Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP) FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)
View Poll Results: Do you want the AGCC to regulate the new FTP?
Yes
1,156 56.58%
No
887 43.42%

07-21-2012 , 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNB
heres an idea that might help. It would prevent a mass withdraw on the day FTP2 opens.

ROW players: every 60 days they get 1/4 of their balance that they can gamble with but they can not cashout for 60 days at which time another 1/4 is unlocked with the same conditions. If you don t want to gamble, thats fine, wait the 60 days then cashout. So every 60 days you could cash out 1/4 of your balance

US players: They get 1/4 of their balance every 60 days at the sametime ROW to make it fair for all. And of course deduct phanton deposits from any balance.

players could chip dump but why take a chance on having your account closed and funds seized when you can wait 60 days.

No player to player transfers with restricted balances.
so basically the GBT deal except instead of the 1/4 on day 1 they had it at $100. And nobody knows what percentage after that.
07-21-2012 , 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzard89
so basically the GBT deal except instead of the 1/4 on day 1 they had it at $100. And nobody knows what percentage after that.
GBT was $100 total. I| am saying take the balance and divide it by 4 with each quater paid out every 60 days. And unlike the GBT deal, there is no requirement to play poker. say a player had a balance of $200.
day 1: $50 unlocked to play poker with

day 60: they are allowed to withdraw the $50 and of course any money above that amount that they won. Say the player won $200, well they could withdraw some, none or all of it. no longer restricted.

day 61: another $50 is released that they can gamble with

day 120: they are allowed to withdraw the $50.

and so on.

You know how stars can show your cash with some in tournment dollars and some in cash. FTP2 would do the same but call some say old balance untill it cleared

Last edited by DavidNB; 07-21-2012 at 02:22 PM.
07-21-2012 , 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Get It
So you feel that some FTP shareholder/boardmember (I forget which), who presumably in the know about this, is effectively making stuff up as to why it's not a done deal and telling his friends about it?
I am shocked. A FTP shareholder/boardmember who lies? That is impossible.
07-21-2012 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNB
GBT was $100 total.--wrong I| am saying take the balance and divide it by 4 with each quater paid out every 60 days. And unlike the GBT deal, there is no requirement to play poker. say a player had a balance of $200.
day 1: $50 unlocked to play poker with

day 60: they are allowed to withdraw the $50 and of course any money above that amount that they won. Say the player won $200, well they could withdraw some, none or all of it. no longer restricted.

day 61: another $50 is released that they can gamble with

day 120: they are allowed to withdraw the $50.

and so on.
GBT proposed a plan that would have resulted in immediate reinstatement of all ROW player balances, with a right to withdraw those funds over time, based on the size of the player balance and the extent of the player’s playing activity on the re-launched site. All players would have been permitted complete withdrawal of their balances, regardless of whether they played on the site, by a date certain, and 94.9% of ROW players would have been fully repaid on day 1. DOJ ultimately insisted on full repayment with right of withdrawal within 90 days for all players– a surprise demand made in the 11th hour, after months of good-faith negotiations by GBT.


they were to be given their COMPLETE balance but only allowed to withdraw $100!--the REST was in stages--but whole balance available on the site
07-21-2012 , 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzard89
GBT proposed a plan that would have resulted in immediate reinstatement of all ROW player balances, with a right to withdraw those funds over time, based on the size of the player balance and the extent of the player’s playing activity on the re-launched site. All players would have been permitted complete withdrawal of their balances, regardless of whether they played on the site, by a date certain, and 94.9% of ROW players would have been fully repaid on day 1. DOJ ultimately insisted on full repayment with right of withdrawal within 90 days for all players– a surprise demand made in the 11th hour, after months of good-faith negotiations by GBT.


they were to be given their COMPLETE balance but only allowed to withdraw $100!--
thats what I thought untill someone corrected me. Only $100 was being released to play with. there was heavy playing requirements to get the rest released. Read some of the last 30-40 posts.

