Just popping in here to say +1 more for an open dialogue as Ike/Mason/etc have suggested. Todd Terry has a valid point, but I think in this case it would be too easy for Paul/a UB rep to just sidestep questions and change the focus if it is done in an interview format.

I agree with Ike that ideally it would be a thread on 2p2 where a short list of approved people can post, but we all can view. It would be a shame if it was just an open thread as the signal-to-noise ratio would make it nearly unreadable. It would also be a lot easier to just avoid the serious question if they are drown out by hundreds of other posts.

It's highly unlikely that something like this will really get put together, but I really hope it does. If Joe really wants as much of the truth to come out as possible, I think he should be able to find a way to make this happen.

Ummm, No.

JS threatened Jon to stop talking about UB and brought up his GF. Jon viewed this as blackmail and went public with it. JS later "apologizes" saying it wasn't blackmail. Jon then asks why in his long "apology" he never apologizes for bringing up his GF. JS then responds with a comment that can only be interpreted as him admitting he was blackmailing Jon and his GF.

I don't see how anyone can now NOT view his original DM as a threat when JS himself said "You know exactly why I mentioned her"

JS should have just said "You're right Jon, your GF has no place in our bickering, I'm sorry for mentioning her", but he didn't.

Mike and Adam are awesome and have been solid on the UB issue in general, but I don't think that they know enough about this ridiculously nuanced story to be our sole representatives in a conversation with Paul. If this does happen, it pretty much has to be done in writing and with a number of voices present.

Ideally, 2p2 would provide a thread or a forum in which Paul and other UB reps could talk with a limited group of posters. Obviously this would include mods, admins, people currently involved in the ongoing investigation (haley, mookman, elevengrover, etc), people who were cheated, and people who were involved in the original investigation. And, of course, there would be a separate discussion thread in NVG.

Hopefully Paul would agree to something like this, but IIRC, UB "reached out" to 2p2 not too long ago and then simply stopped responding to e-mails from Mason?

I haven't been posting itt because I have nothing left to say, and because a lot of smart people have made any points i could.

I do want to clarify that there couldn't be anything joe knows about us that would be embarrassing to us now that joe has gone on record claiming he does indeed have something he could reveal publicly to embarrass us.

Likely won't happen. In the first place the arrogance shown by Mason in his comments earlier typifies why I do as little as possible of this stuff via 2+2. Second, I already tried to contribute to this type of thing once (the CardRunners podcast) after being pressured to do so, and in my opinion the results were terribad. I don't think Paul would appear in such a context and I don't think Joe has the facts people seek, so it's an exercise in futility. And I'm doing just fine plugging along on my own.

R.I.P. Elizabeth Taylor [/end derail].

Haven't read beyond this post yet but I think this is spot on. I don't think you can have it both ways, Joe.

Hey 2+2,
Yesterday was a bit of a debacle and in all honesty I was overwhelmed once I sat down. I'm not a forum guy, meaning I don't normally post in them, and when a few of you got a little aggressive, I got overly defensive and reacted in kind. I'm going to continue to try and post here occasionally though, as I feel it's important. I am going to take my time and respond slower to ensure I don't get defensive, regardless of the questions that come in. I will try and ignore the personal attacks.

With that said, let's try and find some common ground on some of this stuff:

1. There were many posts in this thread saying I must be an idiot to think that the original cheating ub management isn't still there. On the contrary, I don't know anyone who has kept up with the scandal who thinks the main suspects like Russ, Pierson, or Monsour are still involved. As Bob said, it's the old AP management that have questions surrounding them.

2. The hand history mystery seems to be over, yet there are numerous requests for an explanation in the thread and allegations that I didn't do what I promised. Both Haley + Travis Makar independently stated that they believe some hand histories were doctored and/or deleted before they were turned over to current ub. This, coupled with the hardware issues seems to explain the discrepencies in the HH's.

3. I was frequently criticized in this thread for not really knowing who owns Cereus. I don't think anyone really knows who owns Tilt or Stars either. We only "know" what we have been told. Howard Lederer has gone on record saying he was never involved in running Tilt, yet he was voted the most powerful person in poker. These companies are operating in a grey area in the US, so that kind of information doesn't get distributed very freely. The only people I'm sure are in management at Ub are the ones I deal with personally, Paul, Stuart Gordon, etc.

