RDog 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 cite your source.Not sure where it is in that thread but basically a ton of google searches and posted by people eventually conclude that it is highly probable. The guys wife's name matches, her age is in the general area and the school where it took place is where he lives. Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Not sure where it is in that thread but basically a ton of google searches and posted by people eventually conclude that it is highly probable. The guys wife's name matches, her age is in the general area and the school where it took place is where he lives. Oh Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Not that I trust UB or AP to ever do what they are supposed to but this isn't correct. Online gaming sites have segregated funds which means they DO have your money, unlike banks."Segregated Funds" is not the same as 100% reserves. I don't believe for a minute that they have anywhere near 100% of Player Balances "Segregated". Link to post Share on other sites
James D 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 cite your source. http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/...02/pierson.html Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 This is what PS claims..."PokerStars players' poker money and account balances are held in segregated accounts and not used for any of PokerStars' operational expenses. These segregated accounts are managed by a leading European bank. The arrangements ensure that PokerStars can at all times fulfill its monetary obligations toward its online poker players, and will provide further reassurance that players' funds are always secure with PokerStars"I'll admit I could be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
RDog 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 "Segregated Funds" is not the same as 100% reserves. I don't believe for a minute that they have anywhere near 100% of Player Balances "Segregated".Segregated Funds means that they don't use your money. So technically every person who has a balance has that money sitting in a bank account somewhere. So yes, it does. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 See. You are missing the point.We are not talking "timely" we are talking "ever". You realize that a Bank can't withstand a run on funds because the "reserve" system means the don't have the $. Not in terms of on hand or timely. They don't have them Anywhere. If everyone came at once for their dollars, the Bank would have to fold and some people would not get their money. That is what happened in the 30's and why there is now the FDIC.If everyone ran to an OL Gaming site and cashed out at once, it would be an issue of timely access to your funds - many people would NEVER get paid because the company doesn't have that much $ anywhere. I still don't see the disconnect. My contention is that would be the case for any site, not just UB, so it's not really an indictment on them. Many businesses run on the hope/assumption that people won't come asking for monies they owe. I have no problem with this. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Segregated Funds means that they don't use your money. So technically every person who has a balance has that money sitting in a bank account somewhere. So yes, it does. Managed by a leading european bank could easily mean one of a thousand things. The key is the word "managed." Are they being managed conservatively or aggressively? Start with the simple questions and then work your way on down the line. The point is that even on the surface the wording leads itself to whatever the opposite of transparent is, but I still have no problem with that. It's only an issue here because of the lack of regulation, but even then as long as the people who are depositing don't get antsy your money isn't really in danger. I personally think one of the reasons it takes so long to get cash these days is because of this very thing- it's not as easily obtained. Imagine that your money is being " managed" in a portfolio of 98% stocks and leveraged to the max. Every time you do a cash out (hyopothetically) they would need to liquidate a portion to get to your funds, which take a few days. Now, imagine that a piece of that portfolio is not in stocks but in say, mortgage backed securities that, while earning a crazy yield are virtually impossible to move? Imagine taht it's all in those kind of bad bets. See where this is going? The possibilities are endless, especially since regulation is roughly zero. Link to post Share on other sites
RDog 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Managed by a leading european bank could easily mean one of a thousand things. The key is the word "managed." Are they being managed conservatively or aggressively? Start with the simple questions and then work your way on down the line. The point is that even on the surface the wording leads itself to whatever the opposite of transparent is, but I still have no problem with that. It's only an issue here because of the lack of regulation, but even then as long as the people who are depositing don't get antsy your money isn't really in danger. I personally think one of the reasons it takes so long to get cash these days is because of this very thing- it's not as easily obtained. Imagine that your money is being " managed" in a portfolio of 98% stocks and leveraged to the max. Every time you do a cash out (hyopothetically) they would need to liquidate a portion to get to your funds, which take a few days. Now, imagine that a piece of that portfolio is not in stocks but in say, mortgage backed securities that, while earning a crazy yield are virtually impossible to move? Imagine taht it's all in those kind of bad bets. See where this is going? The possibilities are endless, especially since regulation is roughly zero.It actually isn't this. It is solely due to payment processors. Otherwise, the timing issues now would be the same as they were 2 years ago and they simply aren't. Also, I'm not sure where I read about all of this but I don't think your info about the segregated money being in investments that need to be liquidated is correct. I need to see if I can find where I read about it. Once again, not that AP or UB should be trusted but I think the segregated funds issue is part of their contract with the Kahnake (or whatever it is) Gaming Commission. