Even this is false. Remember Phil Ivey who didn't get his deposited money from a London casino yet didn't do anything criminal?

Black Friday is completely irrelevant as precedent because at that time PokerStars intentionally offered it's service to players in the USA and it wasn't about the rights of the players vs Pokerstars, but about Pokerstar violating federal law.

That was for taking advantage of a card flaw, not taking his winnings for advantaged play. 2 different things

So if the facts here presented are correct it sounds like Stars waits for known VPNers to have big scores before busting them and confiscating their dough. Pretty shady IMO, but what else is new?

While visiting the IOM recently, I raised the issue with some local counsel of IOM expectations for licensed operators re GDPR.

I was informed that IOM gambling license-holders will be expected by the IOM Gambling Supervisory Commission to comply with GDPR provisions.

(I raised the issue of the IOM not being in the EU, but was assured that hair would not be split to avoid application of the GDPR. )

Unlike the recent exodus of customer accounts at Facebook from their Ireland EU nexus, https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebo...pr-protection/
it seems unlikely that any operator with IOM-licensed B2C business will dodge application of the GDPR to those customers' data.

That is not to say Stars customers whose accounts are regulated outside the EU, such as in NJ, will necessarily get GDPR type rights.

nothing else on the news front sadly, people still keep playing @crookstars

Actually it is quite a smart and effective policy.

Whether they knew he was a VPNer or not it is most efficient to randomize checking of big winners. What a great deterrent for others.

No tears for Vayo

Sorry, your post is nonsensical. I am pretty sure that there is a crime lurking somewhere if you obtain services under the false pretense of complying with TOS, try "fraud" perhaps ?

I suspect that there is no blanket "rule" across B&M casino jurisdictions governing forfeiture of card-counting profits if game rules clearly are violated.

I don't know where you get your analysis from, but you seem more interested in advocating a blanket point of view than understanding or addressing the variety of issues involved.

Pokerstars' is not saying he defrauded anyone, otherwise they'd have bumped everyone in pay.

Did I say there was? I said casinos will likely ban you for advantaged play, but still have to pay you your winnings. I also said using a computer to help with the count can result and seizure and prosecution, which it can... It is ultimately up to the private company whether to ban an advantaged card counter and it is ultimately up to state/city AGs whether to prosecute for illegal device use.

Probably

"B&M industry, for instance, has to give you your card counting profits even though it's against their own rules,"

You did say that the B&M industry "has to give you your card counting profits". Sounds like a blanket assertion across an entire industry .... which is simplistic and ignorant.

There simply is no blanket set of rules about the conduct of B&M gaming operations like you seem to think ...

Do they get a tax deduction if they donate it to charity? Giving the money to Romania sounds shady as hell, like some pay-to-play scheme.

Donations made to the Human Fund, money for people!

This is what I said:
You said:
In what US jurisdiction is card counting without the use of a mechanical or computer device against the rules or illegal? And how is that a blanketed policy if I specifically talk about an exemption right below, which you failed to quote.

Nelson Rose is a fine attorney and a nice guy. He chooses to post general statements for free all the time.(It is marketing, and expect a plethora of statements from various members of the bar re sportsbetting.)

However, if you really want my specific answer to your follow-up questions about the law, the role of game rules under applicable regulations, whatever "exemption" you mean to reference, et cetera, you have to pay.

I'd be absolutely staggered if he had.
When he's home in Vegas, he doesn't play on Stars.

If you are going to play big tournaments with a chance of a big payout you would have to be pretty dumb to use a VPN ever, let alone during the tournament.

#free+rep!

Serious question, how have U.S. players fared on Stars using remote access or TeamViewer vs. VPN?

Your argument for people's things of value being bound to any and every clause in a TOS is some people will read it and let everyone know?

You think companies are bulletproof just because someone agrees to their TOS?

I would assume that's one major job of a companies legal team--figuring out what they can legally get away with in their TOS.
I dont see how they could add the no-cussing clause to TOS and keep people's money once lawsuits started flying, even when the customers agreed to the TOS. I also wouldn't think they'd be able to get away with keeping someone's current balance from a TOS infraction from 5 years prior, for example. I personally don't think it's fair if ,hypothetically, Vayo VPN'd and played from the US 6m prior, but they confiscated a current 700k tourney win where he was in Canada.

Maybe I have one or all of those wrong. But I think they're important to know. PS's investigation/confiscation procedure and actions need to be held to a standard. Afaik and have seen they can do whatever they want. That is why I'm interested in this case--I want to see someone challenge their balance confiscation and win.

They screwed over SNEs and got away with it because it was in their TOS.

If it had been worth challenging legally, someone would have. It wasn't.

If Pokerstars say he used VPN believe me that they are right. They have the best security in the world. I once opened virtualbox with pokerstars client open and they emailed me to answer some questions. In some hidden circles, people are talking about a secret protocol between Amaya and NSA.

He won't remember that because it didn't happen


para 31 of Judgement

Did Vayo play cash or a very high number of tournaments? If so, the cash forfeit might be based on losses not being recoverable (from other players) and winnings voided.

I think the IoM has similar unfair contract terms law to the UK, so a term that simply allows them to decide to take seize deposits for breach of a term would seem to be inherently unfair.

That is not what I said.

This is pretty much what I said, and that is why I kept saying that the person's point that Stars could change their ToS to make cussing a death penalty case to be a non starter.

This would fall in the category of "it depends." If he played with a VPN for a week 5 years prior and that was it - then this would be utterly inappropriate as a punishment.

If however he played a ton within the past year then realistically he put his account at risk, and a point I have made that nobody has touched is that how would it be fair to let him go when others are following the rules in this regard.

If playing 6 months ago is fine then how about 5 months or 4 months or 3 months etc.



If the details come out it will certainly not surprise me if there is more meat to the bone with the behavior of the world renowned player than the ginned up attorney presented, and while I certainly agree that the investigation techniques could be more transparent, the reality is that in the VAST majority of these cases the end result is that the actions of those caught tend to deserve the outcome they receive for this company. A similar outrage was had for the player who also had 6 figures taken from him until pictures of him at a live event in Florida the same day as his big Stars win appeared.

So, If they can take his winnings, can he at least deduct his losses from before? (If he was losing)

They should just cut these people immediately, not wait for a big score and then attack them. It's good business for them, so not surprised Stars do it.

No, of course no organisation has the right to do that in any modern western democratic system.

The idea that you can confiscate a million dollars because they made one real money transaction from inside the USA is obviously absurd and nonsense. No court uphold that.

No, that's not what it says. The current .COM Terms of Service currently says:

The first sentence clearly limits the "attempt to circumvent" restriction to "persons located in a Prohibited Jurisdiction".