4. I understand it seems naïve to many of you that I believe what Paul Legget tells me, but his answers to me have always been consistent. For example, most of the sleuths told me to step down because there was definitive proof that brainwashdodo had been paid by Paul to keep silent about the scandal. I was called naïve for believing Paul. Yet now that the emails have surfaced, the experts admit that Paul was probably telling the truth. In all honesty, Paul has never not answered any question I have asked him, and he has always done what I asked him to do. Myself, Paul, etc have made mistakes. I've freely admitted that all along. I simply don't believe that he, or anyone else in the current company, were the real culprits that you want in all of this. I just don't. I understand all of the anger that many of you have. I feel that sometimes it is misdirected at the wrong people.

5. People want more compensation for Brad Booth and others who have been damaged by the scandal. I certainly agree that people's money has been stolen and lives may even have been ruined. However, I have never had a reason to believe the people responsible are involved in the current company. It will make my life easier when Haley, Mook, Travis and others eventually solve this. I wish we could hear the tape that Travis owns, which Paul has expressed as well. We want this information to come out. Incidentally, Travis did say that Paul was not present on that tape.

6. I have been called irrelevant in the "hunt for the ub killers" as you guys call it. In truth, I wouldn't totally disagree. I've worked off of second hand information which I have given to others who I felt could use it better than I could. I have continually asked questions in order to get answers I could write about so that others could use that information to poke into things. On numerous occasions I wondered if I was going to lose my job. There are only so many times that you can ask your boss, "Are you sure? Are you lying to me?" before he simply gets tired of hearing that. To his credit, Paul has always been patient and answered. Maybe I was guilty of setting too high of expectations for myself with you guys, as if I could personally find the cheaters and get all the information/data. Let me reset those here: I am a conduit for information. At the end of the day, I have to admit I have no power to uncover this stuff myself. With that said, I think things are many, many times improved in the last two years and we know much more information than we did. If you deem me totally irrelevant and would rather have me not post, then I understand that. For the record, most of what I do at UB no longer has to do with the scandal. I work on the marketing, pro team, social media, among other things.

7. I have gotten too defensive and made matters worse in this thread and at other times. I obviously don’t like being called a liar, cheater, scumbag, etc when I know that I am not. Also, I've screwed up in a few other ways in this thread besides being overly defensive. First, I invited questions that I couldn't answer. Secondly, I tried to reason with people who don't like me and the company I work for, and who are only reading my words to find a way to attack them. I can correct both of those, and I will.

I want to make one thing clear about Jon and his GF; I never had any intention at all of releasing anything about his GF. I feel bad that I bit on his comment yesterday.

I never meant anything I "said" to Jon to be public. It was never intended as blackmail. I was using my example to show him that I wouldn't try and embarrass him in public with anything I might know actually. According to Jon I don't even have the correct story.

So when Walt Larrick gives you confidential account info which you then send to Mookman, you consider this to be "second hand information"?

Did you consider questions of liability? Did you ask pertinent followups about more account info besides account number/address? Why won't you address this since it is the single area where you have actively participated in a meaningful fashion? If Cereus can provide names/numbers/addresses, why can't they provide the rest of the data?

Joe,
Maybe you could list the things that you have done to help Cereus security since you became a sponsored pro.

You originally said that you were joining team UB in order to help make things right. Now you say that your expectations were too high, but you still talk about how you used to do a lot of work on this issue and now that work has slowed down substantially (but presumably is still on going?). Maybe it would help if we knew what work you did in the past and what the now slower work entails.

The only thing that I know that you did was leaked a list that was given to you to be leaked by Cereus management. That list was mostly full of obviously fake names and addresses, so it's obvious that nobody put any effort into making sure that it contained true information. It also was simply a list with no accompanying evidence, so while leaking it may have tarnished the reputations of the real names on the list (which may deserve tarnishing), it provides no new evidence to those who are attempting to get to the bottom of this, nor does it provide anything that can be used in court.