And it was not a 11th hour demand from DOJ. DOJ since day has indicate they want all players paided vback in full. GBT offer was you had to play poker to unlock your balance

Last edited by DavidNB; 07-21-2012 at 02:35 PM.
07-21-2012 , 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Glantz
The blah blah blah was just a bunch of nonsense. So much so that there is no reason to perpetuate the nonsense.
Nonsense I'd like to hear. This IS the nonsense/rumor/idiocy thread, after all.
07-21-2012 , 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braindead2000
I am shocked. A FTP shareholder/boardmember who lies? That is impossible.
I mean this person(s) lying in general is one thing, but telling a friend (Matt) that it's all but done except x, y, & z and have those things be "complete nonsense" dosn't make sense.

Although the shareholder could simply be getting bad info somehow, which they think is true, then telling people and kinda unconsciously be lying about it.

But how does telling Matt it's done except w/e help them at all? No reason to lie at this point imo, given how bad FTP/FTP people look already.
07-21-2012 , 03:05 PM
Matt,(thanks for coming into this thread) your blog stated:

"At the time of me writing this one major shareholder has specifically told me to my face, “It is a done deal with PokerStars and was supposed to be completed last week but had to be pushed pack for …. blah blah blah.”. I hope he is correct. But unfortunately in my mind it is only hope and nothing else"

I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you have any money stuck on FT?
2. Do you find this major shareholder credible? if so, why would he lie to you?

(unless you specifically asked him about the rumors and he was deflecting with his blah blah blah answer)
07-21-2012 , 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneonth3run
Nonsense I'd like to hear. This IS the nonsense/rumor/idiocy thread, after all.
Unless it's from Matusow. Then, maybe no thanks...

Otherwise, unless Glantz was sworn to secrecy, it'd be nice to judge for ourselves.
07-21-2012 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Get It
I mean this person(s) lying in general is one thing, but telling a friend (Matt) that it's all but done except x, y, & z and have those things be "complete nonsense" dosn't make sense.

Although the shareholder could simply be getting bad info somehow, which they think is true, then telling people and kinda unconsciously be lying about it.

But how does telling Matt it's done except w/e help them at all? No reason to lie at this point imo, given how bad FTP/FTP people look already.
Because it is in their nature, to lie and cheat.

Take Mr. Ivey.
According to HSDB he won $19 million playing online.
That wasn't enough.
He was payed millions as a sponsored player.
That wasn't enough.
He received $40 million in dividends payed out of our ballances.
That wasn't enough.
He took a loan of about $5 million payed out of our ballances.
That wasn't enough.
After draining FTP and there was nothing left, he sued FTP for $150 million.

I have a lot of money on FTP, but I won it, I didn't have to work for it.
There are people who work hard for their money and are struggling to pay the bills. The only way to forget their sorrows is when they deposited maybe $100 and play the micro games. Even that money wasn't save because Mr. Ivey and his friends robbed every last penny out of the company.

Yes, they even lie to their friends. They don't know the difference between lying and telling the truth, between honesty and cheating.
07-21-2012 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzard89
I agree the part where he states " We have all worked hard over the last 15 months to preserve Full Tilt’s assets and potential in order to provide for the repayment of all players, and that continues to be our top priority. It is as important as ever that we all do everything possible to make that happen and, hopefully our deal with Poker Stars will very soon make our goal a reality. My return to the US is part of this process"
has me confident that it has nothing to do with the sale !
Exactly my point. Bitar's return is part of the process of moving FTP assets and liabilities through the DOJ and onto a 3rd party, namely PokerStars. There are a number of practical and legal reasons as to why Bitar would prefer to be in the US if and when this occurs. The only reason not to come was the criminal charge.

But the DOJ didn't even allow him to surrender, arrested him coming off the plane with a superseding indictment, and opposed bail. This very strongly suggests that the criminal case consequences of his return were not negotiated in any way in advance of his return.

I am not saying I know for certain, just that the above seems to indicate to me that the FTP civil case and Bitar's criminal case are not being negotiated together.

Skallagrim
07-21-2012 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braindead2000
Because it is in their nature, to lie and cheat.

Take Mr. Ivey.
According to HSDB he won $19 million playing online.
That wasn't enough.
He was payed millions as a sponsored player.
That wasn't enough.
He received $40 million in dividends payed out of our ballances.
That wasn't enough.
He took a loan of about $5 million payed out of our ballances.
That wasn't enough.
After draining FTP and there was nothing left, he sued FTP for $150 million.

