CnR Poker...WITHDRAW NOW!!!
Tanya AKA MissT74
"We regret to inform you that CnR will be unable, at this time, to make a lump
sum payment for the 10 WSOP seats that were won this year through the
CheckPoints to Millions and Freeway to Vegas promotions on ChecknRaisePoker.
However, we plan to make this up to you over the coming months. We will deposit
into your player account 5% or more, as cash flow permits, of the value of your
entry in monthly installments starting July 31st , 2006 until 110% of the cash
equivalent is paid in full.
Unfortunately our cash flow did not allow us to set aside sufficient funds from
the time that you won your seat in March. If you plan to attend the WSOP in any
event, we wish you the best of luck and we are sure you will have a great time.
Please accept our sincere apologies for having to break this news to you just
weeks prior to the event we promised you. Please do not hesitate to contact us
by return email, if you have any questions or comments. If you would like to
speak to us by phone, please suggest a convenient time and provide a phone
number and we would be happy to call you and provide more details and answer any
questions that you may have.
Best Regards,
XXXX and the ChecknRaise Team"
I feel horrible for two of my friends who won their seat into the Main Event
through CnR and now, they have nothing. I am SO glad I never went to this site.
T
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
kirkthebeerman
i used to play the old site when it was TnT poker. That sucks for them.
Kirk
thenutlow
Tanya AKA MissT74 wrote:
so lemme get this rite
instead of a seat at the wsop worth $10k, they are now getting $11k in
cash?
if that is correct, I agree.. it sure sounds a horrid deal and they
have my upmost condolences
Up Front Poker
thenutlow they have to make a profit to start making payments. (cash flow-
sounds like no-down real estate business by Sheets or Carloton )
If you think they will still be in business (5% for 20 months) put your tinfoil
hat back on CnRPoker is all but done
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Tanya AKA MissT74
They are getting 11K in cash, paid at a 5% rate over the next, what, 7 years??
OK, I may be exaggerating but they will get the money IF THE CASH FLOW PERMITS>
Niiiiiice.
thenutlow
Up Front Poker wrote:
> thenutlow they have to make a profit to start making payments. (cash flow-
> sounds like no-down real estate business by Sheets or Carloton )
> If you think they will still be in business (5% for 20 months) put your tinfoil
> hat back on CnRPoker is all but done
really? ok cool
of course, telling people to take all their money out immediately is a
great way to ensure this and do all that is possible to stop the people
getting the money they are owed
a sad situation, but its happened. Tanyas friends have my deepest
sympathy
Voldo
point, they (the site) should go and borrow money or something to make it
happen. People don't forget when promises are broken.
Voldo
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
I'm sure your friends really appreciate your doing everything you can to kill
the sites cash flow, increasing the chances they'll end up with nothing.
They aren't the first site to renege on WSOP freerolls. Absolute Poker did it a
couple of years ago and they're pretty weak because of it, but they're still
around.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Von Fourche
"Tanya AKA MissT74" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1150258902$811...@recpoker.com...
Since they promised something don't they HAVE to deliver? Can't they
bee taken to court over this? Or since this site is located in the
Caribbean/Central America the people wronged are complete out of luck?
Gary Carson
On Jun 13 2006 11:56 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
>
>
> Since they promised something don't they HAVE to deliver? Can't they
> bee taken to court over this?
What loss have the incurred?
Or since this site is located in the
> Caribbean/Central America the people wronged are complete out of luck?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Von Fourche
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1150262165$811...@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Jun 13 2006 11:56 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Since they promised something don't they HAVE to deliver? Can't they
>> bee taken to court over this?
>
> What loss have the incurred?
Let me guess - they have not incurred a loss because they will be given
$11,000.
ShuffletownKid
"Von Fourche" <Khon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7FNjg.5524$lf4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
They lost a WSOP entry valued at 10k, they haven't received anything.
Gary Carson
On Jun 14 2006 1:03 AM, Von Fourche wrote:
> "Gary Carson" wrote in message
> news:1150262165$811...@recpoker.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 13 2006 11:56 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Since they promised something don't they HAVE to deliver? Can't they
> >> bee taken to court over this?
> >
> > What loss have the incurred?
>
>
> Let me guess - they have not incurred a loss because they will be given
> $11,000.
That's one reason. another is that they are out of pocket nothing. There was
no consideration for the promise, which makes it pretty much unenforcable
(freeroll). Also, there's no cash value for what they were promised, it's
basically a free lottery ticket. Also even if they had paid an entry fee
enforcement is probably against public policy.
There's tons of reasons why they wouldn't prevail in a law suit even if they
could find a court with jurisdiction.
I'm sure you could find a lawyer who would sue for you and make good arguements
in your favor. Finding a lawyer who would prevail for you is something else
though. That wouldn't happen.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Gary Carson
On Jun 14 2006 1:28 AM, ShuffletownKid wrote:
> "Von Fourche" wrote in message
> news:7FNjg.5524$lf4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> |
> | "Gary Carson" wrote in message
> | news:1150262165$811...@recpoker.com...
