Amaya Gaming Buys PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker For $4.9 Billion 52
Dave Knott (2917251) writes Montreal-based gaming company Amaya Gaming Group Inc. has agreed to purchase privately held Oldford Group, the owner of online poker websites PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, for $4.9 billion. The deal marks the end of a remarkable story that began when Isai Scheinberg, an Israeli-Canadian former IBM computer programmer, founded PYR Software in Toronto and started building PokerStars, which eventually became the largest online poker site in the world. But in 2011, federal prosecutors in Manhattan launched a massive crackdown against online poker in the U.S., indicting Scheinbeg, suing PokerStars and shutting down the U.S. operations of the company for operating an illegal gambling business. In 2012, PokerStars struck a $731 million settlement with federal prosecutors that also saw the company acquire the assets of Full Tilt Poker. However, reentering the vital U.S. market has proved difficult, and in the end, it started to make sense for the Scheinbergs to sell. The Scheinbergs will not remain with PokerStars in any capacity after the current deal closes. In a statement announcing the deal, Amaya said it believes the "transaction will expedite the entry of PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker into regulated markets in which Amaya already holds a footprint, particularly the U.S.A."
And since they're based in Québec (Score:5, Funny)
The OLF will force them to rename the websites "PousserDuBoutDuDoigtElleÉtoiles" and "PleinInclinéPousserDuBoutDuDoigtElle".
Re: (Score:2)
damn, no mod points...+1 Insightful and +5 Funny. You have to know Quebec language laws to get this. Unfortunately, some might mark it Troll/Flamebait
Re: (Score:1)
B. - government extorts $731M from someone who is clearly violating the law. Profit $4.169 Billion.
A. See?
Slow your vitriol. Facts just ahead. (Score:3)
American players were allowed reimbursement, which came out of the remaining $547 million, after filing with the Dept of Justice.
Part of the settlement money paid by PokerStars was to acquire it's former rival's assets (Full Tilt).
Re: (Score:2)
If the Oldford Group is not permitted to operate the sites in the US market, what makes Amaya so confident that it could operate the same sites in the same US market that has barred both of the gaming websites ?
B. If Uncle Sam can sue Oldford Group and order that privately held company to fork over $700 million, what makes Amaya so sure that Uncle Sam won't do the same to it ?
Amaya is already licensed to operate in NJ and Nevada (and possibly other states).
Re: (Score:2)
"Poke Her" :p
This ban on gambling, porn, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different from Turkey or Pakistan blocking twitter? And where is the resistance against this crap?
Re: (Score:1)
There's a ban on porn? No one told me. And as gambling goes, you can debate all day if it should be regulated or not, but please don't turn a lack of opportunities to take money from suckers into free speech issue.
Re: (Score:2)
how hard would it be to know the dealer/house was honest?
In the case of Pokerstars, just look up "Pokerstars rng".
Besides, this is poker, not some digital slot machine. You're not playing against the house.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tricky issue. Unregulated gambling leads to a lot of (desperate) people getting ripped off by corrupt institutions. Especially online, how hard would it be to know the dealer/house was honest? I'm not for censorship but these kinds of things aren't so clean cut.
http://www.rationalgroup.com/a... [rationalgroup.com]
Re:This ban on gambling, porn, etc (Score:5, Interesting)
It is never gambling when the odds are biased in one sides favour, then it is fraud and losing. Quite simply gambling laws need to change, equal odds should be enforced and both sides of the gamble should be forced to 'GAMBLE'. It would be truly humorous to see all those gambling houses being forced to actually gamble, here's betting the majority of those fraudsters would shut down long before they would be willing to actually 'GAMBLE' with their money.
Of course this is likely a share transaction, specifically designed to inflate share prices in order to allow major share holders to dump shares based upon insider bad news. That bad news likely linked to upcoming legislation. Not that it will be say 'Fair Gambling' laws that actually require that both sides share they same gamble when it comes to winning or losing or at least be forced to include substantial warnings that the odds are tilted in the favour and that the punters on average will 'LOSE' and not gamble their money.
I've got no problem with gambling where the odds are equal, where they are one sided, people should be going to jail for fraud.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except none of that applies to poker. It's not gambling against the house with the odds in their favor.
