53 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
53 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Feds Say Full Tilt Poker Was Giant Ponzi Scheme

by Patrick Pretty
45 replies
Lots of discussions about payment processors, banks and risk associated with online businesses lately.

In New York today, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and federal prosecutors alleged that Full Tilt Poker was conducting a massive, global Ponzi scheme in which insiders reaped hundreds of millions of dollars between 2007 and 2011 -- but that the operation had only $60 million in its bank accounts while owing players $390 million in April 2011.

This case has been evolving since the initial allegations were filed in April.

Here is what prosecutors in New York said today:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pres...omplaintpr.pdf

Snippet (bolding added) :

"In addition to its failure to segregate funds and its constant stream of distributions to owners, the proposed Amended Complaint alleges that the company faced a growing shortfall in 2010 related to its inability to collect funds from U.S. players, a fact which it did not disclose to players. Beginning in August 2010, Full Tilt Poker's payment processing network in the United States was so disrupted that the company often could not withdraw money from U.S. players' bank accounts in order to fund credits to their online gambling accounts. In order to maintain its false image of financial security, Full Tilt continued to credit player accounts without disclosing its inability to fund those credits. Ultimately, the company credited approximately $130 million to players' online gambling accounts that it never actually withdrew from their bank accounts. When players gambled with these phantom funds and lost to other players, a massive shortfall developed."

Patrick
#feds #full #giant #poker #ponzi #scheme #tilt
  • Profile picture of the author Newman8r
    Wow, that's pretty bad. Really makes you think twice about using second tier payment processors.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4717323].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonthewebmaster
    Banned
    The Feds conveniently forgot to leave out the fact that they have REGULATED the financial industry with so many laws that have CAUSED THIS PROBLEM by regulating banks and lending institutions so heavily that the payment processors were forced to stop processing the payments or they would themselves be breaking a law!

    If the government would get their sticky ****ing thieving hands out of everyones damn pockets, then maybe this would not have happened in the first place!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4717343].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      Originally Posted by jasonthewebmaster View Post

      The Feds conveniently forgot to leave out the fact that they have REGULATED the financial industry with so many laws that have CAUSED THIS PROBLEM ... in the first place!
      Really? Please explain to the idiots amongst us, namely me, how any law, or any lack of financial processing, caused a ponzi scheme.

      Either Full Tilt Poker had sufficient funds to cover players' balances or it did not.

      If it had funds, but was prohibited from disbursing them, then yes - I would see the point.

      But that is not what is claimed.

      Assuming it is a ponzi scheme, here comes the next shoe to drop ...

      Lawsuits and federal actions to grab money back from the players who made money playing online poker.

      If you used FTP and were only thinking darn, there goes my poker fun, guess again. You could be a defendant.

      .
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4717831].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

        Really? Please explain to the idiots amongst us, namely me, how any law, or any lack of financial processing, caused a ponzi scheme.
        He is saying that they did't have the funds because the law didn't allow them to withdraw them BUT FTP didnt have to keep giving credits. So yea, FTP is the one to blame. No one else.

        -g
        Signature
        Screw You, NameCheap!
        $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
        SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718010].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steve Wells
        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

        Really? Please explain to the idiots amongst us, namely me, how any law, or any lack of financial processing, caused a ponzi scheme.

        Either Full Tilt Poker had sufficient funds to cover players' balances or it did not.

        If it had funds, but was prohibited from disbursing them, then yes - I would see the point.

        But that is not what is claimed.

        Assuming it is a ponzi scheme, here comes the next shoe to drop ...

        Lawsuits and federal actions to grab money back from the players who made money playing online poker.

        If you used FTP and were only thinking darn, there goes my poker fun, guess again. You could be a defendant.

        .
        I'd like to see the size of the court room that brings all the FTP that made money into the lawsuit....

        Do you know how many players won money on fulltilt not only in the united states but through out the world? How would they handle bringing others in from other countries?

        Honestly, this would probably never happen, if it did, I would just have to sit back and laugh in awe.............

