The REAL story on Pokershare/UB

[Dan Druff]

Like many of you, I was shocked and appalled by yesterday's abrupt account closures on UB. I had over 33k there, and I was immediately worried that I'd never see that money again. Fortunately, they paid me immediately on Neteller, and I got to take a step back, clear my head, and analyze the situation from an objective standpoint.

After taking a look at all of the available "evidence", I believe I have pieced together an explanation that is probably very close to what actually went down. Feel free to jump in if you feel I've missed anything.

First off, it's important to realize that many of us (myself included, until recently) have been making a faulty assumption about the relationship between UB and Pokershare. We all assumed that Pokershare was a skin for UB. Not true. Pokershare and UB are both skins on the Excapsa poker network. The Excapsa network began with UB in 2001, but expanded to include several other smaller skins, the latest being Pokershare.

A list of these skins and a short description of them can be found at here:

Excapsa Licensee Page (http://www.excapsa.com/licensees.html)

Prior to the existence of Pokershare, UB was not threatened by the other skins. These skins were either play-money only (i.e. Cardplayer) or were marketing to a different clientele (i.e. Aviation Club, marketed to French players). While UB does serve players from all over the world, their primary business (and "market share") is North America -- more specifically, the U.S. and Canada.

Therefore, without any serious competition for this important market, UB was relatively happy and didn't mind other skins on the network. In fact, UB was probably happy about those European skins, because it increased the overall network player base, and kept more active games on the site.

Enter Pokershare.

Pokershare offers something nearly too good to be true: A 40% share of their profits! "Even when you lose, you win!", said their website. In addition, they allowed rakeback affiliates, meaning that players could get a healthy rakeback (in many cases over 30%) ON TOP of the 40% profit distribution.

It doesn't take a PhD in economics to realize what started to occur. The word about Pokershare spread like wildfire, and people were jumping ship from UB to sign up to be part of this brave new world of poker profit sharing. This is hardly what UB had bargained for!

To put it in street terms, UB was a pimp with near-exclusive rights to his 'hood, and some balding English guy shows up and offers the same girls for a lesser price. The turf war was on!

UB complained to Excapsa. "We built this network," they insisted. "We've been here from the start. Without us, there would be no Pokershare, or any of these other skins, for that matter." UB insisted that, after being Excapsa's meal ticket for 4 years, they deserved better than to be bitten in the ass by a greedy Englishman on their own network.

Excapsa never had to mediate like this before. Prior to this feud, all of the skins had existed in peace. To appease UB, Excapsa gave Pokershare a deadline of October 31st to stop accepting new rakeback customers. While UB felt this wasn't enough, Excapsa assured them that this deadline would prevent most people from jumping ship, as rakeback was far more valuable than this "profit sharing".

UB still wasn't happy. "We'll lose most of our serious players by October 31st. This isn't fair. Any existing UB customer simply shouldn't be eligible for Pokershare!"

And that was the next compromise. Excapsa released a new version of the software, which didn't allow you to install Pokershare if any previous Excapsa skin existed on that computer -- even if said skin was uninstalled. Still, UB was unhappy, and felt that most of the damage had already been done.

Back at Pokershare headquarters, Max Wright scratched his balding head and wondered how much longer Excapsa would tolerate his company's antics. He already had to make excuses as to why people couldn't install the Pokershare software -- even if they already had a Pokershare account and simply wanted it on a second computer. "We're working on the issue," he would write them. Wright tried to appeal to the powers-that-be at Excapsa, arguing that it's his right to grab whatever share of the market he can get. Excapsa told him that they're still deciding how to come to terms with all of this.

Finally, UB pressed hard enough, and Excapsa backed down. "We want our market share back," said UB. "We have always marketed to North America, and that should be our territory. Pokershare is based in Europe. Let them have their European customers, but we want our Americans and Canadians back."

And so Excapsa finally realized that UB did indeed deserve their original market back. Indeed, Pokershare was based out of England, and none of the other network skins dared market outside of where they were based. Why should Pokershare be allowed to raid the crown jewel skin of the network?

On November 1st, 2005, Excapsa quietly closed all accounts on the network, and informed each member via e-mail. They staffed their office 24/7 to handle questions and cashout requests, and quickly shipped out all refunds. The biggest accounts were handled first (thus to prevent mass panic), followed by the smaller ones. Everyone on the network was to be paid -- after all, Excapsa also manages the cashier -- thus maintaining the integrity of the network that had existed reputably for more than 4 years.

