AP thread 87.1 - waiting on the statement ITT

[augie_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just in... gambling911 proves once again they are useful

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, according to this link AP are now claiming Scott Tom was never CEO. lol

[/ QUOTE ]it also states that he did indeed have an account.. that in itself is unethical regardless of anything else. equivelent of lee jones sitting at 25/50 on stars playing cash..

[/ QUOTE ]

more like dikshit playing 25/50 on party

[Cruzincat]

I think when I play live from now on, I'd like to have a hat with 363 in large print on the front and a pair of Fossilman glasses.

[Cruzincat]

On the East Coast it is almost noon. What time zone is CR in?

[Antoine.p]

09:51 am

[apefish]

Looks like they are on equivalent of US Mountain Time.

[KarlSpakler]

It is in the "we are smarter than everyone else, we can are going to cheat you, lie to you, shove it in your face, down your throat, and never pay any consequences" time zone.

Expect a statement right around never.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol, now you want to be paid for your time playing? I don't think that is going to fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not asking to be paid for time playing. He is asking for compensation for whatever win/loss differential he experienced due to the fact that one of his opponents was a superuser. This obviously includes money he lost to the superuser. But there is a lot of merit to the claim that it should also include money he was expected to win from the superuser given the cards that were dealt. For completeness, it should also take into consideration money he won from the superuser by calling down light when the superuser expected to be able to bluff him off his hand. Obviously an exact figure would be difficult to come by. I agree some reasonable premium above the money directly lost to the superuser is appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree with Dan's point because if they weren't superusers they wouldn't be playing. Asking for more money is unreasonable and will never be accepted anyway so it's not really a point worth arguing over.

[/ QUOTE ]

As much as I think that the players should get punitive damages above and beyond what they lost to the superusers because of how atrociously this whole thing was handled, I don't agree with everyone who is arguing they should get extra money because the superusers were effectively "freerolling" them. In fact, the opposite is true, if AP refunds everyone who lost any money to the superuser, those users were, in fact, freerolling the superusers.

[apefish]

meh im not sure when they republished this so im taking it down for now.

[ikestoys]

Wow, although getting punitive damages or whatnot would be amazing, I'd be very happy to get my money lost + interest. Hell, I'd be very happy just to get my money lost

[El_Hombre_Grande]

For those of you that are assuming that Tom/AJ have somehow "scammed" AP as well as players, I think you don't understand how very different a privately held company is than a publicly traded one. It may or may not be true. There is little to no mandatory disclosures of any kind, and because of the fact that I doubt AP is financed through a traditional banking relationship, literally no one other than the individuals which are privy to the shareholder agreements or other ownership/control documents can thoroughly understand who controls what. Additionally, this is a company which apparently has a number of interested parties which have tight personal relationships. This makes it even more convoluted.

At this point in time, there is absolutely no way of knowing who actually has influence and control over AP, and without a licensing process something like what Nevada casinos go through its almost impossible to insure that they do not retain control or share in the profits into the future. I do not doubt that several of the previous statements from AP regarding the employment and/or corporate status of particular individuals are factually accurate but may be deliberately misleading.