Dear Lipo Fund,

1) so you are saying the owner of DTD is the main advisor to GVC regarding poker and owns and operates Partypoker Live, under some kind of agreement with who, Tom Waters? GVC? - so, therefore, surely there is a major conflict of interest or are there agreements between all the parties governing roles, companies, online versus bricks and mortar brands and responsibilities etc? Where's the transparency? No wonder they don't like all this known publicly.

2) PPL$ and staked players - the main issue I and many others had was the large number of staked players into the events in Nottingham, including the main event whereby I and others know 100% that there were players with little or no PPL$ being put into multiple events with multiple buy-ins and who advised us that they get a % and the rest goes back to BRS. These "horses" were staked into tens of thousands of pounds of entries each. How is this being explained away? It is not a fair practice and is not hearsay. I have no idea about funds going back to PP/PPL from cashes but for sure I know about the return of funds to BRS. The "restriction" of players by BRS in using PPL$ to enter as you have put is complete and utter fiction and a slap in the face for those who have posted otherwise. You have literally read these messages and taken their word for it, trying to convert that into fact, which is not the case. Why do you think that no official party has come forth and offered any kind of suggestion regarding the same? Officially audit the players going into the events, audit the flow of funds and then make it all public - but of course, we know this will not happen.

3) For me, if a public statement was made by the organisation(s) responsible then that would satisfy me. It would have to be completely transparent, explain fully the legal and beneficial relationships and clear up as a minimum the staking of players with limited or no PPL$ into events and the flow of returning funds should they cash.

I simply wish to go to these events, buy into them myself and enjoy a week of poker playing against a reasonable field that is in no way house-backed and that the guarantees are made 100% of cash and not horses.

Lipo Fund, you appear to "clear up" much of your own OP however have started to try and explain away everyone else's posts, many of which are related to different issues and concerns. Whilst it is grand that you have found complete contentment in your resolution, it is wrong to become a virtual spokesperson for the entities which need to clear up the other issues as highlighted above.

Please note, I am a live player who plays many big buy-in events around the world of which Nottingham was one of them. I run a large multi-national tech Company and I have absolutely no wish to disclose my name as I do not trust all the characters and entities involved. In fact, far from it. It is not, as you aver, because I am "a first poster," which I find insulting and irrelevant, at least in my case. Your post smacks of somebody speaking from the organisations involved and trying to extinguish the fire.

I can only hope that other entities take action and that the truth behind the points above comes out publicly and cleanly, rather than a blanket denial or rebuttal of all points raised, not just your own.

Be lucky!

JP

Get out of robs arse mate

Nice post. Lets not forget that the same thing has been happening in regular online mtts every single day for years. I'm unsure if it still is but it definitely was, and on a large scale.

Many people were very critical of stars for their changes to the vip system and rake increases, and rightly so. They screwed the players over big time, and many players were very vocal about it, however to my knowledge no one ever got told that their business was no longer wanted as a result. With what Rob said to Lipo (not wanting the business of people who don't support party) is it any wonder that so many people created new accounts to post in this thread?

It seems to me that they are hoping people will take Lipo's post as their own statement and everything will be cool from now on. In my view Party really need to make a public statement of their own if they wish to regain the trust of players.

I don't think anyone aside from the competitors wants to see party fail. competition is obviously a good thing for the customers - we just want a level playing field in every way.

Have met and played with Rob a few times. He's a very nice guy and overall has contributed a huge amount of positive things to poker.

Yea no denial since it's none of our business. Confirmation that leaderboards were setup for stables, VIP status, affiliate status - ability to transfer funds as they see fit

none of our business tho

Oh yea and remember to have Party's back

First: I really hope Lipo Fund got his case straight.

But this case as a whole have heavily reinforced my own experiences with PartyPoker that something isn't really right with their core business. It's impossible to trust anything what their spokespersons claim right now, as they're clearly not admitting any wrongdoings, collusions or under-the-table-deals which would make them harder to operate in regulated gambling markets. Even those which have been proven.