I have a lot of money on FTP, but I won it, I didn't have to work for it.
There are people who work hard for their money and are struggling to pay the bills. The only way to forget their sorrows is when they deposited maybe $100 and play the micro games. Even that money wasn't save because Mr. Ivey and his friends robbed every last penny out of the company.

Yes, they even lie to their friends. They don't know the difference between lying and telling the truth, between honesty and cheating.
Yeah but how long can you toss the dice at the craps tables @ 5 mill a throw and expect the money to last.
07-21-2012 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866

9-113.106

Settlement of Forfeiture in Conjunction with Plea Bargaining
The government may conclude a civil forfeiture action in conjunction with the criminal charges against the defendant which provided the cause of action against the property. The government must not agree, however, to release property subject to forfeiture (civil or criminal) in order to coerce a guilty plea on the substantive charges, nor may the government agree to dismiss criminal charges in order to coerce a forfeiture settlement. If a plea agreement is not to conclude the civil forfeiture case, language to that effect should also be stated in the plea agreement. Failure to specify in this manner could be fatal to the concurrent civil forfeiture action. Further specific principles governing "global" settlements are as follows:

In all cases, agreements must be based upon facts which support forfeiture. The Department does not release property which is otherwise subject to forfeiture to encourage guilty pleas; nor does it permit defendants to submit property which is otherwise not subject to forfeiture in order to lighten the potential incarceration component of the punishment.

Furthermore, the defendant, in the plea agreement, must admit to facts sufficient to support the forfeiture. The government, however, should not waive its right to reopen a civil forfeiture action where it is later determined that the settlement was based on false information or where the defendant violates his plea agreement.

----
The government "can't" use the threat of forfeiture to induce a guilty plead, nor accept a forfeiture in return for lighter criminal punishment.

The real difficulty though, ignoring the criminal cases, is that the government "can't" accept a forfeiture without an admission of guilt sufficient to support the forfeiture.

If PS admits to that level of guilt (operating an illegal gambling business) they won't be able to acquire a gambling license in the US, so they might as well take their chances in court.
I don't see this as a problem.
I'm not sure they need to admit guilt, as opposed to just facts sufficient to support the forfeiture, if anything at all.

If you go down to administrative forfeiture (not applicable for prop. over $500k) it says this needs to be included in the settlement

Quote:
"A provision whereby the claimant/defendant agrees and states that the property to be forfeited administratively was connected to the illegal activity as proscribed by the applicable civil forfeiture statute" (e.g., money to be forfeited is in fact proceeds from illegal drug trafficking);
But it doesn't say it for civil or criminal forfeiture. It says this for a civil forfeiture accompanied by criminal plea agreement, "in the plea agreement, Dmust admit to facts sufficient to support the forfeiture."

A Judge in a criminal case can accept a guilty plea accompanied by a protestation of innocence as long as he inquires into a factual basis for the plea. So if they do not to state facts sufficient to support a forfeiture, couldn't they say "Yes, we offered gambling over internet in the US," "yes, we ran funding through US banks." "Yes, we did X and X agreed upon facts that were alleged" while in no way admitting that any of those activities violated U.S. law.

Also, with a civil forfeiture the D doesn't have to concede facts sufficient to support a forfeiture. That's only for a criminal forfeiture. Because the criminal case is only against the people (Scheinberg, Bitar, etc.), couldn't a company settlement come apart from that and only follow the civil forfeiture procedure where no admission of facts is required?
07-21-2012 , 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by modsrgoat
I just can't handle this fooking sheet thread! Am I getting my money under or over 50% of the time like within a year?
Nobody knows jack ****, this thread will not change one bit till the cows come home. You are wasting your time and ours posting here. Have a nice day.
07-21-2012 , 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle03
I don't see this as a problem.
I'm not sure they need to admit guilt, as opposed to just facts sufficient to support the forfeiture, if anything at all.

If you go down to administrative forfeiture (not applicable for prop. over $500k) it says this needs to be included in the settlement



But it doesn't say it for civil or criminal forfeiture. It says this for a civil forfeiture accompanied by criminal plea agreement, "in the plea agreement, Dmust admit to facts sufficient to support the forfeiture."

