Online Poker Player Takes Room To Court
Online casino PokerStars.com has been appearing in the High Court on the Isle of Man this week following a complaint by online player Natalie Telscher that the site owes her $1.228 million.
After 22 hours of play, ‘the Void’ was one of two accounts left in the tournament and they agreed to split the prize but Telscher did not receive her $1.228 million payout. Appearing in Court as Rational Entertainment Enterprises Limited, PokerStars.com stated that Telscher was not entitled to any winnings because she had contravened tournament rules in that she did not personally play the game. Representatives for PokerStars.com claimed that Telscher never entered or played in the tournament, meaning that the firm was entitled to disqualify both the her and the third party.
High Court Deemster David Doyle adjourned the case, stating that contractual issues had to first be determined before any other areas of the case could be addressed.
'This, on the face of it, is or should be a fairly simple case,” read his judgement.
“Either the plaintiff is contractually entitled to the monies or she is not. Either the defendant was entitled to disqualify the plaintiff or it was not.'
5 comments
If you are a Gambling.com member, please login at the top left of this page.
If you are not a Gambling.com member, please complete our sign up form—membership is free and it takes just a minute or two to sign up.
Posted by SlotSpot – 4 Jul 2008, 5:16 AM
Did she admit it, or is PokerStars just saying she didn't play? I think if she admitted to not playing, she doesn't deserve the money: she broke tournament rules, and you don't get a reward for owning up to cheating.
Posted by DaleBrown – 6 Jul 2008, 2:08 AM
I really don't get this, I'll be honest. It seems that two players were left and agreed to split the winnings. One got paid and one didn't-what evidence is there that Telscher wasn't actually playing?
Posted by tattyteddy – 4 Jul 2008, 2:48 AM
Thats just insane. I can see where they may not want to pay out the full prize, but she deserves something for being willing to admit she wasn't playing instead of lying about it. Surely something must have caused her to think she could allow a third party to play for her.
Posted by Pamela – 5 Jul 2008, 5:51 AM
I don't think she did admit to not playing the game herself. I wonder what caused PokerStars to believe that she wasn't playing on her own though?
Posted by Jaclyn – 5 Jul 2008, 7:26 PM
I am curious to know how Pokerstars came to the conclusion that she was not playing herself. It will be interesting to watch this story progress!