        Thankfully I have never won money on FT...........

        I am waiting for the goverment announce what I know they are going to do in the future, start there own online poker site and tax it, which is all they are interested in.... period, they are not about protecting people, they are all about making money.
        Signature
        Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718012].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
          Originally Posted by Steve Wells View Post

          I'd like to see the size of the court room that brings all the FTP that made money into the lawsuit....
          In some online schemes, not even a large sports stadium could accommodate all of the victims. It is a sad reality of the Internet, one that demonstrates virality is not always a good thing. I am following a nonpoker case now that potentially has a victims' count of 300,000+, including inhabitants of some of the poorest nations on earth.

          Two other nonpoker (but Internet-based) schemes in the courts right now have a combined victims' count of about 80,000 and a combined take of about $180 million. A third nonpoker (but Internet-based) scheme has a deaf victims' count of more than 7,130. Meanwhile, a fourth nonpoker (but Internet-based) scheme has a victims' count of roughly 3,000 and a take of about $70 million. There is another nonpoker (but Internet-based) scheme in which the victims' count is not known, but the alleged haul was estimated at $400 million.

          The Feds are looking at about $2.5 BILLION in the poker cases -- and there is a link to an alleged $275 million IM scheme (Jeremy Johnson/IWorks) whose core allegation is fraudulent continuity billing. Johnson is not named in the poker case, but his alleged business associate was a payment facilitator for one or more of the poker companies. The combined schemes have put a small bank in Utah under severe pressure.

          Providing seating for alleged perpetrators generally poses less of a logistical challenge. The groups of "insiders" usually are relatively small. There may be a considerably larger group of "winners," but still nothing compared to the size of the victims' pool.

          Patrick
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4719360].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jacob Tudor Baruch
    Full Tilt allegedly "loaned" Phil Ivey 9 million which was only "partially" paid. People fell for the myth of poker greatness. Doyle Brunson is still the greatest.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4717369].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CollegeEducated
    This is insane. Glad I never got into that whole playing poker online area. It's illegal anyway in the states and no point in risking a visit from Big Bo in the pen for that sort of thing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4717950].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by CollegeEducated View Post

      This is insane. Glad I never got into that whole playing poker online area. It's illegal anyway in the states and no point in risking a visit from Big Bo in the pen for that sort of thing.
      Yep, when I go away, the only bars I'm interested in have a sea breeze, a sunset view and strong adult beverages...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4717976].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    Full Tilt was the title sponsor of my TV show in 2007. I knew these guys very well.

    I figured something like this was the case when Poker Stars paid back the American players, but FTP did not. Shame.
    Signature

    Founder of JVZoo. All around good guy :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718547].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rough Outline
    When you've got criminals watching the criminals, who can you really believe?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718565].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    Heh. The government disrupts its cash flow then prosecutes because the company cannot pay.

    Your tax dollars at work.
    I don't believe that is the scenario. The government forced them to stop doing business with US players. They froze the accounts and sites of PokerStars and FTP. Stars argued that they wanted to pay back the American players' money. The Fed unfroze the accounts so they could do that. Stars paid back the US players. FTP did not. Now, they are realizing that FTP never had enough money to cover the "chips" in the first place.

    That's the way I read into this.
    Signature

    Founder of JVZoo. All around good guy :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718659].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author M Thompson
      I never understood why they blocked acces to american players in the first place? Lobbying by the casino owners?


      Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

      I don't believe that is the scenario. The government forced them to stop doing business with US players. They froze the accounts and sites of PokerStars and FTP. Stars argued that they wanted to pay back the American players' money. The Fed unfroze the accounts so they could do that. Stars paid back the US players. FTP did not. Now, they are realizing that FTP never had enough money to cover the "chips" in the first place.

      That's the way I read into this.
      Signature


      If you are serious about online marketing come and Join our free community The Foundation
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718684].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author J Bold
        Originally Posted by M Thompson View Post

        I never understood why they blocked acces to american players in the first place? Lobbying by the casino owners?
        I think it's based on the law banning online gambling which came about sometime within the last 5-10 years or so, I think, in the U.S.