Did you do anything else?

Well that answers my question about how come Haley etc have more time to dig up information than you do.

But Joe, when you signed with UB, the fact that you were there to work on the scandal was a huge part of your justification for doing it. And now you just toss in an "oh, I don't really deal with that any more" as a one-liner at the bottom of your 25th post on the subject. Don't you think you should have made this clear before now?

I'm also going to repost a question from the old thread that didn't get answered:

Haven't you acknowledged yourself that they tried to cover up the scandal at first? Doesn't that count as "actively help[ing] the individuals who cheated to.. get away with it" AND "attempt[ing] to hide facts to pay less money out in refunds"?

--end--

I'd also like to point out that I'm very deliberately asking you questions that you can answer, joe, and I think that they're all quite relevant. I'd appreciate actually getting a response.

I’ve not spent much time following the whole UB/AP scandal until the last few days, but somehow got sucked into the Jonathan/Joe DM threat thread and now this. After reading the vast majority of this thread and doing a little background research (primarily the work that Haley has done) I’ve come to a few conclusions regarding UB, Joe and their association. First, I am a software company CEO with extensive experience in dealing with crisis management caused by a loss of customer confidence, both as a marketer and an executive. I know the right and wrong ways to handle situations such as this and feel qualified to comment on what is going on here. With that being said, a few thoughts and/or conclusions:

- UB management has handled this entire issue about as badly as a management team could handle it. The playbook for dealing with something like this is clear and every MBA student in the land studies multiple cases on how to do it. The formula is really simple:

- Come clean. Completely clean. Identify every problem that existed and who was responsible. Punish (i.e. fire) those responsible. Bring to light every piece of data on what happened and why it happened. Do it with complete transparency and let outsiders crawl through it all. Let the authorities prosecute criminal activity. Make restitution.

- Develop and publish a plan to ensure that what happened before never happens again. Announce to the world who will implement the plan. Make them available to the world to answer questions. Again, let outsiders dissect your plan to make sure it will work.

- Execute the plan with complete transparency. Publish your milestones and your progress against them. Let outsiders review all the progress reports. Explain when you miss a milestone. Don’t make excuses.

It’s really not that hard. UB management either is not willing to or is not capable of following this process. I’m actually not sure which is worse, but I would say that it is probably the latter. They just plain don’t have the skills to execute in a way that will restore the confidence of the poker community.

- The next task is to make sure that every public face in the company (including Sebock, Baldwin, Levy, Friedman, etc…) understands the situation and can explain what has been done and what is being done to rectify the problem. It is clear that they have not done that. Either that, or their most prominent spokesperson (based on Twitter audience) is incapable of communicating a clear set of talking points. There have been those who have said (including Joe) that it is a good thing that UB is not controlling what he says. I think just the opposite, as it indicates a real lack of management control over the situation. I realize that many here would than say that Joe is nothing but a mouth-piece. But don’t you think if they were solving the problem they would want the world to know and that Joe would happily Tweet that success to the world? This isn’t happening and it is a further indication of the dire situation at UB.

- I can only conclude that Joe was sponsored by UB for two reasons – his family ties bring some legitimate poker industry credibility and his 1M Twitter followers. In fact, based on his posts in these two threads, I’d say that Joe is actually being used by UB, as he is basically flying without a net. He hasn’t helped himself with his own actions, but it is clear that he is an untrained, uneducated spokesperson for an at best incompetent , and at worst, wholly corrupt organization. I don’t know what this says about Joe personally, other than he probably has really poor judgment. And the money he’s being paid is really good.

Oddly, I believe that UB could actually still recover from this whole mess by executing the plan above. Consumers (and that is what we are here) are a very forgiving lot. But, I seriously doubt that the management and leadership skills are there to pull it off, let alone the willingness to do the hard work to get it done. Either way, this whole situation could make a really interesting business school case one day.

When I first signed with UB, I spoke with Paul on several occasions, as I needed to have his agreement with me that many mistakes were made, included not simply admitting the scandal when it happened. I believe that a good analogy is when a kid tells a lie about something they have done and that lie just continues to grow and grow and you have to keep telling lies in order to cover up the first one. This is what I think "New UB" was guilty of. Paul and I have talked about it and he agrees that these kind of mistakes were made.