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Managed by a leading european bank could easily mean one of a thousand things. The key is the word "managed." Are they being managed conservatively or aggressively? Start with the simple questions and then work your way on down the line. The point is that even on the surface the wording leads itself to whatever the opposite of transparent is, but I still have no problem with that. It's only an issue here because of the lack of regulation, but even then as long as the people who are depositing don't get antsy your money isn't really in danger. I personally think one of the reasons it takes so long to get cash these days is because of this very thing- it's not as easily obtained. Imagine that your money is being " managed" in a portfolio of 98% stocks and leveraged to the max. Every time you do a cash out (hyopothetically) they would need to liquidate a portion to get to your funds, which take a few days. Now, imagine that a piece of that portfolio is not in stocks but in say, mortgage backed securities that, while earning a crazy yield are virtually impossible to move? Imagine taht it's all in those kind of bad bets. See where this is going? The possibilities are endless, especially since regulation is roughly zero.At Stars players funds are audited by PWC, and 100% of them are segregated. The only issue on timing is UIGEA making the intermediaries jump through hoops. The publicly traded companies for non-US players are the same. I dont know about UB, but Id still lay 2:1 they have liquid assets that cover all deposits. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 It actually isn't this. It is solely due to payment processors. Otherwise, the timing issues now would be the same as they were 2 years ago and they simply aren't. Also, I'm not sure where I read about all of this but I don't think your info about the segregated money being in investments that need to be liquidated is correct. I need to see if I can find where I read about it. Once again, not that AP or UB should be trusted but I think the segregated funds issue is part of their contract with the Kahnake (or whatever it is) Gaming Commission. They say it's payment processors. I don't buy it, never have. Also, I don't really see it as a trust issue. I don't have a problem with a site trying to make money off of funds I am basically lending them, but I can see why that would freak some people out. I work in the bank/finance industry. I wouldn't be surprised at all if our funds went to a european bank who in turn lends against it using Speedy cash on Broadway as a front making 300%. Front isn't quite the word I was looking for, but you would be surprised how many check cashing places are owned by legit banks. I guess I need to retrace this back to why I even posted in the first place, which was this- it's silly to say something like "UB couldn't stand a run on deposits" when if you think about it it is likely not one site could, unless you believe everything you are told about an unregulated business. Now, you might, but consider the reasons why we are even having this conversation any you may want to consider not believing at some point. A year and a half ago the word superuser didn't really exist, and the idea that you could indeed be cheated by these methods was more of a concept that one could be laughed at for believing.Edit: The speedy cash thing is just one of many scenarios, actually that's probably one of the better ones. People get absolutely raped by those places but they pay them. That's a much safer racket than say, mortgage backed securities. Link to post Share on other sites
PMJackson21 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/...02/pierson.htmlI think I speak for all the men reading this thread when I say this link is worthless w/out pics. :(I don't know why, but whenever I hear about something like this I always want to see what the female teacher looked like. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 At Stars players funds are audited by PWC, and 100% of them are segregated. The only issue on timing is UIGEA making the intermediaries jump through hoops. The publicly traded companies for non-US players are the same. I dont know about UB, but Id still lay 2:1 they have liquid assets that cover all deposits. Segregated into a bank account which is manged by a european bank. Managed is another word for invested. I just think that it's alot more murky than you guys seem to imagine. Once again, though, I have no problem with that, as long as there is a steady flow of new monies it shouldn't be an issue. Where is Bob? He would know for suresies I would think, or at least have an idea. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I think I speak for all the men reading this thread when I say this link is worthless w/out pics. :(I don't know why, but whenever I hear about something like this I always want to see what the female teacher looked like. I get an immediate boner, and then I have to tell myself to wait for this very reason. Link to post Share on other sites
RDog 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 They say it's payment processors. I don't buy it, never have.Come again? With all the weird checks I have seen recently, 100% this is the issue. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Come again? With all the weird checks I have seen recently, 100% this is the issue. Once again, to say it is the only issue could possibly be a stretch, just possibly. Consider what you didn't think was possible two years ago, or at least was improbable. I just think it's a tad simple minded to not think that more is happening with your money than you know, or have access to knowing. Simply put, think bigger, and furthermore think like an entity that is in business to make money, and find yourself in possession of alot of it. What would you do? Stick it in a bank account earning 5% or pay someone to manage it and try and make 30%? The answer to me is a no brainer. Link to post Share on other sites
RDog 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Once again, to say it is the only issue could possibly be a stretch, just possibly. Consider what you didn't think was possible two years ago, or at least was improbable. I just think it's a tad simple minded to not think that more is happening with your money than you know, or have access to knowing. Simply put, think bigger, and furthermore think like an entity that is in business to make money, and find yourself in possession of alot of it. What would you do? Stick it in a bank account earning 5% or pay someone to manage it and try and make 30%? The answer to me is a no brainer.Yeah, but I like to think that Pokerstars and Full Tilt are smarter than that. Sure, they could make more money by going against their TOS but they are also taking a HUGE risk if that ever got out. I think if anything has been proven in the last year is that trust is probably the biggest issue that keeps people playing on a certain site. They might not be making the most money possible but they the extra whatever percent they might make just isn't worth the risk. It doesn't make me simple minded because I tend to think that some sites might actually see the big picture and make a business decision based on the big picture.If my options were put my money in a bank account and earn 5% or put it somewhere else and "possibly" earn 30% but at the same time possibly put me at risk of losing the trust of a ton of customers from whom I make millions upon millions of dollars, yeah, you are right, no brainer for sure. Link to post Share on other sites
