Fulltilt owners pocketed $500million...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thmardiv

Can't wait for the IRS to go after these ass clowns for tax evasion!

---

Putting aside the other issues for a moment, I wanted to discuss this briefly when you mentioned the form people could fill out to (possibly) be refunded for some portion of their money held by Full Tilt. I asked you how people would prove they had any money on full tilt. You said people could use bank statements showing deposits and withdrawals.

1) How would that make any sense? Deposits and withdrawals do not in any indicate profit.

2) Furthermore, player to player transactions, which can be sizable, would also not be reflected.

3) Wouldn't most of these people be immediately charged with tax evasion? Why would anyone agree to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thmardiv

Here is a list of the FDIC failed banks, if you count the ones since 2007, it will be around 487.

FDIC: Failed Bank List

---

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thmardiv

I have no doubt that the majority of people who know me know just how much knowledge I have in the banking/finance industry. Seeing how I own my own lending brokerage business after being trained by JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Nat City.....I can tell you no one use the verbiage like you do. Which leads me to believe that you read a report or a blog somewhere and think u know "fractional system" like u invented it. I think I pointed out the big difference between the FT website and any major company in the US....or for that matter the world. CEO's or employees have a set pay each year, probably much like you and work under certain stipulations to continue receiving that pay. FT website did not do that. As much as I do not like the government myself, it was not the Feds that caused FT to rip off the players. It was them and only them who devised the plan to pretty much do whatever they wanted with our funds without our consent. There is no other way to explain it......

---

You own a lending brokerage business yet you claim banks do not operate under a fractional reserve system? This is baffling. I cannot tell if you are serious (which would be rather frightening for your customers) or if this is an elaborate prank you are pulling on me. Fractional reserve banking is NOT a term I made up, it IS commonly used, and it EXACTLY describes the manner in which almost every bank operates. your statement that "banks don't operate under a fractional reserve system, they just borrow up to 60% of the deposits (paraphrasing your earlier remark) is the very definition or WRONG, INACCURATE, 100% FALSE. You simply cannot make a more incorrect statement. Banks make money by accepting deposits from customers and then USING a large percentage of that money to invest in other ventures. Hence, they only keep on hand a FRACTION of its customers' money at any given time, hence the term FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING. This is economics/finance 101. I cannot fathom how you can run a brokerage business without knowing this. Really, if this is a big prank, I tip my hat. By the way, I assure you my credentials run SLIGHTLY deeper than having "read a blog." My exact credentials aren't really important. It doesn't take a mathematician to know that 2+2 = 4, and it doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to understand fractional reserve banking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thmardiv

I have no doubt that the majority of people who know me know just how much knowledge I have in the banking/finance industry. Seeing how I own my own lending brokerage business after being trained by JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Nat City.....I can tell you no one use the verbiage like you do. Which leads me to believe that you read a report or a blog somewhere and think u know "fractional system" like u invented it. I think I pointed out the big difference between the FT website and any major company in the US....or for that matter the world. CEO's or employees have a set pay each year, probably much like you and work under certain stipulations to continue receiving that pay. FT website did not do that. As much as I do not like the government myself, it was not the Feds that caused FT to rip off the players. It was them and only them who devised the plan to pretty much do whatever they wanted with our funds without our consent. There is no other way to explain it......

---

Really? Here is one way to explain it. Law-abiding U.S. citizens were minding their own business playing poker on a website. That is their choice and their right. The government has no right whatsoever to interfere in these transactions. None. When the government did interfere, it overstepped its bounds. It is appalling to me that the government forcibly takes people's tax dollars and uses it to interfere with private industry and harass private citizens for imaginary crimes.

Full Tilt was prevented by the U.S. government from collecting money owed to full tilt by U.S. poker players. Full Tilt should be able to sue the U.S. government for the full value of those blocked transactions, plus punitive damages. That money wasn't stolen by Full Tilt; it was never collected by full tilt because the government blocked its ability to do so.