We've seen lots of "inconvenient incidents" which clearly should be investigated by licensing authorities, and still it seems that unethical business practices (like eliminating overlay by using proxy players) have been continued until the very last events. Though right now it LOOKS like they're stopping to use such proxy players (I mean players like who play risk-free by retaining part of their cashes like their pros) in massive numbers (though pros still remain) and go on heavily adveritising their live events to players which of course is good. But it will cost them lot if they're unable to make LOTS OF players to attend.

But to trust PartyPoker they really should admit their past mistakes, make amends, promise that such stuff never happens again and get rid of people responsible. For like... Rob Yong never heard this case about BRS before Lipo Fund mentioned it to him despite it running wild for weeks? Fire him! He is clearly unable to do his job.

Looks like the sitdown never happened nothing on Pokernews

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/...t=pn-hp-hero-2

Marty, I'm genuinely glad that you feel your money is safe. Out of all the issues brought forth... players funds are paramount. I see that you are now happy with the direction of Party Poker and PPL.

Part 2: Was just a rehash of much already posted information about the types of arrangements stables have reached with Party Poker. A little redundant at this point.

Part 3: The Unresolved

This is a list of issues brought forth that still haven't been addressed by either Party Poker or PPL.

1) The movement of PPL$ between accounts of stable players? Is this going to continue despite it being against the T&C's? It would seem by Marty's recent dialogue with Rob Yong that the movement of PPL funds between stable users is going to continue. It seems that Rob Yong also has no issues with giving certain stables extra perks above and beyond what the T&C's state giving certain stables a competitive advantage over their competitors. This could lead to one stable falling while another rises. Considering the extremely close relationship between BRS and Rob Yong is this not a terrible conflict of interest?

2) The overlay filling. Having Rob's friend fly 50 people to play in Sochi to minimize the overlay could easily be returned by one of Leon's friends fly 50 players over to Nottingham to fill DTD's? Of course this is just done out of some guys kindness of heart. This isn't illegal and neither is being naïve.
Paul Jackson has been called every name in the book... but stupid isn't one of them. To suggest that Paul Jackson who runs a meticulous online stable based on precise win/loss rates in relation to rakeback/affiliate deals of players is going to throw any bleeding soul into a 5k where the player stands to make up to 40% of the total profit with no make up is beyond all reason of sanity. No stable is going to make money with this venture. Paul Jackson is not the type of shark to voluntarily lose his money in this venture.
So the question remains who is funding BRS's stable for Live Events? Rob Yong would certainly have the financial motivation to do so as any cashes go back to him via minimizing overlay. Another possibility that springs to mind is BRS is getting insane rb deals from Party Poker, well and above the listed rb offerings on the site, in exchange for filling all Live Overlays. After all Rob has recently stated that he has no qualms with offering certain perks to certain stables... and according to Marty, Rob Yong has been sort of a shot caller at Party Poker since 2014.

3) Transparency. This for many is the real kicker. Many people don't give a care what the rules are as long as they are privy to them ahead of time. This thread is just an attempt to unravel what the rules really are. In that regard a lot has been accomplished despite players not been able to speak freely. As Marty recently stated Rob Yong wants no one at his events if they are not on board with the direction Party Poker is taking. With that in mind it's no wonder this thread is filled with dummy accounts as publicly speaking out against PPL could easily get you banned from Casino's in the UK. And not just DTD as BRS has been involved in putting players into Live Events in Ireland as well. People speaking out against cloak and dagger deals and whispers shouldn't get a player banned and if nothing else Rob Yong should at the very least allow free speech without reprisal.
Do I think some competitors have jumped on the bandwagon to hurt PPL/Party... I have no proof and would be willing to post it if I did... but the answer is I don't have any proof. But I speculate there is a degree of that going on. But the vast majority is players whom have reached out are generally worried about being able to play cards at a Live venue due to publicly saying bad things about a very real unresolved situation.

Part 4: coming later.

Obviously.

Nice to see you would post proof of competitors orchestration if you had it.

