wtf...is this legal?

[MicroBob]

Very nice post Lee.
Your argument that 'yes CAN'T mean no or else you're in real trouble' was exactly what i saying here.


I'm not sure whether you had time to read the whole thread.
In one of my posts here I suggested that a 'deal' button be made at Stars. That way, a deal is only 'officially' agreed upon if it is pressed by both players or something.

In internet chess if someone offers me a draw then I get a little thing that says, 'draw?' If I agree then it's a draw...if I ignore the button and make my next move then the draw has been refused.
If I want to offer a draw on the very next move I can and then the other player can turn it down. His initial offer of a draw no longer applies and it's like he never made that offer.
We could technically keep offering each other draws and keep turning each other down all game if we wanted. But if we both agree that it's a draw then the game ends.


In pokerstars situation...it could be something along the lines that the deal in the chat-box is NOT an enforceable deal UNLESS both players have OFFICIALLY clicked the 'deal' button or something like that.


I know my idea is pretty vague right now.
Just providing an idea.


Again - thanks for responding in this thread.

[jman220]

Your points are well made (I'm a 3L). However, it is worth noting that Pstars is in the Carribean, the Restat 2d of contracts is not even persuasive authority there, they do not have the english common law of contracts, etc. etc. Who knows what the laws down there are (I'm too lazy to research it).

[Lee Jones]

Hi -

[ QUOTE ]

In one of my posts here I suggested that a 'deal' button be made at Stars. That way, a deal is only 'officially' agreed upon if it is pressed by both players or something.


[/ QUOTE ]

We've discussed (multiple times) the idea of a "deal button". But chess (1) is a two-player game, and (2) only offers a single option: "draw". Visualize a final table with 4-5 players left. Now, invent the user interface for the deal button. You have to (a) define how much money each player is going to get, (b) define if any money will stay on the table to be played for, [1] (c) get approval for that deal from each player. So what if three of the remaining five players each propose a different deal. Now you have to keep track of three different deals that have been proposed. Or maybe you have to wait for approval/disapproval of a single deal before anybody's allowed to submit another? You can see that the state machine of this whole thing is substantially more complex than a chess match. And so far we haven't found anything that we liked enough.

There's also the argument that having such a deal button encourages deals. I don't know if I agree with that or not, but to some of us here, that's a compelling point.

Anyway, thank you for the thoughts and ideas.

Best regards,
Lee Jones

PokerStars Poker Room Manager

[1] It breaks my heart that people don't more routinely leave some money to play for. I don't see how they ever expect to get better at short-handed tournament poker.

[SackUp]

Lee I think your explanation is decent however I feel it is greatly lacking in some very important areas. First you have 5 things listed under deals, yet you really only addressed two of the items and you were rather incomplete at that.

You make a rather conclusory statement that "
2. The players worked out the deal - there wasn't any question about the intent of the exchange."

I would argue there was great confusion as to the intent of the exchange as columbo intended the statement to be made in jest (or at least he so contends now). Further your rules state that the players must be in complete agreement and that chat records alone will not necessarily validate an agreement. Here you have relied only on chat and a rather brief and non thorough chat at that.

That then brings us to the 5th item listed under deals which asks players to make send an email saying they wish to make a deal. This was clearly not done.

It seems that you have these requirements in place but you did not stick to them completely. You relied on a one sentence question from one player and a one word answer from the other. Further, there was no email given on the details of this transaction to your support. This does not mean that this information may not provide sufficient information to support, but it appears to be rather sparce at best.

Why not make it a requirement that the deal is emailed to support or that a moderator must come to the table and witness the chat. Or at least that the deal consists of more than one question and a one word answer.

You say that you would be going down a slippery slope by determining whether "ya" means "yes" or "no," but aren't you already making an interpretation as to whether there was sufficient information to support a deal? Your classification of a deal itself has some requirements, but also has some subjective inquiries into the statements as well.

