wtf...is this legal?

[asmythee]

[ QUOTE ]
i have nothing to do with this or with columbo but i am a post law student and u r wrong Mr. Jones....

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part of this (#21 on Pstars site) confuses you?

In case of disputes, PokerStars management decision will be final.

Let's review the other rules:

It is the players' responsibility to determine total agreement. Chat records alone will not necessarily validate an agreement.

Was this done? Yes. "Ya" is an affirmative answer by party B. And party A proposed the offer in the first place.
"Not necessarily" equates to "maybe" here.

Only players at the final table may deal for the money, and no deal is allowed that does not include all remaining players.

Unfortunately, heads up is the final table by definition right?

PokerStars will not participate in the deal making process, but will execute the agreement if the previous conditions are met.

They were, and it was executed.


If you wish to make a deal, please email support with the subject line: "Tournament # (insert tournament number) chop: URGENT" and support will come to the table to ensure a smoothly arranged deal.

This is more about mid-stream deal arrangement and doesn't describe a condition necessary for a deal to be made. The previous deal was already done (proposal by party A, agreement by party B (the infamous "ya").


Having said this though, I feel for Columbo as it is pretty one sided. But 2 lessons come out of this thread it seems:

a) You can kid and BS about anything in a poker room (virtual or otherwise) except one thing, and that's $$.

b) Deals can be made without Pokerstars support present. Practically, I figured this would be necessary.

Columbo, I feel for you but see why Pokerstars did what they did.

[TimM]

A: Can you give me $10?
B: Yes.
A: Well?
B: Well what?
A: Give me the $10.
B: No.
A: But you just said you would.
B: No, I said I could.

[AnyTwoCanLose]

"Legal" doesn't really apply, since online poker's illegal...

There was consideration... the willingness to play was consideration.

Also, courts apply the doctrine of consideration so liberally that it barely exists.

Regardless... seems pretty clear to me that the OP entered into an odds bet...

What's with the confusion... and the whining?

Don't say you'll pay if you won't.

[Gator_Nutz]

I'm new and really suck at poker right now and have never even been close to a "deal" situation, but just for instance, say this guy had asked for $100 and the guy said "ya". What if he only had $5 in his account? What would PS do then? Transfer his last $5 and demand that he deposit $95 more? Make an automatic deposit from his credit card since they have all of that info already anyway? Garnish his wages?

[asmythee]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm new and really suck at poker right now and have never even been close to a "deal" situation, but just for instance, say this guy had asked for $100 and the guy said "ya". What if he only had $5 in his account? What would PS do then? Transfer his last $5 and demand that he deposit $95 more? Make an automatic deposit from his credit card since they have all of that info already anyway? Garnish his wages?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good question.

How does current account size figure into "agreement" if at all? Can future funds be subject to past deals?

Its up to PokerStars ...

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]
"Legal" doesn't really apply, since online poker's illegal...

There was consideration... the willingness to play was consideration.

Also, courts apply the doctrine of consideration so liberally that it barely exists.

Regardless... seems pretty clear to me that the OP entered into an odds bet...

What's with the confusion... and the whining?

Don't say you'll pay if you won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, gambling sites are not illegal.

Second there was not consideration for the deal. The willingness to play was consideration to pay the enterance fee, not for making hte deal. Colombo doesn't care if the guy continues to play and would prefer he quit as he wins then.

And an odds bet?? Where was this??

Finally no one said that U.S. contract law necessarilty applies, that was just an example.. However poker sites are still governed by laws. They are not their own sovereigns even though many would like to think they are. if nothing else, international law applies.

Irrespective of contract law, they clearly do not follow their own guidelines very closely. The relied on a single question from one player and a single word from another when their rules say that chat alone will not necessarily be determinative. Looks like it was here. Further they request that an email is sent.

There is nothing wrong with making these kinds of deals but what people are failing to see is we do not want these deals to be made so easily. Otherwise it encourages others to take advantage of people who do not know the rules or who by their nature are sarcastic.

There just needs to be more requirements is all.

[reddred]

what if the guy had asked for $10,000 instead of 10 bucks?...Would the site support this?

[FishAndChips]

Let's not forget that Lee Jones knows that Colombo is a member of twoplustwo.com, and if any of you are familiar with Lee Jones' relationship with Malmuth and Sklansky, it isn't what I'd call cordial.

Apparently he has a huge grudge against Mason and David, because they have been harsh, but fair, critics of his book (Winning Low Limit Hold 'em). I think Lee Jones bears such a grudge against Malmuth and Co., that he is actually more inclined not to help out Colombo. Let's face it, the true "customer service" way to handle this situation would for PokerStars to refund the ten bucks. Hell, sites give that much away free all the time. This whole situation is ridiculous, and I definitely think less of PokerStars after this.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
[1] Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
[1] You're wrong and I'm correcting you. Run that "deal" past your lawyer and see how hard he laughs.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said Stars is the only site that facilitates deals, and to correct him if he was wrong on that account. You responded like a moran. Congratulations.

[bpb]

A six year old could see that no deal was agreed to in this situation. The guy is an angle shooting scumbag, and Star's support is dumber than dirt. Now, instead of admitting that support screwed up, Lee Jones is making some half assed attempt to justify their actions.

THERE WAS NO DEAL.