Clearly posting suuggestions/claims without any proof is perfectly ok for you when it suits yourt agenda;

movement of PPL between stable player accounts - you have zero proof (other than from a player account to a central account and zero evidence that said PPL does not always go back exactly to the same player that won it)

"Paul Jackson who runs a meticulous online stable based on precise win/loss rates in relation to rakeback/affiliate deals"- you have zero evidence of how he runs his stable and on what basis- but yes it suits your argument to state it the way you have.

"where the player stands to make up to 40% of the total profit with no make up" you have zero proof of this statement as regards to BRS.

"could easily get you banned from Casino's in the UK" can you provide proof of any player being banned from Casinos in the UK on this basis.
If not then interesting that you find it "easily happeneing" if you have zero evidence of it ever previously happening

Keep up the crusade tho its obvious you only have the poker community best interest at heart and nothing more !!

It is beyond dispute that satellite tickets of all types, seats in the pre-PPL$ era, and PPL$ now were credited to BRS players as though they were cash. Anyone who tells you different is, at the very least, mistaken.

It is also very evident that BRS have provided fillers for live tournaments to meet guarantees or at the least reduce overlay. Paul Jackson was seen standing at the cash desk with a pocket full of plaques and buying in ‘his’ players way before the introduction of PPL$.

The idea that BRS ‘looked after’ their players PPL$ is very easy for them to prove. Show the audit trail for a random set of players who had multiple bullets in PPL events. It’s clearly all recorded because BRS kept meticulous records to ensure that the money went back to the player that won it.

As I stated I skipped over part 2 as screenshots of skype/Facebook of these transactions has been in abundance... although I could provide a few more.

Could you speculate on my agenda? I didn't realize that I had one besides the "calling a spade a spade" motto that seems constant in my 10 year posting history.

as expected you completely fail to address the questions

provide the evidence of your knowledge of how BRS analysed player performance that enables you to state what you stated."meticulous online stable based on precise win/loss rates in relation to rakeback/affiliate deals"

Provide evidence that players were given no make up entries getting up to 40% of their winnings.

Provide eveidence of any player that was banned from UK casinos (casinos) which is the basis on which you say people are setting up new annonymous accounts to support the agenda

Glad to hear that Lipo is confident of his funds. Is a huge amount to be worried about so thats a big positive.

There are still concerns with how BRS/DTD have been operating that has yet to be addressed.

Keep up the UKGC reports people and let them investigate.

So pokerpolice98 isn't getting berated for being a new poster? Good for you, I guess you have been accepted into the "let's bury this" gang.

Your continued "provide evidence, blah blah...." bs is ridiculous. Evidence would be provided to and by the relevant authorities (not to Mr "pokerpolice" lol) and would undoubtedly come in the form of witness statements and the bonafide results of audits/investigations. It certainly would not come from anything on here or social media. Even the list of players being staked into the events at Nottingham provided a while ago is not strictly proof of wrongdoing, even though many people including I know for certain that some of those players had little or no PPL$ to justify £20k+ of entries each. Nobody can provide evidence of live satellite collusion (for example) other than by witness statement either.

I agree with AKyouwin - let the GC and any other authorities do their work and maybe, just maybe, we will find out the truth....with witness, written or recorded evidence from their investigations.

Just because people cannot provide evidence other than through their own personal experiences, does not mean it is not true. I for one can attest to much of the live experience issues through my own knowledge of them, however only thorough independent investigations and audits can show anything concrete.

I sincerely hope that the proper investigations do take place, that any unfair or illicit practices are extinguished and that the parties in question can change their operations to allow their events to continue but transparently, fairly, properly and cleanly.

I guess we shall see though, right?

I have screenshots from BRS’s Facebook group showing players who have received PPL to their account. Some of these players have not won that amount in PPL, in my mind this disproves claims that players only used ppl that they themselves won. The amount players have won in PPL can be seen clearly on the PPL leaderboard. Yes, this is a first post, that is because I have created a new account due to my old account that posted the same information, being blocked and the post deleted. Anybody who wants these screenshots and details of the BRS players who had not won sufficient amounts, contact me at Georgeofjungle@mail.com. Do it quickly though, before this posts gets deleted, makes you wonder who is moderating this forum.

