|
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. |
On April 16 2011 22:36 Kar98 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, Full Tilt Poker run a local tournament at my local pub ($10 buy in), with all these alegations going around and now I can't sign into Full Tilt Poker, does this mean that the local tournament will also be shut down?
if they were running a live event they probably were legal in that area. However if FT withdraws from the US, they more than likely will stop live operations as well.
Wondering if pokerstars will keep running things like the north american poker tour at casinos any more..
|
5-6 days ago deposited 900ish in 2 increments into pokerstars to send them to my bank account due to laziness of filling the neteller requirements for bank withdrawal
yesterday when i understood about this i cashed out back to neteller around that time (00:00 KST) the whole amount and they got back there almost instantly
|
|
|
Two main things to take away from that
1. No one knows what's going on
According to the indictments, the Justice Department froze about 75 bank accounts belonging to the three websites. The exact amount of money in each account and who that money actually belongs is not known at this time. It will probably take a thorough accounting of each company's records to know exactly where it should be allocated.
2. It's going to be a long time before we do
So once the criminal and civil cases are resolved and all the accounting is sorted out, players will likely be able get their money back... but that could be a long, long time from now.
Personally, I disagree with "likely".
|
On April 17 2011 00:21 Modafinil wrote:Two main things to take away from that 1. No one knows what's going on Show nested quote +According to the indictments, the Justice Department froze about 75 bank accounts belonging to the three websites. The exact amount of money in each account and who that money actually belongs is not known at this time. It will probably take a thorough accounting of each company's records to know exactly where it should be allocated. 2. It's going to be a long time before we do Show nested quote +So once the criminal and civil cases are resolved and all the accounting is sorted out, players will likely be able get their money back... but that could be a long, long time from now. Personally, I disagree with "likely".
Same.
|
On April 16 2011 18:17 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:51 MMello wrote:On April 16 2011 16:30 Klogon wrote:On April 16 2011 16:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 16 2011 16:28 Klogon wrote:
Are insured by the US Federal Government for up to $100,000... 100m right ? 100k is pocket change to ps and 100m is nothing for US banks not the mention the US government. Are you kidding me? Oh, and I meant that each person's personal deposits / accounts are insured up to 100k. Edit: well it seems like 250k. My bad. http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured/basics.html The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close. You must not watch poker or play online poker at all.. Am i right? 250k isn't even 1st place in some online poker tounrys Uhhh no, you're completely wrong. You bring up watching poker on TV? Lol. Geez, I have a feeling I have more poker experience than you. 250k isn't insurance for the banks. It's insurance for each depositor. So if we use poker site terms, that's for each USER instead of what you're probably thinking as it being for the entire site. For example, if you had 200k on Pokerstars and I had 200k on Pokerstars, we'd both get all of our money back if pokerstars was a FDIC insured bank. In fact, if you also had 250k on Fulltilt, 250k on UB, and 250k on Pokerstars and all were FDIC insured banks, the government would pay you 750k if they all went under. Sure it doesn't help if you have millions on deposit, but it sure as hell dampens the blow for 99.9% of people, doesn't it? Honestly, I feel many of you fail to comprehend how giant the global financial system really is. There is a ton of money in the global poker industry, but the financial system IS money. But I have no idea why the hell we are still talking about this.
Klogan is correct, we have something similar in Canada. Its call teh CIDC, it insures up to 100,000 for each type of account (bank accounts, term investments, ect). Its designed to protect against insolvency, so if a bank goes under and theres a major cash run, 90% of people will still get their money back from the government. Anybody with over that balance on deposit might lose anythiung above the 100k. It doesnt necessarily mean they will, but its a possibility.
Its a guarantee on your current money, not a a potential prize pool. Online poker is by no means even close to the size or security of the financial system.
ie. RBC is Canadas largest bank, and has about 726 Billion dollars in Assets. There are 4 other major banks in Canada the lowest with 350 billion. (Thats larger than the GDP of 90% of countries).
