EPTi would personally never have racked up a balance, but it still really sucks for the people that did. and the laws are silly when lotteries and vegas are still legal. 6k? holy shit dude i would be so pissed.
Feds cracking down on online poker..? - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Pokerstars is an online poker site. Pokerstrategy is an educational training site. They are not the same site. The TSL3 is sponsored by pokerstrategy.com. | ||
|
sleigh bells
United States358 Posts
i would personally never have racked up a balance, but it still really sucks for the people that did. and the laws are silly when lotteries and vegas are still legal. 6k? holy shit dude i would be so pissed. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On April 16 2011 13:03 GoTuNk! wrote: Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake. For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money. | ||
|
Stroggoz
New Zealand79 Posts
| ||
|
ammeL
United States211 Posts
Or does this just mean anyone who had money on an account just loses all that? | ||
|
Stroggoz
New Zealand79 Posts
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there. no offense but poker players are much better at assessing risk/reward situations than the average person. As long as a poker player is consistently cashing out, losing your online roll isnt that bad of a loss if you have a good income off poker | ||
|
Hurricane
United States3939 Posts
On April 16 2011 13:21 UniversalSnip wrote: micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money. It is not insane to trust a company that has been around for over a decade doing international business and handles at the very minimum thousands of transactions per day. It is insane to play high stakes without the proper bank roll because then it is truly gambling. That said there are not a ton of people that play as a living playing high stakes. On April 16 2011 13:41 ammeL wrote: So does this mean anyone who was under 21 and used PokerStars or AbsolutePoker would get fined 250,000? Or does this just mean anyone who had money on an account just loses all that? The legal gambling age in US is 18. We don't know what's going to happen to our money until we have more information. Most of us are planning for the worst though. | ||
|
Stroggoz
New Zealand79 Posts
On April 16 2011 13:21 UniversalSnip wrote: micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money. you mean like banks? lol | ||
|
ammeL
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
Hurricane
United States3939 Posts
On April 16 2011 13:47 ammeL wrote: Right. But I'm curious - even if you were underage, they can't come crawling to your door, can they? It seems like this is just against the actual companies - PokerStars, AbsolutePoker, etc. If they do find someone gambling under age you can be prosecuted, but this particular case is against the compains/owners of the companies not the players. More specifically it is about the way they interacted with the banks to allow Americans to deposit/withdraw money. | ||
|
ammeL
United States211 Posts
So essentially, these big name sites used another alias that would appear on an American's bank statement. Because, terms like 'Poker' are banned in most US banking systems so such a withdrawal/deposit would never go through. But, these big companies renamed the name of the transaction to something else, which is what the Feds are after. And since these sites are being shut down (at least on the US side), the money that American players had in their accounts are gone. But it really has nothing to do with players who played previously, etc. It basically just sucks for people who currently have money in their accounts. | ||
|
Skullflower
United States3779 Posts
On April 16 2011 11:41 rubiKs wrote: Not sure if this has been posted or yet. But here is the "cause of all of it" http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/fbi-charges-11-internet-poker-kingpins-20110416-1difk.html I don't think you truly have to be a genius to realize shell companies can be a good way to launder money... | ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
| ||
|
ammeL
United States211 Posts
And that primary issue creates a problem for the players: what will happen to their money | ||
|
Hurricane
United States3939 Posts
On April 16 2011 14:05 ammeL wrote: So the issue is basically between the companies and the feds. And that primary issue creates a problem for the players: what will happen to their money Yep. Also for the people who played to make a living... what the fuck now. I'm confident thousands of people are now out of jobs because Americans cannot play on these sites for the foreseeable future (read: months if not years). | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On April 16 2011 13:42 Hurricane wrote: It is not insane to trust a company that has been around for over a decade doing international business and handles at the very minimum thousands of transactions per day. It is insane to play high stakes without the proper bank roll because then it is truly gambling. That said there are not a ton of people that play as a living playing high stakes. The legal gambling age in US is 18. We don't know what's going to happen to our money until we have more information. Most of us are planning for the worst though. He's not saying play high stakes without the proper bankroll. He's saying have the majority of your bankroll in a bank, and have, say, 5 buyins on FTP. Note: don't shoot the messenger kthx. Just clarifying on what I thought ought to be his obvious implication, rather than your assumption that he meant don't play with a legit bankroll. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
| ||
|
Hurricane
United States3939 Posts
| ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On April 16 2011 14:14 PJA wrote: He's not saying play high stakes without the proper bankroll. He's saying have the majority of your bankroll in a bank, and have, say, 5 buyins on FTP. Most good players are playing at least 8 tables at once, if not 12+, and of course you'll need money to rebuy if you lose money on any tables. Plus it can be a pain to constantly deposit/withdraw, especially in the US. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On April 16 2011 14:18 Hurricane wrote: Eh, seems retarded to not have 40+ buy in's for your stake online when having -10+ buy in swings is pretty standard at higher stakes. I would tend to agree that it isn't feasible. OTOH, if you analyzed it from a "what would happen if FTP shut down and I lost X money" versus the opportunity cost of micromanaging your money, perhaps you could find some equilibrium. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On April 16 2011 14:21 PJA wrote: I would tend to agree that it isn't feasible. OTOH, if you analyzed it from a "what would happen if FTP shut down and I lost X money" versus the opportunity cost of micromanaging your money, perhaps you could find some equilibrium. Tbh up to this point I tought my funds at ps were safer than some banks here (and most in argentina/bolivia/venezuela) | ||
| ||