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > On Jun 13 2006 11:56 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> Since they promised something don't they HAVE to deliver? Can't they
> | >> bee taken to court over this?
> | >
> | > What loss have the incurred?
> |
> |
> | Let me guess - they have not incurred a loss because they will be given
> | $11,000.
> |
>
> They lost a WSOP entry valued at 10k, they haven't received anything.
It has no cash value unless they prevail in a lottery. No court is likely to
try to impute some kind of expected value on that. And they aren't out
anything, it was a freeroll, it was a promise without legal consideration. No
enforcement.
I'm sure there are exceptions that could be argued. But it would just be hot
air.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
ShuffletownKid
Wrong. I would give each of them $10 not to play. I would give each of them
1k to let me sub a player for them. And, I will sell the seat I won online
for 9k.
Howard Beale
> There was legal consideration.. sort of,
> IF these people bought in to the tournaments..
> Since they did not, there is no legal consideration
Legal definition of consideration:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=305&bold=||||
The players TIME spent playing freerolls is a thing of value to them (the
players) and it is what the site bargains for. They want players visiting
the site, lures them in to spend their time and offers the chance of gain
for their time spent. The site gets the visitors they want in hopes of
obtaining customers. It is a valid agreement between the parties, imo.
Not that that means anything because it's unenforceable as a practical
matter and perhaps a legal one if a jury concludes the consideration
insufficient or the court refuses to enforce the contract as against
public policy.
But, as Gary Carson said, you can always find a lawyer willing to take
your money to bring a case.
Howard Beale
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
The Fred
IF these people bought in to the tournaments..
Since they did not, there is no legal consideration
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
da pickle
> But, as Gary Carson said, you can always find a lawyer willing to take
> your money to bring a case.
I love these sorts of discussions. A generalized technical discussion of
"consideration" in this sort of real life situation is as useful as
"watching the cards fall after you have folded to learn what hand you would
have made."
Edward
To begin with, these tournaments were not freerolls. They were
tournaments with buy-ins of "checkpoints", much like the points you
earn on most sites for playing X number of raked hands. Some sites, as
Titan poker put a cash value on these points that you can convert to
cash at a certain point count. Other sites allow you to buy merchandise
with your points from their online store. And then there are sites that
hold special tournaments that you enter by using your player points.
The points, no matter which site you play at, do have some sort of
value. But this is all besides the point (no pun intended).
The fact that the poker sites are all off shore of the USA, and are
basically unregulated in any manner poses a problem with any legal
recourse for USA citizens. The only single issue that can determine
whether a site is trustworthy is that the player gets a fair game and
the money earned by a player is PAID WHEN PROMISED. If a poker site
can't deliver on these two simple issues, then it's adios!
Forget all the legal mumbo jumbo.
Anybody that doesn't see the light when a poker site begins making
excuses for not paying the players when promised, deserves what they
get, CHEATED.
That's not to say that the players that won these 10 seats desrved what
they got. They had every reason to trust that the prize that they won
would be delivered when promised. Now that they have learned that they
won't be receiving their seats, they have to determine for themselves
whether they want to trust that the site will be paying them sometime
in the future.
Just remember the old phrase,
Screw me once,
Shame on you.
Screw me twice,
Shame on me.
I wonder what Luca the shilock would do if they told him "sorry, but
we'll pay you 110% later?"
Tanya is just giving you all the warning. First they can't pay for
these WSOP seats, next they'll be making excuses and promises about why
you can't cashout at this time.
Problems with cashflow means, GET YOUR MONEY WHILE YOU CAN.
Who knows! They may not even have the money to give player cashouts now.
Willy
On Jun 13 2006 11:35 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> On Jun 14 2006 1:28 AM, ShuffletownKid wrote:
>
> > "Von Fourche" wrote in message
> > news:7FNjg.5524$lf4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > |
> > | "Gary Carson" wrote in message
> > | news:1150262165$811...@recpoker.com...
> > | >
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > On Jun 13 2006 11:56 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
> > | >
> > | >
> > | >
> > | >>
> > | >>
> > | >> Since they promised something don't they HAVE to deliver? Can't they
> > | >> bee taken to court over this?
> > | >
> > | > What loss have the incurred?
> > |
> > |
> > | Let me guess - they have not incurred a loss because they will be given
> > | $11,000.
> > |
> >
> > They lost a WSOP entry valued at 10k, they haven't received anything.
>
> It has no cash value unless they prevail in a lottery. No court is likely to
> try to impute some kind of expected value on that. And they aren't out
> anything, it was a freeroll, it was a promise without legal consideration.
No
> enforcement.
>
> I'm sure there are exceptions that could be argued. But it would just be hot
> air.
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
Willy
_______________________________________________________________________
Willy
this one.
