Youtube Slot Community and SlotLady

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZ Life Slot Jackpots

Since someone decided to post an article picking apart my video (and they are here) and have even went as far as private messaging me today let's dive into this.

1. I believe this person or website runs its own virtual gambling pool which seems why they are so inclined to have incentive to think this is legal.

2. To accept money from people to gamble with and make profit is illegal. You can choose to pick apart my words and video as much as you'd like but that was the purpose of the video.

3. As in the articles posted by actual news outlets, this is the first case of it's kind, do you really think the end results will be: IT'S LEGAL?

4. Google is your friend:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder.../wire-act.htm/
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...-Wire-Act.htm/

---

EZ, you do fantastic work and it’s undeniable that if it weren’t for you this kind of stuff would never come to the surface. Mission is clearly an excellent writer and it’s great to see journalism done in the gambling sphere that isn’t just an advertorial for whomever is paying the writer’s salary.

I will say re-reading the article, my main issue is it positions you needlessly in somewhat of an adversarial position. In retrospect, I think Mission could have written his findings/opinions regarding legality of group pulls without using your video as a contrast.

Let’s use the term scumbaggery, which you have clearly exposed regardless of the legal question. If we just set that aside, your video is providing much needed transparency to the public. Whether or not your interpretation or Mission’s interpretation of the legality is more correct is such a secondary point in my opinion. Airing out what is going on is undoubtedly a huge positive.

That being said, I think it’s a fair criticism that the article spends an inordinate amount of time on you. I think it’s a fair question regarding bias with the website. I’m sure Mission will clarify both.

Again, it’s great work you do. If I run into you in AC I’ll treat you to a free drink on me.

Not to steer this spirited discussion off course, but back on topic.

Vic lost his ass in UTH last night! Over $3000 in like 12 minutes, lol! The whining and crying doesn't even take 90 seconds to begin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78q9X8fkNlU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BedWetterBettor

Not to steer this spirited discussion off course, but back on topic.

Vic lost his ass in UTH last night! Over $3000 in like 12 minutes, lol! The whining and crying doesn't even take 90 seconds to begin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78q9X8fkNlU

---

I think it’s only a matter of time before Vic and Sarah set up a table in the extra room in their condo. Have 3 or 4 different felts made so they can spread the various pit games with “El Cortez” on the felt. Would anyone really know the difference? Their view is straight down on the felt anyhow. It’s no different than some of these “High Limit” slot channels filming out of their house, they have 1 machine with 140 different games.


Like this bozo filming out of his garage lol…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf8I30zArrM

In relation to Victor (ACA) there seems to division on how much he tips at the end of a table game live stream - some thinking he tips well (especially if he looses) and others thinking he is stingy. As someone from a country where tipping the dealers is actually illegal, I'm curious to know what the people here (who seemingly have good knowledge about all things casino) what they think.

For example: Buying in for $5000 on a reserved table, playing for about an hour and profiting $4000, what should the tip be?
Other example: Buying in for $3000 on a reserved table and loosing it in the space of half an hour, again what should the tip be?
For both examples: The dealer was being nice and providing an excellent service.

Kudos though to the dealers who put up with his whinging especially when he's doing it the entirety of the stream. He should be made to pay a decent "hazard pay" tip when he does this haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Fussy

In relation to Victor (ACA) there seems to division on how much he tips at the end of a table game live stream - some thinking he tips well (especially if he looses) and others thinking he is stingy. As someone from a country where tipping the dealers is actually illegal, I'm curious to know what the people here (who seemingly have good knowledge about all things casino) what they think.

For example: Buying in for $5000 on a reserved table, playing for about an hour and profiting $4000, what should the tip be?
Other example: Buying in for $3000 on a reserved table and loosing it in the space of half an hour, again what should the tip be?
For both examples: The dealer was being nice and providing an excellent service.

Kudos though to the dealers who put up with his whinging especially when he's doing it the entirety of the stream. He should be made to pay a decent "hazard pay" tip when he does this haha

---

Tipping in blackjack generally is done by putting a bet down to coincide with the hand you are being dealt. Say you are betting $100 dollars on the hand….you may put a $5 dollar chip on the top of the circle where you put your $100 chip in the center. This signifies that $5 dollars is being bet on the dealer’s behalf. If the hand is won the dealer would then make $10 bucks (stake + win) and if it loses no tip. This at least gives the bettor the feeling that the dealer is routing for you.

