PDA

View Full Version : Theft by Pokerspot


Greg (FossilMan)
08-25-2003, 11:25 AM
In a thread on the tournaments forum about Dutch’s loss to Moneymaker’s 33 during the WSOP, Daliman wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
PS died owing me about $900 (maybe more, maybe less, tuff to remember now), and, though I'd love to have you pay me that $$$, I kinda have to agree with your stance that those are corporate debts, sorta like if people invested in a company with a positive expectation yet never recieved their dividends, although I wouldn't place it anywhere near the level of smaller scale ENRON; I'd like to think it was mismanagement and poor business model that doomed PS, and not corporate malfeasance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m sorry if this sounds too harsh, but to make this statement you are either ignorant or a mouthpiece for Dutch.

Dutch stole that money, either willfully or through ignorance. People deposited money into THEIR personal player’s accounts at Pokerspot, and that money was apparently comingled with Pokerspot’s general assets, and thus used to pay bills and the like. Because of this comingling, the money was spent on expenses rather than being kept in trust for the players, and thus safe from misuse and creditors. Comingling these funds was theft, and that theft led to the loss of your money and everyone else’s.

When you invest in a company, by buying stock or bonds or the like, you know you’re taking the risk that the company goes bankrupt, or even if it stays in business, that you will lose money on the investment. But people weren’t investing in Pokerspot when they deposited money. They did not expect that deposit to grow if the company did well, but only if they won playing poker there. Similarly, they expected that the only way they were going to lose that money was by losing at the poker tables.

Imagine you write a check to your broker at Merrill Lynch, and have him buy stock for you. You expect to be taking a risk that you could lose money because of your stocks going down in value. But, if ML were to go bankrupt, you would not expect to lose your investment. The money you invest through them is held by them in trust, it belongs to you, and if they have corporate debts, in or out of bankruptcy, the creditors cannot touch your money. However, if they comingle your money with their money, then the two become indistinguishable, and creditors can go after it. You become just another creditor. And it’s due to their malfeasance in comingling the funds. If they had kept things separate and identifiable, and put your money/stocks/bonds in a trust account, it would be safe. ML and other brokers are required to do things in this manner by law, and if they do not, even if your money is never lost, they are guilty of breaching certain laws, and will face fines and/or jail time.

Now Dutch was operating outside the US, and was probably not subject to these laws, but he still should have known better. Even if he technically broke no laws, he did breach the trust of his players by comingling funds, and is guilty of stealing that money, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
if you graduated law school at like 18

[/ QUOTE ]

If Dutch went to law school, then he either knew or should have known that comingling funds was either illegal or at least unethical. And he knew or should have known that by placing that money in trust he could protect his player’s money even if his business failed. But, rather than do that, he decided to risk THEIR MONEY in order to increase the chances of his business succeeding. And I very much doubt that he asked their permission first, or even told them he was doing it, which makes him a thief.

If Dutch ever became a member of any state’s bar, I’d love to hear about it. So I can turn him in and get him disbarred for fraud and theft. If he is a lawyer, he shouldn’t be.

[ QUOTE ]
My question on the Pokerspot issue is: ... and do you feel your age and lack of experience had something to do with the ultimate downfall?

[/ QUOTE ]

It almost certainly did. Now, if Dutch had come out and admitted that he made a mistake by comingling the funds, then maybe we could all figure him for a youthful mistake. However, Dutch has been anything but contrite on this issue, and still argues that he did NOTHING WRONG. That’s bullshit. He stole money, by using it in a manner that placed it at risk, when it was supposed to be held in trust for the players. It may be that through his youthful exuberance, and the firm belief of many of us when young that “it won’t happen to me”, that he did all this without evil intentions. But if that were the case, he should’ve stepped up and apologized. However, since he’s not apologetic, he certainly gets no sympathy from me.

In case anybody thinks this is sour grapes, I never played at Pokerspot, and didn’t lose a dime because of it. I also have never met Dutch, and have no opinion of him other than what I’ve read on the internet and heard from other people. However, despite his posts proclaiming his innocence, he’s never said that he didn’t comingle the funds, and THAT was his crime. He knew better, or he should have known better. If he actually didn’t know better, then he should have been apologizing for that mistake, not claiming his innocence. And since he went to law school, I really don’t think he made an honest mistake. I think it’s more likely he knew he wasn’t supposed to comingle the funds, but did so anyway as it was his best shot at making Pokerspot succeed.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

adios
08-25-2003, 12:22 PM
Of course you're right. The money should have been at risk when playing poker not on the business performance of PokerSpot. Certainly if PokerSpot thrived and a player broke even let's say, the value of their account wouldn't have gone up. Comingling the funds is fraud no doubt about it.

Wake up CALL
08-25-2003, 03:05 PM
First do not read this post as taking the side of Dutch Boyd. But Fossilman my understanding is that he never even got the players money, that it was misappropriated in the clearing house between the customer and Pokerspot. This may in fact not be the case but if it was doesn't your theory crumble?

Greg (FossilMan)
08-25-2003, 03:16 PM
Yes, if the money never made it to Pokerspot at all, then my theory is inapplicable.

However, there were plenty of people who played on Pokerspot and then never got their money, which indicates either the money made it to Pokerspot, or Pokerspot let them play on credit pending the arrival of the money (and didn't tell them about the problem).

I've seen Dutch address the Pokerspot scandal on rgp but I've never read anything from him that excuses the situation to my satisfaction. And that suggests that he's either lying or failing to tell all. If he had done the right thing all the way through, it should be explainable, and he should be capable of explaining it properly.