On Jun 14 2006 1:42 AM, The Fred wrote:
> There was legal consideration.. sort of,
> IF these people bought in to the tournaments..
> Since they did not, there is no legal consideration
Willy
Gary Carson
On Jun 14 2006 7:59 AM, Edward wrote:
>
> Forget all the legal mumbo jumbo.
LOL.
The question being asked was why you couldn't take them to court and force
performance of a promise.
Some people would think legal mumbo jumbo is relevant to answering such a
question, but I can see why you wouldn't.
>
> Anybody that doesn't see the light when a poker site begins making
> excuses for not paying the players when promised, deserves what they
> get, CHEATED.
I didn't suggest that anybody with a brain would play there. I said the injured
players have no recourse and the Tanya isn't being nice to her freinds.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Susan
players who were first in line, and acted very quickly, that were the only
ones to get their money out. How is this doing her friends a disservice?
Susan
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1150298718$811...@recpoker.com...
Gary Carson
On Jun 14 2006 10:30 AM, Susan wrote:
> When the word first got out about Russ Boyd and pokerspot, IIRC, it was the
> players who were first in line, and acted very quickly, that were the only
> ones to get their money out. How is this doing her friends a disservice?
She did me a service.
But her friends are the ones that have a financial interest in the site
surviving and she's going out of her way to ensure that it doesn't. That's not
doing a service to her friends.
The Russ Boyd situation was different. He didn't do what this site is doing.
What he did was start kiting deposits when he had a cash flow problem. These
people are actually doing something to stem the leak.
>
> Susan
>
>
> "Gary Carson" wrote in message
> news:1150298718$811...@recpoker.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 14 2006 7:59 AM, Edward wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Forget all the legal mumbo jumbo.
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > The question being asked was why you couldn't take them to court and force
> > performance of a promise.
> >
> > Some people would think legal mumbo jumbo is relevant to answering such a
> > question, but I can see why you wouldn't.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Anybody that doesn't see the light when a poker site begins making
> >> excuses for not paying the players when promised, deserves what they
> >> get, CHEATED.
> >
> > I didn't suggest that anybody with a brain would play there. I said the
> > injured
> > players have no recourse and the Tanya isn't being nice to her freinds.
> >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > The Largest Online Poker Community - /
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Edward
thenutlow wrote:
> so lemme get this rite
Okay, take a few minutes to start up that brain and think about it.
> instead of a seat at the wsop worth $10k, they are now getting $11k in
> cash?
No, instead of a seat at the WSOP, they are getting another promise. No
money. Just another promise. Do you want to try the first part again
and "lemme get this rite"?
Edward
Gary Carson wrote:
> She did me a service.
>
> But her friends are the ones that have a financial interest in the site
> surviving and she's going out of her way to ensure that it doesn't. That's not
> doing a service to her friends.
Sometimes you just don't see the whole picture and reply with the lack
of knowledge to adequately answer the issue. The only way her friends
get paid is if they continue to allow CnR to make money raking from
their play. In other words, use their (the players money) to pay the
players what they owe them. I doubt her friends are dumb enough to keep
money in a site that has already defaulted on the commitment that they
had already earned.
> The Russ Boyd situation was different. He didn't do what this site is doing.
> What he did was start kiting deposits when he had a cash flow problem. These
> people are actually doing something to stem the leak.
Doing something to stem the leak? Doing what? Please don't say paying
them $11K. They aren't paying them anything. They're promising to pay,
IF.
Susan
when they have cash flow problems? I don't think Russ ever told me that
this was what he was doing to try and stay alive. I got promises just like
CnR that I would be paid over a period of time.
I've been burnt more than once by an online pokersite. I have no realistic
expectations when they say just wait, you'll get your money.
Also, this has been posted on EVERY forum I went to - telling the RGP
community, whom Tanya does call her friends is doing them a service.
Susan
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1150300139$811...@recpoker.com...
Join Titan Poker
Gary Carson wrote:
> On Jun 14 2006 10:30 AM, Susan wrote:
> The Russ Boyd situation was different. He didn't do what this site is doing.
> What he did was start kiting deposits when he had a cash flow problem. These
> people are actually doing something to stem the leak.
How do you know what the site is or is not doing? They might be doing
something to stem the leak, or they might be talking a good game and
getting ready to split. You don't know, you have no earthly idea what
the inner workings of this particular site are right now, unless you're
employed by them or auditing them.
The one thing we know for sure is that they're not delivering prizes
that they claimed they were giving out. And I like to be warned when
poker rooms stop paying out 10K prizes. If you don't, then ignore the
post.
And please don't start with that 'no consideration' crap. I write
contracts all day long. Consideration isn't always money. It can be
time, it can be goods, it can be service for service, it can be a
hundred things. Spending your time in a competitive environment is
generally accepted as due consideration for any prizes announced.
Because:
Party A considers their time and competitive efforts to be of value.
