I suppose some of this has to do with the fact that I have both friends and relatives that are gay, but I haven’t really thought twice about someone when I’ve found out someone was gay. I mean, think about it, they were gay before you knew, and they were your friend then, why should their sexual preference impact anything? If it does, you weren’t really friends to begin with, or you seriously need a reality check because its not like their personality is gonna insta-flash to something else now that you know. We really had only one high-profile example of a gay poker player in Vanessa Selbst, but she seems to be doing pretty well for herself. I know there is an additional stigma for being male and gay, but I would like to hope at least in professional circles people can adopt the rule of not being a dick to Jason for this. I for one applaud Jason’s decision to come out to the poker world, but honestly, it shouldn’t change a damn thing. It’s not like he’s gonna all of the sudden do worse in poker because of it, in fact he won a bracelet in 2011 after he started becoming more comfortable with himself, so…if anything, he’s gonna start playing better.

My only nitpick I can make here (and you knew I would) is that poker is not a reflection of the demographics of the world. If that were true, 50% of the players would be women, not 3%. I’m not saying that gay people don’t play poker (again, see Vanessa and Jason), but I wouldn’t immediately buy that 10% of the field is fearing to come out and just needed that little kick. At the same time though, we are (hopefully) more accepting than the general population, and we can just accept people for how they play on the felt and not give a damn what they do off it. Once again, kudos to Jason for writing this post, its probably harder to tell your immediate family something like this but coming out in public is a huge step as well. If this causes others to do the same, more power to them.

No, this issue stems from the fact that most players have not paid up and, up to this point, have not indicated they plan on doing so. Such names include recent winner of $2 million AUD Phil Ivey, prolific poker backer Erick Lindgren, and, oddly enough, Team Pokerstars Pro Barry Greenstein. I have to ask though, just how much of a poison pill is this debt?

Much Ado About Nothing

I won’t pretend to know exactly how much GBT is willing to pay for the assets of Full Tilt, but the raw numbers already put the sale at a sizable sum. It’s $80 million for the purchase of the assets from the DOJ, and $150 million (roughly) for a player fund so non-US players can get their money back. They are already getting a discount of $150 million in US player assets that they don’t have to pay back, but I assume they may have walked out if they had to pay that, so whatever.  You are talking about a sale price of over $230 million, and that’s just on day 1. I’m sure the costs of getting the site running, making it profitable again, etc, are going to add to the final price tag.

So you have to wonder, just how much of a danger is this $10-20 million? Dayanim states that he doesn’t want his client to deal with litigating all of these individual liabilities post-sale, and wants to get it all sorted out before the sale concludes. I, for one, think that this is entirely correct and is very likely GBT’s honest opinion of this situation. However, I do not think that this is a “deal killer” that they are very cleverly suggesting that it might be. Even if they found additional liabilities that Full Tilt Poker has that they have to pay after the fact, I can’t imagine using the players as the reason for the backing off is the real reason. Now, they might see these player debts as a means to an end, an ability to close off some of these debts so the sale price doesn’t continue to go up, and of course I’m not going to start rattling off non-existent sources, because Tapie’s lawyer stated he can’t comment about it right now. But it does make you wonder, why did they bring this up now?

Tinfoil Hats…Activate!

Remember last week when Subject: Poker released that investigative report on Chris Ferguson’s bank accounts? Remember how angry you (likely) were that Chris might be holding up the deal? Yea, I get the feeling GBT saw that reaction, saw the debts during their due diligence, and a light bulb had to have gone off in one of their heads. As stated earlier, Laurent Tapie said that Chris Ferguson couldn’t do a damn thing to stop this deal, and I’ve conjectured that he wouldn’t follow through anyway because he’d be Satan, not Jesus, in this instance (yes, the irony of Ferguson being an atheist while using this example does not escape me). Well, if I’m looking at these debts, and I’m looking at the public reaction to the words “deal stopper” and “<insert player name here>”, what should I do to convince some of these recalcitrant players to cough up their money? Yea, I’d probably take to the media waves and say that these player liabilities are a “serious obstacle” to the deal as well, it just makes rational sense. Couple that with the amusing timing regarding Phil Ivey coming out from the darkness and winning A$2 million and you have a recipe for Chris Ferguson-like reactions from the poker community.

