Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[Ace-Ex]

This idea that the lawsuit will affect online poker in any way is such a red herring. One thing has nothing to do with the other, and any Judge who might rule in this case is not a prosecutor. It's a civil suit anyway, as I understand it. It's not like Poker is a secret and all of a sudden everyone is going to notice that people play it online because of a lawsuit that nobody outside of the poker community cares about.

[Lawman007]

If there is any doubt in anyone's mind as to how our federal government views online poker sites, here is a quote from an article in yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal:

"Jaclyn Lesch, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department said the federal government believes that gambling by Americans on the dot-com sites is illegal, violating the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act.

Federal prosecutors believe it is illegal for the online poker industry to accept wagers from Americans."

If I was employed by or owned one of these sites, I sure wouldn't want to be questioned about it under oath.

[DougieG]

Earlier in this blog it was disputed as to whether or not the lawsuit represents most players. I have something to say about that.

I am a small stakes online player. I do not plan on participating in any WPT events in my life, and while that may change I would be recognizing whatever terms they have, or playing the WSOP events as they are the same buy in such as the WPT events. Therefore my interest in seeing the WPT release form changed is nil.

However, even if there's just a slight chance that this lawsuit could have some negative fallout re: online poker where I play the most, I would rather Greg and the other 6 not sue.

There are 100k people on PS during peak hours...and I'm sure a lot on PP, FT, UB and the other sites. I highly, hightly doubt that the 7 have taken them into consideration when deciding exactly which part of the poker community they are representing.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Please specify the type of questions that you think the WPT should, or might, ask me or any of the plaintiffs that have anything to do with online poker. Either there are none that are relevant, or if it is relevant, the answer will be no.

For example, let's say I am asked something like this. "Greg, did you receive any money from any online poker site to fund this lawsuit?" Or, "Greg, are you aware of any moneys being paid by any online site to fund this lawsuit, or pay any of the costs?" Or, "Greg, did you discuss this lawsuit with any Officer or employee of PokerStars prior to filing?" The answer to all of these is "No."

Any other topics you think will come up? If there are any, the answer will still be "No." Or, the answer will be that the question is completely irrelevant to anything in the lawsuit.

I know for certain that PokerStars has nothing to do with this lawsuit. I have every reason to believe that the same can be said by all of the other Plaintiffs with respect to their various online sites that they represent or work with.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, many people make the comment that if players don't like the WPT release, they can simply choose not to play. That is true. However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
sorry but I don't see your point there. If you wish to play in a televised tournament just clap your feet three times. I was not aware that the WPT was some sort of faerie who had to fulfill wishes. At least they don't belong to Disney.

Why didn't Paris Hilton sue MTV to make her a popstar? Well, maybe she should...

[JoaoPinto]

[ QUOTE ]
Please specify the type of questions that you think the WPT should, or might, ask me or any of the plaintiffs that have anything to do with online poker. Either there are none that are relevant, or if it is relevant, the answer will be no.

For example, let's say I am asked something like this. "Greg, did you receive any money from any online poker site to fund this lawsuit?" Or, "Greg, are you aware of any moneys being paid by any online site to fund this lawsuit, or pay any of the costs?" Or, "Greg, did you discuss this lawsuit with any Officer or employee of PokerStars prior to filing?" The answer to all of these is "No."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't anticipate the questions will be asked about you and Joe Hachem in relation to PokerStars. They will be asked of Andy Bloch, Howard Lederer, Phil Gordon and Chris Ferguson as some of them (lederer and bloch definately) are not just sponsored by FullTilt but they actually own a stake in the company. So will they be comfortable answering questions about owning an offshore company that takes millions of dollars out of the US every year? This will be painted to the mainstream press by the WPT as a battle between greedy offshore companies taking money out of the US against the all american WPT. Daniel is right is worrying that this can seized upon by anti gambling jesus freaks who want to ban online poker.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, many people make the comment that if players don't like the WPT release, they can simply choose not to play. That is true. However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament? Other than the WPT, where can you do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this is relevant. There is no "right" to play in big buy-in open poker tournaments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this lawsuit does not allege that the WPT has in any way committed fraud or breach of contract. Rather, I understand the basis of the complaint is the theory the WPT has committed "antitrust" violations because of it's business practices.