NoSup4U 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Not that I trust UB or AP to ever do what they are supposed to but this isn't correct. Online gaming sites have segregated funds which means they DO have your money, unlike banks. This is what PS claims..."PokerStars players' poker money and account balances are held in segregated accounts and not used for any of PokerStars' operational expenses. These segregated accounts are managed by a leading European bank. The arrangements ensure that PokerStars can at all times fulfill its monetary obligations toward its online poker players, and will provide further reassurance that players' funds are always secure with PokerStars"I'll admit I could be wrong. Segregated Funds means that they don't use your money. So technically every person who has a balance has that money sitting in a bank account somewhere. So yes, it does.IMO It is just sooooooooooo unlikely that all the money players have online actually sits liquid in an account somewhere. If that were the case, that would be different than just about EVERY institution, (including b&m casinos) that hold large amounts of money. I find this almost impossible to believe.Mark Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Yeah, but I like to think that Pokerstars and Full Tilt are smarter than that. Sure, they could make more money by going against their TOS but they are also taking a HUGE risk if that ever got out. I think if anything has been proven in the last year is that trust is probably the biggest issue that keeps people playing on a certain site. They might not be making the most money possible but they the extra whatever percent they might make just isn't worth the risk. It doesn't make me simple minded because I tend to think that some sites might actually see the big picture and make a business decision based on the big picture.If my options were put my money in a bank account and earn 5% or put it somewhere else and "possibly" earn 30% but at the same time possibly put me at risk of losing the trust of a ton of customers from whom I make millions upon millions of dollars, yeah, you are right, no brainer for sure. Straight from Pstars:You acknowledge and agree that monies deposited by you in your PokerStars account are held in a trust account on your behalf. Do you know what can be done within a trust? Virtually anything. I am not saying that you are simple minded, but in this case your outlook is very much so. Let's start with the fact that 2 rather large sites have been found wanting a bit but you assume that the rest are above board, then lets digress a bit and consider the fact that if what I think is true it doesn't make them a bad business model or plan. It just means they are trying to make money. It's no different than a bank using your funds to generate income with. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 IMO It is just sooooooooooo unlikely that all the money players have online actually sits liquid in an account somewhere. If that were the case, that would be different than just about EVERY institution, (including b&m casinos) that hold large amounts of money. I find this almost impossible to believe.Mark The key is in the "managed by a leading.." etc. Managed means invested in the banking world. Link to post Share on other sites
RDog 0 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I honestly don't even care anymore but doesn't this by definition mean that they are liquid........"The arrangements ensure that PokerStars can at all times fulfill its obligations towards Players, and will provide further reassurance that Players' funds are always secure with PokerStars."At the very least I think a large % of it is liquid and I certainly don't think that every time I go to cash out the reason it takes some time is because they have to sell a stock to give me my money. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I honestly don't even care anymore but doesn't this by definition mean that they are liquid........"The arrangements ensure that PokerStars can at all times fulfill its obligations towards Players, and will provide further reassurance that Players' funds are always secure with PokerStars."At the very least I think a large % of it is liquid and I certainly don't think that every time I go to cash out the reason it takes some time is because they have to sell a stock to give me my money. I don't think that's the case either, but it's possible. I would have to see the portfolio within the trust that it's kept in to know. Any portfolio can change drastically day to day depending on how it's being managed. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I honestly don't even care anymore but doesn't this by definition mean that they are liquid........"The arrangements ensure that PokerStars can at all times fulfill its obligations towards Players, and will provide further reassurance that Players' funds are always secure with PokerStars."At the very least I think a large % of it is liquid and I certainly don't think that every time I go to cash out the reason it takes some time is because they have to sell a stock to give me my money.I think that means if they need money, the bank will back them for it, and make arrangements accordingly.I'm pretty sure nobody holds onto that kind of money without investing it. Link to post Share on other sites
Dirk17 0 Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Those of you not keeping up with the 2+2 thread might want to go take a look. Looks like the found a link between Russ Hamilton's address being the address on the account of one of the superusers. Link to post Share on other sites
NoSup4U 0 Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Originally Posted by N 82 50 24 View PostOMG wow...http://sandgate.co.clark.nv.us/servl...el=13819810002The address is 1725 Glenview Dr.138-19-810-002 HAMILTON RUSSELL & CAROLYN *20060523:03704 05/23/2006 JOINT TENANCY 200 SUBDIVIDED LOTOkay people, the address on three of the accounts is owned by Russ and Carolyn Hamilton.Any questions?FWIW, this was the info given out by a UB whistleblower (not brainwash, as far as I know):Customer ID: Token ID: Username: Status: Creation Date: Update Date: 227061 Sleeplesss Active 2003-09-16 16:33:01 2007-09-05 13:12:49 Name: Lauren B Makar Address 1: 1725 Glenview Dr. Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: City, State, Postal Code Las Vegas, NEVADA 89134 Country UNITED STATES Customer Phone: 702326xxxx Customer Birthdate: 1967-xx-xx Email Information: Address: atease@vegasinbox.comI got rid of some information like the birthdate and phone number to protect whoever Lauren Makar is. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now