The size of the tip varies widely and there is no real guideline when it comes to table games. You can tip absolutely nothing, big or anywhere in between. Not tipping on table games is fine and many people don’t. It’s not like stiffing a waitress where you are expected to tip around 18% nowadays. Druff has spoken about the fact the tips are pooled at casinos and casinos use that to justify paying dealers less. But if someone doesn’t want to tip they may get a few dirty looks but that’s it.

Tipping at the end is pretty lame. Sarah did it. I would think Victor knows the dealers would rather have a sweat to break the monotony. I think it’s just the way Sarah wants to do it. Again, there is no rule. However, if a casino (even a dump like the El Cortex) allows you to livestream, then adequately tipping the dealers is probably a good idea. From what I’ve seen their tips are fine. Nothing to brag about, but nothing to shame either. I would say totally adequate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZ Life Slot Jackpots

Since someone decided to post an article picking apart my video (and they are here) and have even went as far as private messaging me today let's dive into this.

1. I believe this person or website runs its own virtual gambling pool which seems why they are so inclined to have incentive to think this is legal.

2. To accept money from people to gamble with and make profit is illegal. You can choose to pick apart my words and video as much as you'd like but that was the purpose of the video.

3. As in the articles posted by actual news outlets, this is the first case of it's kind, do you really think the end results will be: IT'S LEGAL?

4. Google is your friend:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder.../wire-act.htm/
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...-Wire-Act.htm/

---

I want to tell you that you do great videos, and in fact I used part of one of them during my D-Lucky segment on my (audio only) show. I have become a regular viewer of your channel because I think it's awesome.

I agree Mission was unnecessarily adversarial in his writeup, which JeffDime already pointed out. I don't think this was intentional, but that's how it came off.

I do think that the "illegality" of these slot pulls isn't the issue, and in fact it's questionable if it's actually illegal. Why? Here are the elements of violations of the internet wire act:

Quote:

---

In order to prove a prima facie case, the government must establish that:

1. The person was "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" (compared with a casual bettor);
2. The person transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce: bets or wagers, information assisting in the placement of bets or wagers, or a communication that entitled the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of a bet or wager;
3. The person used a " wire communication facility;" and
4. The person knowingly used a wire communication facility to engage in one of the three prohibited forms of transmissions.

---

The test for #1 above might fail for violations of the wire act. Why? Because these slot pullers can claim they are just casual bettors pooling money together and designating one person (the channel owner) to do these slot pulls. If it cannot be shown that the money wired/transmitted is being used as part of a betting business, there is no wire gambling case.

Furthermore, even if the person is not a casual bettor, the government does not touch these cases if the recipient of the money is simply being funded for a bet with an unaffiliated casino, and does not derive direct benefit from the bets themselves. Otherwise, poker staking (where people send money to people to buy into poker events) would be illegal, but it is not.

The following would be considered wire act violations:
- Bookmaking sportsbets and receiving money transmitted electronically for those bets

- A casino employee receiving wired money from that customer, spinning slots at the casino for that customer, and then wiring him the resulting profit/loss

- Receiving money on behalf of an unregulated poker room, so the customer can play for real money on there


In all of these cases, these are bets being booked directly by the entity against the customer, or for an illegal betting environment. That's not what's happening on these slot pulls.


The real case could come from any fraud or deception taking place involving these slot pulls, such as misrepresenting the player's odds to win, not reporting results accurately, or pocketing some of the money and claiming it was "lost".

I'm not pointing this out to be nitpicky, but rather because I find it's best to stay away from legal technicalities when discussing shady actors online. It's better to just focus upon what they are doing wrong (which you did a great job communicating), and why everyone should stay away from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZ Life Slot Jackpots

Since someone decided to post an article picking apart my video (and they are here) and have even went as far as private messaging me today let's dive into this.

1. I believe this person or website runs its own virtual gambling pool which seems why they are so inclined to have incentive to think this is legal.

2. To accept money from people to gamble with and make profit is illegal. You can choose to pick apart my words and video as much as you'd like but that was the purpose of the video.

