wtf...is this legal?

[Glassworks]

Thanks for the $10.50!! It tasted so good!

[jman220]

Haha, if you're the real "Glassworks," then I'm the queen of England.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's absurd. Do you have any evidence for this "grudge" or is it just speculation? Lee Jones has recommended TOP and HEPFAP (here, for example), which would be a strange thing to do if he bore a grudge against Sklansky so intense that it extended to everyone who posts at twoplustwo.com!

[ QUOTE ]
Let's face it, the true "customer service" way to handle this situation would for PokerStars to refund the ten bucks.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be a terrible precedent. Colombo got exactly what he deserved -- he was held to his commitment. He still came out ahead $84.50 on the tournament.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be silly. Pokerstars is a class organization and doesn't single out 2+2 posters in any way.

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]

That would be a terrible precedent. Colombo got exactly what he deserved -- he was held to his commitment. He still came out ahead $84.50 on the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back, read the T&C of Pokerstars, Colombo was shafted PS violated their own T&C. Only an idiot would believe 2 lines from a chat that is entirely 1 sided was in any way a deal. It was, on the part of the (supposedly) losing player, an attempt to mess with OP's mind trying to throw him off his game.

[FishAndChips]

[ QUOTE ]
That's absurd. Do you have any evidence for this "grudge" or is it just speculation? Lee Jones has recommended TOP and HEPFAP (here, for example), which would be a strange thing to do if he bore a grudge against Sklansky so intense that it extended to everyone who posts at twoplustwo.com!

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, Mason's own review of his book suggests some hard feelings

"Winning Low Limit Hold’ em (7) by Lee Jones. Years ago I received a proposal from a then unknown author concerning a book on low limit hold ’em. After reading the offer, which included excerpts from the forth coming work, I quickly rejected it. It was obvious to me that this text was going to contain a huge number of errors and it wasn’t worth our time and effort to take on this type of rewriting project.

Well the book was published by ConJelCo and true to form our expectations were met. In my opinion it was a confused work at best and with the exception of advising new players to play much tighter, it contained much erroneous and misguided advice. Thus we at Two Plus Two were glad that our efforts and energy went into different projects.

But an interesting thing happened. The opinion that David and I had of this text was in the minority. It not only sold well, but was praised by others. However, we stuck to our guns. The text was still badly flawed and we do understand how to play poker well, and despite what others might say, Winning Low Limit Hold ’em would not put you on the path towards winning play. It was that simple.

Of course we were accused of bashing the book because it just might be competitive to our products. Also, we believe that its author may have held some hard feelings towards us at times . But again our opinion was based on our knowledge of poker and hold ’em in particular — nothing more and nothing less.... "



[[ QUOTE ]
That would be a terrible precedent. Colombo got exactly what he deserved -- he was held to his commitment. He still came out ahead $84.50 on the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, no it wouldn't. PokerStars didn't follow their own procedure as they WROTE it . What part of that don't you understand, Jackson? Furthermore, it doesn't set a bad precedent when a company chooses to assist a customer who was wronged or misled. You simply do not know much about good business practices.

[MicroBob]

There was a very REAL thread in the books-software forum last May or June or so just prior to the release of SSHE.
Basically, Lee Jones stated some of the things he had heard about SSHE (that Ed directly finds fault in some of the plays in Lee's book)...Ed responded politely and gave a couple of examples from Lee's book that he thought were incorrect.


Then Mason and David jumped in the thread too and it all grew kind of silly from there.
They thought that Lee had gone too far in defending the material in his book while, perhaps, attacking Ed a little bit (I didn't think he was attacking him btw).

David went so far to point out that Ed is more qualified to write a book based on his MIT background and generallly superior intelligence (or something like that) and then said something about Lee having claimed such-and-such and why would you even want to read a book by someone who once wrote that 'this and that is possible' (I forget the details).


It was a MONSTER freaking thread that Lee stopped responding to rather quickly (much to his credit imo).

Many 2+2'ers including myself thought that the criticisms of Lee's book were valid (I'm not a fan of WLLHE really) but that David had crossed the line with a couple of his jabs....whereas David and his supporters simply claimed that they were being honest in ripping Lee apart.
If they think a book is bad they are going to say so.

I believe Lee stopped posting on here for quite awhile after that thread and was pleased when he made a return.
perhaps this was when he got together with Granny in December to form the 2+2 Tsunami relief tourney. (i finished 6th and got a shirt and hat that Stars threw in for free).


Anyway, from that thread from last year I don't think it's too far out-of-bounds to say that there is some sort of mutual distaste and/or lack of respect for each other (although I don't know if it's exactly a 'grudge').


However, I think there is practically no way that Lee would purposefully rule against someone who participates in the 2+2 forums. That is just ridiculous.

Many of their players post on 2+2.


Lee recently responded to a thread in the internet-forum. Basically, a guy who had already won his WSOP seat on Stars 'accidentally' signed-up for a WSOP-Steps seat on Party (thinking he was signing-up for a regular-Steps) and won another seat.
Party provided him no help...and Lee came on to the thread, addressed the issue, and credited the guy with $10k in W$ that he can use in the prelim events.
Lee bent over backwards to help a guy who posted about his situation on 2+2.


Pokerstars is a class act imo.

They made a ruling on the $10.50 thing here that many seem to disagree with (I don't think it's entirely incorrect).
That just means they made the ruling that they thought was appropriate for this situation.
The ruling was made BEFORE he posted about it on 2+2.

The notion that Lee or Stars would make a ruling against someone simply because they post on 2+2 is retarded.

[M.B.E.]

Hmmm, so just because Mason believes that Lee Jones "may have held some hard feelings", you jump to the conclusion that he has a vendetta against everyone who posts on 2+2. That's utterly ridiculous; Lee is a class act. See MicroBob's post.

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars didn't follow their own procedure as they WROTE it . What part of that don't you understand, Jackson? Furthermore, it doesn't set a bad precedent when a company chooses to assist a customer who was wronged or misled. You simply do not know much about good business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]
PokerStars did follow their own procedure. Their rules say that chat logs will "not necessarily" validate an agreement, which obviously means that chat can be binding in some circumstances.

Colombo was not 'misled' at all. In fact he was the one attempting to mislead his opponent by saying he would transfer $10.50 when he had no intention of doing so.

[defence18]

[ QUOTE ]

Because you can't let people get away with crap like this. That's what's wrong with our society.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what is wrong with our society is people taking actions, not realizing the consequences, then bitching about what happened.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]



Now, what are we to do with that? We are put into the position of figuring out if "ya" ("yes" to an American English speaker) means "yes" or "no".

Had Columbo followed up with "Just joking - sorry", then we wouldn't have enforced it. Had it been a $10 HU S&G and the other player had asked for $1000, then we probably would have decided that "ya" meant "don't be insane".


[/ QUOTE ]

Why wasn't there a confirmation of this? I thought all PS facilitated deals had to be approved/confirmed by both players, with a PS representative there.

That having been said, I think Columbo should have clarified his "ya" remark to be sarcastic, since it was simply meaning "yes" in this case. Next time he needs to protect himself, though I now don't think PS is necessarily in the right.

[ QUOTE ]

One final thing: some people have tried to latch onto the requestor's use of "can" rather than "will". Let's not be silly. While not absolutely correct grammatically, "Can you <whatever>" is very common and well-understood American usage. Do you really want us to start playing grammar lawyer with everything you write?


[/ QUOTE ]

And you just assumed that both participants were American, or did you actually look this up before making the transfer?