Those are Full Tilt Poker produced marketing sites, not originally player built and run. If I was an FTP pro, I would demand to have that taken down or modified all things considered, but it wasn't originally her own personally run website. I'm not sure how hard or easy it is to take over control of the content on a website. I'd put the effort in if I were them.

e.g. - 4 potential hall of famers still have the same Full Tilt sites up as well, not just Kristy.
http://www.tomdwan.com/
http://www.ericklindgren.com/
http://www.patrikantonius.com/
http://www.gushansenpoker.com/

Might be an interesting question to pose in NVG.

Should FTP pros take over control and information on marketing websites with their name on it?

You should've seen us for the Ladies' Tourney.
ya, Mike! And thanks for putting out the strategy segment!

If I was repping myself in the outside world as an investment counselor, I wouldnt want www.MYNAME.com showing my CURRENT involvement with a defunct, fraudulent (apparently), and most certainly under Federal Indictment entity. Prudence would tell me that might not be good for my business and business reputation.

I'm not so sure all the other FTP pros you mentioned have this particular concern. And certainly none of them have seemed to feel much need to distance themselves thru public statement from FTP to date anyway.

any1 having issues dl from iTunes - has taken 30 mins for only about 20% of the podcast so far .....

The yip, yip, yip brrrng bit at the end brought back some memories but I'm thinking Sesame Street not Muppet Show if that was the inspiration.

I can never even get on the 1rd page!

+1

enjoyed the show last night as usual. Was interested in the brief talk about Federer being the best ever and just wanted to toss in a couple of points. Fed's chokes have come only late in his career when nerves generally become tougher to manage, they have also come very late in slams (quarters and deeper) against the worlds very best players. The other players in the GOAT discussion all have had their fair share of chokes, many of which came in second and third rounds of slams. Fed makes it deep into the second week of every slam he has played for nearly a decade, bound to be some heart breaking losses in there. He also dominated in a time with tennis was far deeper and more competitive world wide than the others who are in the GOAT dicussion (Laver and Sampras).

If Nick wants to compare Laver to Fed and the what ifs we have to make it fair. Laver never competed against a full field of tournaments as many players wanted to keep their status as pro/amateur so they didnt all enter the slams. As well, 3 of the 4 slams a year were played on grass, Fed didnt lose a single grass match in 6 years, if he played 3/4 slams on grass as well I think its pretty likely he'd be around 30+ slams that would be against deeper and tougher competition. I think Fed is the undeniable GOAT in tennis and pretty much every stat/fact backs him up.

Actually, it's in 5 years. He won 5 straight in 2003-2007.

RE: Hendon mob still showing FTP logo's

They posted this thread in June

http://www.thehendonmob.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40378

Obviously, things have deteriorated since June, but that remains their stance on the matter. I'm not one to debate the rights and wrongs of their decision, but the mob are definitely people I would trust their decision making. Although it may frustrate you, but they must have their reasons for keeping the ads, selfish(I doubt it would be fully) or otherwise.

Yay! Advantage Johnson! MJ serving for the match over Schwartz.

Another great show guys!

A couple of minor constructive criticisms.

The comments on Federer are a little off. Ask anyone in the know whether they have ever seen someone play better tennis in his prime.

Also, the claim that women are genetically less disposed toward gambling is completely without any scientific support, AND horribly sexist.

Back to deuce!

Schwartz serving now...

Thx for listening.

I didn't say it was genetics. And it was obvious that it was an opinion, not a 'scientific claim'. In order to be in the Top 150 ranked poker players in the world, you need to be willing to risk 10K per tournament on a week-in, week-out basis. My theory is that spending your life traveling the world wagering large sums of money is not appealing for the large majority of women. What is your theory as to why 97% of 10K buy-in events are males(mostly very young), and of the 3% that are women that do regularly play 10K events, a good % of those are sponsored and not risking their own personal bankroll. I don't see anything sexist in that opinion at all. I believe if the fields in big-buy in tournaments were featured 10-15% rwomen that 10-15% of the top ranked players would be women. I just personally don't believe the participation level will ever reach that point, as women have better things to do.

been on so much that i dont bother anymore, other peoples turn...

The comments about the value of FTP.

I doubt that the goodwill, brand name, any registered designs around the name have had much value for a while.

all the technological assets and copyrights (which might include the customer details in certain jurisdictions) will be worth something very close to market value.

