The regulars told of similar problems in the past, which got
straightened out or almost from what I learned later. Since the
$20-40 game was excellent compared to what we had been playing for the
last 9 months, we continued to play.
At about this time, a California court ruled in favor of a woman who
owed $60,000 to her bank for losses on internet gambling sites using
her credit cards to buy-in.
Since PokerSpot's credit card processor was out of business, no one
could buy-in to the site for months. With the change in law from this
Ca. case the credit card companies made it very difficult to buy-in at
any poker site. For everyone that was playing at PokerSpot at this
time, we didn't need to know all this. We knew from playing there
that no one, new or old was buying anything on his credit card.
Now, this is the time frame when up to $250,000 was bought
fraudulently according to e-mails with Russ. His statement, along
with the spin created from having an investigation and fraud detection
software to discover who the fraudulent chips were dumped to, made it
seem that PokerSpot was acting responsibly. There were 57 large
winners being checked out to see which ones were involved in this
fraudulent credit card scam.
The problem is no one was buying in to the site. Fraudulent credit
card buyins makes you think this is stolen credit cards. Right? All
the early problems, I've been told, were not stolen credit cards, but
California card holders who, after discovering that PokerSpot was not
paying, contacted their banks to receive charge-backs on their buyins.
Now, the banks must have notified PokerSpot right away about this.
Maybe PokerSpot reacted as quickly as they do to e-mails sent to them
by their customers.
PokerSpot did not tell their players of any fraudulent chips inquiries
in January. There were only two games on the site daily, someone
should have noticed upwards of $250,000 in fraudulent buyins at this
time.
I was first told of this problem 3 months later as I was waiting for
my first check. It seems that I had played with ten of these players.
A P.I. was in CA checking into the fraudulent buyins. After being
investigated for awhile I was told that I lost $400 to these players.
I then received my only check from PokerSpot and it was 1/3 less than
what it was supposed to be.
Russ told me that there was no problem with me, but they would only be
able to give me an amount less than what I was supposed to get. When
it arrived it was half what we had discussed.
Now, six months later, PokerSpot is trying to transfer the losses
caused by their mismanagement to a few players that still have some
decent amount of money left on their poker site.
This is not fair. We won this money. We did our jobs right. We
spent over a thousand hours playing on your site, paying rake,
listening to empty promises and worrying about you getting financing
so you could pay us all off.
If in a live poker room, someone got a marker for $20,000 and lost it
in a poker game, the owner would never come up to the big winner,
months later asking for the player's win back, because the other
player didn't pay his marker. Some gaming control board would tell the
owner to take his loss and give the player what is due to him.
Russ and the new investor in PokerSpot, you still owe my wife and I
over $56,000. We won this money fairly and have been, along with many
others, treated very shabbily by PokerSpot.
Maybe you can convince yourself that if most people are paid and you
can slander the few winners left and not pay them, that your site will
come back. I don't think this is the case. I think they will take
the money and run, not walk, to the nearest exit. What you should be
doing is paying everyone, every dollar you owe them. Then explain to
them the steps you have taken to see that this never happens again.
Lesley and John Buchanan
MS Sunshine
Russ Boyd is a deadbeat and PokerSpot wrote bad checks.
They had no money in the bank when they wrote the checks -- that's why
the checks bounced, not because they had assets frozen.
btw, if you'd bought in with a debit card last year, you'd still have
been stiffed by the deadbeat poker room.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:04:31 GMT, John Buchanan
<jbuc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
aces
+++++++++++++++++++++++
"And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep"
Don't think it is something exclusive to the internet.
Rib
Acesfullofkings1 wrote in message
<20010710091155...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
minus200
my name describes my game
aces
Hey Minus: It IS ok to play in a home game with three tooth minimum IF and ONLY
IF they cater in Kentucky Fried Chicken or the host makes chili. Then, it is ok
...
:)
NewJane
Been there, done that