Party B considers their prizes to be of value.
Your arguement SHOULD be this:
Acts which are illegal or so immoral as to be against established
public policy cannot serve as consideration.
That at least has some legs. You might go somewhere with that. But for
god's sake, if you're going to be a pain in the ass, do it correctly.
Chris in Texas
On Jun 14 2006 10:48 AM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 14 2006 10:30 AM, Susan wrote:
>
> > When the word first got out about Russ Boyd and pokerspot, IIRC, it was the
> > players who were first in line, and acted very quickly, that were the only
> > ones to get their money out. How is this doing her friends a disservice?
>
> She did me a service.
>
> But her friends are the ones that have a financial interest in the site
> surviving and she's going out of her way to ensure that it doesn't. That's
> not
> doing a service to her friends.
>
I disagree, Gary. The likelihood that Tanya's friends get paid any significant
amount is very low (judging by the ridiculous terms of their offer...something
that should have been paid out next month now will take about 20 months). And
Tanya has more friends than these and I bet she feels the benefit of warning
others to get their cash out before it's lost overshadows any incremental damage
she might have done to the site actually surviving. I'm guessing these friends
are wasting no time telling their friends about it.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Las Vegas Ned
On Jun 14 2006 12:18 AM, Voldo wrote:
> That is pretty unprofesssional and paying them more over time is not the
> point, they (the site) should go and borrow money or something to make it
> happen. People don't forget when promises are broken.
Unprofessional? Perhaps, but they have no reason to recognize your (or anyone
else's) standard of professionalism. It never fails to amaze me how naive people
are when it comes to little offshore companies in the video poker business. It's
as if some people expect them to conduct their business as would a legitimate
company in the US or Europe.
You're welcome,
Las Vegas Ned
The REAL Deal
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Jun 14 2006 12:07 PM, Join Titan Poker wrote:
> Gary Carson wrote:
> > On Jun 14 2006 10:30 AM, Susan wrote:
>
> > The Russ Boyd situation was different. He didn't do what this site is
> > doing.
> > What he did was start kiting deposits when he had a cash flow problem.
> > These
> > people are actually doing something to stem the leak.
>
> How do you know what the site is or is not doing? They might be doing
> something to stem the leak,
duh.
They reneged on their freerolls. Boyd didn't do that. He kited player deposits
to cover freeroll payouts when he ran out of cash.
> And please don't start with that 'no consideration' crap. I write
> contracts all day long. Consideration isn't always money. It can be
> time, it can be goods, it can be service for service, it can be a
> hundred things. Spending your time in a competitive environment is
> generally accepted as due consideration for any prizes announced.
> Because:
So take it to court.
I'm sure you'll win.
Of course maybe they'll get scared if you sue them and offer to return the FPP
entry fees.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Join Titan Poker
Gary Carson wrote:
>
> duh.
>
> They reneged on their freerolls. Boyd didn't do that. He kited player deposits
> to cover freeroll payouts when he ran out of cash.
And what if is there IS no deposit money to kite? Then they come up
with structures to delay payment on big prizes? You're guessing what's
going on, just like everyone else.
> So take it to court.
>
> I'm sure you'll win.
I'm not, but whatever side you were on would certainly lose, if you
continue to do no homework before you shoot your mouth off.
Gary Carson
I was arrested once in Lousisana for interferring with a police officer in the
performance of his duties.
That statute says that means causing interference when a police officer is in
the process of serving a warrent or making an arrest.
In my case the officer was in the process of making a left turn to get a
doughnut. He served no warrents that night and the only arrest he made or
report he filed was my arrest (Because of a research project I was invovled in I
had free access to the PD records room and was able to get documentation of
that). They could have charged me with failure to obey, but that's a traffic
violation and the cop couldn't have arrested me on that charge.
I found a defense attorney willing to take my defense for no charge if I agreed
to go to trial and retain him on a 1/3 contingency for a false arrest law suit.
We put on no defense. My lawyer made a motion for dismissal after the
prosecution rested, and it was granted. It was clear as a bell that there was
no violation of the statute.
Walking out of the courthouse the ADA said to my lawyer, "I thought that might
happen but I wanted to get it clarified by a judge."
I wanted to hit the mother fucker but my lawyer held my arm down.
I had to take a settlement offer on the false arrest suit because I moved to
Chicago and my lawyer wanted to take the offer before they found out I wasn't in
Baton Rouge anymore.
da pickle
Who was your lawyer? When I first started in practice, we had no public
defenders. Each lawyer got a criminal case to perform pro bono (which means
that you don't get paid with money; the defendant sings you a U2 song for
fee) about every week or so. There were fourteen lawyers ahead of me in the
firm when I started, so as the new associate, I got all the criminal cases.
Only one stands out, because I ultimately got admitted to the Supreme Court
of the United States because of the case. (No, the case didn't get past the
La. Supreme Court but I hoped it would.) It was a case of the police having
a hard on for some kid that was really a bad kid, but the charge was bogus.
