|
TightEnd
|
 |
« on: May 05, 2017, 01:31:34 PM » |
|
PKR files for administration
Poker site shut down on Wednesday evening for financial reasons and not expected to re-open
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My eyes are open wide
By the way,I made it through the day
I watch the world outside
By the way, I'm leaving out today
|
|
|
|
AndrewT
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2017, 01:41:51 PM » |
|
Shame, as they genuinely offered something different back in the day. I think they never really recovered from regulated poker as the player base was quite skewed towards Italy and France and when those players left it became not so much an attractive place to play (both in terms of overall liquidity and because of what Italian and French players brought to a poker table)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Doobs
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2017, 01:57:06 PM » |
|
Never played there. Cardrunners appears to be shutting too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
|
|
|
|
bergeroo
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2017, 02:26:50 PM » |
|
When they joined microgaming they lost all their individuality, but I guess they couldn't sustain a standalone network.
I wonder if player funds were segregated and safe?
I'm sure the Alderney Gambling Control Commission have been making sure everything is above board...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
superwomble
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2017, 03:28:24 PM » |
|
I'm doing well recently. WinCashLive went bust last year before I could withdraw, Bwin stole £350 from me last week, now PKR goes with some more of my money in there. Think I may need to withdraw all my rolls or Stars will be bust next week  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DaveShoelace
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2017, 03:36:01 PM » |
|
They were perhaps ahead of their time with the poker as a video game USP. Shame, lots of good folks work and have worked there, a lot of effort went into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dwh103
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2017, 07:01:37 PM » |
|
A shame, my fondest online memories were on there.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Boba Fett
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2017, 10:43:54 PM » |
|
15 point deduction for next season
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ya gotta crawl before ya ball!
|
|
|
|
tikay
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2017, 10:23:33 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All details of the 2016 Vegas Staking Adventure can be found via this link - http://bit.ly/1pdQZDY (copyright Anthony James Kendall, 2016). |
|
|
|
Longines
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2017, 11:22:27 AM » |
|
A thread elsewhere has prompted a discussion about players' funds segregation. The Gambling Commission require sites to categorise their client funds protection level:
Basic
No extra protection. Money in these accounts would still be seen as part of the business if it went bust.
Medium
There are arrangements (eg insurance) to make sure that the money in separate accounts is given to customers if the company goes bust.
High
Customers’ money is held in an account which is legally and in practice separate from the rest of the company. This account is controlled by an independent person or external auditor.
Didn't know this so checked what the T&Cs said for a few sites:
PokerStars - High
Ladbrokes - Medium
Bet365 - Medium
888 - Medium
PartyPoker - Basic
Stan James - Basic
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dwayne110
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2017, 12:59:22 PM » |
|
Wow, that's a couple of huge sites who are essentially free rolling their business via player funds, if they wish - for example, investors are more likely to invest if it's 'basic' protection, with a higher chance of some return in the event of the company going into administration
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rfgqqabc
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2017, 05:51:53 PM » |
|
Lol these fucking guys at the gambling commission. What is even the point of basic protection. How can the consumer be behind the investor when receiving their own funds back.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
[21:05:17] Andrew W: you wasted a non spelling mistakepost?
[21:11:08] Patrick Leonard: oll
|
|
|
|
Jamier-Host
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2017, 02:43:03 PM » |
|
Lol these fucking guys at the gambling commission. What is even the point of basic protection. How can the consumer be behind the investor when receiving their own funds back.
They wouldn't be behind, it would just be equal split for everyone i'd imagine. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Side Project - making games for Amazon Alexa devices pressthe8.com |
|
|
|
doubleup
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2017, 03:04:37 PM » |
|
^
not if the debts are secured eg bonds of some kind.
The only advantage of basic protection is that as the player funds can't be used for running costs, in theory, the business should stop trading as insolvent before the debts exceed player funds. However, that is just theory because the companies aren't necessarily British and anyway once they lose their license they can do what they like. The UKGC should put in its license conditions that it has the power to take control of client fund bank accounts (which should be in UK banks). They were told all this when they consulted on client fund protection, but dgaf.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DropTheHammer
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2017, 10:16:20 PM » |
|
A thread elsewhere has prompted a discussion about players' funds segregation. The Gambling Commission require sites to categorise their client funds protection level:
Basic
No extra protection. Money in these accounts would still be seen as part of the business if it went bust.
Medium
There are arrangements (eg insurance) to make sure that the money in separate accounts is given to customers if the company goes bust.
High
Customers’ money is held in an account which is legally and in practice separate from the rest of the company. This account is controlled by an independent person or external auditor.
Didn't know this so checked what the T&Cs said for a few sites:
PokerStars - High
Ladbrokes - Medium
Bet365 - Medium
888 - Medium
PartyPoker - Basic
Stan James - Basic
This is very concerning. I'm off to withdraw most of my balance, but will just end up depositing/withdrawing much more regularly (unfortunately costing Party more). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Author