OK, so the question is, did they do this on purpose? Without knowing when they found out about these player debts, I’m going to say yes, they probably did. Something strikes me as off that all of the sudden a maximum of $20 million is going to keep GBT from completing a $250 million transaction on a risky investment. Similarly, anyone worth their salary is going to pay attention to how the press is handling this, and when you see a reaction like we did last week with Chris Ferguson, you can’t help but put some of these players on trial in the court of public opinion. Some very specific names were dropped here, some we knew (Ivey and Benyamine being the two prime examples), and at least one we didn’t see coming (Barry Greenstein?!). Now, it’s worth noting that these debts are considered FTP assets (if FTP’s accountants had a lick of common sense), so I don’t know exactly what GBT is thinking is an issue here, unless there is a problem with the debts being dissolved as it goes through the liquidation process. This brings me to my conclusion on this:

In essence, I think that GBT really does think the player debts are an issue, but it’s not a deal breaker by itself. That said, if they can get the players to pay back their Full Tilt debt in some form before the transfer of ownership by putting them up to public scrutiny, then its win-win for GBT.

OK, so not really tinfoil hat, because I do acknowledge GBT has a point, but still, this wasn’t an “out of the dark” press spree, this was done knowing how we would react, and I can’t help but feel a little off as a result.

Barry Responds

Up to this point, Greenstein has actually taken to responding on 2+2 about this matter, and, it being 2+2, there has been a…uh…lively discussion on the merits of this. Here’s the post directly from the site as of 7:06pm ET:

I have been inundated with calls from all the poker media sites regarding this, so it’s easier for me to respond in one place. Obviously, 2+2 has become the main place where people discuss online poker so I’m posting here. It would be nice if everyone who owes money discusses it openly so there is a better chance that they will make good on their debts and the money will end up in the pockets of players with balances on FTP.

My statement to the press and the poker community:

I borrowed $400,000 to play on Full Tilt a few years ago, before PokerStars had high stakes games. I didn’t pay it back, hoping that some people who owed me and had money on Full Tilt would pay me there so I could use that against the debt. (I’m only owed about $150,000 now). I have assumed when this case is resolved, the DOJ will allow methods for dealing with debt to FTP.

Tapie Group contacted me last week and asked if I would pay them directly. Their attorney offered me the opportunity to pay in installments so I could have a chance to use money owed to me. He even offered me the opportunity to discount my debt if the US players don’t get paid in full. I told him that I have never paid less than I owe on any debt and I would rather wait until the DOJ establishes a fund for the US players. I don’t believe my debt has any impact on the sale to the Tapie group as they have alleged. I was concerned about taking money due to US players and giving it to the Tapie Group because it is understood that the Tapie Group won’t be the one paying the US players. On the other hand, I realize that the total debt counting other players is substantial, especially because I would include in that tally any money taken from FTP once it had become insolvent.

Here is an excerpt from the letter I sent to their attorney:

“The consensus in the poker community is that all money owed to Full Tilt or taken by investors after the company became insolvent should be used to pay back player’s funds. If I were to make a deal with you it would look like I had turned my back on the best interests of the American players.

Even though the terms are easier for me if I deal with you and it will fulfill my legal obligation, I have to see how things work out with the DOJ and try to make good on my moral obligation to the US players. I assume at some time in the future the DOJ will establish a pool of funds from Full Tilt’s assets that will be used to pay off some percentage of the player balances that are owed.”

