Paul Phillips what is he getting at about online poker, and which one?

[NLfool]

he wrote this on his journal

"online poker risks

Let's say a person owed another person a substantial amount of money. The latter person holds an ownership position at a major online poker site, and after finding out that the debtor had a large sum of money on deposit there, transferred the money owed without obtaining permission.

How would you feel about the site after hearing that?"

seems like hearsay but Paul doesn't seem like the type to gossip. Anyone know who the parties involves are and if there is any credibility of such a thing happening?


doesn't really affect me but prima poker has already kept some of my money until they deem my picture ID, and utility bill are to their liking then I can cashout the last of my money. Eventhough I've cashed out of there hundreds of times before and now they have a weird policy with picture ID and utility bill. I'm starting to lean towards keeping less and less money in said accounts.

[Sponger15SB]

I think that this isn't quite that big of a deal considering the person wasn't paying up the cash even though he had it, and he simply did what was necessary to get it back.

I'm not really that worried about it.

[Freudian]

It opens up a whole can of worms. What if the site owner freeze your account after you knock him out in WSOP (and say something sarcastic) etc. If you are the owner you have to separate private from business. What if the owner got himself in a tough spot and decided to borrow money from customers? He would have every possibility to do so if he can do this.

But I can definately understand the frustration of collecting a bad debt from a gambler. At least this way is better than having bikers smash his knees, I guess.

It sounds like a Full Tilt drama. It's the only poker room I can imagine where player/owners would have access to these things.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
It opens up a whole can of worms. What if the site owner freeze your account after you knock him out in WSOP (and say something sarcastic) etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or how about we are sitting at the same table at the WSOP and I accidentally blink and it offends him...........

We don't even know the details of this. What if the guy had been incredibly dodgy about paying up in the past, and constantly lying about how much money he had and could afford to pay back?

[NLfool]

yeah it's kind of a gray area but I figure a poker site/operator would not step into such areas due to a slippery slope type affair. I'm sure there are better ways to obtain back debt than to simply take money from a person's poker account without informing them. Eventhough it maybe "owed" to them.

Seems like Paul maybe too out spoken as this may burn another bridge like his feud with Binions on appropriations of fee and tips (he was right) and him speaking out about the pokerstars cruise tip fiasco (he was also right).

[Michael Davis]

"It sounds like a Full Tilt drama. It's the only poker room I can imagine where player/owners would have access to these things."

Nah, they're just the only site where (some) ownership is totally out in the open. This could happen anywhere. Plus, I'm not sure how many are really keeping large bankrolls on Full Tilt.

-Michael

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, I'm not sure how many are really keeping large bankrolls on Full Tilt.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was what I was thinking. Also I'd be suprised to find out that HL, Juanda, Jesus (just listing off some names, not possible suspects) had such access to peoples accounts.

[NLfool]

naw can't be full tilt as it makes no sense to keep a big roll at a site with no games. I like the place but it's a ghost town.

[DesertCat]

Speculation is it's PokerStars...

[Freudian]

Winning low limit holdup.

[riverboatking]

please enlighten me as to these controversies.

thanks.

[Jurollo]

Who thinks paul is sick of seeing his name in thread titles? I do!

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Who thinks paul is sick of seeing his name in thread titles? I do!

[/ QUOTE ]

My next thread is going to be:

Is paul phillips sick of seeing his name in thread titles?

[Jurollo]

haha... that should be a sticky sponger!

[BradleyT]

What if you currently had bad checks at a store and they knew you by name/face. So you go in and buy $12.50 worth of items and pay with a $100 bill. How would you feel if they kept the change saying - well you owe us this much anyway.

[phixxx]

Is it primapoker? Their sites are a joke.

[fnord_too]

IANAL, but I believe that is illegal. The waters are greatly muddied with the off shore aspects, but I do not believe you can seize assets like that. The propper way is to sue for what you are owed and get a judgement against the debtor. Then I think you have avenues open to legally sieze assets if the debtor does not satisfy the judgement (and the judgement itself has a large impact on the debtor until it is cleared).

In answer to the question, if I knew that a site illegally seized monies from one of its clients accounts, and I had an account there, I would close the acount. I would be VERY leary of any company that was so cavalier. Companies are legal entities, and distinct from their owners; debts just do not transfer in this shoolyard way.

