Comments on: Full Tilt Ponzi http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Nathan_514 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-33124 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:17:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-33124 Wow, shocking. When you criminalize something, it’s run by criminal enterprises with little regard for the well-being of its customers. If only there was some sort of precedent in history we could have used to foresee this, like the criminalization of alcohol or marijuana.

]]>
By: blamm http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31246 Sat, 24 Sep 2011 05:18:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31246 Maybe they’ll, all the player’s who are investors and part of the Full Tilt will be banned from live poker events as punishment for their crimes. Of course crime never kept sporting stars off the field for very long.

]]>
By: blamm http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31244 Sat, 24 Sep 2011 05:14:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31244 The Ponzi term it used to allow for 1 count for every person swindled, of 10 million years imprisonment. If they had used simple theft, or grand theft, they could only ask for 5, maybe 10 years total.

I’m kind of upset that now I have to play live poker against the same people who set up the Full Tilt and stole my money.

William

]]>
By: rcwhalen http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31232 Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:53:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31232 For Social Security, it’s print as you go
http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-wha len/2011/09/23/for-social-security-its-p rint-as-you-go/

Bubbles, Ponzi this and that? Great stuff.

Chris

]]>
By: NICKATNITE http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31226 Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:06:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31226 ArtySmokes has it right, except for his opinion that Full Tilt didn’t need to “have all that cash lying around.” Yes they did! Pokerstars was regulated to have funds segregated. Full Tilt was not. ABSOLUTE POWER BREEDS ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION. That is all that needs to be said. The directors at Full Tilt just plain stole from the players BECAUSE THEY COULD. That is what happened by any way you want to slice it. I hope that the DOJ will force these CROOKS to pay back EVERYTHING THEY STOLE from the players.

]]>
By: ArtySmokes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31207 Fri, 23 Sep 2011 03:57:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31207 Pokerstars segregrated funds, so that it always had enough liquid assets to pay to customers if they wanted to cash out. (Which they did when the DoJ closed the American market). Full Tilt had instead moved $400 milion into the private bank accounts of the shareholders, meaning a massive shortfall, so it couldn’t pay its players after Black Friday.
Pokerstars is still on the hook for a $1.5 billion dollar fine for “money laundering and wire fraud”, although it remains to be seen how the legal action will play out. Although PS has always treated its customers very well, the DoJ seems determined to punish it for doing business with American customers, while taking its profits overseas.

As others have touched on, if the DoJ had never launched the initial civil case, we wouldn’t even know that Full Tilt was mis-managed. It was making huge profits, and – in normal circumstances – players wouldn’t suddenly be requesting withdrawals. Lederer and Ferguson presumably took their “dividends” (prior to Black Friday) because the company didn’t need all that cash lying around (and indeed wasn’t required to keep a certain %, like a bank is). But when the DoJ froze the company’s assets, there was a “run on the bank” and no liquid assets available. If anything good comes out of this, it will be that online poker companies are regulated more strongly in future, much like banks are.

]]>
By: dsnews53 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31161 Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:22:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31161 Pokerstars ran an honest site.

]]>
By: fireshoe http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31154 Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:49:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31154 So what did Pokerstars do right that FullTilt didn`t?

]]>
By: gazuga http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31149 Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:10:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31149 DrFuManchu, don’t lose sight of what banks are: credit intermediaries. Money changing is where their assets, liabilities, and the surmised difference between them all come from. Solvency for a bank means steering a dollar toward higher returns than the rate at which it borrowed that very dollar.

Unless Full Tilt is taking their excess reserves and throwing them in a hot tub rather than seeking profits with them, they’re credit intermediaries of the same dull stripe. Imagine a bank whose asset side favours investment over managed lending. And whose service fee intake is vastly more lucrative, because its customers are used to paying for every single downstream transaction. One more difference: a higher(!) reserve ratio than is typical for deposits. That’s one liquid, profitable bank, and its name happens to be Full Tilt Poker.

]]>
By: theambler101 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/20/full-tilt-ponzi/comment-page-1/#comment-31145 Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:24:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=10060#comment-31145 Full Tilt ran a number of TV adverts on late night TV in the UK and have sponsored sports. This was a big poker site.

They were regulated by the Alderney Gambling Control Commission which (formerly?) had a good reputation. I think regulators are really just a bunch of shysters who cream off some money from gambling websites and then proceed to do nothing to make sure these websites operate
correctly – I know this from personal experience of trying to get help from the Maltese regulator a few years ago. Regulators should not be paid by gambling websites and must have strong powers to investigate
and punish.

I think that the US poker ban was a mistake, but the truth is Full Tilt could have left the US market when the ban came into force and focussed on other markets, just like all reputable sites. Nobody made them become a Ponzi scheme. I suspect they were already a Ponzi
scheme before the US ban and so needed US players cash to keep going.

]]>