Now, its worth stating that Barry is the first, and thus far, only pro to address this issue, really at any point. Ivey had this thrust in his face after he filed his lawsuit back in May, but he never really had to respond to it. Now I have a problem or two with both sides of the issue. On the one hand, why is the Tapie Group asking for direct payments: they haven’t even taken control of the company yet. If anyone should be getting paid back, it would be the dried husk of a company that is Full Tilt Poker, or an individual at the company as the case may be (some suggested the money came directly from Ferguson, but that’s not confirmed). Is Barry right in holding off? Well, so long as Full Tilt is in Tiltware/Pocket Kings hands, yea, he at the very least shouldn’t be paying back GBT for it. I’m not sure if Barry could get the money to go into a DOJ pool, but if he was actively looking for a way to make that happen I’d be willing to throw a couple brownie points his way. The thread is ongoing and going quite strong as of right now so I’d head in that direction (if you can sift through the noise) to see what the general consensus is, but not paying GBT seems like the obvious move here. He should be paying back FTP only, at least at this stage. I think that the fact that Barry was even willing to respond says a lot about the man, and if he’s got a debt with FTP, he will eventually pay it back. How he does it though, seems to be open for debate.

I’ll put the tinfoil hat back on for a second and consider this. Again, these debts to the players should be considered assets, and anyone that’s going to go through the liquidation process as a trustee is going to see this and try to work out a plan to get that back. GBT stands a good chance of not being able to dictate the terms of that repayment, to the point where they may get a raw deal. In this particular case, GBT loses value on the company, and the worry is that they may lose significant value just by having someone in the US government dictating the terms, not their own lawyers. Thus, GBT is hoping to get the money themselves without having to go through liquidation via a seperate process, and again using the shame of block the deal that pays (if the DOJ cooperates) $300 million back to poker players. It strikes me as a tad dishonest, but they are taking a massive loss (hopefully) to give players their money back, so I have a tough time nitpicking if that money was going to go to paying back players. Seeing as I don’t know, all I can say is they are trying to get the cash before the DOJ has a chance to mess with it.

Conclusion

GBT is looking out for itself in more ways than one, and I don’t expect a business, particularly one that deals with acquisitions, to do anything differently. This is a complicated sale on a risky investment that is going to involve liquidating assets, giving them to the US Justice Department, then re-selling them to GBT with the hope that the DOJ won’t screw it up. When faced with a $10-$20 million asset that could get trimmed at a whim, GBT tried getting ahead of the problem by appealing to the masses to have the professional players pay that money back. But as Barry Greenstein has pointed out, he shouldn’t have to pay back GBT, and any money out of Full Tilt’s debts should, in theory, go toward paying back the massive debt on the players. I won’t say that either side is strictly wrong, but both sides are playing the angles, and we may have more to hear about this in the days to come.

Epic Poker - Winners & Losers: Aussie Million Winners and Online Poker Losers

Our tradition of missing big news by a day continues on the Rabbit Hunt. We covered all the news related to Full Tilt before today’s GBT bombshell, so at the very least you can get caught up on that front. Needless to say, we will likely be talking about today’s news next week. Still, there were other things to talk about, from Ivey winning the Aussie Millions SHR (apt timing at that), to changes in the WSOP schedule and Pokerstars rake, we have a packed program this week as always.

Cardrunners - Rabbit Hunt: 84

Pokerati (http://www.pokerati.com) – Disclaimer #1: OK yes, I know, I used to write for the site so I might be a tad bias in placing it on this list, but the blog gets read by thousands of people a day and remains one of the best “insider” blogs out there, certainly when it involves the Las Vegas poker seen (have you heard of the Pokerati game at the Palms?). Dan Michalski, the longtime EIC/owner/boss man over at the site can be credited with helping me maintain my CR position, get me the job over at Epic Poker, and still says I am a capable writer, which means a lot to me because that means even though I left for greener (read: paying) pastures evidently I do deserve what I get. Likewise, the man and his team of bloggers know what they are talking about, and I’d always recommend Pokerati for a read to those that want to learn more about the inner workings of poker.

