I was going to respond to this saying how every lawyer thinks anothers complaint is poorly written. Then I read page 5, line 7.

TMZ has no idea what they are writing about.

The plaintiffs are suing full tilt for rigging the card generator. Not using "robots" of their own.

I just hope he isn't charging them 10 or 20 thousand an hour for his fine work! I actually forwarded this to a second year Law student who was a paralegal for me, she said she broke her chair laughing so hard after reading that complaint.

Wrong.

What would be the most interesting is if the libel suit actually went forward and a jury got to decide whether she was botting or not.

This is the impression I got as well. We'll see what happens. I actually think the libel cause of action is the most likely to withstand the inevitable msj, and it will probably prove fortuitous of the atty to slap that on there at the end.

"31. The Individual Defendants and Full Tilt ignored this evidence and confiscated in excess of $80,000 in the Full Tilt accounts of Kennedy and/or Omotoy (whose account Kennedy utilized after Omotoy abandoned the game) on or about January of 2008."

Cant believe he put this in the complaint. I mean this admission is enough to allow FTP to confiscate her funds isn't it?

hahaha

Congrats you found the hidden gem I was hinting at when I said it wasn't a well written complaint. I noticed this as well, and it does violate FTP's TOS. How it plays into the case we will see, but that was really really really stupid to put into the complaint. They are admitting account sharing people.....no more needs to be said.....throw the blanket over it and put it to sleep.

One last point, when was the last time anyone saw a RICO Complaint in a Civil Complaint?

Just wondering, why PartyPoker owners were arrested and fined several times in US, but FTP not? Having in mind that PTY pulled from US, and FTP not.

It's because PartyGaming have sports betting.

I don't think it was stupid at all. When she was posting on 2+2 it was implied that FTP told her "no matter whether you used bots or not you played on another account, so get lost". So they put it in the complaint to preempt Tilt lawyers calling her a liar because she wouldn't disclose this fact.

Strange, if this was the only reason.

From: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/1...ith-us-doj.htm

Party never did sports betting in the US, but they did casino games (BJ). Dik**** admitted to Wire Act because it carries much lower jail time than bank fraud or other offenses.

To overcome the problem of the bulletin board software automatically censoring a valid name, I suggest we start referring to the head of Party Gaming as Anurag .

"24. So many of the comments in here are completely uninformed. I've been in the Online Gaming inustry for 7 years. Without naming specific companies I can definitively guarantee you a few things:

1. Bots run rampant on numerous high profile sites.
2. Many of the networks out there will monitor you and your winnings, play behaviour and adapt shuffling algorithms accordingly.
3. The assertion that 1/3 of all players win is stupid. An online poker room profits from RAKE and not from the wins and losses of the players. Think about it, if 1/3 of poker players win 2/3 of them lose. That was by FAR the stupidest comment I have heard.
4. Bot exist in these online poker rooms to keep the hands going, thus increasing the rake and the overall profit of the poker room.

I'm not sure why I had to comment on it but I read some pretty stupid uninformed and ignorant comments there from "professional" online poker players. There is a reason these poker rooms make money and clearly 99.99% of your poker geniuses have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Posted at 2:13PM on Oct 2nd 2009 by Dan Nedelko"

it does appear the guy is what he says http://dannedelko.com/.

Lots of people like to pretend to be a lawyer, but their ignorance of the law and its terminology quickly exposes them. Poster rngri4 is somehow amazed to a see a RICO cause of action in a civil complaint.

Note the words "cause of action". The individual claims in a complaint are called "causes of action"; the complaint is the whole document. It is gibberish to write about a "RICO Complaint in a Civil Complaint", thus exposing rngri4's lack of legal qualifications.

The answer to his question is that anyone who practices law in the United States regularly sees "a RICO Complaint in Civil Complaint", or to rephrase in the manner a lawyer would write it, regularly sees " a RICO cause of action in a Civil Complaint".

Here is a great site by a civil RICO specialist concerning civil RICO and its use: http://www.ricoact.com. The owner of the site, an actual lawyer, unllike rngri4, writes that
"Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context."

rngri4 is thus a fake; if he were somehow an actual lawyer, god help his clients.

lol @ lawyerments

It's interesting that they chose to include the stuff about FTP cheating and breaking laws with sillysal's specific case, which seems completely unrelated. I can only assume this is a scare tactic to force FTP to settle. I suspect it will work, FTP will write sillysal a check for $80k in a closed settlement, and this will die quickly.

this is an interesting lawsuit, i cant wait to see the outcome.

If Dan Nedelko is right about bots in the industry, we ought to know that. I'm not sure why he would make such a claim if he intends to continue working in the business. I'm not sure about a lot of the information I'm reading. I do have one thought: unless you work in the industry, how could you possibly know if bots are being used or not? The online industry leaders (yes, Howard, that means you) ought to figure out how to prove to us that bots are not used. If they cannot, then we will always suspect that we are being victimized by the equivalent of loaded dice or worse. Since online poker is not regulated in any legitimate sense of the word, none of us should feel safe playing online. How do we know that the game is legitimate? If Dan is right, we are victims in a stacked game.

yes, this did rather stick out to me. if his website is correct - which, by looking at how comprehensive it is, i have little reason to doubt - then he has an impressive, relevant CV, and he makes some specific, and very worrying, allegations.

I want to read a Full Tilt denial of the use of bots at any table. Sorry, but botter customers are bad, and poker site bots are just as bad, and neither should be tolerated.

So, Full Tilt, my apologies if you've already clearly stated somewhere that you do not use bots on your site and I missed it, but...

How about letting the world know this suit is bogus and you absolutely do not use bots on any real money table?

I have a little money on Full Tilt, and I'd be really relieved to read it. Have they denied this anywhere?

I don't know if FTP uses bots or not but I wish they did and they all came and sat at my table. It's got to be easier to beat bots then a thinking player.

Are those allegations on his website? Because someone commenting and claiming to be Dan Nedelko doesn't actually make them Dan Nedelko.

Edit to add: Also, if it is him, I see nothing in his resume that makes him qualified to comment on the issue. As a matter of fact, I would assume most players would know more about bots and shuffling algorithms than he wood as an Internet Marketer. Perhaps he could have inside information, but nothing in his CV indicates that he does.

Bots don't get tired or angry or frustrated. They don't get sick of bluffy shovers and have to fight the temptation to loosen up after being card dead for hours. Bots don't get distracted by the kids or the TV or the neighbor's lawn mower.

They're also better than they used to be, and if they're anything like chess programs, they'll keep getting better.

At the very least, any site that uses bots should have to make that fact known to its customers, and should guarantee players that the bots 'break even' rather than add to the site's profits.