PokerStars buys FTP for $750mln(?) - Page 3

On April 24 2012 19:24 Siro wrote: http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/04/the-gbt-repayment-plan-fact-vs-fiction/ horrible repayment plan wow

first replier's ID: hasu

LOL

Repayment plan by Tapie:

Early plans: Players with an account balance of less than $ 100 could be repaid in full or have that balance credited to their players account in the new company, virtually immediately. According to some sources, this was believed to encompass ~95% of account holders, and is what the media release today in fact, labeled as 94.9% of ROW players. What was left out of that release was that that purported 94.9% of player balances amounted to approximately $ 16,000,000.00. The remaining 5.1% of players, with an approximate aggregate account balance of $ 168,000,000.00 fell into a different group. Each player with a balance less than $ 500.00 fell into the “standard players” category. Each player with a balance of more than $ 500.00 but less than $ 10,000 fell into the “silver players” category. Each player with a balance of over $ 10,000.00 fell into the “gold players” category. 1 In each of these categories, in order for players to move more than the original $ 100 over to the unrestricted column (available for withdrawal), there would be significant playthrough requirements. The requirements appear to be staggered based on the balances but it is clear that the initial value of the new player account balance on which to play with, if one decided to play, is only a small percentage of the old account balance, based on the activity of the account in 2011. For the players used to playing mid-high stakes, they would need to make a fresh deposit in order to play in limits they were used to. After generating some substantial amount of rake, some more funds would be moved to the unrestricted column. It was expected that in many cases, this would take years to complete if only minimal(relative) deposits/playthrough was accomplished. If players for some reason, did not partake in reactivating their playthrough, after a period of 6 months, their old FTP account balance would be hit with inactivity penalties. The planned penalty was 5% of the inactive balance per month and would continue until either the player became active in the new company or until their balance was depleted by the penalty charges. If a player had been charged some monthly inactivity fee then became active, the penalties charged would not be reinstated, they would start only with their already depleted balance. Although there was some promise that withdrawals should be approved and completed within originally a two year then a three year period, based on the above requirements and inactivity penalties, many players old account balances would already be depleted in less than the three year period.

I would need to play there to cashout my money? wtf is that, my cash turned into some kind of play-to-release bonus? 5% penalty for inactivity as well, wow. Also haha at 2-3 year time to make withdrawals possible normally.

This is theft, there is no other way to call it. I'm so happy now that they got screwed over, PokerStars going in is a blessing here.

IN PS WE TRUST

On April 25 2012 04:48 Defrag wrote: Repayment plan by Tapie: Show nested quote + Early plans: Players with an account balance of less than $ 100 could be repaid in full or have that balance credited to their players account in the new company, virtually immediately. According to some sources, this was believed to encompass ~95% of account holders, and is what the media release today in fact, labeled as 94.9% of ROW players. What was left out of that release was that that purported 94.9% of player balances amounted to approximately $ 16,000,000.00. The remaining 5.1% of players, with an approximate aggregate account balance of $ 168,000,000.00 fell into a different group. Each player with a balance less than $ 500.00 fell into the “standard players” category. Each player with a balance of more than $ 500.00 but less than $ 10,000 fell into the “silver players” category. Each player with a balance of over $ 10,000.00 fell into the “gold players” category. 1 In each of these categories, in order for players to move more than the original $ 100 over to the unrestricted column (available for withdrawal), there would be significant playthrough requirements. The requirements appear to be staggered based on the balances but it is clear that the initial value of the new player account balance on which to play with, if one decided to play, is only a small percentage of the old account balance, based on the activity of the account in 2011. For the players used to playing mid-high stakes, they would need to make a fresh deposit in order to play in limits they were used to. After generating some substantial amount of rake, some more funds would be moved to the unrestricted column. It was expected that in many cases, this would take years to complete if only minimal(relative) deposits/playthrough was accomplished. If players for some reason, did not partake in reactivating their playthrough, after a period of 6 months, their old FTP account balance would be hit with inactivity penalties. The planned penalty was 5% of the inactive balance per month and would continue until either the player became active in the new company or until their balance was depleted by the penalty charges. If a player had been charged some monthly inactivity fee then became active, the penalties charged would not be reinstated, they would start only with their already depleted balance. Although there was some promise that withdrawals should be approved and completed within originally a two year then a three year period, based on the above requirements and inactivity penalties, many players old account balances would already be depleted in less than the three year period. I would need to play there to cashout my money? wtf is that, my cash turned into some kind of play-to-release bonus? 5% penalty for inactivity as well, wow. Also haha at 2-3 year time to make withdrawals possible normally. This is theft, there is no other way to call it. I'm so happy now that they got screwed over, PokerStars going in is a blessing here.