Player deposits will be unsecured creditors i imagine so you rank just higher than equity owners. So I suspect anything better than 0 is a bonus at this stage.

the liquidator fees always have first crack and given the complex structures they most likely have in place and the likeliness of international jurisdictions of subsidiaries they have for different bits of their business i suspect that the liquidation fees will be pretty heavy.

On top of this any liquidator will need to consider claims on third parties or fradulant behaviour and the expectation of recovering moneys lost through this.

if it goes that far then I suspect that it will be many years before you even know that your getting $0 on the $ for sure.

I am not sure of the laws in the jurisdiction they operate being from Australia i only know our laws but I suspect that you would, as a group of unsecured creditors, an ability to take recovery action through the court appointment of a liquidator and get the whole thing moving...

If there is not really a buyer then at least a liquidator would sort that out pretty quickly.

Anyway, at this stage i dont think sitting back and letting it go on gives you any better chance of getting any money back, but if you as unsecured creditors appoint the liquidator then he is at least working for you rather than for other creditors.

Just a thought. By the way i am not a liquidation expert just dealt with alot of tax issues in the area. so if you want to do anything like take action as a petition group you should investigate taht with an advisor in the country of residence of the company that owes the player deposits.

Cheers

Great show as usual!!! Listened to minute by minute of the interview with Timex. I keep forgetting if he retired or not. I didn't think he was gonna show up at the Epic Poker League event, but he told me, "Ya mo b there," so I was glad to see him win. But, the fact that he believed Annie Duke that she had a legal reason for ousting that child molester without paying him the $20,000 buy-in, you know what a fool believes.

+1

The "Mohrstories" is really funy. I cannot listen to it from beginning to end of one episode without taking breaks since these guys have these ADD issues (as stated by himself).
Also liked the North Korea documentary. Fascinating stuff. Guess everybody knows it is that way but very rearly seen it in pictures.

Keep these recommendations comming. Much appreciated.

Great show as always - and very easy to listen to it in one sitting...

Checked the websites. Seems like PA owns his own website? The other websites are all registered through the same privacy service. So pretty obvious they belong to FTP.

Shouldn't be so easy to get control over the website. Especially since Dwan, Gus etc. probably have signed contracts and sold the rights to the photos etc.


Variance. Don't be results oriented

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.short

Thre exist more articles like this... However I like the quote in this abstract, "Finally, both testosterone levels and risk aversion predicted career choices after graduation: Individuals high in testosterone and low in risk aversion were more likely to choose risky careers in finance. These results suggest that testosterone has both organizational and activational effects on risk-sensitive financial decisions and long-term career choices. "

Jus sayin.. there's scientific evidence.

There also exists a study of gambling and risk with the sexes which would be really interesting, but I'm too cheap to buy it...

I laughed pretty hard at the "expect a letter in the mail from Annie Duke for getting black out drunk" line at the end of the Timex interview. too good

the number tone that was heard over timex when starting to talk about davita thing was that someone signaling him not to talk about it or coincidence. I know my local radio station i listen to whenever the morning guys are interview someone that tone gets hit from there PR person trying to wrap up the interview...just thought it was odd timing since never happened until that was brought up.

I'd say advantage Schwartz. Mike hasn't responded to my post saying that an independent ethics committee is better than a executive run committee

I don't consider a committee hand-picked by Annie Duke that wasn't even involved in the decision on whether it was ethical to give this player 20K or 1.5K to be 'independent'. If they are only allowed to make decisions when AD brings them something to decide on, it seems pretty executive run to me. Also, apparently even though she doesn't vote, Annie sits in on the meetings. How can you call it independent?

I never it was independent, I said it should be.

Like I said the current system is flawed but that doesn't mean I think the EPL doesn't need an ethics committee, which is your stance.

The implication of your post seems to be that if it this situation were to occur again or be replayed that it should go to the executives i.e. Annie Duke and not to an independent body. I would like to know how you think it should have been dealt with and more importantly to this debate who should have dealt with it. Whether there should be a rule or not is another matter.

Just to repeat the current system is horribly flawed but in cases like DeVita's I think it should go to an independent committee not to executives

Edit: Don't answer the how it should been dealt with bit you've clearly stated that and I agree with you. Just answer the who bit.

When I say casino owners, I meant The Palms. If they don't want someone on their property for any reason, I believe they have that right. AD is not 'the casino', she is simply the an organizer of an event that is being held at the Palms.