RBC is about the 30th biggest bank in the world, American Banks like JP morgan and Bank of america have over 2 trillion in assets. They are literally to big to fail (see government bailouts). If they werent bailed out the financial system of the US economy would have collapsed. Pokerstars was worth maybe 3-4 billion? Not even a comparison so I dont see why you would even argue that.
|
just outsource the headquarters to malta like every european gambling company did and the fun will go on 
|
No poker online but I can trade stocks?
|
On April 16 2011 20:43 MrTortoise wrote:
All gambling is is investing money with a probability of a return of some uncertain amount.
YOU GAMBLE EVERYTIME YOU BUY BREAD.
any form of transaction with uncertantity is gambling
due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle EVERYTHING is gambling and has to be tret using probability.
This happened at the turn of the 1900's
I hope you enjoyed your history and maths lesson.
Now can the right wing religious folken with their moral high ground please go and live in another country for a significant period of time.
A little bit of knowledge...
|
On April 17 2011 03:49 fight_or_flight wrote:
No poker online but I can trade stocks?
Not the same thing? And you can't day trade anymore really
|
On April 16 2011 20:43 MrTortoise wrote:
All gambling is is investing money with a probability of a return of some uncertain amount.
YOU GAMBLE EVERYTIME YOU BUY BREAD.
any form of transaction with uncertantity is gambling
due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle EVERYTHING is gambling and has to be tret using probability.
This happened at the turn of the 1900's
I hope you enjoyed your history and maths lesson.
Now can the right wing religious folken with their moral high ground please go and live in another country for a significant period of time.
"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured."
That has nothing to do with "everything is uncertain." Just because you saw something called an uncertainty principle doesn't mean it means that. You should maybe look up what you're referencing before referencing it... Some of us actually know what these things mean.
|
On April 17 2011 04:01 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 20:43 MrTortoise wrote:
All gambling is is investing money with a probability of a return of some uncertain amount.
YOU GAMBLE EVERYTIME YOU BUY BREAD.
any form of transaction with uncertantity is gambling
due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle EVERYTHING is gambling and has to be tret using probability.
This happened at the turn of the 1900's
I hope you enjoyed your history and maths lesson.
Now can the right wing religious folken with their moral high ground please go and live in another country for a significant period of time. "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured." That has nothing to do with "everything is uncertain." Just because you saw something called an uncertainty principle doesn't mean it means that. You should maybe look up what you're referencing before referencing it... Some of us actually know what these things mean.
So, Heisenberg was pull over by a police officer and the officer ask him, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "No but I know exactly where I am."
But pretty much +1 to the above post. Heisenberg was not talking about fiscal transactions or risk management.
Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
|
On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk.
You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there.
So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
|
wow felt really really bad if poker strategy got taken down as well big heart poker stratagey for this awesome starleauge
|
On April 17 2011 03:49 fight_or_flight wrote:
No poker online but I can trade stocks?
Of course, the US government benefits off of successful businesses, so it's perfectly fine.
|
On April 16 2011 19:53 switchdev wrote:
Is there any risk for legal action towards the players?
From that FBI poster:
"For the persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering, it is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks."
I'm not into all the legal mumbo jumbo, but doesn't that sound like they're saying the players (within their jurisdiction) are on their radar too? I haven't seen this discussed yet in this thread.
I don't think the players really have anything to worry about.
This whole case is primarily about the companies doing illegal things. It's a case against the companies, not the players.
The only issue the players have to worry about is: will they get their money back or not and if they do, when will that day come (if it ever comes)?
|
On April 17 2011 07:41 ThaZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone. He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk. You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there. So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
Why are you defending an obvious fallacy?
Poker involves risk, everything involves risk, ergo, since poker is gambling, everything is gambling.
Are you really defending this argument?
|
United States44201 Posts
On April 17 2011 08:01 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 07:41 ThaZenith wrote:On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone. He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk. You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there. So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man. Why are you defending an obvious fallacy? Poker involves risk, everything involves risk, ergo, since poker is gambling, everything is gambling. Are you really defending this argument?
Just as you can look both ways before crossing the road you can also practice good bankroll management and choose your limits appropriately. Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
|
On April 17 2011 07:48 sermokala wrote:
wow felt really really bad if poker strategy got taken down as well big heart poker stratagey for this awesome starleauge
This has nothing to do with PokerStrategy.com, despite them sharing the PS acronym with Poker Stars. :p
It does show you why they don't accept US members though!
|
Wow, hope everyone gets their money back fine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