This action was taken immediately, and without any prior discussion with Pokershare owner Max Wright. Once Wright found out about this, he was understandbly livid, but the damage had already been done. Observe his reaction to finding out what had happened:

Maxey loses even more hair! (http://www.pokershare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=105)

So, in summary, here is the situation:

1) Your Pokershare account was closed by the parent network, not Pokershare, and not UB.

2) Your money is safe, and if you haven't received it yet, you'll be getting it shortly. The purpose here was not to cheat the players, it was to restore UB's market share.

3) Max Wright is currently lobbying Excapsa to get its players back, but it's doubtful he'll be successful, since UB has far more pull. Furthermore, it's unlikely anyone will trust Pokershare again, even though this shutdown wasn't directly their fault.

4) You will probably not be getting your "share" money. It's almost a certainty that they will claim that this abrupt shutdown has ruined them financially, and therefore there are no profits to distribute. 40% of 0 is still 0.

5) The rakeback situation is questionable. It will be up to Pokershare to distribute the rakeback to its affiliates. It's possible that they will either go under or claim financial hardship, meaning that your rakeback may never arrive. However, you should keep the pressure on your affiliate to make sure he's telling you the truth, and isn't using this situation to pocket the rakeback and blame Pokershare.

I believe that the above tells the whole story, perhaps with a few details missing and/or slightly incorrect.

I shall now twirl my seat cover for one last time this evening, and bid you all goodnight.

-Dan Druff

[B00T]

Nice post.

[applejuicekid]

Thanks for the summary. I have an account at Pokershare yet have not received an e-mail from them. Do you have any idea why this may be the case? My affiliate sent me an e-mail stating my account had been closed, but I have not heard anything from pokershare.

[Niediam]

Thanks for the great info.

[admiralfluff]

Next week on 'Skin Wars', the lifetime original mini series-

Dikshit learns the truth about his parents: he's the illegitimate offspring of a torrid love affair between Scotty Nguyen and a goat. Yeah baby.

[Vavavoom]

Info is appreciated...

[dbirider16]

Good post.
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/6313/druff2fn.gif

[goodguy_1]

[ QUOTE ]
I shall now twirl my seat cover for one last time this evening, and bid you all goodnight.


[/ QUOTE ]
haha
great informative post Dan ty

[theben]

that is an excellent bunch of reasoning. assuming the way the network works is as stated, that seems highly logical

[TCBSTEVE]

You're exactly right Dan. The part that pisses me off is they could of informed us and let us withdrew our money. My 1500 they have is my whole bankroll. I know thats not much to a lot of you guys, but its mine and thats all ive got to play with. I emailed them last night and requested to be cashed out to My Neteller acct. Ive got no response. When i try to log in at PS it pops up invalid name. I enter my UB screen name and pass word and it lets me log in on PS. Now what kind of bullshit is this? These poker sites never want it to become legal in the US. They know as long as its not legal to play here, they can do us any way they want to and theres nothing we can do but bend over and take it. ITs like the crack head that gets sold wax rocks, whats he going to do, call the cops? Bottom line, this is bullshit. I wouldnt play again on UB after this stunt if they were the last poker room in the world.

[Dan Druff]

Steve, you should get your money soon. They seemed to give priority to the big accounts, but I believe everyone will get paid eventually.

Pokershare didn't shut down your account. If Max Wright had his way, your Pokershare account would still work. The network shut down Pokershare's North American accounts because they felt that PS stepped on UB's toes.

While this is certainly annoying and scary, it's a hell of a lot better than a network just shutting down and vanishing.

[TCBSTEVE]

Thanks Dan. I know its not Max's fault. I know he had no control over the acct closures. Im just pissed the way it all went down. When i get my money ill shut up.

[uncleshady]

Bumping this because it makes more sense than SEC violations...

Edit: plus the posts on the pokershare website are figgin hilarious.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
While this is certainly annoying and scary, it's a hell of a lot better than a network just shutting down and vanishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope everyone who got burned by this boycots UB and they go under anyway. The new trend in online poker seems to be screw the customers.

