Three Royals in a week nets player $736,407.00

**umberto** · 15th April 2006, 02:05 PM

I really have fun fooling around with live chat representatives trying to make them tell something i want or trying to learn some other things. I know, I m a bad person

... Although this live chat wasn't as constructive as I wanted it to be, I really enjoyed the last line of the live chat. After several questions about the winner, the live chat representative just congratulated the winner in my live chat session....!

**nafanny29** · 15th April 2006, 02:06 PM

Just think if they had handled it the right way they could have had adverts of a smiling winner holding a cheque for 3/4 of million dollars placed all over the london underground and in every mens toilet above the urinals.

Would have made them millions I tell ya.

**caruso** · 15th April 2006, 02:52 PM

They didn't because Party Poker / iGM don't give a f**k either way. Party makes them $200,000,000 a year. They'll stop short of getting their asses dragged through the courts - which is why they paid the $8000 fella month or so back, and presumably why they paid this big winner - but that's about it. Beyond avoiding dangerous lawsuits, they do anything they want because they don't give a f**k.

These are the "representatives" of the online gambling industry.

These are the people with one of the biggest profiles of all the gambling representatives on the UK stock market.

These are the people who attend all the exhibitions with their glitzy stands and marketing BS.

These are the people whose televised poker tournaments smack me in the face every time I put satellite TV on.

These are the people who only pay their customrs if they present them with a serious lawsuit. We now have double proof of this.

Welcome to online gambling.

**spearmaster** · 15th April 2006, 04:46 PM

These are only some of the representatives of the online gambling industry. Your penchant for exaggeration is getting a little tiring.

These are the people who only pay their customrs if they present them with a serious lawsuit. We now have double proof of this.

Provide some proof of lawsuits etc - else retract this statement.

The rest of your post I don't have a problem with - but please recognize the fact that the online gambling industry has a LOT more than just one particular company and do not tar everyone else with the same brush.

**caruso** · 15th April 2006, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

These are only some of the representatives of the online gambling industry.

They are the TOP RANK representives. Televised poker, UK AIM. These people are the top, along with CON.

You know as well as I do that the $8000 roulette player threatened to sue Party Gaming - he stated as much. I daresay there was a lawsuit in the offing here too.

We have proof that it can take threat of a lawsuit to get Party Gaming to pay. That is 100%, corroborated FACT.

**spearmaster** · 15th April 2006, 05:36 PM

Your statement as posted above does not say "threat of suit". It says "presented with suit" - which means "served with a lawsuit", which means there IS a lawsuit.

Please get it right in the future. And "representatives" does not have anything to do with "rank" - either you are a representative or you are not. You seem to have left out a few words.

**dirk_dangerous** · 15th April 2006, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by cipher

In any event the player in this case was in fact playing Video Poker at $500.00 per hand.

After the first Royal was hit he had an account balance of a quarter of a million dollars which from that point provided him the wherewithall to proceed with hitting two more Royals. All three Royals occurring within a weeks time.

What is the Royal payout? Is it the standard 4000 coins? If so, shouldn't the first Royal have paid $400,000 rather than $250,000?

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks

**spearmaster** · 15th April 2006, 11:45 PM

!!!

I just went to see the payout tables for VP at Starluck. The only thing I can imagine is that he was playing one of the variations which pays 500-1 per coin, assuming $100 coins x5...

Amazingly, he was not playing one of the ones which pays 1000-1 per coin!

Now I don't know what you guys think... but I have this very strange feeling they are still not dealing random video poker... which makes this achievement even more spectacular... just imagine if he had hit natural RFs on a normal machine paying 800-1 per coin (4000 for the royal) ... three times...

**caruso** · 16th April 2006, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

Your statement as posted above does not say "threat of suit". It says "presented with suit" - which means "served with a lawsuit", which means there IS a lawsuit.

Well, no offence here, but I think it's safe to say I don't need any lessons in the English language from you, thanks all the same.

If I send you an email saying "pay me or I'm going to sue your ass" - which is pretty much what Dubi (the poster) would have said - I call that presenting / threatening / declaring whatever etc ad inf a lawsuit. But hey, let's play semantics.

**spearmaster** · 16th April 2006, 07:36 AM

You are probably the only person on Earth who reads "present them with a serious lawsuit" the way you just described.

If you wanted to say "threaten them with a serious lawsuit", then you should have said just that.

Enough of this BS. Your command of English should not be any worse than mine - and I'll just ignore your comment about lessons.