3. As in the articles posted by actual news outlets, this is the first case of it's kind, do you really think the end results will be: IT'S LEGAL?

4. Google is your friend:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder.../wire-act.htm/
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...-Wire-Act.htm/

---

I was extremely polite in my messaging and the only reason I reached out to you was to give you a heads-up that I was publishing an article that disagreed with some of your overgeneralized takes. Quite simply, had anyone brought it up to you (without you already knowing about it) I didn't want you to be blindsided.

1.) That's not accurate. I run a contest that has an Entry Fee where all Entry Fees go to the winner. People are on the honor system in that contest and I do not handle anyone else's money. I also contribute my own personal funds to the contest to make it +EV for all participants. In fact, this season, my total contributions were greater than the sum of the Entry Fees.

2.) I would have disagreed less with that, or perhaps not at all, but that's not what you said in the video. I quoted your video:

Quote:

---

“Sending money across state lines, in fact, sending money to anyone, to gamble, is illegal.”

---

Yes, when you throw in the words, "...and make profit," it becomes a totally different statement.

Further, since we're discussing private correspondence anyway, I should mention that I have already offered to add in a new introductory paragraph to my article that you have stated that you meant only in the context of making profit by way of these transactions, which you declined.

If you mean to convey something precise, or nuanced, then use precise or nuanced language.

3.) No. I have already privately stated, and also in the article, that there are a great many laws that are likely being violated. I don't think the Wire Act is one of them.

4.) Reading is your friend:

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder.../wire-act.htm/

Quote:

---

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[59]

In order to prove a prima facie case, the government must establish that:

The person was "engaged in the business of betting or wagering"
(compared with a casual bettor);
The person transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce:
bets or wagers,
information assisting in the placement of bets or wagers, or
a communication that entitled the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of a bet or wager;
The person used a " wire communication facility;" and
The person knowingly used a wire communication facility to engage in one of the three prohibited forms of transmissions.

---

The first thing to note is that the Wire Act refers to placing sports bets. In fact, states such as New Jersey, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania (and a few others) sought clarification on this matter as they were concerned that, if the law applied to ALL online gambling, their own online casinos could be in violation for the information crossing state lines (servers) even though the initiator of the communication and the end recipient (i.e. the casino) were from the same state.

Google is your friend:

https://www.blankrome.com/publicatio...ire-act-ruling

Quote:

---

However, in 2011, the DOJ issued a memorandum opinion concluding that the Wire Act's prohibitions on the interstate transmission of bets and wagers apply only to sports wagering and not to other types of gambling.[6].

This opinion clarified prior interpretations of the Wire Act and held that its prohibitions were limited to wagering on sporting events. Thus, the 2011 opinion opened the doors to interstate internet wagering on games such as slots, table games and poker.

Following a change in administration in 2018, the DOJ reversed its position articulated in the 2011 opinion and concluded that the Wire Act does, in fact, apply to all forms of wagering on the internet, including both wagers on sporting events and nonsports wagering such as slots, table games and poker.[7]

The New Hampshire Lottery Commission, joined by certain lottery systems and online gaming companies, promptly challenged the DOJ's 2018 position in New Hampshire Lottery Commission v. William Barr, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.[8]

Representatives of other states and state lotteries, as well as certain anti-gambling proponents, joined as amicus curiae. On June 3, 2019, the New Hampshire federal court issued an order finding that Section 1084(a) of the Wire Act "applies only to transmissions related to bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest. The 2018 OLC Opinion is set aside."[9]

The DOJ appealed the New Hampshire Lottery v. Barr decision and, in January 2021, the First Circuit issued an opinion affirming the New Hampshire district court's interpretation of the Wire Act.[10]

The First Circuit held explicitly in New Hampshire Lottery v. Rosen that the prohibitions of Wire Act Section 1084(a) are properly understood to apply only to the interstate transmission of wire communications related to bets or wagers on any "sporting event or contest."[11] The DOJ did not appeal this decision.

---

Are group pools sporting events?: Yes or no. If no, the Wire Act would not apply.

Furthermore, even if it were sports, then the Wire Act would only apply to those, "Engaged in the business of..." which would refer to bookies and the like.