Anyway, thanks Dan, your post explains quite a bit.

X

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

I really hope everyone who got burned by this boycots UB and they go under anyway. The new trend in online poker seems to be screw the customers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Stars, hurry up with that draw engine. Finding a site that doesn't get its kicks screwing over the customers isn't the easiest thing right now.

[TheTruthSpeaks]

Enjoy!

[augie00]

Very nice post. I was upset that my pokershare account was closed although I did not have any money there. I was planning on making a deposit shortly and playing some triple draw.

I'm boycotting UB and I'll never play at Pokershare again if they come back to U.S. players.

GUMBY

[chisness]

how does it make sense to boycott both? you can boycott ub because you're mad they did these things, but it looks like pokershare had no choice here!

[shday]

When I first inquired by email as to what was going on with my money, they replied that a check was issued to me for $42.70. This was alarming because I had over $500.00 in my account!! I sent off another email and just got a response with the corrected amount... my fingers are crossed that it arrives safe and sound.

[dtbog]

As many have said -- well researched, nice post.

This starts to make me wonder... does UB have any legitimate grounds for righteous indignation here, or are they just an example of the squeaky wheel getting the grease?

What gives UB the right to retain its customers when they are not offering the best deal on the market? If Pokershare is offering players an incentive to play on their site (namely, rakeback + share profits), then they will be making less profit on each player than UB will -- but they intend to make up for that by attracting the bulk of the players.

What "right" does UB have to these players? Sure, they helped build the Excapsa network -- but now the Excapsa market has evolved to include a better product. UB got rich over the last 4 years through the use of one business model, but now a competitor has come along with a better one.

What am I missing here? Why did Excapsa let UB get away with this?

[Mike O'Malley/PartyPoker.com]

[ QUOTE ]
Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, leave me out of this!

[carlo]

I suspect but could be wrong that the prime movers in UB are also the prime movers in Excapsa. In any case the marketing/growth of UB has to have been the result of the UB principals. Excapsa is the corporate shell which insures that each individual, entity cannot tear down the rest. Excaspa did certainly not build up UB but the opposite.

This affair is Party revisited. The idea that UB and Excapsa are at arms length is specious for they are joined at the hip. The loser in this affair is the Pokershare owners who paid leasing rights/whatever to Excapsa who should have known it was taking swindle money.

carlo

Addendum.-Swindle on both sides-- Pokershare owner knew he was going to parasite the work of UB and take the gravy without any effort of marketing(which is primary in online poker in the building up of clientale). Two disingenuous entities clash and one flames in a fire of greed.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]


What gives UB the right to retain its customers when they are not offering the best deal on the market?

What am I missing here? Why did Excapsa let UB get away with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The market is UB...Pokershare could not even exist without UB. Excapsa and UB essentially the same entity.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]

The market is UB...Pokershare could not even exist without UB.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true, then Pokershare would pose no threat to UB.

[Wes ManTooth]

does anyone know of any other site that does profit sharing simular to this one?

jump-snap-mule kick me to the side of the face if this is a newbie question.

[beset7]

This was inevitable. I was amazed I was even able to grind out a couple months of 30% RB at pokershare. Thought this would happen sooner.

If UB wanting Pokershare out was the reason for them closing, why doesn't pokershare just find a different software source. I only played at Pokershare cuz of the bonuses, not for the software. If they got some decent software and offered the same benefits such as the profit sharing, why wouldn't anyone rather play there. Its obvious people were playing there for the benefits, shouldn't be hard finding new software.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't be hard finding new software.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to Expekt.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
If UB wanting Pokershare out was the reason for them closing, why doesn't pokershare just find a different software source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they won't have any players.

See GamesGrid. Great bonuses, no players.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
If UB wanting Pokershare out was the reason for them closing, why doesn't pokershare just find a different software source. I only played at Pokershare cuz of the bonuses, not for the software. If they got some decent software and offered the same benefits such as the profit sharing, why wouldn't anyone rather play there. Its obvious people were playing there for the benefits, shouldn't be hard finding new software.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Must be lots of good networks looking for a skin like PokerShare to market high rakeback and profit-sharing to their existing high-volume player base.

People learn from the mistakes of others. It only took UB a couple of months to figure out something that Party struggled with for a couple of years. Now we have two bad examples for network operators to learn from.