        But it some ways, it's rarely been enforced strongly until the last year or so, from what I've read.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4719004].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
    The complaint is massive -- 103 pages. Page after page of info on bank accounts involved in the alleged web of deception to keep the money wheels greased.

    Some non-Ponzi highlights from the allegations:

    * "[D]ozens of phony corporations and corresponding websites" were used "so that the money debited from U.S. customer’s banks would falsely appear to United States banks to be consumer payments to non-gambling related businesses."

    * "[C]oconspirators . . . created dozens of phony e-commerce websites purporting to sell everything from clothing to jewelry to golf clubs to bicycles."

    * A phony "green" company and website were set up. The purported business was positioned as a "direct sales" firm that allowed consumers to buy environmentally friendly household products and sell them to other consumers in return for commissions."

    * The phony "green" website was created "to disguise the gambling transactions" and "listed numerous products that were purportedly for sale and contained
    'testimonials' about the benefits of green living."

    From a writer's perspective, it was hard not to laugh at the specific allegation (in bold below). It was in that sort of plainspeak that sometimes rivals the literature of the Great Wordsmiths because the understatement is so powerful that the imagery just leaps off the page:

    * "Tracking all of the phony merchants used to disguise gambling transactions created administrative and technical difficulties for the Poker Companies."

    An example of the "technical difficulties" that allegedly surfaced:

    Chargebacks were "increasing" at PokerStars, one of the defendants named in April, because the poker customers would look at their bank statements and not recognize the names of the companies that dinged their credit accounts.

    The customers allegedly did not recognize the names because they did not understand that the poker companies were routing their money through bogus firms.

    What was needed was a lie to contain multiple lies, according to the complaint. These lines, according to the complaint, were taken from a PokerStar's document that addressed the chargeback problem:

    "In fact most [billing] descriptors strongly imply the transaction has nothing to do with PokerStars (i.e. BICYCLEBIGSHOP.COM, GOLFSHOPCENTER.COM, VENTURESHOPPING.COM etc). Whilst some players read confirmation emails and understand the process, many do not and it is all too easy for a player to say to their bank 'I've never made a purchase at BICYCLEBIGSHOP.COM'. As a result chargebacks (Not Auth & Stop Payments) are increasing which in turn jeopardizes the relationship with the processor and their banks."

    To get around this problem, according to the complaint, PokerStars "modified its software so, where possible, a consistent phony descriptor would appear on the bank statements of a given U.S. customer."

    Patrick
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718809].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rich Struck
    Wow, a crooked online casino? Gee, what a surprise!
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4718860].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author theomegaformula
    Man, I used to play on Full Tilt all the time. Now I wonder how much I straight up just got robbed. I'm a pretty damn good poker player in real life, way up in winnings. But against those people... it was ridiculous how many times they got "lucky". I can definitely see them being bots now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4719028].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author J Bold
      Originally Posted by theomegaformula View Post

      Man, I used to play on Full Tilt all the time. Now I wonder how much I straight up just got robbed. I'm a pretty damn good poker player in real life, way up in winnings. But against those people... it was ridiculous how many times they got "lucky". I can definitely see them being bots now.
      Interesting, so did you ever get paid by them?

      Do you go to tournaments and all that to play poker?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4719058].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank2
      Originally Posted by theomegaformula View Post

      Man, I used to play on Full Tilt all the time. Now I wonder how much I straight up just got robbed. I'm a pretty damn good poker player in real life, way up in winnings. But against those people... it was ridiculous how many times they got "lucky". I can definitely see them being bots now.
      My guess is you were "playing" against a computer and the other players were fakes. I cannot understand how people thought these poker sites could run an honest game.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4727671].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Marty S
        Originally Posted by Frank2 View Post

        My guess is you were "playing" against a computer and the other players were fakes. I cannot understand how people thought these poker sites could run an honest game.
        My guess is that he was a bad player, just like so many others looking to blame anything but themselves on losing money.