The main issue still exists. Partypoker LIVE is still entering people that are able to play recklessly and change the course of the game. Even Pokernews is noticing this.

Right now there is the 25k pp millions world going on in the Bahamas. They are still missing around 80 players to register on day 2 to hit the guarantee.
https://www.pokernews.com/tours/part...ips.246694.htm
"The partypoker Pros are Getting Active Early On"


I know there are a lot of guys out there saying "who cares if someone plays terrible?" but it actually is bad for almost everyone not involved. Lets assume its the last hand of late registration, the guarantee has not been hit yet, Partypoker-Pro sits in the big blind and is getting jammed on. Let's now assume he has around starting stack, he has a +ev call with any 2 cards. Either he is doubling up, or he is getting back in with a starting stack without having to pay for this entry. This might be plus ev for the other guy in the hand as well. But for everyone else in the tournament this is a clear disadvantage.

Actually that is an inherent property (problem?) of tournaments. Maybe the guy sitting in the BB is filthy rich and just doesn't like the way you look so he calls to try to bust you. Maybe he has unlimited money and wants to double up or re-enter and put up the money himself because he doesn't want to play a small stack. There is nothing unfair about that, since you can't force people to play well, nor do you want to.

The problem is in transparency. It's one thing to have some billionaire in your game that you know will just gamble with you, but if PP is going to fill tournaments with <$100 ABI stable tumors you can't see it coming. The financial background of a player matters and at least if it's consistent then it's sort of fair. As an operator my guess is it would be wise not to put up players that are going to show erratic plays and make it seem like the game is unfair, even if it technically isn't. Certainly the recreational players aren't going to understand or appreciate that the players are giving away their chips but they will remember when they get knocked out by one and maybe stop playing. I don't see how it is good business to scare away customers that are basically the reason all the other customers play.

@kelvis:

no the billionare guy is totally different ballgame my man.

In your scenario lets say the billionare guy stacks someone off and double, building a good stack. This player will continue to play crappy, wont be able to use the "leverage" of the big stack neither his image.

The pros on the other hand can basically freeroll in this spot, and if doubled up will cleverly use the new stack to his advantage. Furthermore some of the recs on the table will see him as reckless and can print out chips in the future. (not saying this is optimal if you buyin yourself, but when you play with unlimited money one can see whats the merit and problem with it)

The two cant be more different I think.

But im no mtt pro but open to learning.

I'm glad you are happy with the outcome thus far.
My only comments:

- Partypoker rep as an immediator is a COI
- Changes to T+Cs need to be loud and proud but I understand why it was done fast in this instance
- I disagree that it's nobody's business if he has on-going deals with stables, it's a COI and players deserve full transparency around what's going on in order to appropriately be able to judge the actual equity of an investment into an event. I'd argue that anyone who has ANY association to the provider should be appropriately flagged to players.
- I think Rob Yong is full of **** when he said "one of his friends flew over 50 people as he likes backing people for fun", he clearly had one of his friends act as a figure head for these people to be bought in on PP cash. No friend is just putting down a quarter of a mil "for fun" to help his mate out. I'm calling him out from behind my computer screen, it's absolute horsecrap. Yes some people MIGHT be that rich but i'm not buying the story hes selling.
- Rob Yong would be committing brand suicide if he were to offer you something or a secret deal.



I'll make it clear, I think Rob Yong is a good bloke and has good intentions. But I also think that Partypoker is a business, a good one at that, but it's competing within a monopolised market landscape and requires large investment to subsidise the losses in order to build brand image and compete. No matter how nice of a person you are, your business needs to profit in the end, and it's obvious that Rob and co. are trying to make the company's losses more sustainable, but unfortunately, backing players in events to make up guarantees is reducing the equity of the solo player which is not acceptable and the wrong approach, and that's the bottom line in my opinion

More of my opinion:

+1 to this post.

