TruePoker will continue to welcome U.S players

[Sand]

[ QUOTE ]


(3) I am a firm believer that this will be eventually cleared up in court. If the government never pursues the enforcement, everyone will just laugh and piss on them. If they do, they will end up detaining and/or taking to court someone from online poker community. After a year of marching through the process, it will end up somewhere in the Federal Court of Appeals that will rule that poker is a game of skill and the present Act does not outlaw online poker. Precedence will be set, and any further infrigements on our rights will be thrown out by any court in the United States.


[/ QUOTE ]

Precedence has already been set on the "poker is skill" by decisions filed re: Billy Baxter back in the 80s by the Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans.

[RemyXO]

[ QUOTE ]
Precedence has already been set on the "poker is skill" by decisions filed re: Billy Baxter back in the 80s by the Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Billy fight for being able to file with IRS as professional poker player? It's a bit different from operating an online poker room ... So, I am not sure if this can be treated as a precedence set in stone to declare poker as not gambling.

BTW, did y'all know that foreign poker professionals can get the same WORK VISA in the USA as, for example, professional athletes? So, even the US govenment recognizes poker pros being on the same level as, say, hockey players from Sweden! I just can't believe the friggin' double-standards that US government employs. I am telling you, when they touch any of the poker site executives and it ends up in court, they will tear Sen Frisk a new one. Unless, of course, it's one of the PartyPoker p#ssies, cause they are also operating a casino.

OFF TOPIC: He who ever makes a side bet on the flop color on Party is a moron and needs to take a Theory of Probability class.

[poison_lady]

I just made an account over at true poker. Thanks for sticking by us!

Has your numbers increased TruePoker CEO?

[TruePoker CEO]

Thanks.

We have a long way to go numberswise, but it does seem to be up from last week.

We understand that we are NOT Party-size, but we have been around for 5+ years and offer gaming promotions on an appropriate scale. To the extent we grow, game selection will improve and our promotions, tournament size, et cetera will grow.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
(2) Phil is on Frist's staff, looks like. Why would he go around trying to hammer down the point that online poker is illegal by the provisions of this act?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to hammer anything down, I'd very much like it if poker wasn't illegal under this act.

You guys don't seem to get it with this guy. He has a tiny, in my opinion very low quality site that's poorly run. He has been on these boards for years desperately trying to get any business, but his site still has very few players. Apparently he had a lot to do with Mason in the early days so he has their blessing to continually spam these boards.

But people should know he isn't doing this because he's brave or trying to help players out. He is pure businessman, and so desperate for business at his tiny site he'll take any risk to try and get players. Including flat out lying about the nature of this law. If he hadn't been dishonest about it in here and other threads, I'd have no problem with the guy. I just don't think he's someone you can trust. There are plenty of other options to service players that are in my opinion far bigger, far more trustworthy, and far more deserving of your business. He also seems to have a complete inability to attract fish to his site, almost all of his (tiny) player base appears to be the result of his efforts on 2+2.

That's all I'm going to say in this thread. Wait for the next bump by TruePokerCEO.

[TruePoker CEO]

"Including flat out lying about the nature of this law. If he hadn't been dishonest about it in here and other threads, I'd have no problem with the guy. I just don't think he's someone you can trust."

Phil, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. We have never met, to my knowledge.

Our business company has been operating in online poker for 5+ years. We neither make bets nor wagers and have no stake in the outcome of games or tournaments. (Why you cannot understand the business model is beyond me.)

We always have been independently owned and operated, and are licensed in Antigua and then Kahnawake.

My professional credentials for legal analysis may be better than yours, but who knows ? The point is the validity of the analysis, not who makes it. Professor Rose seems to feel that there is real validity to my argument that poker sites are not covered by the recent Act, AND noted the argument in an LA Times article on the 3d. (I'm sorry, he must be "flat out lying" too.)

In contrast, you hide behind some anonymous post. At the same time you are ranting about legal "nonsense", you are trying to steer people to another site you prefer. (I have no beef with SportingBet, it has been active in the UK trying to get that government to act in the WTO matter.)

Okay, you've got a bug up somewhere about our site and about my posting here. I get that, but where do you get off attacking my integrity ? Grow up. You want to disagree with me or say my argument is "nonsense", fine.

Like everyone else, except the publicly-held sites that jumped to pull the plug on US players, we are interested in seeing what the financial services do about the deposits issues raised by the Act's spectre.

For our part, the Act clearly did nothing to criminalize operating a poker site. What support do you have for thinking "poker" is "illegal under this Act ?" Nevermind, the question was rhetorical.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
In contrast, you hide behind some anonymous post. At the same time you are ranting about legal "nonsense", you are trying to steer people to another site you prefer. (I have no beef with SportingBet, it has been active in the UK trying to get that government to act in the WTO matter.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!! I dare anyone to look through my post history to check if I shill for another site. Mods can check my IP against other posters, this is the ONLY account I post under. More evidence that you'll say any lie you think you can get away with to make yourself look better.

As for the rest, there are many legal opinions written about this issue. People can make up their own minds who's being honest and who's not.

[Annulus]

Phil, seriously wtf is your problem. This man is nice enough to come here and personally offer us a game. Of course he is out to pick up some business, thats the name of the game. Just like we just want to play.

[cha59]

[ QUOTE ]

He also seems to have a complete inability to attract fish to his site, almost all of his (tiny) player base appears to be the result of his efforts on 2+2.



[/ QUOTE ]

This statement couldnt be more wrong. Either you havent played there much or you are not very good at poker.

Lay off the guy. His site is small, but he seems like a good guy and there is a very high percentage of fish there.

[TruePoker CEO]

You write vehemently that "I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!!".

Read your post in this thread on October 2, 11:43 am where you said, in full:

"I think you can add Paradise Poker to that list. They're offering the same level of assurance as TruePoker (i.e. conditional on the banks). "

A poster in this thread had given a list of sites which deserved props for declaring business as usual, including ours. You answered quickly, adding Paradise Poker, then compared Paradise Poker directly to TruePoker.

Even if you did not know Sportingbet owned the Paradise Poker operation, you were clearly making a direct comparison between a site you seem to prefer and ours, for which you have developed a clear dislike.

I don't think that mentioning that site was in any way spamming or shilling by you, but your offering props to Paradise/Sportingbet was entirely inconsistent with your concurrent rant about how it was nonsense for Truepoker to say poker was not criminalized by this Act. The subsequent direct comparison can be fairly called "trying to steer players to another site you prefer" over ours.

I'll stand by the statement that you went on tilt over above. Imagine if someone had called you a bad name or had made some truly derogatory remark about your integrity.