        In fact, there are huge profits in running "honest" games such as PokerStars and Party Poker know how to do. That's one of the reasons why they have external audits. Conversely, one slight bit of mistrust can spell immediate doom for a poker site - why on earth would they risk that?

        There is such a huge profit in running online poker games, that the US government will be doing it themselves eventually - sans the competition they have decimated since Black Friday. Something they have wanted all along.
        Signature
        How to make offline videos for clients
        How to add a custom thumbnail image to your Youtube video
        How to CUT THE FAT in your YOUTUBE videos
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4728106].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
          Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

          My guess is that he was a bad player, just like so many others looking to blame anything but themselves on losing money.
          Ron White does a bit about playing poker, both online and in person. Claims he lost a boatload of money.

          Seems the game is a whole lot easier on TV, where you can see everybody else's cards...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4730440].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Azarna
            The name Ivan Imrich just lept right out at me
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4731124].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kevkos30
    Pot calling kettle black. Social Security is a much bigger ponzi scheme, but they see nothing wrong with that!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4719227].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steve Wells
      Originally Posted by kevkos30 View Post

      Pot calling kettle black. Social Security is a much bigger ponzi scheme, but they see nothing wrong with that!
      Clap-Clap....
      Signature
      Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4723110].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
      Originally Posted by kevkos30 View Post

      Pot calling kettle black. Social Security is a much bigger ponzi scheme, but they see nothing wrong with that!
      For the sake of discussion on marketing, not politics, let's say your assertion is true.

      What then? Should IMers be permitted to run Ponzi schemes? If a Ponzi scheming IM competitor hiding behind the "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" defense is plowing under the competition with his well-oiled Ponzi scheme, should his competitors dial up their rationalized criminality and seek to construct an improved IM Ponzi scheme to better compete?

      I have covered Ponzi schemes in which IMers have claimed that the government has no business prosecuting Ponzi schemers because Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and because the fortunes amassed in private Ponzi schemes help the economy. In other words, they want to decriminalize Ponzi schemes or force the government to drop Ponzi cases because Ponzi schemes purportedly are good for profits.

      There is not a shred of intellectual honesty anywhere in their twisted arguments and tortured constructions.

      Some of the IM Ponzi scheme defenders wrote the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining that the government should not go after the Ponzi schemers -- it should go after the agents and prosecutors who investigate Ponzi schemes and bring criminal charges. Some of the very same reality-inverting IMers launched a forum campaign to have the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) enter a Ponzi case on the side of an IMer accused of fleecing the old and the young. These same IMers then explained it would be a good idea to prosecute the Attorney General of Florida for Deceptive Trade Practices for speaking out publicly against fraud schemes.

      These people are fantastic idiots who create negative headline after negative headline for IM. The public wonders whether the entire trade consists of thieving, manipulative crackpots.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4724231].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fluffythewondercat
        I don't have a dog in this fight but I would be very surprised if Howard Lederer was involved. He comes from a respectable family. His father, Richard Lederer, is a world-famous author of books on grammar and word play. I have heard him speak a number of times. He's entertaining and has a high regard for the truth. He's also very proud that his son and daughter (Annie Duke) are world-champion poker players.

        fLufF
        --
        Signature
        Fiverr is looking for freelance writers for its blog. Details here.
        Love microjobs? Work when you want and get paid in cash the same day!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4724282].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
        Banned
        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post
        Really? Please explain to the idiots amongst us, namely me, how any law, or any lack of financial processing, caused a ponzi scheme.
        The Social Security Act, aka law, of 1935 caused/created probably the biggest ponzi scheme around.


        Originally Posted by Patrick Pretty View Post

        For the sake of discussion on marketing, not politics, let's say your assertion is true.