Things don't look to happy at Pokerroom either. Maybe they are next? We'll also have to see how the old-line Prima sites feel about the upstarts.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
Must be lots of good networks looking for a skin like PokerShare to market high rakeback and profit-sharing to their existing high-volume player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

What suggests that the same thing wouldn't happen on any other network?

Clearly UB couldn't stand the competition. Why would the 'flagship' site on any other network let some newcomer take away all of their players? UB didn't.

[cero_z]

Hi Dan,

[ QUOTE ]
The rakeback situation is questionable. It will be up to Pokershare to distribute the rakeback to its affiliates. It's possible that they will either go under or claim financial hardship, meaning that your rakeback may never arrive. However, you should keep the pressure on your affiliate to make sure he's telling you the truth, and isn't using this situation to pocket the rakeback and blame Pokershare.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less what the announcement on my affiliate's site says, and I am shocked and appalled by that notion. My affiliate basically said, "you will get your money if we get ours". That wasn't the deal! The deal was, MY AFFILIATE will pay me x % of the rake I generate at Pokershare, in exchange for signing up through it. Whether they get paid this month is of no concern to me, at least as far as them paying me goes. In this business, I realize that the only accountability is market-driven (lost business), but that doesn't change the fact that it would be a gross ethical violation for my affiliate to refuse to pay my rakeback. Your statement above lends validity to their position, but that position has no merit, as far as I can see.

[pokerlaw]

Thanks for the info Dan - you spelled it out just about exactly the way that I imagined it.

FWIW, this is most certainly some type of anti-trust violation. UB, in effect, used its market share to exclude a competitor under an agreement w/ its parent.

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Dan,

[ QUOTE ]
The rakeback situation is questionable. It will be up to Pokershare to distribute the rakeback to its affiliates. It's possible that they will either go under or claim financial hardship, meaning that your rakeback may never arrive. However, you should keep the pressure on your affiliate to make sure he's telling you the truth, and isn't using this situation to pocket the rakeback and blame Pokershare.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less what the announcement on my affiliate's site says, and I am shocked and appalled by that notion. My affiliate basically said, "you will get your money if we get ours". That wasn't the deal! The deal was, MY AFFILIATE will pay me x % of the rake I generate at Pokershare, in exchange for signing up through it. Whether they get paid this month is of no concern to me, at least as far as them paying me goes. In this business, I realize that the only accountability is market-driven (lost business), but that doesn't change the fact that it would be a gross ethical violation for my affiliate to refuse to pay my rakeback. Your statement above lends validity to their position, but that position has no merit, as far as I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nonsense. If your affiliate doesn't get paid, he is not obligated to pay you. If he was, then every affiliate would go broke every time a site closed down and didn't pay their affiliates.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Dan,

[ QUOTE ]
The rakeback situation is questionable. It will be up to Pokershare to distribute the rakeback to its affiliates. It's possible that they will either go under or claim financial hardship, meaning that your rakeback may never arrive. However, you should keep the pressure on your affiliate to make sure he's telling you the truth, and isn't using this situation to pocket the rakeback and blame Pokershare.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less what the announcement on my affiliate's site says, and I am shocked and appalled by that notion. My affiliate basically said, "you will get your money if we get ours". That wasn't the deal! The deal was, MY AFFILIATE will pay me x % of the rake I generate at Pokershare, in exchange for signing up through it. Whether they get paid this month is of no concern to me, at least as far as them paying me goes. In this business, I realize that the only accountability is market-driven (lost business), but that doesn't change the fact that it would be a gross ethical violation for my affiliate to refuse to pay my rakeback. Your statement above lends validity to their position, but that position has no merit, as far as I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nonsense. If your affiliate doesn't get paid, he is not obligated to pay you. If he was, then every affiliate would go broke every time a site closed down and didn't pay their affiliates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Them's the breaks. That's the business you're in. It's not all free money and fast cars.

[billyjex]

I wonder if I can sign up on UB to get rakeback (I've never had an account there.)

[Wabby]

[ QUOTE ]
The deal was, MY AFFILIATE will pay me x % of the rake I generate at Pokershare, in exchange for signing up through it. Whether they get paid this month is of no concern to me

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, the affiliate would have to make a lot more money each money, to be able to pay this. IE everyone will get 5% less rakeback each and every month.

