Phil Ivey Files Lawsuit Against Full Tilt Poker

Phil Ivey is in the news and this time it is not for being the best at poker, but rather it is because he has filed a lawsuit against Full Tilt Poker. Phil Ivey has decided to make a stand against Full Tilt Poker by not going to this year’s WSOP; he has also turned against Full Tilt Poker. Poker professionals have a mixed reaction towards this turn of events.

Daniel Negreanu, a younger poker professional, who has earned himself a great name as well, says he admires Phil Ivey, in that he has even given up on the WSOP in order to stand his ground. He also said that Full Tilt Poker’s response to Phil Ivey’s lawsuit was a poor demonstration and that they had not put as much effort into returning payments.

Some players have also been against Phil Ivey stating that he has been favoring himself with all these statements, considering the fact that he holds primary equity in Full Tilt Poker, and that he gains more profit than anyone else from the Full Tilt Poker site. Andrew Robl is the one who spoke openly about Phil Ivey and his take on Ivey’s true intentions. Tom Dwan, who did not even own any part of the site returned players some money from his own account, and Phil Ivey has done nothing to match the same. By talking against Full Tilt Poker, Phil Ivey is just delaying the process of any kind of repayments that might be in the pipeline.

Phil Ivey is considered a legendary poker professional and his views might be worshipped by many, but players should look at the way he plays but not blindly follow him in every way. In such a situation, most people and most companies would try to favor themselves.

Full Tilt Poker, already has enough to deal with, and another lawsuit is not going to change the equation. On the whole, the only people suffering from this kind of a dramatic change are the players who were most dependent on this site and other such sites.

The US government should also consider the fact that most poker players do not consider gambling wrong, they consider it as entertainment and consider it as an invasion of privacy when they are unable to access this mode of entertainment from the comfort of their own homes.