These issues and others were addressed in a trip report by PokerStars Steve on 2+2, with what appear to be logical, quality, solutions adopted. Here is a quick summary of the new policies that will be implemented on PokerStars in the future.

Ratholing
Ratholing is illegal in live poker rooms, but with so many table choices at the online poker tables the practice has been taken to a new level. Online Ratholers basically sit at a table with a short-stack and upon hitting a certain threshold (double or tripling-up perhaps) they leave the table and sit at a new one with a short-stack. While there is nothing illegal about it, the practice is widely frowned upon by the poker community.

To curb this practice PokerStars has implemented a new policy, which was explained by PokerStars Steve in the 2+2 thread:

The basic premise of the solution is that we track players’ stack sizes when they leave tables and then enforce appropriate minimum buy-ins when they re-join other tables. Joining a table creates a ‘stack identity’ for that table type. For example, if I were to sit at a 40-100bb table with 40bb, then leave the table with 67bb, I would now have 40-100bb stack #1 set at 67bb.

Each player would have a maximum number of stacks at each table type, with table type defined by buy-in range. The maximum number of stacks would be equal to a player’s table cap (for regular tables) and table cap divided by 3 (Zoom). This way a player could start a full maximum tables session with minimum buy-ins, but if they left any table with more than minimum buy-in, they would then need to re-use the same stack identity when buying into another table of the same type.

For example, if I buy in to 24 40-100bb tables with 40bb each, double up on one to 80bb and leave, I would then have to buy in for at least 80bb if I then tried to join another 40-100bb table. Let’s say I do this. Then if I lose 20bb and leave with 60bb, the next table I would join I could buy in for 60bb. This all assumes that I have stayed on the other 23 tables the whole time; if I had left those tables, I would be given the option to buy in for the smallest number of bb available on one of my stack identities.

Bumhunting
Bumhunting is a more complex issue, considering the practice isn’t even an angle-shoot, you are simply looking to play against inferior opponents. Unfortunately, bumhunting has an impact on the entire poker economy since it not only shames the fish (causing some to quit poker).

It has also led to dozens of tables with a single player sitting-out, who will refuse to play virtually every player who sits; waiting for that one fish to come by – and when that fish does sit the wait-list grows to double-digits, further shaming the player.

To curtail this activity (which has grown so widespread that Phil Galfond has addressed it on his blog, PokerStars has adopted a “King of the Hill” process, where inactive tables will be closed if a player starts a table and then sits out, waiting for bad players. From now on, only one table will be shown in the PokerStars lobby, forcing players to compete against one another. If a player joins the table and the original player continues to sit out the table will be closed.

Other issues addressed during the Player Meet included:

• Sit & Go improvements ranging from synchronized breaks for Multi-Table S&G’s to an “I’m Ready” button.

• Random match-making for HUSNG tournaments to allow casual players to sometimes face one another instead of always sitting at a table occupied by a regular.

• Restructuring of rake in PLO games

• New ways to communicate with players

The post PokerStars Adopts New Policies to Limit Ratholing & Bumhunting appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

The first feud is a pretty longstanding one between two of the better-known Ultimate Bet/Absolute Poker investigators, Haley Hintze and Scott Bell. The two have been embroiled in a long-running “disagreement” over a few particulars in the Super-User scandals, and this has led to some serious animosity; animosity that has once again popped-up after the recent evidence dump that included five-hours of secretly recorded audio tapes by Travis Makar.

When asked why he sat on the information for so long, Makar (@UtBiohazard) and then Hintze (@Haley_Hintze) responded with some not-so-kind words for Scott Bell (@ElevenGrover), who then responded himself:

The second controversy is far newer, and involves poker journalist John Mehaffey and Gaming-Awards.com. You see, a couple of months ago Mehaffey accused Gaming Awards of plagiarism when he discovered that Gaming Awards wasn’t simply doing rewrites of news stories, they were in essence copy/pasting entire stories and changing the authorship.