Nowadays, I suppose my "truth and justice" hat is packed too far away for
that sort of thing.
What were false arrests going for back then ... a thousand bucks?
Gary Carson
I don't remember his name. It was 1975. Back in the 60's and early 70's he
was suing the BR police a lot. He was the lawyer that handled the case of the
police dog that was allowed to attack a crowd at an anti-war rally off campus.
He was recommended to my by three cops, he wasn't a public defender.
A friend of mine was a cop, a police union official. I called him to get bail
money. Since he was bringing the bail, the desk sgt. didn't lock me up, he let
me wait in the lobby. The cop that had escorted me to the desk (not the
arresting officer but a witness to what had happened), the desk sgt, and my
friend Chris, got together and recommended the lawyer to me. The last I heard
Chris was with EBRSO
The arresting officer was Cambre, a sargent and a real loser. My friend had
riden with him when Chris first got out of the academy and after two months had
to ask for a new partner because Cambre used to stop the car and find somebody
on the street to beat up just for the hell of it. Cambre had just remade sgt
after getting busted and suspended for shooting up a bar one night while drunk
(and off duty).
Cambre committed perjury on the stand and the ADA knew it. There were two cops
who witnessed what happened and one of them told the ADA not to call him as a
witness because he wasn't going to perjure himself and his testimony would
contridict Cambre's. But, Cambre lied about the wrong things so he couldn't
even lie straight. It was still dismissed.
I don't even know that my lawyer actually practiced a lot of criminal law, he
just liked suing the city.
da pickle
I was in law school at LSU in 1975 (the fall) but I cannot remember much
about it.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>> Anybody that doesn't see the light when a poker site begins making
>> excuses for not paying the players when promised, deserves what they
>> get, CHEATED.
>I didn't suggest that anybody with a brain would play there. I said the injured
>players have no recourse and the Tanya isn't being nice to her freinds.
They have no recourse worth pursuing in a legal venue.
However, they can badmouth the site in any forum they can find. They're
not going to see their money either because the site will be belly-up before
long, but kicking the corpse may provide them some amusement.
Gary Carson
Chris Shcroeder was my friend that made bail for me (and stopped them from
towing my car). He was a cop and VP of the police union (a union unrecognized
by the city) who had just recently been moved from assignment as a homocide
detective to a foot beat along Highland Road North of campus for punishment for
union activity and when then didn't work was suspended. He was under suspension
when he bailed me out.
This was just a couple of years after it was discovered that the SGA president
was an undercover cop. Lot's of stuff was going on in the PD with clashes
between the young cops and the "old guard". Cambre was among the "old guard".
Chris was not.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Gary Carson
Chris was the one that told me the best definition of a top rated homocide
detective I've ever heard.
A top rated detective gets to the scene as quickly as possible.
If someone is standing over the body with a gun saying "I killed the mother
fucker and if he gets up I'll kill him again", then make an arrest.
If not, then figure out how the guy managed to shot himself in the head 5 times
and go home.
Chris cleared a lot of cases.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Raider Fan
>
> However, they can badmouth the site in any forum they can find. They're
> not going to see their money either because the site will be belly-up before
> long, but kicking the corpse may provide them some amusement.
I agree with this assessment. They won't be seeing that money.
-----
Zoloft
>
> Chris was the one that told me the best definition of a top rated homocide
> detective I've ever heard.
>
> A top rated detective gets to the scene as quickly as possible.
>
> If someone is standing over the body with a gun saying "I killed the
> mother
> fucker and if he gets up I'll kill him again", then make an arrest.
>
> If not, then figure out how the guy managed to shot himself in the head 5
> times
> and go home.
>
> Chris cleared a lot of cases.
That's classic.
Edward
Tanya AKA MissT74 wrote:
> "We regret to inform you that CnR will be unable, at this time, to make a lump
> sum payment for the 10 WSOP seats
> However, we plan to make this up to you over the coming months. We will deposit
> into your player account 5% or more, as cash flow permits, of the value of your
> entry in monthly installments
>starting July 31st , 2006
10 seats@$10,000 = $100,000.00 X 5% = $5000.00
July 31st?
They don't even have $5000.00 that they could start paying right now?
All you're going to see from CnR poker is elbows and assholes as they
run for the hills.
fnordley
If you want to contact the company that runs ChecknRaise Poker:
Funtime Hospitality Corp.
333 Wilson Avenue
Suite 500
Toronto, Ontario
M3H 1T2
416-482-2142
416-482-0307 (fax)
Or you may want to contact its president:
Bill Kertes
89 Charlton Blvd
North York, Ontario
M2M 1C1
(416) 222-7763
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Randy Hudson
Gary Carson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> What loss have the incurred?
In the US, consideration would be found in the time spent qualifying for and
playing in the freeroll. This has been litigated before, in gas-station
giveaways and the like in the 50s and 60s.