The antitrust laws are themselves arbitrary and non-objective, and this lawsuit is a dubious exploitation of what is already bad law. We can debate whether the WPT's business practices are good for the poker entertainment industry (Raymer and co. may be correct that they are not), but nevertheless they have a right to offer whatever contracts to players, make whatever agreements with casinos, and set-up tournaments however they want, provided no fraud is involved.

That the WPT might (literally) be the only game in town is not relevant. They should have the right to conduct their business, for better or worse, in any honest manner they wish. The marquee players of course have the right to boycott or even set-up competing tournaments if they (perhaps correctly) conclude they are not getting good value from the WPT.

The negative consequences of this lawsuit that Mr. Raymer somewhat blithely dismisses are huge. These players are attempting by force to make the WPT offer better (according to them) player contracts and tournaments via the government. This grossly violates the rights of the WPT freely to conduct their business, however poorly. If anyone is being "uncompetitive" here, it is these players, who want to use the blunt instrument of governmental force to change the WPT to their liking. What if the WPT simply closed up shop? Would these players then "sue" to make them offer tournaments?

Do we really want to set the precedent that the government be intimately involved to specify how the WPT and similar organizations conduct their business? This seems like a much, much, bigger downside long-term than whatever (supposed) ill-advised policies the WPT is adopting with regard to players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, logical arguments like the ones that you make here seem to be a waste of time these days. They fall on deaf ears in the how-can-the-law-be-configured-to-provide-maximum-benefit-to-me "populist paradise" that we live in. Finding ways to invalidate contracts via governmental coercion has become, as one poster put it, "a successful bargaining method". Anti-trust legislation is just another example of this disturbing reality.

[Stefanie]

It doesn't really matter what questions are asked in this lawsuit in regards to online poker. The problem is that it brings more attention to online poker and the money surrounding it. When people testify to congress regarding online poker, this lawsuit will come up and they can ask whatever they want. So, now there will be attention to all the money and greed involved in poker, online or otherwise. I think that might be the problem some are referring to.

[integrate]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't anticipate the questions will be asked about you and Joe Hachem in relation to PokerStars. They will be asked of Andy Bloch, Howard Lederer, Phil Gordon and Chris Ferguson as some of them (lederer and bloch definately) are not just sponsored by FullTilt but they actually own a stake in the company. So will they be comfortable answering questions about owning an offshore company that takes millions of dollars out of the US every year? This will be painted to the mainstream press by the WPT as a battle between greedy offshore companies taking money out of the US against the all american WPT. Daniel is right is worrying that this can seized upon by anti gambling jesus freaks who want to ban online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]



FullTilt is actually in the United States.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the operative phrase here is "open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament?" And the key word is "televised." There are many "open-to-the-public big-buyin tournaments" that aren't televised. So many so that any tournament poker player wishing to make their living playing tournaments could do so. I believe that when you define your market, that is going to be your problem as to this argument. The fact is that you have ample income earning opportunities every week across the USA ... they just aren't televised.

This may also be where the 7 of you -- who have a lot to gain due to the "televised" aspect -- lose your connection with most other players who have little to gain (directly) by the "televised" aspect. For 99% of the poker players, being on TV is nice, but it doesn't result in any more money for them. Whether they are playing in a big buy-in tourney at the Commerce, or a WPT tournament doesn't matter to their pocketbook. I think that is why some people are attributing bad motives to you as a group and why they don't think you are representing poker players in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason that the emphasis is being placed on "televised" tournaments is because these events provide far more exposure for the online cardrooms that these pros are affiliated with. Greg can obviously correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that Pokerstars is going to pay his entry fee for some random, non-televised event at the Bellagio, Commerce, etc., since a strong performance by him in that kind of event will bring virtually no publicity to them.