However, this time it seems like Gaming Awards is willing to drop the gloves (we are in the midst of the NHL playoffs after all) and are treating Mehaffey like a Tea Party group, and asking the IRS to look into his taxes.

Here is the Twitter exchange between John Mehaffey (@pokeraddictnet) and Gaming Awards (@gamingawards):

Mehaffey is one of the better poker journalists out there, and as a person who has found my own work reprinted word for word I understand the frustration that was felt by the people who were victimized. The evidence against Gaming-Awards.com was overwhelming as you can see by reading Mehaffey’s article here, so any talk of slander lawsuits is downright silly.

The post Twitter Battle Between Poker Writers appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

And less than 10 events into the series Chris Moorman has already landed at two final tables while his fellow countryman Sam Grafton pocketed a $150k payday after a five-way chop in Event #8-H.

Here is a look at some of the early 2013 PokerStars SCOOP results:

Event #1-H
German poker pro Benny Spindler kicked-off the 2013 SCOOP series with a win in Event #1-H, a $2,100 NLHE 6-Max tournament that attracted a field of 848 players, generating a near-$1.7 million prize-pool.

1. Benny “toweliestar” Spindler — $301,040
2. “€urop€an” — $223,024
3. “bbbbb33” — $169,600
4. JC “PrtyPsux” Alvarado — $118,720
5. “Amadi_017” — $84,800
6. “akut” — $50,881

Event #3-H
432 players took to the PokerStars tables for Event #3-H, a 4530 NLHE+R 6-Max tournament. The final table boasted a pair of poker’s top talents in Sami Kelopuro and Chris Moorman, and despite Moorman’s superhuman online tournament record, this time it was Kelopuro who took the top honor, with Moorman finishing in 6th place.

1. Sami “Lrslzk” Kelopuro — $143,295
2. “Berndsen12″ — $104,850
3. “RomeOpro” — $78,638
4. “abeainy” — $54,173
5. “nizmo jiz” — $40,193
6. Chris “Moorman1″ Moorman — $26,213

Event #4-H
In the $2,100 Badugi tournament it was two of online poker’s all-time greats going head-to-head in the form of Paul Volpe and Shaun Deeb. In the end it would be Volpe who would deny Deeb an unprecedented 6th SCOOP title.

1. Paul “paulgees81” Volpe — $34,780.00
2. Shaun “Shaundeeb” Deeb — $23,500.00
3. “Stroynowski” — $14,100.00
4. “Fresh_oO_D” — $9,400.00
5. “d0r1t0s” — $7,050.00
6. “Jackal69” — $5,170.00

Event #5-H
In Event #5-H, a $1,050 NLHE Rebuy Turbo tournament it was Team PokerStars Pro Ana Marquez who bested the 437-player field to win the $250k first-place prize.

1. Ana “Ana Marquez” Marquez — $255,035
2. “TIPCHIK321” — $189,383
3. “Amadi_017” — $139,545
4. “shinbunshi” — $106,320
5. “blakjak19” — $74,424
6. “aliasbissen” — $56,483
7. “treezer” — $43,193
8. Brendon “brendon1717” Rubie — $29,903
9. “China_White1” — $22,061

Event #8-H
With a $1,050 buy-in and a $1 million guarantee the field for Event #8-H reached 1,521 entrants, easily smashing the guarantee. With huge money on the line the final five players cut a deal that saw each of them pocket at least $144k, including Sam Grafton, who walked away with $153,251 for his 4th place showing.

1. “Sobizzle21” — $144,409.77*
2. “donki4” — $180,036.54*
3. “korjae” — $149,929.27*
4. Sam “SamSquid” Grafton — $153,251.00*
5. “micide” — $144,128.82*
6. “_pauL€FauL_” — $60,079.50
7. “binhoeiji” — $44,869.50
8. “OtB_RedBaron” — $29,659.50
9. “APD0290” — $16,426.80

*5-way deal

The post Poker Pros Dominate Early at PokerStars SCOOP appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

As well as controversy over Ultimate Poker briefly using the services of Iovation, a twitter war between a couple of former poker CEO’s, PokerStars and the Atlantic Club now waging a legal war, and former UB CEO Paul Leggett landing at Amaya Gaming. Oh, and then there is also the small matter of Phil Ivey’s £7.8 million lawsuit against Crockfords Casino!