Now, Once the government pays this amount plus the fines it should owe to Full Tilt, I am guessing Full tilt will still be short money, since apparently Full Tilt was borrowing from the players' funds. This borrowing was wrong and deceptive and dishonest, and any owner or partner of Full Tilt who was disbursed funds should have to return the "borrowed" money until it has been repaid in full. As I said, I don't have a problem IN PRINCIPLE with a company borrowing a portion of its customers money in order to make more money (banks do this), but as you pointed out, people know banks do this and expect it; people did NOT know Full Tilt did this, and thus it was wrong. That doesn't make it a ponzi scheme though (for a ponzi scheme, see "social security"). And the money wasn't necessarily stolen, just misappropriated. If the money cannot be recovered, then it was stolen, yes, and the people involved should go to jail. However, whether individuals were guilty of this depends on what they knew and when. If someone was simply paid $20 which he thought was simply his profit sharing, and he was told by his employer that the money came from company profit, how is he to blame? Why should he be considered a thief?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thmardiv

Here is the current reported (they do have off sheet accounting for mortgage losses) losses from banks due to bad investments in the CDO, MBS and other investment vehicles.....note that these "banks" have taken losses in the BILLIONS and people who deposited in them still have their money. This does not include the shadow inventory of foreclosed homes or soon to be foreclosed homes on/off their books. When they got rid of mark to market reporting, it allowed them to "cook" their books. An example of this is if you needed to get your home appraised, the appraiser would give it a current valuation. The banks are now allowed to give a future value and use that as current value for reporting purposes. This limits their current losses and pumps up their numbers.

Wells Fargo – $138.6B
Goldman Sachs – $129.0B
Morgan Stanley – $121.0B
SunTrust – $2.0B
JP Morgan Chase & Co. – $221.7B
US Bancorp – $3.0B
Bank of America
Fifth Third Bancorp – $3.6B
Citigroup – $309.7B
UBS – $228.6B

This is also after the Government has increased the amount of reserves that these "banks" must have in cash. In short the major difference in banks and Full Tilt.....the banks are still around and people still have their money even after the run on the banks in 2008.

---

Is reading comprehension a strength of yours? I have said approximately six times that I fully understand the difference between banks and Full Tilt. I merely points out a SINGLE similarity between the manner in which banks operate and a particular course of action taken by Full tilt, that being their decision to keep less than 100% of its customers' deposits in reserve.

It is an UNDENIABLE fact that such a decision IS similar to the idea of fractional reserve banking. I understand that Full is not and never was a bank. I understand that it does not pay interest. I understand that customers were told and therefore believed that 100% of their money was held in reserve by Full Tilt.

I UNDERSTAND ALL THIS, SO STOP REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER LIKE A BROKEN FUCKING RECORD!

IN THEORY, the idea of keeping only a fraction of customers' money on hand is sound. This is understood to be economic fact. I cannot understand how you can argue this point. If Full Tilt kept 50% of its customers' deposits in reserve (instead of 100%), and if the government never intervened (which it had no business doing), there would NOT have been a problem. If there is $400 million in players' deposits, and Full Tilt keeps $200 million in reserve at any time, that would be FAR more than they would ever need to pay out even the most unusually high withdrawal requests. Now, I don't know exactly what percentage Full Tilt kept on hand. Was it 50%? 20%? 10%? Who knows? It's hard to tell because the U.S. government refuses to allow or regulate online poker! In essence, the government forced online poker sites to operate outside its jurisdiction and then took issue with the manner in which they operated! This makes no sense!!!!

TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH TIIIIIIIIIIIIIME ON YOURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HANDS

According to the rules of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC), which had issued licenses to FTP, FTP could mingle funds as long it kept its players informed about the mingling of funds. But FTP never disclosed its methods of handling funds; instead, it led its players to believe that their funds were safe, separate, and secure. SAFE, SEPARATE and SECURE!!!! The government did not seize any funds, they froze them to protect the players from FT who knew they were under investigation and knew that they were most likely going to be shut down in the US. So the questions arise, did they start paying themselves more (thus stealing from players) when they received their first notification from the US that they were being investigated? Good article: Full Tilt Poker Saga Goes from Bad to Worse

BBC News - Full Tilt Poker licence revoked by Alderney authority

more inside news which shows why the US government actually helped stop the rip off by FT owners and investors...Department of Justice Issues Statement on Full Tilt Poker Player Funds

Can it get any worse.....new possible FT owner jailed for fraud? Full Tilt sign acquisition agreement*»*Bluff Europe Magazine