A Judge in a criminal case can accept a guilty plea accompanied by a protestation of innocence as long as he inquires into a factual basis for the plea. So if they do not to state facts sufficient to support a forfeiture, couldn't they say "Yes, we offered gambling over internet in the US," "yes, we ran funding through US banks." "Yes, we did X and X agreed upon facts that were alleged" while in no way admitting that any of those activities violated U.S. law.

Also, with a civil forfeiture the D doesn't have to concede facts sufficient to support a forfeiture. That's only for a criminal forfeiture. Because the criminal case is only against the people (Scheinberg, Bitar, etc.), couldn't a company settlement come apart from that and only follow the civil forfeiture procedure where no admission of facts is required?
I honestly don't know, in B&M licensing, the company can pay gaming fines and admit to mistakes, because the license is tied to the person, not the assets.

If an operator loses his license for rigging gambling equipment e.g., they don't destroy all the equipment, they license a new operator.

Party signed off on this:

Quote:
PartyGaming has now acknowledged that this conduct did in fact violate certain U.S. criminal laws, including sections 1955 (illegal gambling), 1343 (fraud by wire communications), and 1344 (bank fraud) of Title 18 of the United States Code.
But since they voluntarily left the market, no one expects them to have licensing issues, but if PokerStars signed off on the same wording, post UIGEA, it might be a death sentence - depending on the licensing scheme.

My suspicion, based on nothing but rumor, is that PokerStars doesn't want to acknowledge having done anything wrong, yet somehow forfeit a pile of cash, and I don't see a way to structure that type of settlement.
07-21-2012 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bene Gesserit
Nobody knows jack ****, this thread will not change one bit till the cows come home. You are wasting your time and ours posting here. Have a nice day.
This should probably be added to the OP, really.
07-21-2012 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
A statute doesn't provide for extraterritorial application simply because it 'doesn't say it doesn't', extraterritoriality must be written into the statute, and even the statute they are trying to use to seek the forfeiture of PokerStars foreign assets (IGBA) has no extraterritorial language.
Um, hello? This statute deals with fugitives who are outside of the US and you think there is an issue about whether it applies extraterritorially? lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
Neither is a person a fugitive simply because he resides extra-territorially and you charge him with a crime, so this motion fails on three different levels, but succeeds on the only relevant one to both parties: pausing the proceedings.
Yeah, uh, I made this point myself. But the statute does provide that it applies to people who live outside the US, know of the process against them, and refuse to reenter the US to avoid prosecution. You made the absurd argument that the statute didn't apply to foreign nationals or foreign corporations, and that is just lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
If you believe in the chances of the DOJ getting a summary judgement, I'll give you 5:1 odds that they don't, my $500 to your $100.
I don't gamble. I play poker.
07-21-2012 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim
Exactly my point. Bitar's return is part of the process of moving FTP assets and liabilities through the DOJ and onto a 3rd party, namely PokerStars. There are a number of practical and legal reasons as to why Bitar would prefer to be in the US if and when this occurs. The only reason not to come was the criminal charge.

But the DOJ didn't even allow him to surrender, arrested him coming off the plane with a superseding indictment, and opposed bail. This very strongly suggests that the criminal case consequences of his return were not negotiated in any way in advance of his return.

I am not saying I know for certain, just that the above seems to indicate to me that the FTP civil case and Bitar's criminal case are not being negotiated together.

Skallagrim
Bitar's return and subsequent arrest has done nothing, from what I can see, to help a deal go through. Care to share how it helps the deal go through (because I'm a pessimist and can't see it)? Last time I checked, the deadline came and went and now all parties are taking this thing to court.
07-21-2012 , 05:35 PM
I don't believe Ivey won 19 million playing online.. Unless perhaps you say he won 19 million and lost 24 million... That sounds a bit more accurate
07-21-2012 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNB
heres an idea that might help. It would prevent a mass withdraw on the day FTP2 opens.