Pretty much the only thing missing from poker headlines over the past week was for someone to come forward claiming they had discovered a map to Atlantis on the back of a deck of cards, or for someone to accuse Sam Trickett of being an alien sent here to win all of our earthly money in poker games.

While it looked like Lock Poker was going to dominate the headlines with their withdrawal and P2P transfer issues, the site was likely saved from pitchforks and torches when Travis Makar released some five-hours of secretly recorded audio tapes, proving many of the community’s long-held suspicions regarding what precisely occurred during the cheating itself and how the company attempted to cover it up later on.

With everyone from Annie Duke to Phil Hellmuth chiming in, and with actual figures attached to victim accounts belonging to Prahlad Friedman, Trambopoline, and even Scott “who is Scott Matusow” Matusow the tapes have captivated the poker community, many of whom, like myself, thought we had heard the last of UB Poker after Black Friday.

These stories were so big that the normally headline-worthy news that Ultimate Poker was using Iovation to run player checks (Iovation is owned and run by former Ultimate Bet executive Greg Pierson, who was a key figure on the released audio tapes) AND that post-Super-User UB Poker CEO Paul Leggett had landed at Amaya Gaming to run their online gaming department; other than a few sites these stories went pretty much unreported.

Then there was the lawsuit and counter-claims by PokerStars and the Atlantic Club Casino after the latter pulled out of the tentative deal the two had struck that would have seen PokerStars purchase the near-bankrupt Atlantic City casino.

We also reported on a Twitter battle between former Bluff CEO Eric Morris and Victory Poker CEO Dan Fleyshman last week.

Finally, there was Phil Ivey’s lawsuit, which definitely grabbed some headlines, especially from mainstream press in the UK, but with everything else going on this story definitely landed on the backburner for most poker news sites, despite Crockfords fairly detailed allegations of how Ivey “cheated” to win eight-figures over a two-day session of Punto Banco.

The post Scandals and Controversies Dominate Poker Headlines appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

Now, in a Daily Mail article this weekend the casino fired back with its own side of the story, claiming Ivey took advantage of a “Rogue” deck to beat the casino, with the help of an accomplice. This is the most detailed account of the story that has come to light so far.

While Ivey’s statements about the incident are vague, according to the Daily Mail, Crockfords is talking, and is giving specifics about precisely what occurred. According to the account given in the Daily Mail, the casino was using “Diamond-backed” cards, which if not cut precisely can look different based on the way they are turned.

The casino’s account of the event was that whenever Ivey was dealt an 8 or a 9 his companion would ask the croupier/dealer to “turn” the card, claiming Ivey was superstitious, which because of the design flaw would enable Ivey to identify them –players are not allowed to touch the cards in baccarat, but because there is no advantage to having a card turned the dealer complied.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time this method has been used to beat a casino, and in previous instances the casino won in court against the player who had noticed the design flaw and taken advantage of it.

Basically, it appears that if a casino is incompetent and doesn’t check the equipment it puts in play you cannot take advantage of it –which seems like a really bad decision to me, as long as the player did not introduce the cards, dice, etc.

What makes the story even more interesting is the “accomplice”, a woman initially described back in August by the Daily Mail as an “attractive Oriental woman.”

The new Daily Mail article goes into a bit more depth regarding her identity without actually identifying her, saying she has been banned from at least two other casinos around the world, currently lives in Las Vegas, and “along with two others, she is said to have won more than $1 million in similar fashion in the US in 2011, but the money was similarly withheld and the casino’s decision was later upheld by a gaming commission.”

