Reply With Quote
I like to imagine that every time someone calls something a Ponzi scheme now bells and sirens go off and everyone at Perry's campaign HQ starts screaming like on Peewee's Playhouse.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20108950.shtml
(CBS News) Federal prosecutors said on Tuesday that Full Tilt Poker and its star-studded board of directors operated the company "as a massive Ponzi scheme against its own players," according to multiple media outlets.
Manhattan's U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said the government was filing legal papers as part of a money laundering suit that accuses Full Tilt of bilking online poker players out of $440 million since 2007. Prosecutors say the company used that money to pay its board of directors, which includes big name players like Howard Lederer and Christopher "Jesus" Ferguson.
"Full Tilt was not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme," Bharara said in a statement. "Full Tilt insiders lined their own pockets with funds picked from the pockets of their most loyal customers while blithely lying to both players and the public alike about the safety and security of the money deposited."
According to Forbes, prosecutors allege that CEO Ray Bitar illegally received $41 million, Lederer got $42 million and Ferguson pocketed at least $25 million.
Seven executives and others tied to Full Tilt were indicted in April as part of a federal crackdown of online poker operators, including PokerStars and Absolute Poker. Since then, the sites have made deals to begin repaying customer money in online accounts, but only PokerStars has started refunds.
In June, Phil Ivey - the game's biggest superstar and Full Tilt sponsor - announced he was skipping the World Series of Poker because he was disappointed and embarrassed that Full Tilt hadn't paid back player deposits after pulling out of the U.S. market.
The FBI has seized Full Tilt's website and posted the following message:
"Pursuant to an agreement between the Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and defendant Full Tilt Poker, Full Tilt Poker may use this Domain Name in the United States to facilitate players' withdrawals of funds held by Full Tilt Poker."
I like to imagine that every time someone calls something a Ponzi scheme now bells and sirens go off and everyone at Perry's campaign HQ starts screaming like on Peewee's Playhouse.
Feds are calling it a Ponzi Scheme eh? You mean like our Social Security System? Man the Feds sure hate compe ion.
Manny and others who doubted my claims online poker was not legit owe me an apology.
"Full Tilt insiders lined their own pockets with funds picked from the pockets of their most loyal customers while blithely lying to both players and the public alike about the safety and security of the money deposited."
lol US Government
Video related for those wondering where your money went.
R.I.P. Gazi's bankroll
Online poker is a lot bigger than full tilt. The largest poker site in the world remains above reproach.
That vid of Ivey is pretty funny. What is funnier is that shortly before I moved from Vegas I saw Ivey shooting dice downtown at the Golden Nugget during the height of the FTP cluster . He was down pretty big but smiling like he could care less. He is not listed in todays reports but he is a part owner and his dividends were 900k per month. I guess I'd be smiling too.
They still have insiders who can see your cards.
you win just enough to come back. You see anyone from the club that plays online poker post they won 20,000.00 dollars? 10,000.00 dollars?
http://www.brobible.com/bronews/story/11903
Ghazi was netting a pretty healthy income before the sites shut down without any other work.
Ponzi scheme is the new Weapons of Mass Destruction, TBH. Full Tilt did a poor job managing the amount of available capital which was contrary to what they were supposed to do but that is not a ponzi scheme at all. The feds are ing stupid.
Ponzi is simply using new money to cover for losses on old money, which is, in essence what happened to my understanding.
Doing a poor job of managing the money you are charged with, then using new people's money to pay back old participants, is the defintion of a Ponzi scheme.
(edit)
It isn't quite an investment scheme, but it does share many of the charactoristics, especially the part where the whole company collapses when not enough new players come in to cover the losses.
Not an exact fit, but not altogether unreasonable, either.
Except the company didn't collapse because of a lack of new players. The company collapsed because it had to pay out players who were withdrawing. In other words, it was a run on the bank, not a ponzi scheme. The feds also convientely leave out that they caused the run on the bank as well.
Manny it was a ing Ponzi scheme. They were relying on new deposits to pay out withdrawls. They were funneling previous deposits to the owners/co owners of the company. This is aside from what was seized they were already ing over the players. Don't try to defend these s.
They saw that their ship was sinking and tried to fatten their pockets as much as possible before the company went down in flames. They were having deposit problems for U.S. players before black friday and were floating new deposits with invisible money and expected to pay winnings based on those new players deposits for those who won.
Using new deposits to pay out withdraws are how banks operate FYI. They operated really poorly and the money was not handled the way it was supposed to be by any means but the only reason its being called a ponzi scheme is because thats the new buzz word. Like I said, its the new WoMD.
What accusation are you making? That the site has people who can see my cards and steal peoples money? No.
you win just enough to come back. You see anyone from the club that plays online poker post they won 20,000.00 dollars? 10,000.00 dollars?
I made more money than that. Ghazi made more than me, he was averaging close to 10K a month. So that's at least two people on this (non poker) forum alone and there are a ton of other people who made a lot more than both of us playing online poker. If you want to talk to them you can head over to 2+2.
I speak from experience, save your breath when discussing anything you'd talk about on 2+2 on this forum because like 3 people will listen and everyone else will scoff.
Funny story, I got a "sup bro" at a live table a few weeks ago.
Sounds kinda like a casino.
I haven't looked into the details as much as you seem to have. I think I know you well enough to take your word for it here.
That's unfortunate. I was looking forward to having a conversation with mouse about triple range merging.
FTP was ed with our without black friday. They were already short on cash when black friday went down. They were not only taking dividends from player desposits (they were not segragated) they were also using player deposit money for their marketing, tv ads, magazines etc. The company was in trouble financially once they started having hard times with processing which was before black friday ever happened. It was a ing ponzi scheme period. They were paying themselves from player deposits as well as profits/rake etc. Not too hard to comprehend if you know the facts.
Lol heath mad he lost money to online poker
I didn't lose . Im a live player. Had zero money on FTP and some on Stars but got it back.
All Ponzi schemes are scams, but not all scams are Ponzi schemes.
While it was a scam, it was NOT a Ponzi scheme. There is a very narrow definition for that term, and it ONLY applies to investment vehicles that promise unreal ROIs, not any other kind of financial transactions. As has been pointed out here, both banks and casinos pay out from the money taken in by new players or accounts. FTP was badly managed and they skimmed money.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
