This is a pretty big deal. At times there have been 3K people viewing on 2+2 today and needless to say news like this really could help sites like PFA and DD now and in the future. In fact, it's such a big deal Micon has yet to say one thing about it. Could he be a bigger failure?
Even QuadJacks took a day off from saving us from viewbotters in order to spark up radio.
I doubt Micon is even awake yet.Originally Posted by nightmarefish
I have had Issues with credit cards in Europe
Can't see why they would do it. The only reason to buy them would be to lock up the software to keep someone else from getting it but since the only potential buyer in a years time just fell through there's not much chance of that being a threat. Even if it was it's not worth 750million.
They didn't pay $750 million for the software. They paid the US DOJ $420 million to purchase Full Tilt AND to make the charges against FT and Stars go away (most likely). They then have $330 million set aside to repay FT players, many of whom will likely leave money on FT or deposit it on Stars at some point in the future.
What they get is a fully functioning poker room (whch was their only real competition pre-Black Friday) and now two separate shots at partnering with a US casino when Internet poekr is legalized.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
All the hate directed toward Bitar, Lederer, etc. was uncalled for and premature. Bet they were working around the clock looking for ways to pay back their players.
Here's a quote from me over a month ago
"These guys are fighting for their freedom and on the verge of losing everything they own, racking up massive legal bills, having to remain silent on advise from their lawyers and everyone's jumping to conclusions. You guys think they're sipping drinks on the beach when in reality they're to stressed to even get a good nights sleep. No fu**ing way Ferguson and Lederer are the ruthless crooks they're being labeled, no way!"
how many Red Pro's do you think will be sporting FTP gear againThey didn't pay $750 million for the software. They paid the US DOJ $420 million to purchase Full Tilt AND to make the charges against FT and Stars go away (most likely). They then have $330 million set aside to repay FT players, many of whom will likely leave money on FT or deposit it on Stars at some point in the future.
What they get is a fully functioning poker room (whch was their only real competition pre-Black Friday) and now two separate shots at partnering with a US casino when Internet poekr is legalized.
How do today's developments relate in any way to the conduct of Bitar, Lederer and Ferguson in their roles at FTP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZBTHorton
Ironically enough, the people I know in the industry believe the two driving forces behind this deal ever getting done are the DOJ and Ray Bitar.
Noah SD
+20. This has been true since like May 2011."
This is great, but don't get TOO excited just yet.
The deal hasn't been finalized, as far as I know. Pokerstars was kind-of-sort-of forced to admit to the situation because it leaked, but from what I can see, there's some chance this could all fall through.
Also zero chance either room is allowed to serve US players -- at least not until it is explicitly legalized in the US and the US-based companies get a chance to open their rooms.
Probably any that are asked minus a few well-principled ones. I think most pros view sponsorsships as simply getting a job; they're not interested in the day-to-day operations of the company so long as their paycheck doesn't bounce. And it's hard to blame them for this attitude.how many Red Pro's do you think will be sporting FTP gear again
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Cant wait to break out the FTP flip flops with no shameProbably any that are asked minus a few well-principled ones. I think most pros view sponsorsships as simply getting a job; they're not interested in the day-to-day operations of the company so long as their paycheck doesn't bounce. And it's hard to blame them for this attitude.
Probably any that are asked minus a few well-principled ones. I think most pros view sponsorsships as simply getting a job; they're not interested in the day-to-day operations of the company so long as their paycheck doesn't bounce. And it's hard to blame them for this attitude.
... except for that last part about it being hard to blame them.
Am I surprised? No.
In general, poker players aren't the most principled bunch. Sure, there is a small percentage of players with a real conscience, but unfortunately the poker community is riddled with a lot of shady types that will do anything for easy money. Some of those people would sell out their own grandmother if the money was right.
Therefore, it's hardly surprising to see poker players (especially broke ones) happy to sign on the dotted line for "online pro" sponsorships, regardless of the reputation of the company they're shilling for.
A few of them, like Joe Sebok, greatly suffered as a result of their decision. Unfortunately, most other pros associated with shady sites have skated away unscathed. For example, has anyone really criticized Melanie Weisner for signing with Lock?
I can tell you that I would never sign a deal to be a pro for a shady site. And if I was a pro on a site that developed a bad reputation while I was there, I would abandon ship immediately, even if I was giving up a lot of money or benefits as a result.