They take a rake of the pot, essentially you're paying for the privilege of using their tables (or software). Like renting a bowling lane or a pool table. Your odds are exactly the same as all of the other players, in the long term the only difference is differences of skill. This is all assuming no cheating or collusion going on of course, and says nothing of the legality of playing poker for money.
Re: (Score:2)
that is true in person - online you have no idea what you are really playing against. there are many documented cases of online sites allowing players to see all the cards on the table. the documentary I saw showed a 100% proper call on bluff rate over a period of many months.
think about it. you are at a 8 person table. 7 of the players are computers and know your cards. think that make the odds of you winning 'exactly the same'?
Firstly, there's licensing and regulations. Some of the regulators (ARJEL for instance) demand that every action go through their servers and is retained for possible fraud investigation. Incidents of bots on your site, can cause you to lose your license.
Secondly, the large operators do not want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs [forbes.com] and are aggressively fighting bots, colluders and other fraudsters. And yes, they can be detected by multiple methods that I am not at liberty to discuss.
The fact is that y
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute nonsense. It's might fraud if they tell you the odds are even. They don't.
Ironically, some of the worst odds you'll find are in state run lotteries.
Re: (Score:1)
It is fraud when they claim in the advertising that you will win. Failure to disclose the truth is also fraud. So your claim is absolutely nonsense and also fraudulent. My how you buggers whine when it comes to the threat of equal odds, don't like to gamble at all do you, HA HA. Now that is exactly why the laws need to change, want to control gambling and reduce its impact force equal odds, feel the burn, equal odds oh my shock horror, don't like gambling at all do you.
Re: (Score:1)
If I want to gamble or operate a site, regardless of the odds, that is my right. If you can prove fraud, file charges. Otherwise leave them be.
Re: (Score:2)
-- Arthur Goldberg, president of Hilton's gaming division
Re: (Score:2)
It is never gambling when the odds are biased in one sides favour, then it is fraud and losing.
Not when the odds are known in advance. If you don't like them, don't play.
Now if the odds are misrepresented, it is a whole different issue.
Re: (Score:3)
http://theppa.org/ [theppa.org]
Unfortunately (if you're a poker player), it's not an issue the general public cares much about, so not much has happened.
Personally, I think it's stupid that I can go blow $20 on a movie and popcorn, or $more drinking in the bar for a night, but if I want to put $50 on a poker site and play it for months, well, that's just gotta be stopped!
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Citizen,
We have received your complaint and have made a note to mention it at the Biannual Intrabureaucratic Government Legislative Institutional Engagement. Your concerns are our concerns. Let's discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Your loving Federal Overlord.
Re: (Score:1)
The "Black Friday" that destroyed the US market for online poker was not about legality of online poker, it was about an interpretation of the UIEGA by a US DA in New York. Because of the way the sites handled payment processing they were indicted. The Justice Department later stated that the Wire Act doesn't apply to online poker and that implementation of online poker is up to the states.
The UIEGA was a bill attached to a "must pass" ports bill. It was vaguely written (perhaps by design) and
Re: (Score:2)
As far as problem gambling goes...
The most common argument I read about this and related topics is "let them fail", which does appear to be a good idea on the surface – they'll learn a lesson and be able to move on. The problem is that, at least in this case, the result of allowing them to learn for themselves is financial ruin, and then you are obligated to help them recover through various government-funded programs (as allowing them to starve / etc. would be morally dubious to say the least).
In cas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't ban alcohol because there are alcoholics. We ban gambling because some people are using the law to enforce their own dubious moral code.
Meanwhile (Score:4)
Meanwhile the government of the united states runs the largest Gambling rackets in the world via lotteries and scratch offs. I don't gable, I think it't stupid. But the fucking government shouldn't be allowed to tell me when I can and when I cannot decide to be stupid. They're not qualified to make that distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Government doesn't run any lotteries or scratch offs -- those would be the respective State governments. Can't stick the feds with hypocracy in this one.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "hypocrisy", you ignorant American cretin. Why is it that almost no Americans can spell properly nowadays?
Hypocrisy is what he should have written, hypocracy is a clever nickname for our form of government
Re: (Score:2)
cheap sunglasses for sale (Score:1)
Top gaming company (Score:1)