I thought that was pretty expected and reasonable. If nobody wants to buy FTP and pay you back your money what's wrong with an alternative method like this it's better than nothing, and quite possibly the only option for anyone buying FTP.

If GBT came to you and said "this is the only way we (or anybody else) can make FTP work, do you want us to buy it or not buy it"? I'd say yea that is pretty reasonable; you guys have no choice, and neither do we.

On April 25 2012 05:51 Nazgul wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2012 04:48 Defrag wrote: Repayment plan by Tapie:   Early plans: Players with an account balance of less than $ 100 could be repaid in full or have that balance credited to their players account in the new company, virtually immediately. According to some sources, this was believed to encompass ~95% of account holders, and is what the media release today in fact, labeled as 94.9% of ROW players. What was left out of that release was that that purported 94.9% of player balances amounted to approximately $ 16,000,000.00. The remaining 5.1% of players, with an approximate aggregate account balance of $ 168,000,000.00 fell into a different group. Each player with a balance less than $ 500.00 fell into the “standard players” category. Each player with a balance of more than $ 500.00 but less than $ 10,000 fell into the “silver players” category. Each player with a balance of over $ 10,000.00 fell into the “gold players” category. 1 In each of these categories, in order for players to move more than the original $ 100 over to the unrestricted column (available for withdrawal), there would be significant playthrough requirements. The requirements appear to be staggered based on the balances but it is clear that the initial value of the new player account balance on which to play with, if one decided to play, is only a small percentage of the old account balance, based on the activity of the account in 2011. For the players used to playing mid-high stakes, they would need to make a fresh deposit in order to play in limits they were used to. After generating some substantial amount of rake, some more funds would be moved to the unrestricted column. It was expected that in many cases, this would take years to complete if only minimal(relative) deposits/playthrough was accomplished. If players for some reason, did not partake in reactivating their playthrough, after a period of 6 months, their old FTP account balance would be hit with inactivity penalties. The planned penalty was 5% of the inactive balance per month and would continue until either the player became active in the new company or until their balance was depleted by the penalty charges. If a player had been charged some monthly inactivity fee then became active, the penalties charged would not be reinstated, they would start only with their already depleted balance. Although there was some promise that withdrawals should be approved and completed within originally a two year then a three year period, based on the above requirements and inactivity penalties, many players old account balances would already be depleted in less than the three year period. I would need to play there to cashout my money? wtf is that, my cash turned into some kind of play-to-release bonus? 5% penalty for inactivity as well, wow. Also haha at 2-3 year time to make withdrawals possible normally. This is theft, there is no other way to call it. I'm so happy now that they got screwed over, PokerStars going in is a blessing here. I thought that was pretty expected and reasonable. If nobody wants to buy FTP and pay you back your money what's wrong with an alternative method like this it's better than nothing, and quite possibly the only option for anyone buying FTP. If GBT came to you and said "this is the only way we (or anybody else) can make FTP work, do you want us to buy it or not buy it"? I'd say yea that is pretty reasonable; you guys have no choice, and neither do we.

I agree with limiting cash outs, to some reasonable amount like 5%-10% per month if you have certain amount of cash there, so they don't need to cash out whole 160mln at once and still have an option to earn intrest rate on this cash.
However, forcing players to play under the penalty of taking cash is ridiculous in my opinion and should have never even been discussed as a possible solution.

I don't understand what can be ridiculous about a situation where they have no choice. Nobody wanted anything to do with FTP. The only way for them to make it work was something like this. They could either do this and give everyone an opportunity to get their money back, or they could have done nothing. I don't think you can go by traditional standards here as if it was a normal company in a normal situation. Your options are either they buy it like this, or they don't buy it at all.