I'd love to hear his business plan for his new scheme, rakefree poker. If there's no rake or time charge, then I don't see how he can make any income unless one of two things is happening. First, you're subjecting yourself to some form of advertising, and he makes money by charging a fee to the advertisers. Second, he takes the money and invests it between when you deposit and when you withdraw, and he makes his profit from the "free" use of your money.

Of course, if it were the latter, we'd be facing the same problem as Pokerspot, i.e., the money is not in trust and therefore the possiblity of losing it all if the company were to fold exists.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Ray Zee
08-25-2003, 03:26 PM
deposited money is in trust and should be fraud if stolen.
but you will find that even in cal. and nevada when casinos and sport books have gone broke they took the players deposited money as well. no repurcussions as i remember. what is right and what happens in the real world are two very different things. dont be lazy and leave very much out of your control or get it up the you know what. dont worry there will be some more big ones that take it and run in the future. it is too easy to do.

hows this, i have a friend with 32,000 in golden nugget chips that were from before the buyout. after a year or so he went back and they wont take them as they said the time period is over. bad faith but legal. of course he deserves it for being so lazy.

msk
08-25-2003, 04:16 PM
Hi Greg,

I signed up for Pokerspot very very early, months (or even years) before the so-called intermediary problems that Russ claimed. I put in a tiny amount of money, I did this at all sites I signed up with at the time, just for safety.

I won a bit, and I tried to take my winnings out. I couldn't. I got many excuses. I'm a very experienced businessman, I posted here warning people about the site likely being a fraud. Before the official baloney excuses from Russ/Dutch...well before those. It was always clear that the site never or only rarely paid anyone anything. It was always a scheme, in my humble opinion, to simply take the rake and take the deposits too.

'rakefree' sounds like another great idea: Charge no rake, simply take the deposits. Offshore of course.

Dutch should change his name: Hm, Ken Lay, or maybe Ponzi, that's a cool last name.

Mark

Wake up CALL
08-25-2003, 05:36 PM
here is my theory on Dutch's latest enterprise and why you should play there:

Rakefree.com will without a doubt have the highest percentage of fish playing but not necessarily the greatest total number. Anyone who will make a deposit at a site run by Dutch Boyd must be a fish and hate their money. I wonder if Ms Sunshine has signed up for his joint family account yet. I understand Dutch is offering a generous deposit bonus for anyone who lost money at his previous venture into online poker. Who said you should shear those sheep instead of skinning them?

Timer
08-25-2003, 08:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Dutch stole that money, either willfully or through ignorance. Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Although it is unfortunate that people lost money to this thief I do in no way feel sorry for anyone that has lost anything "gambling" online.

Online gambling is illegal. If it's not illegal then sue to get your money back, but you can't--no one can.

As far as I'm concerned I'd like to see the whole ball of wax go up in smoke. These online sites are getting away with murder and it's only a matter of time until the entire escapade comes crumbling down.

Wake up CALL
08-25-2003, 09:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]


Although it is unfortunate that people lost money to this thief I do in no way feel sorry for anyone that has lost anything "gambling" online.

Online gambling is illegal. If it's not illegal then sue to get your money back, but you can't--no one can.



[/ QUOTE ]

Your source of information is pretty poor if you believe online gambling is illegal. After all there are more people on this planet than in whatever tiny jurisdiction you live in where you think it is illegal. How about an applicable statute to back up your claim that gambling online is illegal? This request usually makes the goobers go away.

The reason noone is suing Dutch is that his operation was located in Costa Rica you genius.

Randy_Refeld
08-26-2003, 01:21 PM
I never played at Pokerspot, so I have no first hand info. My understanding is that players lost money because they played in freerolls when Russ Boyd had no money to pay the winners. I don't know if this make a difference, but I think the reason that so many people lost money at Pokerspot is they were able to "win" large sums that just weren't there, rather then Russ spending the deposits and then claiming he had no money.

Greg (FossilMan)
08-26-2003, 03:13 PM
Without a doubt some of the stolen money was never lost by the players, but won for free (not counting time) and then lost. However, there were certainly players who deposited their own money, won more or lost some playing poker, and then got nothing back when Pokerspot folded.

As for how much of the stolen money was deposited, and how much was won in freerolls, I have no idea.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Daliman
08-28-2003, 02:16 AM
A. I'm no mouthpiece for Dutch Boyd. Never met the man, and was probably as surprised and you that he wasn't some old-money fat cat.

2. Ignorant? Nah. But I wiil admit to actually just letting it go after it became apparent the $$$ was never coming, so mayve, in retrospect, my retrospection was a bit rosy. I actually, come to think of it, seem to remember talking to Dutch one time for about 45 minutes on the phone when I had called support to find out where my $$$ was, and remember him being very interested in my ideas, which made me feel more secure about keeping my $$$ in there. All in all, again, I don't belive Boyd "stole" that $$$; seems way too traceable, and I do remember him saying some problem with a clearinghouse. Maybe that's BS, maybe not, but that kind of thing DOES happen every day in corporate america. I respect your posts and opinions, FM, and was just as mad as you about the $$$, but I guess i've just made my peace with the whole thing.
Other than that, what did you think of my poker commentary in the same post/thread? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Greg (FossilMan)
08-28-2003, 09:30 AM
I ignored the poker content, as I did not wish to contribute to a thread started by Dutch. I was reading it to see what people said about Pokerspot, and what response, if any, he gave.

If you start a new thread with your content, I will be glad to read it, and will comment if I think I have anything useful to say.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)