Or, if the court couldn't find any consideration, the promisor (CnR) would
still be bound to deliver or pay damages, under the doctrine of Promissory
Estoppel, provided only that the plaintiff reasonably relied on those
promises in making decisions.
In short, under US law, CnR would be liable. If that's only a shell, US law
might allow aggrieved parties to go after whoever both controlled the shell
and withdrew funds from it.
The 5%-a-month-for-22-months plan could be proposed by management as part of
a chapter-11 reorganization, but creditors would first get to see the books.
--
Randy Hudson
ShuffletownKid
news:e6svo5$4pu$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Thank you for taking the time to explain that in detail.
Michael Ventolo
news:1150258234.6...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tanya AKA MissT74 wrote:
>
> > "We regret to inform you that CnR will be unable, at this time, to make
a lump
> > CheckPoints to Millions and Freeway to Vegas promotions on
ChecknRaisePoker.
> > However, we plan to make this up to you over the coming months. We will
deposit
> > into your player account 5% or more, as cash flow permits, of the value
of your
the cash
> > equivalent is paid in full.
> >
> > Unfortunately our cash flow did not allow us to set aside sufficient
funds from
> > the time that you won your seat in March. If you plan to attend the WSOP
in any
> > event, we wish you the best of luck and we are sure you will have a
great time.
> >
> > Please accept our sincere apologies for having to break this news to you
just
> > weeks prior to the event we promised you. Please do not hesitate to
contact us
> > by return email, if you have any questions or comments. If you would
like to
> > speak to us by phone, please suggest a convenient time and provide a
phone
> > number and we would be happy to call you and provide more details and
answer any
> > questions that you may have.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > XXXX and the ChecknRaise Team"
> >
> > I feel horrible for two of my friends who won their seat into the Main
Event
> > through CnR and now, they have nothing. I am SO glad I never went to
this site.
> >
> > T
>
>
> so lemme get this rite
>
> cash?
>
> have my upmost condolences
The site doesn't have $100,000 lying around to buy the seats.
I don't think they're finding $110,000 anytime soon.
CnR Poker
member of the CnR management team, these are the facts:
1. As a member of probably the most reputable online poker network, we have
absolutely no access to player deposits. The Network holds these funds and
guarantees withdrawals.
2. The total value of the WSOP promised was $40,000 and not $100,000 - not
everyone won a seat to the main event.
3. We take our promise to repay this obligation seriously and have already
made the first payment to try and stop these ridiculous rumors. We don t expect
the repayment period to take 22 months. We have indicated 5% or more per month.
We will pay more as often as we possibly can. Since our original launch in 2004
we have paid out over a million dollars in these type of promotions and, until
now, have always delivered.
CnR Management
_______________________________________________________________
Gary Carson
And you're so well financed and have such stellar credit that you can't raise
$40,000.
Hell, I'm a broke deadbeat and could raise $40,000 if I needed to.
What network, by the way? Keeping secrets? Disclosure makes you nervous. Are
you too ashamed to tell us?
I have less confidence in you after this post than I did before.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
DaVoice
"CnR Poker" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1150479432$813...@recpoker.com...
> It seems an appropriate time to respond to all this misinformed chat. As a
> member of the CnR management team, these are the facts:
>
>
>
> 1. As a member of probably the most reputable online poker network, we
> have
> absolutely no access to player deposits. The Network holds these funds and
> guarantees withdrawals.
>
> 2. The total value of the WSOP promised was $40,000 and not $100,000 - not
> everyone won a seat to the main event.
>
> 3. We take our promise to repay this obligation seriously and have already
> made the first payment to try and stop these ridiculous rumors. We don t
> expect
> the repayment period to take 22 months. We have indicated 5% or more per
> month.
> We will pay more as often as we possibly can. Since our original launch in
> 2004
> we have paid out over a million dollars in these type of promotions and,
> until
> now, have always delivered.
>
>
>
> CnR Management
I call BULLSHIT ! You are a skin that doesn't have enough in deposits to
cover $40k. It doesn't matter what "network" you are on. I can get FREE
skins from 4 different networks right now, and the "average joe" can pay a
$10k-$25k fee to get a skin on any number of reputable networks.
That doesn't make your particular site REPUTABLE. If you were reputable you
would have put the $40k you guaranteed aside in an escrow account. You are
obviously underfunded, probably thought owning a skin would be a cash cow,
and found out differently after chargebacks, fees, and the fact that you
only get a percentage of the rake you might be barely breaking even.
This post makes you look pathetic. You're part of a "management team" that
can't raise $40k to back your promotion?! Your network should cut you off
immediately and send your players their bankrolls and direct them to a
better funded skin or the main site on the network.
