Can someone explain how Full Tilt is still in business? Doyle?

[schilling38]

Aren't these pros taking quite a risk by continuing to advertise to US players with their likenesses - when it's clear that they are profiting from this?

Doyle, FT Pros, Pamela Anderson, whoever else? What kind of protection can they have against aiding and abetting if they're hiding behind some kind of barrier that a lawyer created?

I'm interested to see replies from people that know more about all of this than I do...

[Fhil Ivey]

don't you know? All the FT pros are collectively going to jail soon. It's a matter of time until they pack up their [censored] and run. Don't leave more than 10% of your roll there.

[Sniper]

Simple answer, some sites are willing to take the risk...

[Texibus]

I imagine they are just trying to keep their servers running for as long as legally possible. I've heard a lot of talk about a 270 day period for banks to gear up to stop these sort of transactions. Also, I think a lot of them are in the belief that poker is a game of skill and will get the excemption or is excempt.

I also know that the sites that are still primairly are POKER sites and not online casinos.

[LotteryOrPoker]

All of the statements from the sites staying open are about as reassuring as Dutch Boyd after PokerSpot started to collapse.

[BlufforNuts]

I am amazed that this site and the other famous forum still have links and ads. Oh and I am a lawyer. Its not clear cut. But US Attorneys can very aggressive and innovative when they want to attack an area.

I sure wouldn't be taking those chances. Sometimes I think people minimize how serious the potential criminal exposure can be.

One other example--all the emphasis on the New Orleans federal district court opinion holding that poker is a game of skill and therefore covered under the Wire Act. I haven't read the decision but I did read a summary of the facts. Debtors sued by their credit card company claimed that their poker wagers constituted illegal wagers and therefore they should not have pay charges incurred on their credit cards.

This reasoning sounds to me to be result oriented. Our conservative pro business federal courts are unlikely to side with individuals looking to escape their debts on such a technicality. To believe that this precedent will hold up in a different fact context--where the US government pursues a criminal prosecution of individuals on notice of this law and who flaunt the law, is much more of a gamble in my view than going all in with Ace Rag after two early position raisers.

Way too much smug confidence here. I don't mean to be the
bearer of bad news. But I do not think there is enough healthy respect about the power and resolve of the US government and its law enforcement arm when it pursues an agenda.

[LotteryOrPoker]

Calvin Ayre needs to have a chat with Manual Noriega about the resolve of the U.S. government.

[martindcx1e]

aren't the owners the only people who have to worry about this? are these people actually owners? if they are just like employees then they have nothing to worry about i'm pretty sure.

[LotteryOrPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
aren't the owners the only people have to worry about this? are these people actually owners? if they are just like employees then they have nothing to worry about i'm pretty sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like Andrew Fastow was only an employee at Enron, so he had nothing to worry about? Wait, if I sell drugs but I am a mid level employee in a cartel, does that mean I have nothing to worry about? Last question, are you retarded?

[JPFisher55]

Maybe lawyers like Professor Rose, Ms. Shuman and others who doubt the legality or enforceability of this law know something. Maybe all the doomsayers are not right.