Quadjacks Radio (http://www.quadjacks.com) – Disclaimer #2: I have shit on Quadjacks in public. I just have. I used to complain about the way they go about doing things, and am annoyed when the conversation turns into what amounts to a populist 2+2 rage. With that complaint out of the way, I can’t see a poker landscape without these guys. Brought in by their 24-hour coverage of Black Friday (of which I definitely participated), the site grew from a small interview site to one of the bigger independents out there. They do cater to the 2+2 crowd as I said, but that is perfectly fine, and they are really good at what they do. Before this sounds too much like a backhanded compilment, I will say this, for daily poker needs, give these guys a listen. Recently they’ve been giving specific timeslots to others for shows (such as Jared Tendler getting his own show based on the mental aspects of poker), and I think that will work very well for them. I would say these guys are filling the gap that Pokerroad created when they went into hibernation post-BF, and Quadjacks is doing a hell of a job carrying that torch.

Subject: Poker (http://www.subjectpoker.com) – Created almost in direct response to the wave of unsubstantiated rumor-mongering in the post-atomic horror, Subject: Poker is the brain child of 2+2 poster NoahSD and others. They focus more on investigative journalism more than anything else, opting to release quality articles infrequently rather than the normal stories every day. Thus far, its worked really well, although they haven’t been without their own missteps too (Merge to be indicted last September anyone?). While I would love to find out how they get some of the information they get, I am content with just reading what they have to offer, and given the fact the rest of the poker media eats up the articles they write, you probably should too.

Pokerfuse (http://www.pokerfuse.com) – Disclaimer #3: These guys actually have some nice things to say about my podcast, so I may have formulated my opinion around that. Still, this is a general poker news site that does really well at what it does. They are trying to start up a profitable business without resorting to the affiliate model (per their FAQ), and while that is going to be difficult in the current climate, it is by no means impossible. As with many of the other sites, they have something unique to offer in what they write about, so they definitely make the list as well.

Wicked Chops (http://www.wickedchopspoker.com) – I’m just doing this because..well..they are Wicked Chops, and to round out my five sites to go to. They are definitely in the “old school” category but always have decent stuff posted, and even have decent summaries for their paywall articles, which I give a big tip of my hat for.

I strayed from individual blogs (Pokerati is far from that at this point), but you get the gist. I’m sure, even if you have heard of one, two, or even three of these outlets, there is at least one you haven’t checked out yet. Give the indie sites some love.

Epic Poker - Winners & Losers: Australia and Iowa Win, More Online Poker Losers

Its the podcast that keeps on giving. We managed to record a mere two hours after the Subject: Poker Chris Ferguson story popped, and we were able to give our knee-jerk analysis. We actually concluded that while there was clearly a moral failing if he went after his money (hold up $300 million in payments for your own $14 million…what?), legally he might not be on such shaky ground, and objectively he might be entitled to that money. Key word there is might because neither Matt nor myself are lawyers, but the best part of owning a podcast is that we can sound smarter than we really are. We also put a “bet” on whether Phil Ivey would win the Aussie Millions made event (he busted 12th), so I might be digging up a thing of two Matt had said last week.

I had someone tell me we have turned into a decent replacement to The Poker Beat, and while I would argue we will never come close, I appreciate the sentiment. You should check out the show to see what you think.

Cardrunners - Rabbit Hunt: 83

Oh yea, and I talked about actual Winners (Duhamel for instance) and Losers (Duhamel’s ex for instance) as well.

Epic Poker - Winners and Losers: PCA Winners, Criminal Court Losers, and Rebellions (sort of)

Things are at least a little bit tamer on Rabbit Hunt. This week we have started to release permanently on Thursdays, if only because Tuesday nights were getting harder for me to fulfill. We talked about Phil Galfond’s blog on the state of online poker and needless to say, for a couple guys that can’t even play right now, we sure had a lot to say about the issue. In the second segment we remark on karma working in Jonathan Duhamel’s favor, a new UB lawsuit from the Superuser Scandal era (doesn’t that seem quaint now?), and Ira Rubin is (probably) going to prison for Black Friday related charges.