Now, the true worst part of that equation comes into play, at least for me. These decisions were made initially, to try and keep things internal and deal with it before it got public. The company had just been purchased and now they realize it ends up being full of cheating holes. They wanted to "fix" that obviously, for their own reasons (tarnished reputation, business running, etc). A terrible byproduct of that was that indirectly the actual cheaters were benefiting because of this. While "New UB" was panicking about the situation and trying to control it, it also appeared that they were trying to cover up for the cheaters. I think this ends up being one of the single biggest mistakes, as both groups have then been grouped together and made to look the same. In my mind, this whole situation is living proof that honesty was the best policy here.

At any rate, this was something that was covered early on and that I stated was admitted to and was the reason I felt that I could come on board, to answer your question.

Hi Joe,

I'd be happy to help explain. Here's the thread where the shills were discovered, starting at post 23:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...posure-843900/

Here are the most pertinent posts:

Now you've said that you know of many sites that pay people to post on sites; I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to hear which sites are doing this. So far, Cereus is the only one I've actually seen doing it. I'd hate to think your post was some kind of "but the other sites are doing it too" obfuscation without any proof like Phil Hellmuth's claim that "Sometimes these things happen on the Internet".

Technically, this statement is true. We do have many representatives from different poker sites posting here on 2+2. Of course they identify themselves as site representatives, and come to us to be authorized to post as a site representative.

But the problem in this case was that these people were apparently posting without identifying themselves. The only other time I can remember something like this happening had to do with the CEO Poker Tour and the problems associated with it that were also exposed here.

Best wishes,
Mason

Players pay rake to poker sites, in part, for the service of providing fair games. If they drop the ball on this and let their customers get cheated, they owe it to those customers to reimburse them. They may or may not be legally obligated to, and operate in such murky legal territory that such an obligation would probably be hard to enforce, but if they expect anyone to ever play on their site again after a scandal of this sort it's what they have to do.

To go along with your example, suppose you have the choice of two or more stores to shop at. Suppose being robbed by the teller is a serious concern. Suppose one of those stores guarantees that if you are robbed by the teller they will reimburse you and one of them says "not our fault, go get the money from the guy who took it." Which store are you shopping at?

Also, all of this ignores that it is far from accepted fact that the cheating was not a large scale conspiracy in which many owners and managers of UB were actively involved or at least knowingly complicit.

Joe,

I think it would be great if you could clear up exactly why you place so much faith in Paul.

Paul and the current management definitely took place in the early cover-up, right? That means they absolutely lied in the past. Do you not think it is a reasonable assumption that if they would lie about a multimillion dollar theft, that they would then continue to lie in their own interest on down the line even if they realized the cover-up was a bad idea?

Does that not make it at least slightly more possible that Paul has been lying to you even though he has answered every question and maintained consistent answers?

Even if you think there is no way Paul and the management have continued to lie, don't you at least think that their participation in the cover-up has placed the burden 100% on them to absolutely prove their separation from the cheaters?

I just don't understand why you require proof from those that assert the bad guys are still around while it seems you take Paul at his word. I say it seems you didn't require proof from Paul because:

A) You don't know who the owners are.
B) You stated you put a tremendous amount of faith in him.
C) I have seen no evidence that the bad guys are gone, only claims by in press releases and statements.

I hope you see that I am not trying to attack you with this post. I am simply trying to get you to look at it from a different angle. Hopefully you will now understand more why we are so reluctant to take your or Paul's or UB's word that the cheaters are all gone. It is because you, Paul, and UB have not embraced the burden to prove that fact or to be transparent about it.

Best,
Jordan

From what I have seen Joe likes to place the blame at others in the industry for UB's mistakes. "All sites do shady things".
I too would like to know who Joe is referring to in regards to paying for 2+2/forum shills.

I preditct that Joe will leave UB in the near future. It has reached a point where he is effectively admitting that he cannot contribute anything more to the investigation. It is apparent that he tried (albeit, less than successfully).