In our private conversation, you tried to tell me that two people residing in the same state in which both are of legal gambling age and one sends money to another to place a bet for him have done something illegal. As I understand from our conversation, you have since changed your mind on this and are now making more nuanced statements.

Secondly, the transaction would have to be either interstate or foreign for the Wire Act to apply. If the transaction is fully carried out within an individual state, then how could the Wire Act ever apply to that?

Also:

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...-Wire-Act.htm/

Quote:

---

In analyzing the first element, the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61]

---

But, hey, thanks for citing sources that make my point for me. Saves me time.

Your entire second link pertains to an offshore bookmaker. LOL

Look, you made a blanket statement that I disagreed with...because it was incorrect. Perhaps you only meant in the context of the group pulls, but even then, the Wire Act would have nothing to do with that; it has nothing to do with sports! That said, there are a myriad of other laws that could be broken with this group pull activity...just not that one.

Anyway, you were wrong about something, or if not wrong, you did not state something clearly enough. It happens! The next time I get something wrong will be far from the first.

Once again, if you want me to add a paragraph to the beginning of the article to clarify that you were referring only to profiting on this sort of thing being categorically illegal, then I would be more than happy to do that for you. I can think of some instances were even group pulls could be perfectly legal, at least, imo, if:

1.) Everyone is in the same state or a state in which gambling is legal.
2.) Everyone is of legal gambling age.
3.) There is no fee for the orchestrator and the orchestrator does not get a cut. All winnings are split proportionally to the amount the people have in the group event.
4.) Taxation is a whole mess that I barely know anything about, so I'm not going to comment on that aspect.
5.) Nobody is self-excluded, or otherwise excluded, from the casino in question or all casinos in the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffDime

EZ, you do fantastic work and it’s undeniable that if it weren’t for you this kind of stuff would never come to the surface. Mission is clearly an excellent writer and it’s great to see journalism done in the gambling sphere that isn’t just an advertorial for whomever is paying the writer’s salary.

I will say re-reading the article, my main issue is it positions you needlessly in somewhat of an adversarial position. In retrospect, I think Mission could have written his findings/opinions regarding legality of group pulls without using your video as a contrast.

Let’s use the term scumbaggery, which you have clearly exposed regardless of the legal question. If we just set that aside, your video is providing much needed transparency to the public. Whether or not your interpretation or Mission’s interpretation of the legality is more correct is such a secondary point in my opinion. Airing out what is going on is undoubtedly a huge positive.

That being said, I think it’s a fair criticism that the article spends an inordinate amount of time on you. I think it’s a fair question regarding bias with the website. I’m sure Mission will clarify both.

Again, it’s great work you do. If I run into you in AC I’ll treat you to a free drink on me.

---

I offered to make a clarification to EZ Life's position and put it at the very top of my article and he declined. That remains my offer. He can even write it, if he wants to...of course, I reserve the right to accept or decline whatever he wants it to say.

As I made clear in both the article and my private correspondence with EZ Life, I totally agree with him in terms of principle. Just look at the title of the article! Does that give the impression that I condone this sort of behavior?

Bias in favor of the website has nothing to do with it. I assume everything the site does is legal, but it would be none of my concern if it is not. They promote online casinos with affiliate links. I have no financial stake in the website whatsoever and the affiliate link activity does not impact the amount I am compensated in any way whatsoever. I am compensated for the writing of articles and no other aspect of the site is any of my concern or purview.

I mean, here we have EZ Life calling me out for running a contest where I give my own money away!!!.

I get it. Being wrong about something sucks. I have plenty of experience with it.

As I stated PRIVATELY to EZ Life, since we're all discussing private communications now, my problem with what he was saying is that I don't want casino security getting false notions of what is or isn't legal just because they heard someone who might be perceived as having a lot of credibility say it is. Casino security tries to threaten AP's with all manner of things when they get back roomed as it is. I'm also averse to the public perception of what is or is not legal being skewed to believe perfectly legal activities are not permitted.

Hey, while we're on the subject of vested personal interests, it sure seems like casinos banning filming of play would be, like, super bad for EZ Life's channel, right? I mean, as long as he's casting aspersions upon me, let's be fair.

