badgerman

Moreover, the inability of US citizens to be confident in retrieving their bankrolls anymore makes it difficult for build and maintain bankrolls on the remaining smaller sites for fear of losing everything on the site, causing more cashout requests.

I have never used a data-mining site, however, I can certainly understand why those who play for a living would want to. Especially since you have almost no information on players online oftentimes, its nice to know whether that guy shoving on you is just some donk or a solid pro. It seems there ought to be some compromise available for limited uses (like whether your opponent is profitable or not) but without detailed analyses of hand play that make you exploitable (like how often you fold to 3 bets).

State by state regulation....the nightmare scenario...50 different licensing requirements, limited 'in-state' player pools, ridiculous restrictions, less variety of games....ugh

And despite assurances of regular updates from AP/UB, hardly a word has been spoken in a year. You couldn't sell your software in a year????

While its easy to disparage Utah, unfortunately it misses the point that federal legislation IS needed to ensure adequate player pools, consistent regulations (do we really want 50 separate licensing jurisdictions???), wider offerings of games, better prize funds, player account protections, etc. etc.

90,000 documents on the eve of trial and the defense is expected to diligently represent their client???? Sounds like typical government B.S. tactics.

when are we going to hear about someone interested in AP/UB's software/network?????

I agree. The biggest offenders are the 'ego' players who feel compelled to let everyone know how good they are and how bad everyone else plays. They always ruin the game and chase the recreational/fish players faster than anyone else.

Cheap Discount Chess, Bridge and Poker Books http://www.ihostmall.com/nicholas9/ (look under books-games) or even better I have them categorized here (along with other suppliers): https://sites.google.com/site/cheapdiscountbooks/

The problem I have with state regulation is smaller player pools, less variety of games, probably greater rake b/c of the smaller player base, 40+ licensing jurisdictions with 40+ sets of rules and applications, etc. etc. etc. It makes absolutely no sense to let states do online poker and the games will definitely be atrocious compared to the ones we used to play online worldwide.

I'm sorry, where in my FT terms of service did I authorize you to embezzle and convert my funds to personal uses? When did I agree to loan top-name professional poker players money? I do remember researching all the major sites and being assured that my funds were kept 'completely safe and secure' in segregated accounts. FT was a nice site to play on, but boy did their management practices stink. Amazing how a company associated with nearly every top professional with so much advice on how to properly manage bankrolls didn't bother to practice what they preached.

P.S. paying it off is also the FASTEST way to distance yourself from the FT fiasco

If the forfeiture agreement has been finalized with the DOJ, then Barry (and others) should be putting that money into the DOJ forfeiture pool so that this deal gets done ASAP. I understand Barry has some concerns about where to best repay the money, but all in all, it sounded pretty lame. He's owed the money for years and never repaid it, admits he owes it, so pay it off! It's not his duty to ensure somehow that it goes to American players (though I appreciate the sentiment).

So, does winning the Aussie Millions High Roller give Ivey enough money to repay his alleged FT loans and stop screwing up the sale?

Can be found at http://www.ihostmall.com/nicholas9/ (where you search yourself under Books-Games) or go to my Google site and save time b/c I've already done the searching for you and have broken down all the available books into categories for you at https://sites.google.com/site/cheapdiscountbooks/

[quote="philw"]people hating on phil ivey are mad and stupid. quote]
REALLY? Even though Ivey was reported to be making 900k/MONTH and the players all got the shaft? Call me mad and stupid. FWIW, most of my money was on AP and apparently its going to be liquidated for pennies on the dollar, so I'm in even worse shape than the FT people, who MIGHT get paid after the sale.
For cheap, discounted Chess, Bridge, and Poker Books: https://sites.google.com/site/cheapdiscountbooks/ (categorized by site owner) or http://www.ihostmall.com/nicholas9/ (main store, search yourself)

The Sands Chairman is "morally opposed" to internet poker??????????? ROFLMAO,....HYPOCRITE!

Wonder if this settlement model is going to be followed by AP/UB, with liquidation proceeds ending up in the DOJ's hands? Also wonder how long or cumbersome the process is going to be to get funds back from DOJ. Is the DOJ going to make everyone file for 'crime victim' compensation?

So, by making the 'historically regarded' argument, the DOJ is apparently going to take the 'plain language' route in statutory interpretation. In other words, the 'plain language' of the statute prohibits 'gambling' transactions, poker is historically regarded as gambling, therefore the plain language of the statute prohibits it, regardless of the amount of skill involved.

So, because most people regard poker as gambling, it's illegal. Seems like the same argument people made to support slavery, segregation, women's sufferage, etc. Obviously this is the perception that the PPA has been working hard to change; I become nervous when the gov't starts arguing that 'the law is the law' without resort to the merits of any particular case or whether it makes any sense.

Interesting, the DOJ's appears to be making a 'historically regarded' argument. That is, they don't care if skill is required in poker or sports betting, they are 'historically regarded' as 'gambling', while chess and duplicate bridge are not. The problem is that perceptions and mores change over time and MANY things things that were either permitted or prohibited in the past were later found to be acceptable or unacceptable, e.g. slavery, racism, cohabitation, etc. etc. etc.

So, basically the DOJ is gonna tell the judge that poker has always been generally regarded as 'gambling', therefore the UIGEA was violated, and that 'skill' is irrelevant.

"According to the article, Shadrick “conceded that poker involves skill, but the evidence also showed that, while better players will win more over time, the outcome of each hand is still uncertain.” "

Uh....if the better player wins more and more often then you just admitted poker IS a game of skill (just like chess and duplicate bridge). The fact that you don't win EVERY time is irrelevant and nearly impossible in games of skill. It happens all the time at chess and bridge tables..i don't win ALL the time, just most of the time.

APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL!!!!!