Me sir not like thiis...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Dan,

[ QUOTE ]
The rakeback situation is questionable. It will be up to Pokershare to distribute the rakeback to its affiliates. It's possible that they will either go under or claim financial hardship, meaning that your rakeback may never arrive. However, you should keep the pressure on your affiliate to make sure he's telling you the truth, and isn't using this situation to pocket the rakeback and blame Pokershare.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less what the announcement on my affiliate's site says, and I am shocked and appalled by that notion. My affiliate basically said, "you will get your money if we get ours". That wasn't the deal! The deal was, MY AFFILIATE will pay me x % of the rake I generate at Pokershare, in exchange for signing up through it. Whether they get paid this month is of no concern to me, at least as far as them paying me goes. In this business, I realize that the only accountability is market-driven (lost business), but that doesn't change the fact that it would be a gross ethical violation for my affiliate to refuse to pay my rakeback. Your statement above lends validity to their position, but that position has no merit, as far as I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nonsense. If your affiliate doesn't get paid, he is not obligated to pay you. If he was, then every affiliate would go broke every time a site closed down and didn't pay their affiliates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Them's the breaks. That's the business you're in. It's not all free money and fast cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that was just the nature of the business, then it wouldn't exist, because no one, or at least VERY few people, would be willing to assume that much risk.

[wonderwes]

This is a very informative Dan. Thank you for taking the time to write that, because myself and several friends of mine wanted to know the answer to that. I have been a UB player for lots of years.

I have a few extra questions to the thread:
Where is UB's office based out of? Canada?
Excapsa, did they start UB or did they just buy it? Do they list as seperate companies or is it something else?
Does this connect with GreenTiepoker, another UB skin? I am guessing no, because GreenTie has done a lot of promotions in the U.S.

I can sorta see why people have decided not to play on UB again, but I still think UB is a stable and creditable site.

[randomstumbl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Dan,

[ QUOTE ]
The rakeback situation is questionable. It will be up to Pokershare to distribute the rakeback to its affiliates. It's possible that they will either go under or claim financial hardship, meaning that your rakeback may never arrive. However, you should keep the pressure on your affiliate to make sure he's telling you the truth, and isn't using this situation to pocket the rakeback and blame Pokershare.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less what the announcement on my affiliate's site says, and I am shocked and appalled by that notion. My affiliate basically said, "you will get your money if we get ours". That wasn't the deal! The deal was, MY AFFILIATE will pay me x % of the rake I generate at Pokershare, in exchange for signing up through it. Whether they get paid this month is of no concern to me, at least as far as them paying me goes. In this business, I realize that the only accountability is market-driven (lost business), but that doesn't change the fact that it would be a gross ethical violation for my affiliate to refuse to pay my rakeback. Your statement above lends validity to their position, but that position has no merit, as far as I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nonsense. If your affiliate doesn't get paid, he is not obligated to pay you. If he was, then every affiliate would go broke every time a site closed down and didn't pay their affiliates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Them's the breaks. That's the business you're in. It's not all free money and fast cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that was just the nature of the business, then it wouldn't exist, because no one, or at least VERY few people, would be willing to assume that much risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really a moot point because I'm 95% sure that all Pokershare affiliates are still being paid. I know my affiliate has already paid me what I'm owed.

I just received an email response to my request for a confirmation of my cash out amount and a fedex tracking number. I got it within 10 minutes of sending to support@pokershare.com. I was relieved to track it and see that the package truly exists. I hope this all works out for everyone. Good luck all.

Ryan

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Must be lots of good networks looking for a skin like PokerShare to market high rakeback and profit-sharing to their existing high-volume player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

What suggests that the same thing wouldn't happen on any other network?

Clearly UB couldn't stand the competition. Why would the 'flagship' site on any other network let some newcomer take away all of their players? UB didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Memo to Self: This is why you should never use irony on the Internet.

[TomHimself]

vn post sir!
btw i feel bad for the players trying to win the WPT seat, i dont think they will get nething in return

[beset7]

my affiliate has pledged to pay us regardless of whether pokershare pays up. not spamming, don't PM me, just wanted to say this.

[dandy_don]

[ QUOTE ]
I just received an email response to my request for a confirmation of my cash out amount and a fedex tracking number. I got it within 10 minutes of sending to support@pokershare.com. I was relieved to track it and see that the package truly exists. I hope this all works out for everyone. Good luck all.