Professional poker is hard -- especially these days -- so I don't blame pros for taking sponsorship deals. I think that sponsored pros should use a negative check-off system when deciding whether to represent a site. They shouldn't be required (or expected to) do major investigations into the site they're representing to prove it's clean, but should never sign with a site with a bad reputation or clear indications of dishonesty. Furthermore, anyone who is a pro (or manager) of a site that is later discovered to be shady should quit immediately.
Though I am not exactly in high demand as a sponsored pro (being a 40-year-old guy who only plays tournaments during the WSOP), I can tell you that I would adhere to the above standards regarding any offers made to me. I actually was briefly a sponsored pro for both Interpoker and Sun Poker, during the 2005-2006 online poker peak when sponsorships were easy to come by.
hopefully they will stay away from the old guard pro's that are buddies with the FTP owners that scammed us, pretty much Team FTPProbably any that are asked minus a few well-principled ones. I think most pros view sponsorsships as simply getting a job; they're not interested in the day-to-day operations of the company so long as their paycheck doesn't bounce. And it's hard to blame them for this attitude.
I found this article via twitter online last night. It's a fact vs. fiction on the GBT Repayment Plan.
It didn't look like it was posted. Thoughts?
http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/04...ct-vs-fiction/
I think you're 100% wrong on the bolded part above. You assume that your experiences (and those of a few other people's) are everyones. There are people who have been double-billed who won't use a certain gas station or restaurant, that's THEIR decision and their experience, and no matter how many bad reviews on Yelp or wherever else they post there are plenty of people with good experiences at the same place, and you're not going to change their mind on it even if you are right!
... except for that last part about it being hard to blame them.
Am I surprised? No.
In general, poker players aren't the most principled bunch. Sure, there is a small percentage of players with a real conscience, but unfortunately the poker community is riddled with a lot of shady types that will do anything for easy money. Some of those people would sell out their own grandmother if the money was right.
Therefore, it's hardly surprising to see poker players (especially broke ones) happy to sign on the dotted line for "online pro" sponsorships, regardless of the reputation of the company they're shilling for.
A few of them, like Joe Sebok, greatly suffered as a result of their decision. Unfortunately, most other pros associated with shady sites have skated away unscathed. For example, has anyone really criticized Melanie Weisner for signing with Lock?
I can tell you that I would never sign a deal to be a pro for a shady site. And if I was a pro on a site that developed a bad reputation while I was there, I would abandon ship immediately, even if I was giving up a lot of money or benefits as a result.
Professional poker is hard -- especially these days -- so I don't blame pros for taking sponsorship deals. I think that sponsored pros should use a negative check-off system when deciding whether to represent a site. They shouldn't be required (or expected to) do major investigations into the site they're representing to prove it's clean, but should never sign with a site with a bad reputation or clear indications of dishonesty. Furthermore, anyone who is a pro (or manager) of a site that is later discovered to be shady should quit immediately.
Though I am not exactly in high demand as a sponsored pro (being a 40-year-old guy who only plays tournaments during the WSOP), I can tell you that I would adhere to the above standards regarding any offers made to me. I actually was briefly a sponsored pro for both Interpoker and Sun Poker, during the 2005-2006 online poker peak when sponsorships were easy to come by.
You can state your claims and what you know of the business but to call out other people for using it or promoting it, or giving positive feedback, when you don't even consider their experience with the same business, is nuts! Melanie Weisner? Really? We all know people who we trust who other people think are shitbags; regardless of who ends up being correct in the long-run both parties are entitled to their own opinions based on their dealings in the present, and based on those experiences both parties can be correct at the same time.
Wearing a patch does not make you the FDIC for the site, it simply says I recommend this site... just like people can agree or disagree on a restaurant or movie, or even on the integrity of a business. I've never said "Fuck Roger Ebert, he told me that movie was good and it was a waste of my money!"
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Recommending a restaurant or movie is a different story, because it's a matter of personal taste.I think you're 100% wrong on the bolded part above. You assume that your experiences (and those of a few other people's) are everyones. There are people who have been double-billed who won't use a certain gas station or restaurant, that's THEIR decision and their experience, and no matter how many bad reviews on Yelp or wherever else they post there are plenty of people with good experiences at the same place, and you're not going to change their mind on it even if you are right!
