumably be available for remission anyway.

I don't believe it would be possible to exclude people from the remission process because some company paid them $100 of what they are owed. DF references this possibility in the repayment plan article.

I require no other proof. If you do, find it yourself.

I think your assumption is wrong. I don't think DOJ will stop pursuing these people's money as long as players are not paid 100% no matter the GBT deal go through or not.

becasue THERE IS NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DF has proven herself to be exceptionally reliable and meticulous in what she has reported. You on the other hand don't even know the basic facts of this case as you have shown in this thread today.

I'd rather have my money back.

Those guys may very well still be rich after all this and any jail time they may do. When it's all over, if they want to play poker again someone will always back them to play whatever stakes they want. At the end of the day, their being embarrassed isn't enough.