Further, you state that had the person asked for $1000 that "ya" meant "don't be insane." How then is this any different from interpreting that "ya" for $10.50 means yes in that case? Money is money regardless of the stakes and should not be taken so lightly. In both cases you are forced to make an interpretation as to the meaning, so it appears you have already created a slippery slope when you gave this example. At what amount of money does "ya" mean "don't be insane" and at what point does "ya" mean "yes?"

I think if you are going to allow such deals to take place then the onus is on the site to take the time to correctly enforce these deals and make sure that both parties are in complete agreement before such a deal is made. There should be a requirement to look at more than just a one line statement for each party.

Apparently the circumstances of the agreement are important to the site in making this determination from the examples you have given. Should you not take into account what both parties stood to gain from the transactions and how likely that the transaction was for real and not just a jest. Would you not look to see what efforts were made by each side to make sure the agreement was finalized and both parties were clear. (I.E. more than just a one line statement from each side and following the 5th item under deals which asks that an email be sent to support with the details of the deal)

I think you have opened yourself up to much more interpretation by allowing your staff to have full power to enforce these so called "deals." There should much more definitive statements and surrounding evidence from both parties in support of the deal. I think the slippery slope you are opening with the policy set by this example is that you will allow people to take advantage of unknowing parties by taking the chance that someone will jokingly say "ya" when they ask for money.

You should set more firm guidelines if you are to enforce these deals, otherwise they should not be enforced from your end at all. Especially here when the guy giving the money would stand to gain NOTHING by doing so.

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]
Your points are well made (I'm a 3L). However, it is worth noting that Pstars is in the Carribean, the Restat 2d of contracts is not even persuasive authority there, they do not have the english common law of contracts, etc. etc. Who knows what the laws down there are (I'm too lazy to research it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Right I wasn't suggesting that they necessarily follow the restatement of Contracts but I would assume that international contracts will have somewhat similar requirements. The ideas of offer, acceptance, and consideration are not novel to the U.S.

I don't know what laws they follow either, but I would bet that they have something similar to the idea of consideration in whatever law they use. I haven't looked this up either, but I would imagine that is the case.

Further, even if they don't look at contract law I think that they circumvented some of their own policies, specifically saying that chat alone won't necessarily be determanitive (and thus inferring that some form of parole evidence will be looked at - which was not here) and that an email is sent to support giving the details of the deal.

I think this was just a quick move made by their staff and since it was "only for $10.50" they aren't too concerned. I still think this is a bad precedent to set and I do feel they have created their own slippery slope by saying "ya" means "don't be insane" in one instance, but "yes" in another. But I think I covered all of that above.

If I'm movtivated I might see what laws they follow. This might be something that would go to the ICJ though (well not for this amount) but contract disputes in general. I still think even international custom will have something like consideration.

[michiganfan9]

I totally agree with you colombo. That is so retarded because you did not authorize it. Just saying something in a chat means absolutely nothing. Poker players are the best liars in the world when it comes to table talk and chat in general. That is so stupid that he got ur $10 and definitely does not sound legal to me.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
[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.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
if there was an angleshooters hall of fame, i would nominate this guy... so sick. lol.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the OP? If so I agree.

[stu-unger]

i have nothing to do with this or with columbo but i am a post law student and u r wrong Mr. Jones. The wording on your website leaves player columbo with a lot of outs in the situation. it says that without quoting that the text isn't a guaranteed route to making a deal in your own words. and that a player should contact your personnel to put a deal into affect. neither of these were met. also the text box clearly doesn't request a deal it requests an offering. i don't see how a player asking for 5% of the prizepool can be considered as a chop when it only applies to one of the players in aggreement. i think u may want to re-read your site, and the contractual law that applies. But i dont care but i do care enough to send out a mass e-mail and mass thread to all poker players on your loose understanding of the contract. P:s: u make a gold mine on rakes any intelligent business man would cough up $10 and put an end to this for all stars player alike

[djack]

I realize that PS doesn't want its customer support to be in the business of determining what is and what isn't a deal.

But this "deal" is just so preposterous that it's amazing to me that it could be considered a deal. It's a headsup match, and there's no enticement offered to the OP.

Bad bad bad.