Here is part of the original writ filed by Ivey back in March:

“I am deeply saddened that Crockfords has left me no alternative but to proceed with legal action, following its decision to withhold my winnings. I have much respect for Gentings, which has made this a very difficult decision for me.”

“Over the years I have won and lost substantial sums at Crockfords and I have always honoured my commitments. At the time, I was given a receipt for my winnings but Crockfords subsequently withheld payment. I, therefore, feel I have no alternative but to take legal action.”

Mr Ivey’s lawyer, Matthew Dowd of Archerfield Partners, said: “It is with great regret that Phil has been forced to issue court proceedings against Crockfords to secure payment of his winnings. The matter is now in the hands of the Court.”

The post Details Emerge in Phil Ivey vs. Crockfords Casino Legal Battle appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

Player-to-Player transfers (usually referred to as P2P transfers) have become a way of life for online poker players in a post-UIGEA and Black Friday world where deposit and withdrawal times are no longer measured in minutes and hours, instead measured in days and weeks. Players use P2P transfers to not only move funds on and off a site, but also as an easy way for backers to stake players, and even as a marketplace transaction from poker forums.

According to PokerFuse.com, the iPoker decision to suspend all P2P transfers network wide stems from an investigation into one of iPoker’s skins, Winner Poker. According to the report the investigation is now wrapping up and a number of Winner Poker players who had their player accounts locked during the investigation are once again able to access their accounts. iPoker has also stated that the suspension of P2P transfers is only temporary.

iPoker called the investigation “security concerns”, but has not elaborated as to what these security concerns might be at this time. It’s unlikely that the iPoker suspension of P2P transfers has anything to do with Lock Poker’s claims that several “affiliates” were using their ability to get expedited cash-outs and buying up Lock Poker money on 2+2 at extremely reduced rates. According to Lock Poker representatives several players posing as affiliates created multiple accounts to transfer purchased money to, and then moved this money on to the main account which was receiving expedited withdrawals.

Lock Poker’s industry-worst withdrawal times have caused the value of Lock Poker money to plummet to under $.40 on the dollar, and faith in the site’s solvency is at an all-time low. So much so that a number of posters at 2+2 feel the explanation for the change to P2P transfer policies is a smokescreen. The situation has at Lock Poker has been deteriorating for several months, and Lock critics have been getting louder and louder as the site’s withdrawal issues and failure to communicate in any reasonable way with the poker community has armed these critics with plenty of ammunition to fire at the site.

Under the pressure being leveled at the site by the 2+2 community, several Lock Poker Pros have distanced themselves from the company including Paul Volpe and Chris Moorman, while other Lock Pro players have continued to represent and defend the site. The site did issue several statements on Thursday evening on their own website, as well as at the very-Lock-friendly Gambling911.com.

The post P2P Transfers Causing Issues at 2 Networks appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

The terms of the settlement allowed PokerStars to forfeit $547 million to the US DOJ while also allowing PokerStars to assume the rest of world Full Tilt Poker liabilities of around $184 million.

The rest of world liabilities have already been dispersed to players and Full Tilt Poker is now live offering real money play for players around the world excluding players in the USA.

A portion of the $547 million forfeited will be used to help pay back USA players who still to this day have funds locked up on Full Tilt Poker.

On March 13, 2013 the US DOJ selected Garden City Group, Inc. to be the exclusive claims distributor for all USA players who wish to claim their stuck funds on FTP.

When we reached out to Garden City Group, Inc. who is the exclusive claims administrator for the Full Tilt Poker claims process they had the following to say:

We are working with the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the United States Department of Justice to review the data in the possession of Full Tilt Poker to determine how claims should be calculated.

It will still take some time before the claims process begins. Please continue to check the settlement administration website (www.FullTiltPokerClaims.com) for important updates.

All of the major figures such as Ray Bitar, Howard Lederer & Chris Ferguson who helped destroy Full Tilt Poker have come to various settlements with the US DOJ to settle outstanding civil charges.