Cardrunners - Rabbit Hunt: 82 - (iTunes Download Page)

• Bodog (Anonymous tables): This was probably in part to combat the data mining efforts of sites like PokerTableRatings, but Bodog also stated that this combated bum-hunting and leveled the playing field. Never mind that I think anonymous tables are anything but poker, but Bodog made this an implementation across every table on the site. There was a (rather easy) workaround that allowed people to get user ID numbers from the client, which was a huge security risk in its own right, but that wasn’t by design.
• Everleaf Network (restricting access based on winnings): If you play on Everleaf (and yea I know there aren’t many of you that do), then you have to be careful about how much you win. If you win more than 750 euros in a given week, you are subject to being restricted from tables because “your player rating is too high.” Everleaf claimed it affected only a minute percentage of their player base, and would allow for “easier” games now that the sharks have a limited allowance. The cap was reset weekly, and it didn’t limit Everleaf players from playing on all tables, but it was still pretty bad.
• Pokerstars (Lower VPP generation, changes to rake): This one we know about, as it is the most recent occurrence of a site getting “back” at winning high-volume players. Addressed in the intro, the Pokerstars changes included a shift from the dealt method to the weighted contributed method for determining VPPs for a given hand. On top of that, Pokerstars moved to switch to a more linear system of getting rake, rounding to the cent instead of 5 cent increments like in the past. The latter was removed shortly after protests were getting louder on forums, but the fact that high-volume players are seeing a 10-20% drop in VPPs has, to date, not been resolved. Unlike the last two, Pokerstars does seem amenable to hearing player concerns, and 2+2 is sending people to the Isle of Man to put forth their proposal.

As you can see though, many sites are tightening their grip on winning and high-volume players one way or another. Players are concerned that with win rates being what they are, it’s hard to maintain a presence in the big games if the sites are going to make it harder for them to stay in business. From the site’s perspective, with Black Friday effectively cleaving the player pool by 30%, there is a bigger desire to keep afloat with what they’ve got left, and certainly in Pokerstars’ case you have to acknowledge they are probably gathering quite the legal bill.

I think though, at this point, is that many sites are following the same path that another industry I follow does, the video gaming industry. Yes, its a vice, but I play a lot of video games, and particularly ones that involve playing with others (read: MMOs and first person shooters). Like clockwork, a wave of complaints always occurs when the content is perceived to be “dumbed down” in order to create a level playing field. “Hardcore” players deride this as making the game more suitable for “casuals” and I can’t help but feel similar statements are being used in the fight 2+2 posters are making here. Which, is a shame, because it ignores a key reason video game and online poker companies alike do things like this: they are trying to make money, and its better to appeal to the 99% than the 1%  (to abuse a OWS cliche). In gaming, everyone pays a static amount into the system, so raw increases in subscriptions or sales is going to drive this push toward the recreational gamer.

The analogy breaks down, admittedly, when discussing online poker businesses and their changes to make games more “recreationally” friendly. Sure, more players is a good thing and all, but if all they are doing is playing 25NL because the rake is too much and winning is, for all intents and purposes, punished, then you probably aren’t going to make more money as a site in the long run. Subsequently, you know that a certain percentage of the players you are attracting by “punishing” the sharks will then themselves become sharks, so it punishes the successful players at the expense of the novices (to abuse some sort of Tea Party cliche, just to show I play both sides).

What is the answer to this? Given the number of players on sites like Bodog and Everleaf, I doubt anonymous tables and restricting winnings will ever truly catch on, so I am not too worried about that. What I am worried about is the kinds of changes Pokerstars is making. They are the undisputed ruler of the online poker world right now, and usually being the superpower causes you get a bit arrogant at times. Fortunately, Pokerstars has shown they are willing to give a little, it just depends on how much they will listen to the 2+2 crew when they arrive in the Isle of Man for a discussion on rake.