Comments on Part 3:

1) I think Lipo's post suggests this has ended but I can't confirm obviously.

2) Smart hypothesis indeed. Probably accurate. I think Rob probably funds part of BRS considering PJ is a shareholder in DTD (please correct me if I'm wrong). I can see why Rob/PP offer's deals to his stables, but it feels unfair on the individual players.

3) Agree with this. My pals in BRS mentioned to me in Early 2016 that some people were being put in to fill up the overlays. As a result I never fully completed the transfer over to partypoker (and because of the software too). Instead, I kept most of my business elsewhere. I'm less bothered about the actual goings on then I am about the transparency. If I were to know who is actually representing PP or any extended partners of PP then I would be able to identify what the real equity of my funds are, but without being able to quantify this we are almost shooting in the dark. Knowing all this has actually dis-incentivised me to go to DTD. I would rather play local, knowing that an overlay is an overlay and for the most part being able to identify house horses than have to worry about 50 coached players being punted in at the last second at any sign of an overlay.

To me what The Lipo Fund wrote looks like what most of 2p2 representative wrote after they went to PS IoM meetings before some years.

"Rob was very annoyed that I had not come it him first instead of using third party social media and forums, but I was unaware that he had a player group where players had direct access to him."


My experience in life is whenever people say these words they for sure have lot to hide. Empirical evidence I know, but a pattern I saw countless time.

+1 I've noticed this too but could be a coincidence to be fair.

The fact that so few uk poker players have spoken out in this thread should speak to the obvious which many have alluded to.

Let’s talk Rob Yong

Rob Yong is egotistical. He is unable to take criticism despite being heavily flawed, as are many of his ideas.

He is famous for banning anyone from DTD who speaks out against him/DTD, even when people have valid points. This has played out with Lipo in this thread. He has also been responsible for getting players banned from all casinos UK wide. The fact there are so many new accounts in this thread should tell you the above is accurate. Very few in the UK will speak out against Rob due to fear of bans. Rob has significant influence in uk poker.

The issue here, is Rob could be the least fit person to hold this role in UK poker.

Rob once welched on a significant bet vs several high profile UK pros. The money to him, if we believe stories of his net worth, was a drop in the ocean, but to those who made the bet it was a significant amount. Although not familiar with the exact terms, it was about holding a £1k 6 max mtt at DTD. His justification for not paying out was that it made more sense for him to buy people in if he was to miss the guarantee, rather than to lose the bet. The fact he lost the bet was irrelevant to him. His response, was to ban anyone who made an issue of it. I’m unsure if this bet was ever eventually paid out. I’d guess not.

But he has done far worse.

He once held a tournament called the Chip Leader tournament. You could play sit n gos online and winners won more chips for the main tournament.

He made bets with several local players, again, the sums involved were very meaningful to the players involved. Rob basically had someone else playing his account, & denied it when challenged. He then made a mistake and went to play in Ireland, but his horse was playing on his account so he got busted. A thread was started on blonde poker about this, a site which DTD sponsored at the time. Rob got the thread pulled. I’m sure there would have been a threat to pull his sponsorship.

Anyone spotting a pattern yet?

Most UK poker players cannot stand Rob and his cronies. But no one will speak out against him. He pumps a decent amount of money into UK poker and players don’t want it to end. Fair enough I guess. But what that leads to is Rob getting away with whatever he wants. I refer you to the Subject matter of this thread.

Finally, Lipos post after meeting Rob is classic Rob Yong. I wouldn’t believe a single word of what Lipo said (nothing against him), the wording is not his.

If the information in this thread is correct, then PPL$ are worthless, from a company & accounting point of view. There may be contractual arrangements in place, but the silence from all parties in conspicuous. The only thing offering protection is Party would not want reputation damage. If people want to put their trust in Rob, so be it, but more fool you. He decides if your money has value by waving his ban stick. Rob will make it up as he goes along. Trading real money to win PPL$ seems a tad foolish. Play elsewhere for real money.