The post FTP Claims Process Update for USA Players appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

The entire fiasco began when The Maven made an allegation that Fleyshman owed him $6k (accompanied by a threat to escalate things as well as referencing the Nevada Attorney General), and from there it devolved into an Eric Morris vs. Dan Fleyshman tete a tete; a battle that is still being waged a few days on mind you. You can view the initial article here.

First off, I need clarify a few details I glossed over or got wrong in the original piece, some from misinterpreting Twitter posts and some from other new information that has since come out.

#1: The timeframe for the ads and the alleged non-payment occurred in 2010, not 2011, so Black Friday was not a factor.

#2: The ad-buy was for a calendar year, beginning in February 2010, for which Dan Fleyshman pre-paid the first month in advance, $15,000 according to Eric Morris. Morris also says the contract called for a $7,500 cancellation fee, as well as a 30-day notice to pull ads.

#3: I’d also like to clarify that Eric Morris is no longer with BLUFF Media. He sold his ownership stake of the company in September of 2012.

#4: I also reached out to both Eric Morris and Dan Fleyshman. Eric Morris responded with a brief statement and clarified a couple of points for me, and offered to talk further if need be: I haven’t heard from Dan Fleyshman at this point, but it should be pointed out his father passed away on Sunday.

#5: No Victory Poker player is owed money from the site. Fleyshman paid out all player balances after Black Friday.

With the updates and corrections out of the way let’s get down to what happened, beginning with Eric Morris’s side of the story:

He Said (Eric Morris)
According to my communication with Morris along with several posts at PokerFraudAlert.com he seems to believe Fleyshman entered into the contract in bad faith and simply let the ads continue to run knowing he wasn’t going to pay for them. Morris claims he is not looking for money from Fleyshman, but is simply “outing” his lack of ethics and warning others of Fleyshman’s business practices.

In addition to laying out the precise timeframe of events I mentioned above, Morris also included two anonymous messages from other people who claim Dan Fleyshman owes them money. The first message appears very similar to Morris’s claims, but seems to be coming from an employee of a company, while the second message seems like someone who was promised a job that never materialized. Here are the two purported messages sent to Morris:

“Glad you have come out about Dan. He owed us ~$6k for adds that he was invoiced for in May of 2010 which we received the run around. The things y’all are saying match exactly what we experienced.Although he can’t use the “black friday” excuse or the “shut down” business excuse on us, so he used a different equally lame excuse. It’s not my business so I cant/don’t want to do anything with it without bosses permission. But y’all definitely weren’t the only ones.

I give you props for calling him out. He NEVER EVER responded to me about the job he offered me with 3k a month, equity into multiple companies, and bonuses.. He knew my financial situation as I lost a 100k from Full Tilt. He fucked me good. You and Maven calling it out finally, good for you Eric.”

He Said (Dan Fleyshman)
Fleyshman responded in the same forum thread by saying that Morris and Bluff Magazine were trying to freeroll him with the ads by continuing to publish the spread and hoping he would just eventually pay:

“… nullify Eric’s claims quickly and we can all move on as most of us have since #BlackFriday is 2 years behind us and I had loaned Victory 6 figures and took no salary ever and PREPAID dozens of other magazines for our advertisements so as you’ll see in the email: https://twitter.com/DanFleyshman/sta…994752/photo/1 Especially if you read the last line of 2nd email, I had been telling Eric for months to stop running ads against my will and on 6-24-10 is when multiple staff as you can see knew that I wanted ads to be stopped but they continued to run for months even after that because it’s a freeroll way for them to fill up empty space and try to strongarm/guilt/coerce vendors into paying…

… some of the forum posters made good points above about the fact that I wouldn’t owe anyone personally these funds anyway since it’s a company liability and furthermore unlike Full Tilt and other sites, I took ZERO salary, loaned mid 6 figures to the company and paid back EVERY account within 4 days of Black Friday so shouldn’t be getting harrassed when I didn’t benefit, loaned a ton to make it work and did the right thing right away.”