Its an odd balance that sites like Pokerstars have to address. How do you make your high volume players (which arguably contribute more rake as an individual) happy while increasing your business by making your tables friendly to new players (which will increase revenue as a collective group). The War on Winning that poker sites was starting to get a little ridiculous, but it may take a poker titan and a ragtag group of forum posters to try to put a stop to it.

For writing I write for the Epic Poker League’s news site, and go over the week’s stories and distill them into a “Winners/Losers” format. Obviously there will be a heavy amount of bias, but that’s the point, its an op-ed as to what I would think people in the poker industry would consider the winners or losers in a particular news cycle. This week I took a look at various pros that were doing well at PCA and WSOP-C: Los Angeles, why some Nevada casino bosses need to shut up, and why I am glad some judges can deny bail.

Epic Poker - Winners and Losers: Tournaments Heat Up, Nevada Cools Down, Crime Doesn’t Pay

Cardrunners has been gracious enough to let me and my co-host Matt Kaufman rant for an hour a week about the latest poker news, and as the link below suggests, we’ve done over eighty of these things. This week we discussed how 2+2 was “fighting for the common poker player” after Pokerstars offered to fly people to the Isle of Man for discussions on how rake is generated for the site, and Joss Wood (username: xPeru), was kind enough to drop by to give us his take on the issue. He is one of the people that will be going to Pokerstars to address the issues, and it looks like they have a solid plan in place, we’ll just have to wait and see how it turns out. The second half is (admittedly) a bit of a rehash of my Winners/Losers column, but since I write on Monday and record on Tuesday, its not like there is much time for anything else to happen in the news, so it seems fair.

Cardrunners - Rabbit Hunt: 81

Avatar Knockoff, or Blizzard Masterpiece?

I managed to get my hands on the Diablo 3 beta the other day, with the timing disturbingly similar to my finals schedule (only one more quarter of these things…). Not about to let that deter me I played through the monk class and played through to the skeleton king, and I feel it worth to give my first impressions after my first 3 hour playthrough of Diablo III. These thoughts are based on not pouring over new details when they happen or looking at prior beta runs, so if they seem intuitive to you well, congratulations.

Things I Liked

• The “mana” system: OK, so I only played the monk, I’m purposely saving some of the other classes for streaming because I haven’t seen very many of them (which means you wont see me play through with a demon hunter either…at least not at level 1). That said, I really liked the system of building using general attacks and then throwing out some burst damage for tougher/tight groups of enemies. One of the best parts of Diablo was being able to just spam your skills, and in essence that is all you do. Unlike Diablo 2 though, you arent starving for mana for the first 20 levels (I played a paladin, we ran out of mana fast in the beginning). A nice improvement
• The crafting system, as well as shared gold and stashes: Just from the standpoint that the game is all about scavenging for stuff all day long in the hopes of getting that one perfect item, and gold is trivial and always has been. This way, you can break stuff down to specific components and craft them account-wide. Makes it a lot easier to level alts, because until people figure out how to bot their way to inferno, you’ll have to do it the normal way.
• Quest selection: Thank you. For some reason this is awesome…and at least I dont have to start from scratch when running Skeleton King again.
• How the monk plays: I can see myself playing this class, very fluid, lots of AoE attacks (this is a Diablo game…so thank God for those), and high damage. My only caveat is why is my monk allowed to have dual-wielding swords?
• Achievements: There is a reason I have a TrueAchievements bar on my stream. I think this will help keep completionists in the game, as most of these achievements appear to be account-wide.
• New Follower System: Henchman were only customized by the weapon, their helm, and armor in Diablo 2. Here, while you are given even less to work with (jewelry, weapons, and maybe a shield) your “followers” are much more customizable. You can pick skills that complement your playstyle. We only get to try out the templar in the beta, but I like the idea of constantly being healed every second even if, at level 11, I’m already stomping the Act.

So Full Tilt is screwed right? I mean, their deal must be shot in the wake of the AGCC’s ruling? Well…then there’s this.