Ryan

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine too. Oddly, the origin destination was Elk Grove Village, IL; I was expecting some foreign location.

wow that is well written, pretty much almost TOO well written, almost as if someone (UB) might have paid you to post this. lets just say its been done in the past, im still suspicious

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
wow that is well written, pretty much almost TOO well written, almost as if someone (UB) might have paid you to post this. lets just say its been done in the past, im still suspicious

[/ QUOTE ]

doubtful.

[Sniper]

Great summary... You forgot one thing, the Excapsa CEO is a football fan amd well... he needed to rush this thru to massively increase his entries in this...


It’s time to hustle! The FedEx Super Box Sweepstakes ends November 6.
Time is running out, but you still have a chance to win a trip for two to Super Bowl XL with $2,500 in spending money! When you register, you’ll get an entry into the sweepstakes for every shipment of boxes you make between September 26 and November 6.

Plus, there are still hundreds of prizes to be won instantly when you play FedEx Quarterback Challenge online. Just ship your boxes, enter your tracking number and, if you score a touchdown, you could instantly win great prizes like LCD TVs, PSP handhelds, digital cameras and more! The more boxes you ship, the greater your chances of winning.

Contest ends November 6, 2005
Register now for your chance to win, and take the field again with every shipment of boxes you make!

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
wow that is well written, pretty much almost TOO well written, almost as if someone (UB) might have paid you to post this. lets just say its been done in the past, im still suspicious

[/ QUOTE ]

knuckler
stranger


Reged: 09/11/05
Posts: 21

In the past 2 months you know about something we don't? Doubtful.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
wow that is well written, pretty much almost TOO well written, almost as if someone (UB) might have paid you to post this. lets just say its been done in the past, im still suspicious

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this make UB look good? Does not look like it to me. If UB wrote this it would be a bunch of mumbo jumbo legal stuff making it look like they did not have a choice in the matter (pure crap). UB wants this to go away as quietly as possible... not have bracelet winners posting about it on the forum.

[Neurotoxin]

Dan, why all the hostility toward baldness? Did you just get a hair transplant or something?


traitor

[wond3rbr3ad]

why are the pokershare forums down now? /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ZPinhead]

Soon to be followed by the rest of the Pokershare site I suspect...

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
wow that is well written, pretty much almost TOO well written, almost as if someone (UB) might have paid you to post this. lets just say its been done in the past, im still suspicious

[/ QUOTE ]

Druff has no ties to UB. And if you knew anything about him you'd know he actually is not a fan of UB and has been very furious with their support in the past.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow that is well written, pretty much almost TOO well written, almost as if someone (UB) might have paid you to post this. lets just say its been done in the past, im still suspicious

[/ QUOTE ]

Druff has no ties to UB. And if you knew anything about him you'd know he actually is not a fan of UB and has been very furious with their support in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow that is well written, pretty much almost TOO well written, almost as if someone (UB) might have paid you to post this. lets just say its been done in the past, im still suspicious

[DamitBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly UB couldn't stand the competition. Why would the 'flagship' site on any other network let some newcomer take away all of their players? UB didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Competition? They just blatantly stole UB players. competition is when you get your own players. PokerNow did the same thing and got squashed like the piece of sxxt they were and Pokershare got the same.

I'm not on UB's side either. If they are not smart enough to block all the fence jumpers then they got what they deserve. Bad word of mouth and lotsa pissed players.

To me Titan (formerly Noble) has this game down. They don't get a skin they build their own base of players. Sold it to very weak marketer Empire (even worse then UB, see antonio).

They do this with tough yung salesman that close deals with strong affiliates and web site owners. They sold out Noble (huge $$) paid us all off handsomely (affiliates) and started Titan the next day. They are smart. Sell to a weak sales force (empire, they have not even called me, I have 5 sites) who won't go after business and Empire doesnt even require a non compete clause?

Maxy/Pokershare had a huge opportunity. You give me that shot I hire a buncha yung guns (closers) give them money to throw at affiliates and watch it grow. Titan has 12 guys in a room with a killer manager. Empire will call me someday if their 1 english speaker frees up. All that $$ and you don't have a clue.