ROW players: every 60 days they get 1/4 of their balance that they can gamble with but they can not cashout for 60 days at which time another 1/4 is unlocked with the same conditions. If you don t want to gamble, thats fine, wait the 60 days then cashout. So every 60 days you could cash out 1/4 of your balance

US players: They get 1/4 of their balance every 60 days at the sametime ROW to make it fair for all. And of course deduct phanton deposits from any balance.

players could chip dump but why take a chance on having your account closed and funds seized when you can wait 60 days.

No player to player transfers with restricted balances.
When did we start thinking mass withdrawals were an issue?

Obviously stars is expecting a fair amount of immediate withdrawal requests and has the money to cover them.

It's only an issue if you're trying to pull a GBT and buy the company for nothing without actually having to pay anyone.
07-21-2012 , 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
I honestly don't know, in B&M licensing, the company can pay gaming fines and admit to mistakes, because the license is tied to the person, not the assets.

If an operator loses his license for rigging gambling equipment e.g., they don't destroy all the equipment, they license a new operator.

Party signed off on this:

But since they voluntarily left the market, no one expects them to have licensing issues, but if PokerStars signed off on the same wording, post UIGEA, it might be a death sentence - depending on the licensing scheme.

My suspicion, based on nothing but rumor, is that PokerStars doesn't want to acknowledge having done anything wrong, yet somehow forfeit a pile of cash, and I don't see a way to structure that type of settlement.
Kinda off-point, but related, PartyPoker non-prosecution agreement was separate from its founder's pleading gulity. Party Poker founder, Dik**** (that's his real name...), faced 2 years and got 1 year probation because of his serious cooperation, voluntarily returning, etc.

However, at Dik****'s sentencing hearing (2010):
Quote:
"Judge Rakoff challenged a government prosecutor wondering why there have been no other prosecutions, specifically mentioning Dik****’s fellow PartyGaming cofounders, Americans Ruth Parasol DeLeon and her husband Russell DeLeon. “Nobody else has been indicted,” said Judge Rakoff. “It has been two years since this defendant began cooperating, what’s going on?”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Arlo Devlin-Brown said that the investigation that involved Dik**** remains ongoing, pointing to sealed papers the government filed with the court. “There are challenges in this prosecution,” said Devlin-Brown, adding that Dik**** had asked to settle the case at its very early stages. “It has been two years and there are reasons.”
So even with Dik**** spilling all of the beans, Devlin-Brown couldn't bring a case against Partypoker's other founders. I know Partypoker didn't violate post-2006 laws, but still, you gotta think Devlin-Brown knows he faces a ton of those same challenges here.

Quote:
Indeed, even Mark Pomerantz, Dik****’s lawyer, said during the hearing that he and his colleagues had discussed the confusing circumstances surrounding the case “hundreds of times.” In arguing for no jail time, Pomerantz highlighted Dik****’s $300 million payment and said Dik****, who is a citizen of India with no ties to the U.S., had originally been told by some lawyers that it was unlikely he would be charged, and even if he was charged the chances of extradition were slim. “The acceptance of responsibility is extraordinary,” said Pomerantz. “He wanted to square his accounts with the U.S.”
07-21-2012 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starvingwriter82
When did we start thinking mass withdrawals were an issue?

Obviously stars is expecting a fair amount of immediate withdrawal requests and has the money to cover them.

It's only an issue if you're trying to pull a GBT and buy the company for nothing without actually having to pay anyone.
I was thinking more in general terms on how to payout and avoide a rush. It would give a new owner a chance atleast. When BF hit, alot of ROW players withdrew their money from FTP and PS . If PS buys them, then like you said, they have the money to ride it out,
07-21-2012 , 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokur
I don't believe Ivey won 19 million playing online.. Unless perhaps you say he won 19 million and lost 24 million... That sounds a bit more accurate
http://www.highstakesdb.com/profiles/Phil-Ivey.aspx
07-21-2012 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Glantz
The blah blah blah was just a bunch of nonsense. So much so that there is no reason to perpetuate the nonsense.
I would like to hear the blah blah and determine if it was nonsense for myself. You cant just hang a piece of steak in front of thousands of angry lions and say "im not going to share with you"
07-21-2012 , 06:19 PM
Couldn't stop LMAO...

Howard Lederer on Business Ethics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS7Cv...eature=mh_lolz

      
m