Never mind that twitter is abuzz about Tapie having connections with match fixing and tax fraud (new boss same as the old boss?). Never mind that just the day before Full Tilt sounded like the deal was pulled out from under them by the very regulatory body that should have shafted them months ago.  When Pokerstrategy first released the press statement, people immediately jumped on it with the hashtag “#FullTiltSold”. Some of the tweets were arguably tongue-in-cheek, but maybe people were cheering that their “ONE TIME” actually worked. The reality, as it started sinking in when career cynics Dan (@Pokerati) Michalski and BJ (@BJNemeth) Nemeth started chiming in, was that we are no closer than before when you really think about it. I’m normally not a huge downer on things like this, but I’ve gotten pretty sick of the way Full Tilt has been handling the situation, and something just doesn’t seem right. Fortunately, Full Tilt laid it out for us: they have acknowledged that Laurent Tapie and his firm haven’t even met with the DOJ yet. [Note: Matt Kaufman, my co-host and Pokerstrategy writer, pointed out to me that saying they haven't talked implies no conversation has been made, which is false and wasn't my intent. They haven't met with the DOJ to figure out all of the issues, which is the actual status of things.]

I really have to question a businessman’s judgment when they sign an acquisition agreement without talking to the very legal body that can tell you “add $1 billion to that sale price, because we want it”. I acknowledge that they will likely buy Full Tilt for $1, so that probably removes any hurdle the DOJ may have with the owners profiting from FTP’s demise. And the acquisition agreement may include a requirement they infuse the company with the money necessary to pay the players, certainly something the DOJ would like to see as their target was never the players. However, you have to remember that the DOJ feels that Full Tilt Poker was just called a ponzi scheme, and that the DOJ has said, albeit without any solid affirmation, that they may pay players themselves as they are “victims of a crime”. If the DOJ operates under the assumption that they can just take all of FTP’s assets and then divide the spoils, why would they give a damn about a deal like this? The best Tapie could hope for is that the DOJ won’t go after the company immediately, but that $1 billion figure for the amount of money the company is being sued for really is difficult to ignore.

And then there’s the UB aspect. Remember with Russ Hamilton (or whomever) fucked players out of $20 million? Yea, those were the good ole days, nowadays the amount that gets stolen is closer to 20 times that. I know that Adidas may have to thank the Tapie family for turning the company around and making them a decent alternative to Nike…but this is NOT the same thing at all. [Editor Note: A rudimentary Google search brings up Adidas' history, which shows Bernard Tapie is a much less positive light. Yea, its Wikipedia, but what are you going to do. The company was valuated at much more when he left than when he bot it, so you be the judge of what that means.] You are about to take over a company that is accused of stealing, at minimum, $300 million from players. A company that, for all intents and purposes, has taken the UB torch and run miles out in front. Can you seriously expect Full Tilt to reemerge in the same way that they left? I think Pokerstars (whom, lets not forget, did many of the same things Full Tilt did that the DOJ frowned upon) will come out of this as the sole “top tier” room, and Full Tilt is going to have to get used to being a second-tier site, at best. With a company as wrecked reputation-wise as Full Tilt, hearing the words “oh but we are the new FTP!” rings a similar way to what UB did. And people didn’t buy it then either.

Simply put, the sale is nowhere near final. The DOJ can stop the deal merely by speaking, whatever the other “conditions” are in the acquisition statement might not be met, and the firm could even decide that US players can get the shaft for whatever reason. Either way, I wouldn’t celebrate the sale until American players start seeing money in their accounts. Until then, its more “announcements of an announcement.”

Note: Oh, and there is one other thing that has happened so far today with FTP. Ray Bitar is challenging the seizure of some of his accounts, claiming they never had funds that are related to the current DOJ case. I would think that, while they may strictly not have been from FTP, the fact you have money in those accounts may stem from the fact you took $40 million from FTP coffers. Absent that $40 million, you might not have anything in those accounts, ergo, that money did benefit from your fraud, and should stay locked up. This is a totally non-legal (and probably nonsensical) argument, but I don’t really feel like giving Bitar a break at this point.