Back to Max/tool boy. Instead of using great software and good action (especially tourneys) to build his own base he solicited 2+2 and others lookin for ship jumpers. Remeber that thread where he didnt answer many direct questions but tried to sell all on his site.

I understand the ship jumpin. I couldnt say no either. I was an early playa at UB and had no rake back. But I knew it wouldnt last.

UB should have taken care of players like me that couldnt afford to 4 table without rake. Again they screw up.

But don't blame UB because Maxy/Pokershare wasnt strong enough to do the right thing and build his own player base. Titan is doing it with ho hum software and no player base.

You give that marketing job to a closer and good leader and you don't need to steal.

Don't forget all the affiliates that lost good long time players here also.

I hate Max, he jacked me around a bunch and never returned emails on important questions I had. This after signing 500 players in 3 weeks (75 real money). He got what he deserves, a death sentence (I hope) for not having the balls to do it right and for allowing thousands of players to now sit and wait for their BR to come by snail mail.

It might have been a corporate decision (as Dan Druff said) to withhold money transfers but who set this in motion? Pokershare thought they could bully UB and found out quickly they were sadly mistaken.

I have one disabled player that is on the rail. Her entire BR is being sent snail mail (we hope) Her Poker play each day made her life pretty fun.

Not sure if this has been covered but I understand why they are sending snail mail checks. Print, stuff, sign, postage and mail out? Sounds like a lotta work when you have everyones Neteller addie right?

FLOAT. They are using this several million dollars as float. Most won't cash checks for 10 days or more. Interest on 2 million or more is sum good dough. Plus no outgoing neteller fees. Its the final slap in the face to us all. Ya, we screwed up and didn't do business correctly. We don't care about you, you will get your money when we send it.

Lotsa good sites. Pass the word Pokershare will be dead soon if we all write and tell players to stay away.

The reason that they are closing ONLY North American accounts is because of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America. Poker Share is proposing to give each player some shares of the company named "PokerShare.Com" and each player would share in the profits of this company named "PokerShare.Com". The problem with this is that the United States Government, with its Securities and Exchange Commission, and the other countries that make up the continent of North America (Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Bermuda and the French islands of St-Pierre et Miquelon) have certain standards that a company or corporation must meet if these companies and corporations want to sell or give away shares of their corporate stock. I'm convinced that PokerShare.Com does not meet these strict standards and therefore must not give away or sell shares of PokerShare.Com's corporate stock to residents of North America and particularly residents of the United States of Amercia. There are many people in American prisons today that have tried to do the same thing that PokerShare.Com is trying to do. PokerShare.Com may succeed with their proposal in other countries but they'll never do it in the United States of Amercia.....Most civilized countries have laws against the devious tricks that UltimateBet.Com and PokerShare.Com were trying to use for underhanded purposes to cheat people. UltimateBet.Com's lawyers read the contract that they had with PokerShare.Com and knew exactly what they were doing when they went into this agreement with PokerShare.Com. These two companies are among the world's lowest forms of life and calling them "SLEAZY" would be an expression of esteem, respect and affection!

[Dan Druff]

I'm sorry.

It's just that seeing Max's picture made me feel like I had a full head of hair again.

[Dan Druff]

The post by "lslslsls" is obviously ludicrous in certain ways (Pokershare was violating Greenland's SEC standards?!), but I feel it's worth responding to because there have been several SEC-related posts regarding this situation.

There are a few reasons that it's highly unlikely Pokershare shut down due to SEC violations.

First, despite Pokershare's usage of terminology such as "own" and "share", you actually couldn't own any part of the company. Ownership would involve actually having a piece of the company. For example, if you "owned" 2% of Pokershare, and Pokershare sold their operation for $10 million, you would receive $200,000. However, under the Pokershare "player ownership" model, you would receive nothing. This was simple profit-sharing, not ownership.

Second, US law makes it illegal to run an online gambling site. There's no way that a company would worry about United States SEC violations, yet not care about US laws against telephone/internet gambling. Certain poker sites (i.e. Ladbrokes) won't take US customers because of ties to other American interests. However, it's all or nothing. Either you are willfully violating American law by running a poker site, or you're not. There's no in between.

