PPA Starved for Cash: Full Tilt, Stars, UB, Bodog where are you? [Archive]

gaboonviper

01-30-2007, 03:34 PM

After reviewing the financials of the PPA it becomes very clear that they in no way have the money they need to win the battle they are fighting. The first question that popped into my mind was why the big pokersites-- Stars, Tilt, UB & Bodog-- have not given huge financial donations(in the millions) to the PPA. Afterall the PPA is fighting to keep the extremely lucratve US market open for them and the sites themselves are cash rich racking in hundreds of thousands a day. I could only come up with two answers that made any sense: 1. The sites know it is a losing battle so why throw a load of money into a fight that cannot be won, and 2. The sites do not trust the PPA. I think either one of these makes sense or perhaps it is a combination of the two. What do you think?

Wynton

01-30-2007, 03:38 PM

As foreign companies, the sites might be precluded from donating to a lobbying organization.

JPFisher55

01-30-2007, 03:57 PM

Even so, couldn't they get US citizens with ownership in internet gaming sites to contribute to PPA? Isn't that how Soros funds his 527 orgs?

phish

01-30-2007, 04:02 PM

I wouldn't trust the PPA. Why would the sites.

Jerry D

01-30-2007, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't trust the PPA. Why would the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is obvious that the PPA is nothing but a scam site out to make money and that's it. That's why the 2+2 people like Mason and Skalnsky will not support it. We should trust them and not the PPA. The PPA has not done one thing excpet make money for themselves.

JPFisher55

01-30-2007, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't trust the PPA. Why would the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
I kind of agree. After all there recent report is rather late. Good point.

Billman

01-31-2007, 06:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
After reviewing the financials of the PPA it becomes very clear that they in no way have the money they need to win the battle they are fighting. The first question that popped into my mind was why the big pokersites-- Stars, Tilt, UB & Bodog-- have not given huge financial donations(in the millions) to the PPA. Afterall the PPA is fighting to keep the extremely lucratve US market open for them and the sites themselves are cash rich racking in hundreds of thousands a day. I could only come up with two answers that made any sense: 1. The sites know it is a losing battle so why throw a load of money into a fight that cannot be won, and 2. The sites do not trust the PPA. I think either one of these makes sense or perhaps it is a combination of the two. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

A third option is that they don't want online poker to become legal in the US. Look at the financial windfall that Stars, UB and Tilt experienced when Party left the market. Nobody is going to get into this market who can muster the kind of money it would take to pose any of these sites any sort of serious competition. They're in a highly protected market and as long as they have access to funds transfers they're just minting money.

Legalizing poker means that Party comes back, Harrah's starts up a site, and maybe 2 or 3 other very well financed entities enter into the market. Plus, these guys have been thumbing their nose at US anti-gaming laws so the chances of them getting a license to offer legal gaming in the US is nil.

Asking why the online poker rooms aren't doing more is like asking why Al Capone didn't do more to overturn prohibition. I certainly am not trying to paint Stars or Tilt or UB as being on par with the mob'ish violence but from a business perspective the situtations are quite similar.

Uglyowl

01-31-2007, 09:35 AM

Billman, very good post.

D.L.M.

01-31-2007, 11:24 AM

why would you "donate" money to a commercial entity. thats why i think they havent.

GutPunch

01-31-2007, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A third option is that they don't want online poker to become legal in the US. Look at the financial windfall that Stars, UB and Tilt experienced when Party left the market. Nobody is going to get into this market who can muster the kind of money it would take to pose any of these sites any sort of serious competition. They're in a highly protected market and as long as they have access to funds transfers they're just minting money.

Legalizing poker means that Party comes back, Harrah's starts up a site, and maybe 2 or 3 other very well financed entities enter into the market. Plus, these guys have been thumbing their nose at US anti-gaming laws so the chances of them getting a license to offer legal gaming in the US is nil.

Asking why the online poker rooms aren't doing more is like asking why Al Capone didn't do more to overturn prohibition. I certainly am not trying to paint Stars or Tilt or UB as being on par with the mob'ish violence but from a business perspective the situtations are quite similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
VERY true. Especially where you said these sites are currently minting money..

Does it not seem like the major poker sites could give a crap about the US market...?

They should have stepped in a long time ago and started lobbying before the gambling law was passed. We are talking about a billion dollar industry here...