        What then? Should IMers be permitted to run Ponzi schemes? If a Ponzi scheming IM competitor hiding behind the "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" defense is plowing under the competition with his well-oiled Ponzi scheme, should his competitors dial up their rationalized criminality and seek to construct an improved IM Ponzi scheme to better compete?
        Technically, yes, except for the dialed up criminality part. If Ponzi schemes were legal, it wouldn't be criminal for competitors to make theirs even better.

        There is another option though...how about we not let anyone engage in Ponzi schemes, the government included? Either they're illegal or they aren't. Ignoring this contradiction(and many others) is one reason why this nation finds itself in the situation it is in today.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4725828].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jrpt
    I truly think these Poker Pros such as Lederer and Ferguson were blindsided. I see many many lawsuits coming up...too bad there's no $$ to be won in the suits.

    Anyone who trusts 'online gaming' and gives their $$ in games of chance should be examined by a doctor.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4719479].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
    Snippet from a statement on the alleged Full Tilt Poker Ponzi scheme by the Poker Players Alliance:

    "If true, these allegations detail a massive betrayal of player trust which will cause financial hardship for thousands, if not millions, of individual poker players, none of whom are accused of doing anything wrong. We call on the Department of Justice to certify that the proceeds of any settlement or seizure that may result from this action will first be dedicated to reimbursing players. We further call on FullTiltPoker, its management, directors and owners to take all available steps to ensure the prompt payment of players as their first priority."

    Full statement here:

    [Press Release] PPA Statement on DOJ Amendment to Online Poker Civil Suit (09/20/2011)

    Patrick
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4719597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RichWill
    I have played on Full Tilt poker and I always got paid. The poker pros involved are paid sponsors and not investors. I do not believe that any poker pro committed anything illegal. However, I wouldn't put it past Phil Ivey because he is a greedy man. Howard Lederer could possibly be a criminal but overall the players are clean.

    Full Tilt will never pay back the money.

    As for instant taxes, hell ya. Open it up to all and tax everyone who plays. That my friends pays for a lot of toilet seats in space shuttles.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4722071].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sagits
    Wow... stupid *******s! That's why they haven't paid me yet...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4725345].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ArtemK
    Fluffy, I respect Howard Lederer also but I think it's naive to say he didn't know what was going on just because his pop's is a good guy. In general, I dont think the pros are to blame, they were offered to be sponsors who got paid huge amounts of money, who would say no to that?
    Plus, I doubt the pros knew of the intricacies of what was really happening, with all the phony companies, etc.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4725514].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LOWESTCOSTWIRELESS
    Funny,

    The feds need money, so they will slap ponzi scheme on anyone which is very effective strategy under civil law since the can easily seize all funds and lock up accounts while defendent has to fight from their backs, not easy, and in the end, gov. gets money, not customers or players as it is in this case.

    Success to all,
    Signature
    FREE INSTANT PASSIVE INCOME SYSTEM
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4725910].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
      Originally Posted by LOWESTCOSTWIRELESS View Post

      Funny,

      The feds need money, so they will slap ponzi scheme on anyone which is very effective strategy under civil law since the can easily seize all funds and lock up accounts while defendent has to fight from their backs . . . and in the end, gov. gets money, not customers or players as it is in this case.

      Success to all,
      The Feds need money, so they will "slap [a] ponzi scheme on anyone?" That's a puzzling thought, given that prosecutors have to make a showing to a court before a Ponzi defendant is charged civilly or criminally and any money is seized. Although you describe a seizure as something that "easily" can be accomplished, it often proves to be that nothing comes easily because of the speed at which money moves these days.

      There is a Ponzi case in Philadelphia in which it is alleged the defendant was moving money even as the FBI showed up to conduct the raid, for example.

      No matter how a federal Ponzi case is brought -- be it through an SEC-style civil complaint/asset freeze in which the agency has to persuade a judge it is likely to prevail or an in rem civil forfeiture complaint brought by, say, the Secret Service or FBI, in which the money is "arrested" to stop an alleged scheme in its tracks -- the Feds can't slap anybody without judicial oversight and approval. The in rem approach may be used when the Feds are contemplating a parallel criminal prosecution and the proceeds of an alleged scam flowed from a "specified unlawful activity" such as wire fraud or money-laundering.