Third, there would be no reason to shut down all NORTH AMERICAN accounts if it were just about the US and the SEC. Why drag Canada into this? Why Mexico? This is all about marketing share. When Max Wright eventually speaks on this matter, you'll see that I was right.

Finally, remember that Pokershare wasn't the one to close these accounts. Excapsa did it, and Pokershare wasn't even aware of it. If Pokershare really shut off North American players due to fear of the SEC, they'd certainly have known about their own actions!

[uncleshady]

This is the part the kids simply refuse to understand...

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you "owned" 2% of Pokershare, and Pokershare sold their operation for $10 million, you would receive $200,000. However, under the Pokershare "player ownership" model, you would receive nothing. This was simple profit-sharing, not ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for spelling it out again, Dan.

[goodguy_1]

my check from PokerShare just arrived via Fedex...good to see.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason that they are closing ONLY North American accounts is because of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America. Poker Share is proposing to give each player some shares of the company named "PokerShare.Com" and each player would share in the profits of this company named "PokerShare.Com". The problem with this is that the United States Government, with its Securities and Exchange Commission, and the other countries that make up the continent of North America (Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Bermuda and the French islands of St-Pierre et Miquelon) have certain standards that a company or corporation must meet if these companies and corporations want to sell or give away shares of their corporate stock. I'm convinced that PokerShare.Com does not meet these strict standards and therefore must not give away or sell shares of PokerShare.Com's corporate stock to residents of North America and particularly residents of the United States of Amercia. There are many people in American prisons today that have tried to do the same thing that PokerShare.Com is trying to do. PokerShare.Com may succeed with their proposal in other countries but they'll never do it in the United States of Amercia.....Most civilized countries have laws against the devious tricks that UltimateBet.Com and PokerShare.Com were trying to use for underhanded purposes to cheat people. UltimateBet.Com's lawyers read the contract that they had with PokerShare.Com and knew exactly what they were doing when they went into this agreement with PokerShare.Com. These two companies are among the world's lowest forms of life and calling them "SLEAZY" would be an expression of esteem, respect and affection!

[/ QUOTE ]

Save this for the 12 year olds that might believe it... the rest of us know better. If this was an issue it would be investigated before the site went live, not suddenly become an issue when UB realized it is losing customers. What about the loss of rakeback before they killed the site.. was that a SEC voilation too? Druff is correct in his analysis of what happened here.

My father and I both just received our checks from Pokershare. Also interesting, his was less than $500, but they sent it FedEx anyway.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
My father and I both just received our checks from Pokershare. Also interesting, his was less than $500, but they sent it FedEx anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
They changed the FedEx standard to >= $50.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason that they are closing ONLY North American accounts is because of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America. Poker Share is proposing to give each player some shares of the company named "PokerShare.Com" and each player would share in the profits of this company named "PokerShare.Com". The problem with this is that the United States Government, with its Securities and Exchange Commission, and the other countries that make up the continent of North America (Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Bermuda and the French islands of St-Pierre et Miquelon) have certain standards that a company or corporation must meet if these companies and corporations want to sell or give away shares of their corporate stock. I'm convinced that PokerShare.Com does not meet these strict standards and therefore must not give away or sell shares of PokerShare.Com's corporate stock to residents of North America and particularly residents of the United States of Amercia. There are many people in American prisons today that have tried to do the same thing that PokerShare.Com is trying to do. PokerShare.Com may succeed with their proposal in other countries but they'll never do it in the United States of Amercia.....Most civilized countries have laws against the devious tricks that UltimateBet.Com and PokerShare.Com were trying to use for underhanded purposes to cheat people. UltimateBet.Com's lawyers read the contract that they had with PokerShare.Com and knew exactly what they were doing when they went into this agreement with PokerShare.Com. These two companies are among the world's lowest forms of life and calling them "SLEAZY" would be an expression of esteem, respect and affection!

[/ QUOTE ]

Save this for the 12 year olds that might believe it... the rest of us know better. If this was an issue it would be investigated before the site went live, not suddenly become an issue when UB realized it is losing customers. What about the loss of rakeback before they killed the site.. was that a SEC voilation too? Druff is correct in his analysis of what happened here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you have absolutely NOTHING to add to the conversation here except for to agree with one person and disagree with another(while you waste our time telling us about what you agree with or disagree with). Don't you have anything better to say?! WOW, YOU'RE BRILLIANT!