[TorontoCFE]

"I do not believe you can seize assets like that. The propper way is to sue for what you are owed and get a judgement against the debtor. Then I think you have avenues open to legally sieze assets if the debtor does not satisfy the judgement"

There are exceptions - what about mechanic's and contractor's liens?
In these cases, they are holding on to assets they have to satisfy debts without legal process (granted, the debts relate to the assets seized).

It is pretty common in business for assets held to be used to offset other liabilities. I know where I was working, our President would offset our payables to a company if they owed our other company money and were refusing to pay.

The reasoning is to get what you can to minimize your losses and if the debtor doesn't like it, they can persue it at their expense. Banks do this all the time.

That said, it is not the best practice in a business that involves a high degree of trust, like gaming.
I can't say if I would do it in their place. That depends on the terms of the debt and the conduct of the person who owes it to you.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I do not believe you can seize assets like that. The propper way is to sue for what you are owed and get a judgement against the debtor. Then I think you have avenues open to legally sieze assets if the debtor does not satisfy the judgement"



[/ QUOTE ]
There are exceptions - what about mechanic's and contractor's liens?
In these cases, they are holding on to assets they have to satisfy debts without legal process (granted, the debts relate to the assets seized).


[/ QUOTE ]

Yest and no, they still have to go through a legal process (just not through the courts I believe). You still have to file paperwork to seize or retain the property. There is propably an appeal period, too for the property owner, but I am not familiar with the particulars. Also, in that case, the debt is owed to the legal entity doing the seizing, which is not the case in the hypothetical that was originally mentioned.

[Lori]

Who thinks paul is sick of seeing his name in thread titles? I do!

All he has to do is stop using innuendo and say what he means and that will probably stop happening.

Lori

[MMMMMM]

Well what if you went to the local B&M casino to play poker, and when it came time to cash out, the manager instructed the cashier to pay your cashout to another local player whom he believed you owed the money to?

[Synergistic Explosions]

Presume the player that owes you the money was sent to jail for several months. Would you wait patiently the several months and hope when he gets out he'll get his act together and pay you off? Or would you, if you had the the power, just debit it from his online account and square things up?

I would just square things up and let him know I did.

[MMMMMM]

I think there is an issue of propriety here. While online poker rooms are not banks, if you owed your bank manager money and he simply took it out of your account what would you think of that?

Or let's say the debt is disputed somehow in the online scenario (if it wasn't then presumably the player would have transferred the funds prior to this). Does the custodian of funds have the right to just take them?

I might do the same thing too if I had the power and if someone wouldn't pay me a legitimate debt. That doesn't mean I would be comfortable seeing an online poker room take such action, because how do I know they are completely correct? Taking it to the next step, would this manager decide to do the samne thing for a friend of his who he believes owes someone money?

I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong, especially under certain circumstances, but it makes me uncomfortable and is probably bad for business once it becomes known. I must say I would feel a bit more leery about being a customer of that poker room on general principle, even though I personally don't owe anyone in the poker community any money and therefore wouldn't have to worry about it happening to me.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Who thinks paul is sick of seeing his name in thread titles? I do!

All he has to do is stop using innuendo and say what he means and that will probably stop happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Paul's defense, this is something he posted on his live journal, not here. People choose to keep reposting his posts from the journal.

Anyway, I noticed he's made a follow up post, and from the additional information he gives, I think he's referring to Ultimate Bet. Just my uneducated guess, but I know he's spoken about not playing in the Aruba tournament because I believe he mentioned he doesn't trust UB. I'll try to find the exact quote, but I don't believe I'm putting words in his mouth.

[LeapingGnome]

Yes, this is illegal. There was a big lawsuit not too long ago in a similar scenario. Company is called Cendant, they own all kinds of stuff including Avis rent-a-car, Jackson Hewitt taxes, etc...

Anyway, person goes to Jackson Hewitt for their taxes. Well it happens this person owes another division of Cendant a lot of money so when Jackson Hewitt files their taxes they have the refund signed over to them from the IRS and take the amount owed from the refund.

The person sued, Cendant lost the case.

[Bernas]

Hmmm...are you implying something here? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[beanie]

Paul doesn't seem the type to gossip, that was hilarious, I may not stop laughing all night.

[beanie]

Not me