      In lots of SEC civil Ponzi cases, the court appoints a receiver. In in rem cases, the Feds may appoint a remissions administrator who answers to the Justice Department and coordinates the claims process for victims. Be it an SEC-style case or an in rem case, the process typically can take years and incur great expense. Reverse-engineering a Ponzi scheme is no mean feat, and the schemes increasingly are becoming international in scope, which only makes the job harder and more costly.

      Originally Posted by LOWESTCOSTWIRELESS View Post

      and in the end, gov. gets money, not customers or players as it is in this case.
      Some victims of the 2008 AdSurfDaily Ponzi, which initially was brought as a civil in rem case in which the money was arrested and gradually morphed into a criminal case, were notified today that their remissions money is on the way.

      I'm not sure how the poker cases will proceed. There are both civil and criminal aspects to the case -- and I am not sure if Full Tilt players who have not been made whole even will be made whole. My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that the Feds will go after the insiders who allegedly gained more than $400 million between April 2007 and April 2011. That money is not in the corporate till right now. Whatever sums that haven't been dissipated are elsewhere.

      Patrick
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4726537].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rocket Media
    Uhh has anyone even PLAYED full tilt? I played for about two weeks and WITHOUT A DOUBT IN MY MIND.... I know that they had set up hands.. like RIDICULOUS setup hands.

    Full tilt is a completely F'd up scheme now that I read this ish... whatever though.. Let's take a look at social security and we'll talk about a ponzi scheme.
    Signature
    Local Client ARMAGEDDON Free Facebook Group: KILLER new local client consulting education group. Watch my live stream: Listen to me COLD CALL to sell/rent my Exterminator website. Join the Facebook group for the link and to watch past Live Prospecting replays. I share my spreadsheets, Powerpoints, contracts, and other files so you can learn how to CLOSE DEALS!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4726762].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cashtree
      I played there for abit, it was clear they and pokerstars weren't legit, shame because that's at least 3 now that have been shady(absolute poker had the ceo stealing money from players, an employee found his secret account) now online gambling gonna take even longer to be legalized, thanks to these shady people.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4726972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DonDavis
    I had seen the head of Harrah's Casino on a TV interview a few weeks prior to these latest charges. He was very confident that US based online poker would be legal by the end of the year. I suspect that this has a lot to do with the latest developments. Eliminating the competition sort of thing.

    I was also going to make the same point as Ken in post #20.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4727501].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank2
      Originally Posted by DonDavis View Post

      I had seen the head of Harrah's Casino on a TV interview a few weeks prior to these latest charges. He was very confident that US based online poker would be legal by the end of the year. I suspect that this has a lot to do with the latest developments. Eliminating the competition sort of thing.

      I was also going to make the same point as Ken in post #20.
      +1
      The online poker companies are scum like the bricks and mortar casinos. The old bricks and mortars gang had no clue on how to do the web technology but they can buy politicians. The online casinos were probably scamming but the old casinos got the feds to put them out of business.

      Once they are gone, they get the Feds to allow online gaming and tax it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4727682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DonDavis
    I don't think it is accurate to say that the US casinos could not master the technical side. They can hire programmers just as anyone else. I think it may have been more of a matter of instilling fear in the players that the offshore outfits were not worthy of play and then they would perhaps apply more pressure at home for legalization of US games that can be regulated.

    Of course the US Casino lobbyists are there padding the pockets of any legislator who is willing to further there cause. Do you ever start to feel like there is just so much corruption that we as a human race are beyond hope?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4727853].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
    UPDATE: The Alderney Gambling Control Commission, the e-gaming regulator of the British Channel Islands, has revoked Full Tilt's license.

    In a ruling issued today, AGCC said FTP had "fundamentally misled" regulators and committed "serious breaches of gaming regulations.

    http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/userf..._statement.pdf

    Patrick
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4781799].message }}

Trending Topics