On April 25 2012 06:05 Defrag wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2012 05:51 Nazgul wrote:   On April 25 2012 04:48 Defrag wrote: Repayment plan by Tapie:   Early plans: Players with an account balance of less than $ 100 could be repaid in full or have that balance credited to their players account in the new company, virtually immediately. According to some sources, this was believed to encompass ~95% of account holders, and is what the media release today in fact, labeled as 94.9% of ROW players. What was left out of that release was that that purported 94.9% of player balances amounted to approximately $ 16,000,000.00. The remaining 5.1% of players, with an approximate aggregate account balance of $ 168,000,000.00 fell into a different group. Each player with a balance less than $ 500.00 fell into the “standard players” category. Each player with a balance of more than $ 500.00 but less than $ 10,000 fell into the “silver players” category. Each player with a balance of over $ 10,000.00 fell into the “gold players” category. 1 In each of these categories, in order for players to move more than the original $ 100 over to the unrestricted column (available for withdrawal), there would be significant playthrough requirements. The requirements appear to be staggered based on the balances but it is clear that the initial value of the new player account balance on which to play with, if one decided to play, is only a small percentage of the old account balance, based on the activity of the account in 2011. For the players used to playing mid-high stakes, they would need to make a fresh deposit in order to play in limits they were used to. After generating some substantial amount of rake, some more funds would be moved to the unrestricted column. It was expected that in many cases, this would take years to complete if only minimal(relative) deposits/playthrough was accomplished. If players for some reason, did not partake in reactivating their playthrough, after a period of 6 months, their old FTP account balance would be hit with inactivity penalties. The planned penalty was 5% of the inactive balance per month and would continue until either the player became active in the new company or until their balance was depleted by the penalty charges. If a player had been charged some monthly inactivity fee then became active, the penalties charged would not be reinstated, they would start only with their already depleted balance. Although there was some promise that withdrawals should be approved and completed within originally a two year then a three year period, based on the above requirements and inactivity penalties, many players old account balances would already be depleted in less than the three year period. I would need to play there to cashout my money? wtf is that, my cash turned into some kind of play-to-release bonus? 5% penalty for inactivity as well, wow. Also haha at 2-3 year time to make withdrawals possible normally. This is theft, there is no other way to call it. I'm so happy now that they got screwed over, PokerStars going in is a blessing here. I thought that was pretty expected and reasonable. If nobody wants to buy FTP and pay you back your money what's wrong with an alternative method like this it's better than nothing, and quite possibly the only option for anyone buying FTP. If GBT came to you and said "this is the only way we (or anybody else) can make FTP work, do you want us to buy it or not buy it"? I'd say yea that is pretty reasonable; you guys have no choice, and neither do we. However, forcing players to play under the penalty of taking cash is ridiculous in my opinion and should have never even been discussed as a possible solution.

PartyPoker does this, If you don't play for a year or something they penalise you by taking some of your money.

obv if they just let players insta cashouts on first reopening day most of the players would just empty their accounts, solution is to let players play with whole bankrolls but allow cashout since x amount of rake is generated by a player.

i never post in threads where nazgul posts before me anymore cuz i just always side with him. 100% naz is the man

On April 25 2012 08:13 DooMeR wrote: i never post in threads where Doomtree posts before me anymore cuz i just always side with him. 100% Doomtree is the man

Agreed.

I think GBT taking control of FTP is pretty much on par with nobody dealing with FTP, and player funds not being paid back at all. Part of the idea of a takeover was 'someone is giving us our money back, FTP brand will slightly improve, and players might return.' With how insulting that repayment plan is, any hope of the brand gaining any momentum and coming back from the grave so low.

On April 25 2012 08:13 DooMeR wrote: i never post in threads where nazgul posts before me anymore cuz i just always side with him. 100% naz is the man

On April 24 2012 14:34 Stim_Abuser wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2012 14:25 Maynard! wrote: How could FTP reopen in Us? Sounds like horseshit to me. Yea. Solid reminder not to get too excited, as random people and their confidential sources are likely full of shit.

This sadly. I really wish it was true though .

http://www.compatiblepoker.com/poker-rumors/full-tilt-poker-and-poker-stars-in-court-today/5921 bump

Thats not confirmed

man, i took maynard's advice and decided to kiss my money goodbye, but hearing this news has gotten me emotionally invested again, and it hurts

You could disregard the link. They did have a pre-trial meeting but it had nothing to do with sale of Full Tilt. There was really nothing significant that happened besides scheduling trial dates.

See a new FTP article > copy link > post on LP > get peoples hopes up > crush dreams even further.

LOL reading this thread was like a rollercoaster.... up up up....DOOOOOOOOWWWWWNNNNNNNNN

On May 10 2012 12:19 TampaBayMat wrote: LOL reading this thread was like a rollercoaster.... up up up....DOOOOOOOOWWWWWNNNNNNNNN