Subject Poker: “DOJ Plans Action Against Merge”

vanquish would be better

vanquish said:

vanquish would be better

Click to expand...

than what?

dmorris68 said:

Merge reimburses you for one check a month, so the first one is free.
.

Click to expand...

WAIT WHAT how do you know this, I had to pay the $15 fee from Carbon Are you saying they will reimburse that fee for only getting one check a month. Carbon never mentioned this to me. Im gonna write Carbon and see what I can get but who knows now that I already got the check and all

OK I just wrote them and Ill see if they will put $15 back in my account. They will probably ban me now as a trouble maker. LOL

HMM thought Id get a little BR restart but from carbon

Thank you for contacting us.
Please be aware that for check withdrawals there are always fees involved.
Keep in mind that we work every day to improve our services in order to provide the ultimate poker experience for our customers.
Therefore we hope to have other withdrawal methods available in your area at some point in the near future

Then it's either a recent change from Merge, or some skins do it while others don't. Other Merge skins have always refunded the first check fee per month for me, but I've never attempted to w/d from Carbon as I only play CC events there. I assumed it was a Merge policy, but perhaps it's only with some skins. Lock definitely does it.

Do all the Merge skins have the same tournament structure? There doesn't seem to be much play there as the blinds and antes don't allow it. Within 30-40 minutes, the average stack has only about 10-12 bb's left.

jchris67 said:

Do all the Merge skins have the same tournament structure? There doesn't seem to be much play there as the blinds and antes don't allow it. Within 30-40 minutes, the average stack has only about 10-12 bb's left.

Click to expand...

Yes and it sucks--gotta get those fish out of the tournament and into ring games.

Not sure Eddie, but their are a number of anonymous servers in Europe - you could log onto one of these and then play. The problem as I read the US law that its not the playing of poker online that is the issue but using financial institutions to move money onto and off these sites. I see no legal way for you to do that under the DOJ interpretation of the law.

In a related point, the problem with FT is that they owners appear to have gutted the company financially. Some are calling it a Ponzi scheme -it will interesting to see how this plays out. Surprisingly, the DOJ has been quite on AP - which stopped paying out in June and looks like it is dwindling away with a bunch of my money and I'm guessing that of lots of other players.