It seems like all these poker sites are concerned about is how deep they can stuff their pockets.

US regulation is probably the best idea for the poker sites as far as appealing to the US market. However why would they want to succumb to the US laws and regulations? Pay taxes on their profits? NO WAY!!

The major poker sites have their own best interests in mind, they always have, and always will.

Although I just can not understand why they could care less about potentially losing the entire US market. I would say that Pary Poker has lost more than 50% of their customer base after shutting the US out. Yet they do not seem to care at all... Maybe they really do not need the US market to be successful.

groo

01-31-2007, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is obvious that the PPA is nothing but a scam site out to make money and that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that you're wrong (because I really don't know), but it would be interesting to see some facts to back this up. All I know for certain about the PPA is that when I call congressmen to talk about online poker, all of them mention the PPA, so it seems to me that they are at least developing name recognition.

RGC2005

01-31-2007, 02:54 PM

At least the PPA sent me my t-shirt when I joined and my congressman knows what it means. I thought it was obvious last year with the Party Poker bonuses for joining who was behind the whole PPA.

Sniper

01-31-2007, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is obvious that the PPA is nothing but a scam site out to make money and that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that you're wrong (because I really don't know), but it would be interesting to see some facts to back this up. All I know for certain about the PPA is that when I call congressmen to talk about online poker, all of them mention the PPA, so it seems to me that they are at least developing name recognition.

[/ QUOTE ]

groo... you can start your research by reading thru the significant amount of PPA discussion on this forum...

Bottom line: Questions have been asked, PPA has not answered them... based on Mason's latest statement, PPA recognizes this and is taking steps to address the issues.

groo

02-01-2007, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is obvious that the PPA is nothing but a scam site out to make money and that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that you're wrong (because I really don't know), but it would be interesting to see some facts to back this up. All I know for certain about the PPA is that when I call congressmen to talk about online poker, all of them mention the PPA, so it seems to me that they are at least developing name recognition.

[/ QUOTE ]

groo... you can start your research by reading thru the significant amount of PPA discussion on this forum...

Bottom line: Questions have been asked, PPA has not answered them... based on Mason's latest statement, PPA recognizes this and is taking steps to address the issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks sniper. I can't say that I've read it all, but I have read a great deal of it. I have not seen much (if anything) beyond conjecture to show that the PPA is not legitimate. I understand that the lack of transparency creates some doubts, and those doubts are fair. They are not proof that the PPA is a "scam site" as the OP suggests. It may well be a scam, again, I don't know. I do know that they have at least gained some recognition on Capitol Hill, and therefore have at least a small level of credibility.

SplawnDarts

02-01-2007, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't trust the PPA. Why would the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup - a bunch of mob backed business are trying to deal with an totally un-transparent, possibly corrupt, lobbying group.

I can't for the life of me imagine why there would be a trust issue /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Billman

02-02-2007, 05:56 AM

Please substantiate your claim that online gaming companies are backed by the mob.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't trust the PPA. Why would the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup - a bunch of mob backed business are trying to deal with an totally un-transparent, possibly corrupt, lobbying group.

I can't for the life of me imagine why there would be a trust issue /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

SplawnDarts

02-02-2007, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please substantiate your claim that online gaming companies are backed by the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to. You need to prove they're legit. The burden of proof is on a financial institution to prove they're clean, not on their customers to prove they're dirty.

Billman

02-02-2007, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please substantiate your claim that online gaming companies are backed by the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to. You need to prove they're legit. The burden of proof is on a financial institution to prove they're clean, not on their customers to prove they're dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you are a moron. Prove me to me you're not.

You can't prove a negative. How could a company prove it's not run by the mob? Give me the criteria.

SplawnDarts

02-02-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please substantiate your claim that online gaming companies are backed by the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to. You need to prove they're legit. The burden of proof is on a financial institution to prove they're clean, not on their customers to prove they're dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you are a moron. Prove me to me you're not.

You can't prove a negative. How could a company prove it's not run by the mob? Give me the criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy - they do it the same way every transparent cooperation proves they're not a mob front - by revealing their major investors, reporting their financials, making operations transparent etc. For gaming companies there's the extra regulatory step of investigating the major investors.

The idea that you "can't prove a negative" is silly in the extreme.