I don't give a rats ass how "seriously you take your responsibility" to make
good on your promises, because you are NOT making good on them. You
promised PRE PURCHASED SEATS, not dribbling a few bucks here and there back
to those you promised when more suckers that don't know about your horrible
management skills and monetary problems keep depositing. You're robbing the
new Peter's to attempt to pay back the "owed" Paul's. This is what I
believe happened to Dutch Boyd with his failed site PokerSpot.
You have no sympathy from me, and your post proves that you have no
understanding of marketing, which is why you should never have started your
site to begin with.
For what it's worth...
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
Edward
Gary Carson wrote:
> And you're so well financed and have such stellar credit that you can't raise
> $40,000.
Apparently CnR is having trouble financially and they aren't capable of
securring a loan to make good in full for these seats at this time.
Obviously if they could, they certainly would have, instead of letting
such negative publicity out. I suppose one would have to give CnR
credit for at least making the effort to pay this obligation, when in
fact they could just close doors and start up new under a different
name. From what I understand, they did make the first 5% installment to
the players yesterday, instead of waiting until July 31st.
> Hell, I'm a broke deadbeat and could raise $40,000 if I needed to.
Doubtful!
> What network, by the way? Keeping secrets? Disclosure makes you nervous. Are
> you too ashamed to tell us?
November 7, 2005: Ongame Network signs agreement with Check n Raise
Poker
Ongame Network, the world´s third-largest online poker network, has
signed an agreement allowing Check n Raise Poker to join its network.
The deal between Funtime Hospitality Corp - owner of Check n Raise
Poker - and Ongame Network will enable Check n Raise Poker to
continue its fast growth in the online poker market.
Under the terms of the agreement Ongame Network will provide Check n
Raise with a full-service solution including customer support and
payments processing, together with a fully customized multiplayer poker
application integrated into one of the world´s largest and
fastest-growing poker networks. The agreement will enable Check n Raise
to offer its rapidly growing customer base a wide choice of different
poker games with plenty of action 24/7.
Patrik Selin, CEO of Ongame, commented: "Check n Raise has extensive
experience in poker room management and marketing and we are delighted
to have them as our customers. Together we will be able to attract new
players to the network."
"We are very excited about moving to the Ongame Network," says Bill
Kertes, CEO of Check n Raise Poker. "We feel that a solid, reliable
software platform will allow us to do what we do great - that is,
create compelling player promotions! Poker players everywhere will find
many reasons to play on Check n Raise Poker´s site, as we will take
great care of them by rewarding their play."
Check n Raise Poker is a leader in the online gaming industry,
possessing an unmatched depth of experience in both online and
traditional card rooms.
Ongame Network consists of an exclusive group of premium partners,
including Americas CardRoom and PokerRoom.com, drive customers into a
shared pool of poker players. Each partner retains ownership of its own
player database and continues to earn commission for the lifetime of
the player as they compete across the network of nearly 6 million
worldwide poker players.
Gary Carson
On Jun 16 2006 1:52 PM, Edward wrote:
> Gary Carson wrote:
> > And you're so well financed and have such stellar credit that you can't r=
> aise
> > $40,000.
>
> Apparently CnR is having trouble financially and they aren't capable of
> securring a loan to make good in full for these seats at this time.
> Obviously if they could, they certainly would have, instead of letting
> such negative publicity out. I suppose one would have to give CnR
> credit for at least making the effort to pay this obligation, when in
> fact they could just close doors and start up new under a different
> name. From what I understand, they did make the first 5% installment to
> the players yesterday, instead of waiting until July 31st.
>
>
> > Hell, I'm a broke deadbeat and could raise $40,000 if I needed to.
>
> Doubtful!
Of course I could. My girlfriend has both a job and a car and my mother still
has some cash left over from the sale of her house.
>
>
>
> > What network, by the way? Keeping secrets? Disclosure makes you nervous=
> .. Are
> > you too ashamed to tell us?
>
>
> November 7, 2005: Ongame Network signs agreement with Check n Raise
> Poker
> Ongame Network consists of an exclusive group of premium partners,
> including Americas CardRoom and PokerRoom.com,
I didn't know ACR had joined pokerroom.com That was probably a smart move on
their part. That's another site that reneged on WSOP buyins.
Looks like pokerroom.com is soaking up the deadbeats. Not a good sign for
pokerroom.com
Looks like a maturing industry to me, the fringe players are dying off.
ShuffletownKid
"Edward" <edward...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150483920.4...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doubtful!
------------------
Ongame wouldn't front them 40k after all the nice things they said about
them, and you think I should trust them?
Peg Smith
>3. We take our promise to repay this obligation seriously and have already
>made the first payment to try and stop these ridiculous rumors. We don t expect
>the repayment period to take 22 months. We have indicated 5% or more per month.
>We will pay more as often as we possibly can.
My husband and I barely have a pot to piss in and we managed to scrape
up $30,000 in a couple of weeks. You folks can't get your mitts on
$40,000?
Wow. We're either way more fucking brilliant than I thought we were,
or you folks are idiots.
