already signed up

Hi thor69,

If you click the down arrow from the top right corner and go to your profile settings, you'll see a list of poker rooms that are currently tracked.

In order to get a tracked account it must be created through PokerStrategy. Once the account is tracked it cannot be changed. So in case you have a PokerStars account for example that is not tracked with us, there is nothing we can do
However we have quite many partner rooms offering different bonuses and free starting capitals, so I suggest you check them out

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask!

Regards,
la55i

The problem with all these poker sites , if you read the comments on PokerScout, you will rather not play at any of them. Most of the sites do not even respond to their terrible reviews, which means there must be some truth to them. Also why do the sites not have insurance policy details to prove their clients deposits/a/c's are covered in case of the site getting into financial trouble. Any decent brokerage/share etc trading firm is proud to show such details so clients can check,at any time, that the policy is valid and know their money is safe. I think the poker industry is ripe for a firm that can prove its software is sound and incorruptible(especially from the staff and owners) and the clients money including gains is safe no matter what happens , and perhaps an independent body ,is required, which sites may join to arbitrate disputes , at many of the legitimate trading houses you can get a credit card or cheque book to spend any of your monies not in play/use. I would be interested , if there are other people interested to pool resources and look into starting such bodies.

Originally posted by tmannie
The problem with all these poker sites , if you read the comments on PokerScout, you will rather not play at any of them. Most of the sites do not even respond to their terrible reviews, which means there must be some truth to them.

This is due to player expectations. When rooms do the right thing, they are merely operating in a way to meet players expectation. So players won't post reviews saying that they received their cashout quickly and efficiently because this is what they expect as normal.

Typically, PokerScout player reviews are from 2 types of players:

1) Players that haven't received the service they "expected". In some cases their complaints are justified, in most cases they are not.

2) Players who have broken the Ts & Cs and don't even recognise that they have.

Poker rooms don't feel like they have to respond to those reviews as they have already had dialogue with those players in regard to their unrealistic expectations or breaches.

Also why do the sites not have insurance policy details to prove their clients deposits/a/c's are covered in case of the site getting into financial trouble.

When poker sites get into financial difficulties, it is either through bad management or poor policy decisions. You can't get insurance against that.

Another issue is that when a poker room goes under, all assets are pooled (including player balances) and secured creditors are paid first. Players are still considered unsecured creditors and get paid last. This happened most recently when PKR went under.

I believe that due to entering receivership, PKR had continued operating while insolvent. When Poker Heaven closed down, they had a phased orderly shutdown with players given time to withdraw their balances.

As a consequence, some rooms now hold player balances in trust accounts as a further safeguard that players money is protected.

I think the poker industry is ripe for a firm that can prove its software is sound and incorruptible(especially from the staff and owners) and the clients money including gains is safe no matter what happens ,

I don't think that any software provider can guarantee that their software is sound and incorruptible, only that they take all measures possible to ensure that it is.

Using PokerStars as an example, no staff have access to player funds. All player transactions are handled by a third party payment processors. PokerStars/FullTilt employees are forbidden from playing real money games (as a former member of our news team found out the hard way and almost lost his job).

and perhaps an independent body ,is required,

These already exists in regulatory bodies. If you are in a jurisdiction where the room is licensed, then you lodge a submission with your countrys' gambling regulator.

If you are in a "grey" market. most rooms will have a Rest of World regulator. Examples include Isle of Man, Kahnawake Gaming Commission, Malta Gaming Authority, etc.

Using PokerStars again as an example, if you were in the UK (white market), you would contact the UKGC. If you were in New Zealand (grey), you would contact Isle of Man.

Regards

Laz

The expectations that I and others have, is quite normal. To fob off anyone's expectation that their money be kept safe and available to them (in the form they choose) at their will, is not fair or right. T's&C's that hinder that are unjust and probably unenforceable legally , most of those types of T's&C's are just clauses to enable unjust enrichment , which , where I reside is unenforceable . Insurance to cover clients balances is easily available, in everyday life you find it , and it is mandatory in many professions, such as , property realtors and legal firms require insurance to cover their trust accounts , to mention a few .
Because, a loss was due to mismanagement does not mean the clients should lose , the only thing that clients may not be indemnified against is what can be considered an act of god .
Whether it is 2 or many more clients that complained on Pokerscout is of no consequence, the fact is a poker site was charged with behaving in an unsavory manner , and trust broken , trust is something that is earned and once broken is lost forever, that is obviously why the site should defend its actions.To say that it is unnecessary for any site to respond to charges made publicly against them (no matter how frivolous) is strange and perhaps hints at their arrogance. The money clients deposit with any site does not belong to the site (it is not their asset), they hold it for the client in a position of trust.
Had the site suspected money laundering or other nonsense , they should have refused the clients deposits.
To say that client deposits are , in the event of the site going insolvent, available to pay secured creditors is wrong, the secured creditor has to look at that which was pledged to him to meet the money owed to him in the first instance and then unsecured assets can be allocated to them before unsecured debts can be paid , client deposits, however , are not assets of the of the company and cannot be legally used for this purpose (irrespective of what you say happened with PKR this could only have occurred with the clients permission or else it was illegal). Client deposits by no stretch of the imagination can be considered something that the site bought and paid for.
Your comment about staff etc being forbidden to play poker on sites is not consistent with the statements of a certain Poker Pro , among st others, (voiced publicly and on the internet) who mentioned that the children of a certain site owner often sit in the control room and play real money poker while being able to see their opponents hands. Certainly software has its limitations but good internal systems and control and basic honesty can overcome this.
Those controlling bodies you mentioned, if you ever try to avail yourself of their services you will find they are not very useful, and they receive money from the sites in the form of license fees, so are therefore biased . Ombudsmen (from independent respected legal or accounting firms) should be appointed to speedily regulate disputes and also have the authority to impose penalties on either party to the argument in the even of unfair/unjust or frivolous actions taken.