Absolute Scandal

[permafrost]

UIGEA caused a "lack of clear US legal status"? I remember several companies that left after seeing their legal status more clearly. If those companies had stayed around, do you think we would forever be free of cheating online?

[Skallagrim]

As others have pointed out, no one is ever assured completely of being free from fraud or cheating.

The UIGEA scared the most responsible sites out of the market, the publicly traded ones. While I have lots of confidence about Stars and FTP and a few others (TruePoker for sure [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]), the "outlaw" image of these sites does create an atmosphere where criminals will find it easier to do their crimes, and - far more importantly to the criminal - get away with it once exposed. Its far easier for your coke dealer to rip you off and get away with it than it is for your pharmacist.

And the limited market does restrict players ability to vote with their dollars by going elsewhere.

Skallagrim

[MiltonFriedman]

"the most responsible sites out of the market, the publicly traded ones"

This is complete and utter nonsense to equate 'publicly traded" with "responsible" in the context of fraud by an employee/insider. Are you saying that the publicly traded BetOnSports was more responsible and trustworthy than PokerStars ? Did PartyPoker become "more responsible" the day they floated a stock offering ?

"the "outlaw" image of these sites does create an atmosphere where criminals will find it easier to do their crimes, and - far more importantly to the criminal - get away with it once exposed."

This is an astoundingly silly thing to say, Skall. An honest site, whether or not in the US, can make any parties injured by inside criminals whole. Absolute can, and should track down all possible misuse of this "Superuser function" and pay off injured parties.

"Do you think you could steal from Me and Meyer Lansky ?"

----- movie quote from Bugsy Siegal

What recompense or justice a defrauded site could extract from a truly guilty inside perpetrator would likely be more severe outside the US than inside the US legal system.

The "criminal" stands less chance of getting away with it outside the US than relying on some unsympathetic prosecutor in the US.

A number of years ago, Binions' security beat the crap out of a coin thief. This practice was likely not new. However, it was caught on tape and caused Binions a lot of trouble. Which deterrent would you think would be more effective, an on=the-spot beating or the possibility that a DA might prosecute you down the road.


(I was clearly wrong about nothing jucy happening for a few months. This thread is too good to pass up.)

[fnord_too]

True Poker CEO,

I think the way to spin it is that if regulation were in place, and companies could be licensed to serve US customers, then if something like this happened the affected players would have recourse. The real problem in this situation is not that the scandal has happened, every industry has scandals, but that there are no mechanisms to reduce the risks or adjudicate the situation after the fact. Here, the gaming commission that oversees AP appears to have some serious conflicts of interest, and there AP itself does not fall under the auspices of a recognized nation, but rather under those of a tribal nation, which seems like a pretty complicated situation.

The story is already out there. It may or may not get more main stream, but it certainly seems that everyones fears (in regards to AP) are true. The opponents of on line poker have a no brainer with their spin. I think we need to be out in front of this convincing people that this sort of thing is more common when you take a prohibition posture.

I just looked up and see that grasshopp3r wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
There are scandals and cheating in every aspect of business. Without the threat of imminent prosecution and appropriate regulation, they are harder to detect and prevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not agree with this more. This is really the point I was trying to make. With regulation and licensing, one can be assured that the company they are dealing with is 'touchable'.

[JPFisher55]

I agree with Milton on this one. The 4 cases cited by grasshopp3r involve large and/or publically traded, in US no less, companies. These cases and others convince me that if some company wants to cheat, then it will ignore any laws or regulations. The other problem is that even the US legal system is bad at compensation of victims. How many victims of these scandals have received compensation.
Thinking they are protected, people tend to over rely on laws and regulations, rather than caution. Thus, they tend to invest too heavily in companies that employ them and the so-called hot investments.
If online poker is regulated, then people may keep too much money in 1 site or ewallet and get wiped out by a cheating company. I never keep more than about 25-30% of my bankroll in any one site or ewallet. If I had more choices and it was easier to move money from my bank to ewallets to poker sites, then I would lower these percentages. This caution is better than any regulation.

[JPFisher55]

This article http://www.gambling911.com/Cheating-...er-101807.html just appeared on G911. They better have a good law firm is the article is wrong. The fact that they cite a foreign source probably won't help in US court.
I hope it is wrong. I would rather see a rogue employee or programmer be found to be responsible than an owner.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
I would rather see a rogue employee or programmer be found to be responsible than an owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the company's duty to insure the integrity of their operations. That is part of the risk they assume when doing business. Companies can go after the rogue employee for damages, but if I deal with a company, my agreements and dealings are with the legal entity that is the company, not individual employees (though employees acting as agents can certainly enter the company into contracts and agreements). If I get screwed because of one of their employees, it is still the companies responsibility to make it right by me. Anything beyond that is not my concern as a customer.

[Skallagrim]

Look Milton and JP, I am not trying to prove the accuracy of my statements in the post above (you guys should know me better than that by now [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ). I am only trying to find a way for us to spin this story so it is not used against us, or at least we have a counter better than "there is crime everywhere" when it is used against us.

That said, it is pretty clear that my statement "it is easier for your coke dealer to rip you off and get away with it than your pharmacist" is true. I am not talking about coke dealer to coke dealer rip-offs (where your Meyer Lansky quote applies) but coke dealer to customer rip-offs (where anyone who has ever gotten baking soda instead of coke knows I am right).

The point to be made somewhere is that this guy can avoid legal consequences (is Costa Rica really gonna get him? - is Absolute gonna have someone beat him up) as things stand. If there were no question about poker legality, then if Absolute didnt do anything, and if Costa Rica didnt do anything, US players could still do something - they could sue themselves, or pressure the DOJ to extradite and prosecute (fraud is an extraditable offense even if running a poker site isnt).

Again, the point here is spin, not sticking up for party's credibility (which was indeed always less than stars IMO) or attacking other sites credibility or debating the virtue of being private or publicly traded.

If we cant come up with some spin better than "every business has criminals" poker will suffer and the only thing we can really hope is that this story doesnt break through to the MSM.

Skallagrim

[bwehrm]

[ QUOTE ]
Great, now everyone will run to the government to save them from one isolated instance of cheating. The government cannot prevent fraud, dishonesty or cheating anymore than it can bring off prohibition.
Let AP suffer the consequences in the free market. I already left them because of the evidence and their response. What is really needed is a more free market by some final confirmation, new law or court case, that online poker is legal in US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that what our government is for? I am also a believer in the free market but I don't think that because you have a free market problems like this will automatically take care of themselves. I actually hope that once we have legal regulated online gambling in this country that the government plays a role in keeping everything on the up and up.

[JPFisher55]

For the most part, government has only attempted to prevent fraud and other cheating since the New Deal. While not a primary cause fraud, land swindling, cattle watering and stock market manipulation played a major role in the Great Depression.
I am not as certain as most that the prevention attempts by government have been effective. I do think that the government has been effective in spreading and sharing the cost of such illegality. So in that respect, IMO the intervention by government that began in the New Deal has helped in preventing another Great Depression.