Peg
Raider Fan
> It seems an appropriate time to respond to all this misinformed chat. As a
> member of the CnR management team, these are the facts:
>
>
> 2. The total value of the WSOP promised was $40,000 and not $100,000 -
not
> everyone won a seat to the main event.
>
Regardless of the exact dollar amount, nothing has been misrepresented
regarding the fact that you promised seats and didn't deliver. What's
amazing to me is that you are willing to suffer such a black eye for a
measly $40,000. You guys really suck.
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
What's really amazing is they seem to think it looks better to renege on a small
amount of money, that damn near anybody could raise, than it does to renege on a
very large amount that most would have trouble raising.
They don't have a clue. No wonder they're going busted.
On Jun 16 2006 2:48 PM, Raider Fan wrote:
> On Jun 16 2006 12:37 PM, CnR Poker wrote:
>
> > It seems an appropriate time to respond to all this misinformed chat. As a
> > member of the CnR management team, these are the facts:
> >
> >
> > 2. The total value of the WSOP promised was $40,000 and not $100,000 -
> not
> > everyone won a seat to the main event.
> >
>
> Regardless of the exact dollar amount, nothing has been misrepresented
> regarding the fact that you promised seats and didn't deliver. What's
> amazing to me is that you are willing to suffer such a black eye for a
> measly $40,000. You guys really suck.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Zoloft
This is a line I sometimes use on my creditors.
Susan
"Zoloft" <Zol...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:P0Ekg.44$8W6...@fe04.lga...
Gary Carson
You havn't gotten the check yet? Look I have to hang up right now and call the
bank to stop payment on that thing. I'll call you back.
On Jun 16 2006 3:09 PM, Susan wrote:
> TCITM - my ex-husbands license plate
>
>
> "Zoloft" wrote in message
> news:P0Ekg.44$8W6...@fe04.lga...
> > "CnR Poker" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150479432$813...@recpoker.com...
> >> We will pay more as often as we possibly can.
> >
> > This is a line I sometimes use on my creditors.
> >
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward
Gary Carson wrote:
> Of course I could. My girlfriend has both a job and a car and my mother still
> has some cash left over from the sale of her house.
Evening shift at Burger King, a Yugo, and proceeds from a 1963
doublewide won't get you $40K. :)
Susan
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1150489556$813...@recpoker.com...
Palooka
(English) law of contract however, and the principle of estoppel.
But what makes you think that these sites are subject to U.S. law?
Palooka
Gary Carson
On Jun 17 2006 7:58 PM, Palooka wrote:
> >
> Well, I don't know about U.S. law; only English law. I do understand the
> (English) law of contract however, and the principle of estoppel.
> But what makes you think that these sites are subject to U.S. law?
The entire world is subject to US law.
We invaded Panama to make an arrest related to drug transactions that occured in
Panama. We have US military in Columbia to enforce violations of US law that
occurs there.
And the UN pretty much doesn't give a shit what we do. We have really big guns.
>
> Palooka
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Palooka
> The site doesn't have $100,000 lying around to buy the seats.
> I don't think they're finding $110,000 anytime soon.
>
that.
James, where are you?
Palooka
Zoloft
>
>
>
> On Jun 17 2006 7:58 PM, Palooka wrote:
>
>> >
>> Well, I don't know about U.S. law; only English law. I do understand the
>> (English) law of contract however, and the principle of estoppel.
>> But what makes you think that these sites are subject to U.S. law?
>
> The entire world is subject to US law.
Yep. "Team America: World Police".
Palooka
>
We have really big guns.
>
Palooka
Palooka
> My husband and I barely have a pot to piss in and we managed to scrape
> up $30,000 in a couple of weeks. You folks can't get your mitts on
> $40,000?
>
> Wow. We're either way more fucking brilliant than I thought we were,
> or you folks are idiots.
>
The problem is that they think we are idiots.
Palooka
Palooka
> member of the CnR management team, these are the facts:
>
>
>
> 1. As a member of probably the most reputable online poker network, we
have
> absolutely no access to player deposits. The Network holds these funds and
> guarantees withdrawals.
>
> 2. The total value of the WSOP promised was $40,000 and not $100,000 - not
> everyone won a seat to the main event.
>
> 3. We take our promise to repay this obligation seriously and have already
> made the first payment to try and stop these ridiculous rumors. We don t
expect
> the repayment period to take 22 months. We have indicated 5% or more per
month.
> We will pay more as often as we possibly can. Since our original launch in
2004
> we have paid out over a million dollars in these type of promotions and,
until
> now, have always delivered.
>
>
>
> CnR Management
>
if you really deliver, people will start to trust you.
Make promises and stick to them. They don't have to be wildly huge promises
(in fact it it is usually better if they are not), but stick to the promises
you do make and people will start to trust you.
Let people down here and you are dead. There are no second chances here for
a gaming company.
So unbelievably obvious, yet there are still optimistic launches.
Palooka