That said, I agree that these TikTok group pull people are shitbags. I agree that most of them are almost certainly violating one law or another. I am simply saying that sending money one person to another for the purpose of gambling (contrary to what EZ Life said in his video) is not an automatic violation of the law and the Wire Act has nothing to do with any of this. Money laundering, in theory, could, but it would depend on the circumstances.

I would like to thank Dan Druff for his post. I agree with everything he said, except I think that the Wire Act, specifically, would only pertain to sports for reasons stated above.

With these group pull assclowns, just because it's not Wire Act (and I even doubt money laundering in many cases) doesn't mean that it doesn't run afoul of one law or another. As I tried to prevail upon EZ, while I am not a lawyer, if there's a gambling law out there, then I have probably read it. Some of these Group Pulls might violate more individual state laws (especially when you consider the possibility of participants being from several different states) than I could even list in a reasonable period of time.

I did not want people to think that the laws do something that they don't. Honestly, the only law that would have a negative impact on the business model of the sites (imo) is the way that people often misinterpret what the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act does. For one thing, some people believe it actually makes it illegal for people to play at an offshore casino, which is not true whatsoever (on the Federal level) and the legality would depend on the laws of the state in which the person is located.

See, so what happens is these misunderstandings of the law and people throwing these words out all willy-nilly spirals out of control.

At EZ Life's request, I will add to the top of the article, or add a comment, that I apologize for coming off more adversarial than I intended.

I mean, I sent him a message that I was writing such an article. That was Friday evening and I heard back yesterday morning after it had already been published. Since private communications are evidently not that, here is what I said:

Quote:

---

Hey, how's it going?

I don't come at you hard, but I do want you to know that I have an article coming out addressing your recent video on Group Pulls. I agree with you on many aspects, but your statements making it sound like it's always illegal for one person to send another money for the purpose of gambling are simply not correct without context.

You also drop terms like, "WIRE Act," and, "Money Laundering," where the former might not apply and the latter almost never would.

---

As you can see, I didn't think my tone was particularly adversarial, but the thing that people need to know about me is that I am kind of an asshole, so I wouldn't think that.

I did not send this message to provoke EZ. I sent this message to inform him this article was being published so that he wouldn't be caught off-guard by it. I also wanted him to be aware of it so that these group pull dickheads don't go throwing it up in his face saying that I said their activity is legal, which I believe it often isn't.

But, then, all manner of discussion in that private communication. EZ as much as accused me of never reading gambling laws or the Wire Act. Laughable.

Again, there's nothing wrong with being wrong or unintentionally overstating something. The next time I do that will be neither the first nor last.

I also agree that EZ's channel, in general, rules AND that it's good to call these group pull assclowns out.

But, yeah, if we're talking about who is behaving the most adversarially, I think you're looking at the wrong guy. In any event, I offer not only truce but to put any clarifications EZ Life would like at the top of my article...which I have already offered (privately) and was declined.

If anyone thinks that I first messaged EZ yesterday, as opposed to Friday, then I am willing to share a screenshot of my Facebook account with the timestamp to Dan.

EZ makes it sound like I didn't even message him until yesterday. Not only is that incorrect, but the only reason I messaged him at all yesterday is because he responded to my message from Friday.

ADDED: I have made a video on my phone of the entire conversation, should there arise a reason that it needs to be shared with Dan. I did this now because I don't know if there's a way my Facebook could be hacked into and the conversation deleted so people can accuse me of lying as to the particulars.

Anyway, drama is not my game.

My only interest is in writing information that is as accurate as possible when the topic of discussion refers to what is or is not a fact.

I also don't go in for revealing private discussions without explicit permission to do so in advance. I only do so because EZ did it first and it refers to the same conversation.

I did everything that I possibly could to accommodate EZ, including offering to add a paragraph to the top of the article. I also gave him notice, well in advance, that I was writing said article. It's not my fault he didn't reply to me until yesterday.

I am blocking him on Facebook and will never watch another video of his, review another video of his or ever mention him again for any reason.

If he wishes for me to add a paragraph to the top of my article by way of clarification, or an apology for me coming off so adversarially, then that can be discussed here publicly. That aside, my only request is that he leave me alone and never mention me again, either. Being right is too much effort, sometimes. I only messaged him out of courtesy. Every time I make the mistake of talking to anyone, for any reason, I am made to regret it. Eventually, I will learn my lesson.