... except for that last part about it being hard to blame them.
Am I surprised? No.
In general, poker players aren't the most principled bunch. Sure, there is a small percentage of players with a real conscience, but unfortunately the poker community is riddled with a lot of shady types that will do anything for easy money. Some of those people would sell out their own grandmother if the money was right.
Therefore, it's hardly surprising to see poker players (especially broke ones) happy to sign on the dotted line for "online pro" sponsorships, regardless of the reputation of the company they're shilling for.
A few of them, like Joe Sebok, greatly suffered as a result of their decision. Unfortunately, most other pros associated with shady sites have skated away unscathed. For example, has anyone really criticized Melanie Weisner for signing with Lock?
I can tell you that I would never sign a deal to be a pro for a shady site. And if I was a pro on a site that developed a bad reputation while I was there, I would abandon ship immediately, even if I was giving up a lot of money or benefits as a result.
Professional poker is hard -- especially these days -- so I don't blame pros for taking sponsorship deals. I think that sponsored pros should use a negative check-off system when deciding whether to represent a site. They shouldn't be required (or expected to) do major investigations into the site they're representing to prove it's clean, but should never sign with a site with a bad reputation or clear indications of dishonesty. Furthermore, anyone who is a pro (or manager) of a site that is later discovered to be shady should quit immediately.
Though I am not exactly in high demand as a sponsored pro (being a 40-year-old guy who only plays tournaments during the WSOP), I can tell you that I would adhere to the above standards regarding any offers made to me. I actually was briefly a sponsored pro for both Interpoker and Sun Poker, during the 2005-2006 online poker peak when sponsorships were easy to come by.
You can state your claims and what you know of the business but to call out other people for using it or promoting it, or giving positive feedback, when you don't even consider their experience with the same business, is nuts! Melanie Weisner? Really? We all know people who we trust who other people think are shitbags; regardless of who ends up being correct in the long-run both parties are entitled to their own opinions based on their dealings in the present, and based on those experiences both parties can be correct at the same time.
Wearing a patch does not make you the FDIC for the site, it simply says I recommend this site... just like people can agree or disagree on a restaurant or movie, or even on the integrity of a business. I've never said "Fuck Roger Ebert, he told me that movie was good and it was a waste of my money!"
Maybe a movie appealed to Roger Ebert, but I hated it. Neither of us is wrong there -- we just had different criteria for what made us find a movie enjoyable.
Same with a restaurant. What tastes good to one person can be completely disgusting to another person. Again, it's a matter of personal preference.
When you wear a site's patch (and being featured on their website), as you pointed out, you are telling people that you recommend that site.
That doesn't mean that you should be expected to spend your days investigating every facet of their business to make sure they're not shady, but at the same time, I feel it is unethical to promote a company that you know is unethical.
You should never associate your name with something that you know is bad.
While you and I know that pro endorsements are meaningless when it comes to the reliability of poker sites, the average casual player doesn't. For example, Annette Obrestad just signed with Lock Poker. Casual players will see Annette with a Lock patch, and might say to themselves, "I like Annette. She's really dedicated to the game and seems like a nice girl. If she's associated with Lock poker, it has to be good."
I don't put site pros in the same category as a guy like Joe Sebok, because Sebok actively peddled lies for UB. Still, I think that willingly promoting something that you know is shady is unethical
I don't understand guys like Gank, who seem to genuinely care about the little guy (hence his dedicated involvement in Occupy Las Vegas), yet promote companies like Lock. Maybe they convince themselves that guys like me are just lying or exaggerating.
I don't think they feel others are exaggarating; it's simply not their experience. My point with movies and restaurants is that YOUR EXPERIENCE tends to supercede anything you may read or hear about the place.Recommending a restaurant or movie is a different story, because it's a matter of personal taste.
Maybe a movie appealed to Roger Ebert, but I hated it. Neither of us is wrong there -- we just had different criteria for what made us find a movie enjoyable.
Same with a restaurant. What tastes good to one person can be completely disgusting to another person. Again, it's a matter of personal preference.
When you wear a site's patch (and being featured on their website), as you pointed out, you are telling people that you recommend that site.
That doesn't mean that you should be expected to spend your days investigating every facet of their business to make sure they're not shady, but at the same time, I feel it is unethical to promote a company that you know is unethical.