Mondogarage

02-02-2007, 04:49 PM

Irrlevant. The burden of proof is not on the party defending an allegation, that said allegation is negative.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, that that claim is true.

You are the one asserting that the current big online rooms are mob-connected. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back it up with evidence, not the other way around.

SplawnDarts

02-02-2007, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Irrlevant. The burden of proof is not on the party defending an allegation, that said allegation is negative.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, that that claim is true.

You are the one asserting that the current big online rooms are mob-connected. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back it up with evidence, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true - the smart policy is to assume someone desiring to engage in financial transactions with your money is unreliable/corrupt until proven honest.

If you personally adopt the opposite position, let me know so I can send some people around to borrow money from you. After all, you can't easily prove they won't pay you back so why not lend to them?

2easy

02-02-2007, 08:10 PM

SplawnDarts = really obtuse poster

that is all.

AmIAFishy2?

02-02-2007, 08:18 PM

so much for innocent until proven guilty /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Billman

02-03-2007, 05:40 AM

Sorry, but you're starting to sound like someone who is mentally challenged. You made a claim. You are 100% responsible for backing up that claim. Just to make things a little more difficult you are aware that many sites, like Party and 888, are public companies who trade on the London Stock Exchange, yeah? Their financials, investors, board, etc are all open to public review. You never made a distinction between public and private and painted all companies as being mob run so at least with the public ones it's easy to prove that you have your head up your ass. Now the burden in on your plate to back up your previous statements regarding private companies.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irrlevant. The burden of proof is not on the party defending an allegation, that said allegation is negative.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, that that claim is true.

You are the one asserting that the current big online rooms are mob-connected. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back it up with evidence, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true - the smart policy is to assume someone desiring to engage in financial transactions with your money is unreliable/corrupt until proven honest.

If you personally adopt the opposite position, let me know so I can send some people around to borrow money from you. After all, you can't easily prove they won't pay you back so why not lend to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

SplawnDarts

02-03-2007, 12:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so much for innocent until proven guilty /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal prosecutions, not for trusting others with your money.

SplawnDarts

02-03-2007, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you're starting to sound like someone who is mentally challenged. You made a claim. You are 100% responsible for backing up that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope - the burden of proof often does NOT fall on the person making a statement. This is one of those cases.

The burden of proof lies with each poker site, teller, and the PPA to prove they are honest, transparent etc.

Your comment about 888 and Party is irrelivant since they do not server the US market. They had to leave because they WERE trying to be legitimate, law abiding companies. I'll let you figure out what that means about those who stayed

Billman

02-03-2007, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you're starting to sound like someone who is mentally challenged. You made a claim. You are 100% responsible for backing up that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope - the burden of proof often does NOT fall on the person making a statement. This is one of those cases.

The burden of proof lies with each poker site, teller, and the PPA to prove they are honest, transparent etc.

Your comment about 888 and Party is irrelivant since they do not server the US market. They had to leave because they WERE trying to be legitimate, law abiding companies. I'll let you figure out what that means about those who stayed

[/ QUOTE ]

See, it would not be your burden to prove whether or not they're transparent. You may even be able to get away with questioning their honesty based some selectively chosen instances. But when you claim that they are mob run, then you do have a burden of proof. You are stating that organized crime figures back or run these companies.

You've mentioned the differences between a court of law and your statements here but there are civil laws that cover liable and slander and if either company were to sue you for saying that they were mob run, you would indeed have the burden of proof placed on you.

tsearcher

02-03-2007, 03:14 PM

But he doesn't have to prove they are mob connected. He just has to show that he believed some were.

Sniper

02-03-2007, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You've mentioned the differences between a court of law and your statements here but there are civil laws that cover liable and slander and if either company were to sue you for saying that they were mob run, you would indeed have the burden of proof placed on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill, please provide links to cases demonstrating that a slander suit based on a statement made on an internet message board; actually went anywhere...

tsearcher

02-03-2007, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've mentioned the differences between a court of law and your statements here but there are civil laws that cover liable and slander and if either company were to sue you for saying that they were mob run, you would indeed have the burden of proof placed on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill, please provide links to cases demonstrating that a slander suit based on a statement made on an internet message board; actually went anywhere...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact, that the parties in question might have some logistical problems starting a suit in U.S. Courts.