Anyway, please do not take this post as a suggestion to avoid EZ Life's content. He has good content. I am simply stating that I, personally, want nothing further to do with him. I hope he will respect my wishes to leave me alone other than us discussing any clarification or apology he wants in my article in this thread.

JeffDime,

Thank you for the compliment as to the quality of my writing! I was more than a little irritated when I was first responding to posts, so please do accept my apology for missing that the first time.

Mission, I mean the kind words. I think your writing is very strong. We don’t see writing this good ever in the gambling sphere. I actually think Todd was probably the best writer in the industry before I read your shit. I think because it is here on his forum and not in some shiny poker magazine or a “Poker News” website, that gets lost on people. But from what I’ve read, you two are the best. Frankly, there are a number of posters on this forum whose writing, investigating and presenting skills put traditional poker media to shame (See Chrissy thread).

A lot to unpack and your thoroughness is appreciated. I will write more later but had a few things I wanted to give my take on. EZ is a YouTube Content Creator. While I believe his motives are genuine in exposing these people, we can’t lose sight of the entertainment aspect of these videos. People watch him because they like him. If he genuinely believes something is illegal, he surely can voice that opinion.

Now I would never suppose to tell either you or EZ how to go about doing what both of you are successful at already. However, I can say that as far as your communication to EZ, I myself would have probably felt as if the article was focused on my video & not the TikTok Gambling fiasco. So in my humble opinion, it seems like there was an unfortunate misunderstanding from the beginning.

Again, I am just saying how I would of messaged EZ. This isn’t a criticism. I just think it started on the wrong foot.

Quote:

---

Hey, how's it going?

I don't come at you hard, but I do want you to know that I have an article coming out addressing your recent video on Group Pulls. I agree with you on many aspects, but your statements making it sound like it's always illegal for one person to send another money for the purpose of gambling are simply not correct without context.

You also drop terms like, "WIRE Act," and, "Money Laundering," where the former might not apply and the latter almost never would.

---

I would of probably went more like this…

Quote:

---

I am reaching out to you because I am publishing an article regarding Group Pulls with a focus on the proliferation on the TikTok platform. Since your video was the first to really blow the cover off this, I have included many references to it. We agree on many aspects, but I wanted to give you a heads up on where we differ. Here is a list of those.

——————————-

Please message me back at your earliest convenience if you care to comment on any of the differences/criticisms before it’s published. I’d like to give you a chance to respond so I can add those to the article if need be. If I don’t hear from you by ***** I will have to publish the article as is.

---

Like Druff stated above I think this all just came out a bit adversarial and it wasn’t intended to be. But I’m hoping EZ and you can work out any differences. No need for it, plenty of drama out there already. Hate to see two people that are both doing exceptional work butt heads.

As someone who has known and met Mission in the past, I can tell you the one thing he can’t stand is DRAMA. The guy is a straight shooter and for the most part calls out the nonsense and BS on many of the gambling forums. And then walks away and avoids it instead of continuing it, like many of us are prone to do and then getting in a pissing match where no one wins.

I’m not taking sides and getting in the middle of this, but one thing I know is that subforum has done an incredible job of both working together and exposing scammers. Hopefully it continues and any minor disagreements are moved on from and quickly forgotten.

And yes Jeff, we are fortunate to have Mission and his writing talents here if he decides to add to the site. But hey, why give away what you can get paid for?

And thanks to EZ for everything he does as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffDime

Mission, I mean the kind words. I think your writing is very strong. We don’t see writing this good ever in the gambling sphere. I actually think Todd was probably the best writer in the industry before I read your shit. I think because it is here on his forum and not in some shiny poker magazine or a “Poker News” website, that gets lost on people. But from what I’ve read, you two are the best. Frankly, there are a number of posters on this forum whose writing, investigating and presenting skills put traditional poker media to shame (See Chrissy thread).

A lot to unpack and your thoroughness is appreciated. I will write more later but had a few things I wanted to give my take on. EZ is a YouTube Content Creator. While I believe his motives are genuine in exposing these people, we can’t lose sight of the entertainment aspect of these videos. People watch him because they like him. If he genuinely believes something is illegal, he surely can voice that opinion.

