GG Poker Network and funds.

[mr.fers_one]

The GG Poker network has started a fight against funds. the beginning was laid by the PokerOK showcase and the main network did not stand aside and said that players who are members of the fund will be blocked on their site. What do you think about it?

 

[G0930]

fund ? That's budget. I think you mean another word.
At least I don't really understand what you are saying

The GG Poker network has started a fight against funds. the beginning was laid by the PokerOK showcase and the main network did not stand aside and said that players who are members of the fund will be blocked on their site. What do you think about it?

 

[MK_]

I'm kinda curious about what they mean by "illegal training practices" or why they haven't banned them before if they noticed team play, collusion, soft play, multi accounting and the list of evils goes on or so they say... and what does "ready to blackmail them" even mean?, sounds a little crazy

 

[fundiver199]

fund ? That's budget. I think you mean another word.

Yes "fund" is definitly not the word. Maybe he mean stable? Stables are a pretty common thing especially in the high stakes MTT community. At the end of the day poker sites are free to choose, who they will allow to play. So as long as they pay out players their balance, I dont care to much, who they ban or for what reason. If someone is found to have been cheating for a significant amount of money, they should hand over the evidence to the police.

 

[G0930]

Yes "fund" is definitly not the word. Maybe he mean stable? Stables are a pretty common thing especially in the high stakes MTT community. At the end of the day poker sites are free to choose, who they will allow to play. So as long as they pay out players their balance, I dont care to much, who they ban or for what reason. If someone is found to have been cheating for a significant amount of money, they should hand over the evidence to the police.

Well to a lawyer 🙃 but even that takes a lot of time . That is also what pokerrooms speculate with . ...
PS for instance is in debt over 1 million in fines from our highest court for years... They operate without a license and therefore players over here can sue for casino losses

 

[MK_]

The funds he talking about refers to backers who fund players in stables..
it's a direct quote from the Ok poker statement on banning funds and stables.

...they banned a lot of players they say are in stables, they also banned players in the same sweep who aren't in stables.

I don't think banning players who did nothing wrong and play solo is good for business, at least I wouldn't play on a site that banned people that did nothing but they don't let US players play anyway lol

 

[MK_]

Yes "fund" is definitly not the word. Maybe he mean stable? Stables are a pretty common thing especially in the high stakes MTT community. At the end of the day poker sites are free to choose, who they will allow to play. So as long as they pay out players their balance, I dont care to much, who they ban or for what reason. If someone is found to have been cheating for a significant amount of money, they should hand over the evidence to the police.

...It's definitely the right word...

 

[MK_]

fund ? That's budget. I think you mean another word.
At least I don't really understand what you are saying

I don't think you're familiar with the funds he's referring to, he means funds as in backers who fund stables.

 

[G0930]

I don't think you're familiar with the funds he's referring to, he means funds as in backers who fund stables.

still written in very poor english... not obvious at all what he is talking about

 

[MK_]

still written in very poor english... not obvious at all what he is talking about

... and yet I understood him perfectly, his English is fine👍

 

[Poker Orifice]

This is what he is referring to >>>

 

[Poker Orifice]

 

[Poker Orifice]

there's also a typo in PADs statement.... should be "staking prohibited except for in the client"

 

[Station_Master]

I thought they were banning all stables, but no only those that break the rules, so basically no meaningful change in policy. Just a bit of restriction on advertising backing.

I think banning stables altogether would be a good idea as there are so many cheaters and opportunities for cheating

 

[mr.fers_one]

fund ? That's budget. I think you mean another word.
At least I don't really understand what you are saying

I mean organizations that train and give money for the game, but they have to pay a percentage of the winnings, most often it is 50% of the winning amount. below they write such a definition as "stables", we call it a fund

 

[G0930]

I mean organizations that train and give money for the game, but they have to pay a percentage of the winnings, most often it is 50% of the winning amount. below they write such a definition as "stables", we call it a fund

gotcha, thank you!

 

[G0930]

View attachment 358282

This ruling makes sense to me creating a much more fairer competition