If he stays with UB in the face of the fact that the vague assurances Mr Leggett gave him are not satisfactory and do not adequately answer pertinent questions in the eyes of the community, then he simply must give up his 'I'm a conduit for information' claim.

The information that actually matters is not forthcoming; Joe now has two choices: he can leave UB because he cannot help to uncover any more truth (his major reason for signing initially), or he can fully give himself up to the dark side and continue to get paid with the cheated community's money.

The humble 'I am doing the best that I can. We all want the truth' stance has worn thin, because, simply, actions speak louder. His attempt to straddle the line between respected community member and UB spokesperson hinged on the fact that he claimed he was trying to help the community uncover the truth. He has admitted ITT that the cheating scandal is now no longer something that he devotes much work towards.

As it stands, then, he can offer nothing more to the poker community in terms of the scandal. I expect that he will resign from UB, given their CURRENT management's gross (almost comical) mishandling of the situation; Joe has repeatedly stated that he works for UB because he trusts Paul Leggett, but with every day that goes by, Mr Leggett's refusal to address the important questions looks worse and worse on himself, on the company, and makes an even bigger mockery of Joe (who effectively vouched for Leggett).

If he doesn't resign, and he has admitted that he can no longer offer worthwhile assistance to uncovering the truth, then he is nothing better than a sellout. His bosses pay him with the money stolen from the very community whose members Joe purports to sympathise with.

The situation is at a crossraods; Joe must resign or admit that he has sold out.

No problem. Let me know your account(s) and I will get them for you.

You don't have to like my reasoning, Noah. I think my analogy is apt though. The bottom line for me is this: I don't think that the people running the company now are the cheaters. I think they have clearly made some mistakes, but I wanted to try and make things better, which is why I signed. Would I do it for free? Obviously not. It's a job. They pay me well, I don't think that they committed the cheating, and I think that they truly want the story out, but don't have the ability as Paul, Stuart, etc don't actually know how it all went down because they weren't there when it did all go down. Again, that's why I am hoping that others can uncover it through things like Travis' tape, etc.

The truth is that when something negative happens in a company they typically try to handle it internally almost always. The same thing happened here, only to a much more foolish and grossly mistaken degree. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely not. But that doesn't make them the cheaters and that was enough for me to start working with them, hopefully attempt to make things better. You don't have to agree with my reasoning. I understand if you don't, but it is my reasoning.

Just wanted to add, I don't think that UB knew how big this thing was going to get at first. It just kept getting bigger and bigger, with more layers upon more layers. We don't always hear when there is a cheating scandal on every site, as often it is a very small incident. The site makes a few refunds and generally it is in it's best interest to deal with it internally. Sadly, it just kept getting bigger and the decision was poorly made to keep just trying to deal with it without releasing. Obviously it was the wrong decision. I think that answers the last part of your question.

I have often wondered the same thing, basically if UB was going to fire me. In many ways I keep this thing more alive than it would be without me.

I know you guys don't want to hear this, but current UB is in a tough spot with this stuff. Most of you do not believe anything that we say, which I'm not saying is undeserved, and from their point of view this wasn't their crime, although they obviously contributed to blurring the understanding when it started to come out.

Often people want UB to open up as to who their shareholders and owners are, but that's just not something that they can do. Those people want to remain private and I think that's understandable from a business standpoint. I have been told that anyone involved in the cheating, Scott Tom, etc are no longer involved in that group however.

Joe,

I have asked a single line of questioning several times which you continue to ignore. I would like to know why you were able to release confidential information about conspirators? I would also like to know why you tried to get PokerNews to allow you to guide the information into a favorable story. A story which they walked away from and then ended up as managed journalism on Wicked Chops Poker. Finally, why won't the company provide additional account details to forum investigators so we may actually bring resolution to the crimes?

If you won't answer questions willingly about an act of commission on your part in selling a specific narrative, I would suggest forum mods direct you to do before you can continue to discuss a belief system about your place of employment.

Scott Bell

Paul claims to have been brought on as a consultant in 2007 to manage the merger of the two companies. He was made interim COO in early 2008 IIRC, a title later made permanent on the Tokwiro website. His background is operations, not finance.