Now I would never suppose to tell either you or EZ how to go about doing what both of you are successful at already. However, I can say that as far as your communication to EZ, I myself would have probably felt as if the article was focused on my video & not the TikTok Gambling fiasco. So in my humble opinion, it seems like there was an unfortunate misunderstanding from the beginning.

Again, I am just saying how I would of messaged EZ. This isn’t a criticism. I just think it started on the wrong foot.



I would of probably went more like this…

Quote:

---

I am reaching out to you because I am publishing an article regarding Group Pulls with a focus on the proliferation on the TikTok platform. Since your video was the first to really blow the cover off this, I have included many references to it. We agree on many aspects, but I wanted to give you a heads up on where we differ. Here is a list of those.

——————————-

Please message me back at your earliest convenience if you care to comment on any of the differences/criticisms before it’s published. I’d like to give you a chance to respond so I can add those to the article if need be. If I don’t hear from you by ***** I will have to publish the article as is.

---

Like Druff stated above I think this all just came out a bit adversarial and it wasn’t intended to be. But I’m hoping EZ and you can work out any differences. No need for it, plenty of drama out there already. Hate to see two people that are both doing exceptional work butt heads.

---

Thank you very much once again! I certainly try to do my best with the content, but I am certainly not above writing the occasional, "Fluff," article as there often isn't a ton to cover. Strangely, some of my articles that I have felt are not my best work have gotten some of the most reads and engagement.

In any event, I should say that I am flattered to even be compared to Druff in this way. When it comes to investigation into things, it is my opinion that Druff is probably the BEST anywhere, by a mile, when he puts his mind to something. I'm pretty good at research, but if there's a question that can't be answered by the traditional methods of researching it, then Druff is 100% the top guy to get to the bottom of things.

I'll have to have a free day and dig more deeply into that CM thread. The only reason that I haven't written an article about him is because I think he is such a lowlife shitbag that I refuse to be responsible for his name even appearing on our sites.

There was some element to the private communications that I am not going to share. Quite frankly, I felt that EZ was as much as accusing me of having no idea what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to these things.

I think the message that you suggested would have probably been better. I should work to improve my interpersonal communication skills so that I can better express my intent behind sending these sort of messages and what the meaning of the messages is. I only sent EZ the message because I have a lot of respect for his work. Do you think I gave Professor Slots the courtesy of knowing, in advance, that I would be publishing an article that came at him (and I went at him hard), or the courtesy to DSucky? Absolutely not. I think EZ Life does great work.

I also rewatched his video and he actually doesn't spend that much time harping on the legalities and does an excellent job explaining the angles of these nefarious characters. I could see where my article could be construed as unfairly harsh criticism of him as it ended up being sort of half and half disagreeing with his comments as to the legalities with the other half being focused on the group pull guys.

Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself to say that I won't have future dealings with EZ Life, so I will retract that and unblock him on Facebook, for now. Actually, one of my original reasons for messaging him (a few weeks before this) was to offer to be interviewed (if he wanted) on legitimate forms of slot AP. I would have wanted nothing in exchange other than to publish a companion article and we would both keep our own money from our own outlets.

In any event, I am going to write a short follow-up article clarifying my position on this matter with EZ Life and will also include an apology if I came off in a way that I did not intend in the first one. As much as I hate it, I will probably have to search for some of these TikToks, on direct, just to have something to add to it. It'll probably be published in the next ten days.

In any event, EZ Life, if I came off as too harsh at you in my article, then please know it was not intended and you have my sincerest apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

As someone who has known and met Mission in the past, I can tell you the one thing he can’t stand is DRAMA. The guy is a straight shooter and for the most part calls out the nonsense and BS on many of the gambling forums. And then walks away and avoids it instead of continuing it, like many of us are prone to do and then getting in a pissing match where no one wins.

I’m not taking sides and getting in the middle of this, but one thing I know is that subforum has done an incredible job of both working together and exposing scammers. Hopefully it continues and any minor disagreements are moved on from and quickly forgotten.

And yes Jeff, we are fortunate to have Mission and his writing talents here if he decides to add to the site. But hey, why give away what you can get paid for?