Sniper

02-03-2007, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've mentioned the differences between a court of law and your statements here but there are civil laws that cover liable and slander and if either company were to sue you for saying that they were mob run, you would indeed have the burden of proof placed on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill, please provide links to cases demonstrating that a slander suit based on a statement made on an internet message board; actually went anywhere...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact, that the parties in question might have some logistical problems starting a suit in U.S. Courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

That hurdle aside... I think they would have to prove malicious intent, as well... and I don't belive that was the purpose of his statement, nor do I understand why Bill sidetracked the thread...

Petomane

02-03-2007, 04:19 PM

The PPA received vast amounts of cash through Party initially and proved themselves useless. If everyone here keeps flooding their congresspeople and presidential candidates with e-mails, we're already doing a better job. Mass e-mails work.

As for the alleged "mob" connections of poker sites - define mob. The DoJ is using gangland tactics - arresting the founders of a worldwide respected company and tying up the funds of thousands of Americans is below the belt.

In the eyes of the world, America is the pariah - arresting people here for what's legal everywhere else makes us a rogue country. It's OK for the NFL fantasy league and horseracing to take sporting bets across state lines, but not for anyone else?

It's all terminology. We're talking about "unlawful gambling" on the Internet, but it's always "gaming" in Vegas. In the eyes of the world, our entire government is the mob.

TreyWilly

02-03-2007, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
SplawnDarts = really obtuse poster

that is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

tsearcher

02-03-2007, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please substantiate your claim that online gaming companies are backed by the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to. You need to prove they're legit. The burden of proof is on a financial institution to prove they're clean, not on their customers to prove they're dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you are a moron. Prove me to me you're not.

You can't prove a negative. How could a company prove it's not run by the mob? Give me the criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Illinois any entity looking for a gaming license must prove they are not affiliated with organized crime. At least one has been turned down because they couldn't.

Jack Bando

02-03-2007, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please substantiate your claim that online gaming companies are backed by the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to. You need to prove they're legit. The burden of proof is on a financial institution to prove they're clean, not on their customers to prove they're dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you are a moron. Prove me to me you're not.

You can't prove a negative. How could a company prove it's not run by the mob? Give me the criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Illinois any entity looking for a gaming license must prove they are not affiliated with organized crime. At least one has been turned down because they couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]]

How can someone prove they're NOT affiliated with organized crime? You can prove someone is affiliated, but if you don't find evidence of affiliation, that just means there's no evidence but thier could be a connection you didn't find.

tsearcher

02-03-2007, 06:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please substantiate your claim that online gaming companies are backed by the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to. You need to prove they're legit. The burden of proof is on a financial institution to prove they're clean, not on their customers to prove they're dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you are a moron. Prove me to me you're not.

You can't prove a negative. How could a company prove it's not run by the mob? Give me the criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Illinois any entity looking for a gaming license must prove they are not affiliated with organized crime. At least one has been turned down because they couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]]

How can someone prove they're NOT affiliated with organized crime? You can prove someone is affiliated, but if you don't find evidence of affiliation, that just means there's no evidence but thier could be a connection you didn't find.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your logical problems with this, but that is how it works in Illinois. See the link below:

http://www.ipsn.org/rosemont/madigan_alleges_casino_mob_ties.htm

also see http://www.ipsn.org/rosemont_license_pulled.html

Notice that allegations of mob ties were all that were needed to revoke and or deny the license.

Jack Bando

02-03-2007, 06:57 PM

I'm from Illinois, so I do realize how illogical the state government can be. But it still makes no sense.

SplawnDarts

02-03-2007, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I understand your logical problems with this, but that is how it works in Illinois. See the link below:

http://www.ipsn.org/rosemont/madigan_alleges_casino_mob_ties.htm

also see http://www.ipsn.org/rosemont_license_pulled.html

Notice that allegations of mob ties were all that were needed to revoke and or deny the license.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing illogical about it at all. If you want a liscence, prove you're clean. It's called TRANSPARENCY, and it's what's missing from both the remaining US-friendly sites and the PPA.

Sound reasoning dictates that the most plausible conclusion is accepted and anyone who wants to support a less plausible conclusion must provide proof.

The most plausible conclusion is that online poker is a mob cesspool. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on those who believe it is clean.