You should never associate your name with something that you know is bad.
While you and I know that pro endorsements are meaningless when it comes to the reliability of poker sites, the average casual player doesn't. For example, Annette Obrestad just signed with Lock Poker. Casual players will see Annette with a Lock patch, and might say to themselves, "I like Annette. She's really dedicated to the game and seems like a nice girl. If she's associated with Lock poker, it has to be good."
I don't put site pros in the same category as a guy like Joe Sebok, because Sebok actively peddled lies for UB. Still, I think that willingly promoting something that you know is shady is unethical
I don't understand guys like Gank, who seem to genuinely care about the little guy (hence his dedicated involvement in Occupy Las Vegas), yet promote companies like Lock. Maybe they convince themselves that guys like me are just lying or exaggerating.
I disagree that the average casual player doesn't understand endorsements: It's a fairly common practice in any business. I understand that the guy who played Cerrano in Major League is a paid spokesman for AllState; I understand that JLo probably doesn't drive a Fiat (unless they gave her one for free); and I understand that Jerry Remy only does the Jordan's Furniture commercials because he was paid and received a free bedroom set or something... My faith in humanity is that they understand the same thing when it comes to "celebrity" endorsements for poker sites.
As a final counterpoint to the notion that some random might say, "I like Annette. She's really dedicated to the game and seems like a nice girl. If she's associated with Lock poker, it has to be good."... only serious poker players know who Annette is! My wife, who has been in the same house with me for over 6 years can probably only name 10 poker players, and in all the times I've covered a tournament (meaning been comped a room, spent 10 minutes watching the event, and the rest of the time playing poker), and she has been with me, she has recognized ONE poker player by sight, Greg Raymer (who she called the "fossil guy") and that was during the NAPT Mohegan High-Roller, with big names walking by left and right, and my guess is that it was only because he had a big PokerStars patch on his shirt; she didn't even recognize Negreanu. Waiting for the valet after the tournament series was over we were in the foyer with about 30 pros waiting for cars to take them to the airport... she had no idea who any of them were... I don't think any casual player is swayed by where a name plays.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
No company is without its failures or bad decisions. Lock is seemingly a good poker room and does fine by the majority of their decisions in this poker landscape we Americans are subjected too. Sure they had a few poor things happen (Girah, etc) but which room hasnt. What do you recommend we do, just not play?Recommending a restaurant or movie is a different story, because it's a matter of personal taste.
Maybe a movie appealed to Roger Ebert, but I hated it. Neither of us is wrong there -- we just had different criteria for what made us find a movie enjoyable.
Same with a restaurant. What tastes good to one person can be completely disgusting to another person. Again, it's a matter of personal preference.
When you wear a site's patch (and being featured on their website), as you pointed out, you are telling people that you recommend that site.
That doesn't mean that you should be expected to spend your days investigating every facet of their business to make sure they're not shady, but at the same time, I feel it is unethical to promote a company that you know is unethical.
You should never associate your name with something that you know is bad.
While you and I know that pro endorsements are meaningless when it comes to the reliability of poker sites, the average casual player doesn't. For example, Annette Obrestad just signed with Lock Poker. Casual players will see Annette with a Lock patch, and might say to themselves, "I like Annette. She's really dedicated to the game and seems like a nice girl. If she's associated with Lock poker, it has to be good."
I don't put site pros in the same category as a guy like Joe Sebok, because Sebok actively peddled lies for UB. Still, I think that willingly promoting something that you know is shady is unethical
I don't understand guys like Gank, who seem to genuinely care about the little guy (hence his dedicated involvement in Occupy Las Vegas), yet promote companies like Lock. Maybe they convince themselves that guys like me are just lying or exaggerating.
It's hilarious that we as a society think everyone can be a dr, a lawyer, an engineer. Some people are just fucking stupid. Why can't we just accept that?
IMO question is WHY WOULDNT THEY DO IT (as long as it is part of the fine)?
If they can get the software and repay players and all of this is part of their fine with DOJ then they are getting a steal. They get a userbase of a zillion people. They get 150 million in ROW accs and a lot of this $150 million will be wagered and raked even if half or so is withdrawn right away.
The majority of whatever is withdrawn by ROW players will prob be donated to rake @ stars as well or some will be raked.
They also get to stave off any competitor who could potentially take over FTP software.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