And thanks to EZ for everything he does as well.

---

Thank you for saying so, The Boz! Despite our off-forum interactions being somewhat brief, (one in-person and a handful of phone calls) you sure seem to understand me extremely well! You might have missed your calling as a psychologist.

Personally, I hope there is nothing to get in the middle of. As soon as I have enough material for a follow-up article, I intend to use that article to also clarify the reasons that I wanted to clear up potential legal misconceptions and also apologize for the previous article's tone being a bit unfair to EZ. I get so hung up on things being correct or incorrect that I sometimes forget that I am talking about another person who is just doing his best to call out these group pull grifters and fail to realize that my words are unfairly harsh when it comes to someone who is just trying to do the right thing.

I also thank EZ for everything that he does on his channel and apologize to him for first the tone of my critique, second, being overly critical, and third, for my fiery responses to him in this thread. I mainly read the part where it was suggested that my opinion of what is or isn't legal perhaps being framed by my benefitting from sort of vaguely specified unlawful activity and that immediately pissed me off.

Quite a lot to unpack here and frankly I don't have the time for all of this back and forth, I come here from time to time to check up on anything I may have missed on ACA, since I do plan on doing another video on them in the future.

I am in no way shape or form asking for an amendment to the article, I even told you that privately. Just like people who I speak about open themselves up for it so do I. So have at it and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

The word group pull keeps getting thrown out a lot and my video is way beyond group pulls. This is Mary sending Bob $500 to play with. Bob takes 20% of the $500 and then plays the $400 for Mary. That is not a group pull. Bob is profiting, Bob is a bookie. That is illegal. That is what all these channels I discussed (and channels I didn't discuss) are doing. Which ties in those links I showed you. I hope this clarifies things.

The comment about you saying you are blocking me, never speaking to me or about me again has me dying laughing but as I read on I see what did it. You said you immediately got pissed off with my first message in this thread about your site. If you watched more of my videos you would know one of my charming features is pushing peoples buttons ;-) I too am, a asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZ Life Slot Jackpots

The comment about you saying you are blocking me, never speaking to me or about me again has me dying laughing but as I read on I see what did it. You said you immediately got pissed off with my first message in this thread about your site. If you watched more of my videos you would know one of my charming features is pushing peoples buttons ;-) I too am, a asshole.

---

Is your car using Autopilot or FSD when you are doing live streams from your car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZ Life Slot Jackpots

Quite a lot to unpack here and frankly I don't have the time for all of this back and forth, I come here from time to time to check up on anything I may have missed on ACA, since I do plan on doing another video on them in the future.

I am in no way shape or form asking for an amendment to the article, I even told you that privately. Just like people who I speak about open themselves up for it so do I. So have at it and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

The word group pull keeps getting thrown out a lot and my video is way beyond group pulls. This is Mary sending Bob $500 to play with. Bob takes 20% of the $500 and then plays the $400 for Mary. That is not a group pull. Bob is profiting, Bob is a bookie. That is illegal. That is what all these channels I discussed (and channels I didn't discuss) are doing. Which ties in those links I showed you. I hope this clarifies things.

---

Even with "Bob" above keeping a commission for the slot pulls, there is probably no law violation here -- or at least not one which would be likely to see action from law enforcement.

This is because the commission is a flat %, and not tied to the outcome of the gambling. In fact, something similar is done in poker staking, known as "markup". It is very typical that you would send $120 to a guy entering a $10,000 event to buy 1% of him, rather than $100. The extra $20 (20% markup) is there to both cover the poker pro's expenses AND because the poker pro claims to be a better than average player in the field, and thus is worth more. This has been long known to be legal.

As I mentioned, the illegality would be a Caesars rep allowing me to wire the company money so one of their employees can gamble-by-proxy for me. Same with wiring money for purposes of a guy booking a sportsbet on the other side of my pick, but even there, it would have to be a business operation, and not just betting between friends or acquaintances.

I am very much on your side regarding these slot pulls, though. Without anyone neutral there to witness them taking place, and because of virtually untraceable forms of trickery (even with so-called "live streams"), this is a bad way to spend your money, as you never know what's really happening on the other end. And there's a good chance a lot of these are shady.