Summary
This whole story has two major problems that make who is actually right (which could be both men to be honest as it may come down to technicalities and interpretation) basically a moot point:

#1: It occurred long enough ago that a lot of the correspondence is either lost or has been deleted by this point. Not to mention that memories are probably less than 100% on the matter.

#2: Victory Poker is no longer operational. It’s hard to say that Dan Fleyshman owes money because a business he owned went bankrupt. *I’m not sure if Fleyshman officially declared bankruptcy with Victory Poker, but the site and its assets would be next to worthless at present.*

Lost in the whole shuffle is the debt owed to David Chicotsky. This is the one area that has not been properly addressed, considering Fleyshman pretty much admits to owing the money to The Maven, but is refusing to pay him on some other grounds.

The post Quarrel Continues Between Victory Poker CEO and Former BLUFF Owner appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

The Maven was a sponsored pro at Victory Poker before Black Friday and it seems there is an outstanding debt still owed to him.

The Tweet was immediately noticed by AsianSpa, poker’s elusive “truth-speaker” who has no issues calling out anyone who is up to no good in the poker world.

After a retweet and a demand for an explanation by AsianSpa, Bluff Magazine founder Eric Morris also got in on the act, saying that Fleyshman also owed him money (Morris put the number at $70,000) for ads that ran in Bluff Magazine.

From there the debate devolved into a battle of he-said/she-said between Morris and Fleyshman (The Maven sat it out for the most part, most likely because he was grinding the Sunday tournaments), with multiple exchanges similar to the one below:

In the lead-up to Black Friday Victory Poker was one of a handful of relatively new online poker rooms that were trying to make a splash in the market. The site was signing a number of poker pros, including Antonio Esfandiari, but in the aftermath of Black Friday Fleyshman got cold feet and decided owning a US poker site wasn’t worth a federal indictment, so he pulled out of the US market, and a few months later the site was closed down.

It should be noted that no players lost money at Victory Poker, and the only debt that seems to have been on the books was the money owed to David Chicotsky (which Fleyshman admitted in this Subject: Poker interview) . As far as I can tell, all other Victory Poker sponsored pros were paid.

The non-payment for advertising at Bluff Magazine seems to be a case of two different perspectives of what was happening, and considering the timing (right in the midst of Black Friday) there was quite a bit going on at the time. Without actually seeing contracts and correspondence it would be impossible to get to the bottom of what happened between Victory Poker and Bluff Magazine. The matter seems fairly moot anyway, considering the site is for all intents and purposes bankrupt.

The Maven’s debt on the other hand is quite interesting, as it seems that Fleyshman is saying the reason for non-payment is personal. This is speculation on my part, but around this time (in 2011) the debt itself was leaked to Donkdown Radio, who conducted a contentious interview with Fleyshman. This public grilling while Victory Poker was still a viable entity may have aggravated Fleyshman enough that he decided not to pay Chicotsky.

If you’re interested in reading through the whole fiasco n Twitter here are the pertinent Twitter accounts:

https://twitter.com/AsianSpa
https://twitter.com/EricMorris1616
https://twitter.com/TheMavenVT
https://twitter.com/DanFleyshman

UPDATE: The original article only stated that Eric Morris was the founder of BLUFF magazine. According to BLUFF Media, Eric Morris is no longer associated with BLUFF Media, and has not been a part of the company since September of 2012.

The post Twitter Accusations Fly Between Victory Poker CEO, The Maven, and BLUFF Founder appeared first on PokerEagles.com.

The tournament will be held at the PokerStars branded City of Dreams Poker Room in the city of Macau, which is starting to give Las Vegas a run for its money as the gambling capital of the world. The Tournament will be a three-day event; with players able to rebuy two-times (presumably on Day 1 of the tournament only). On June 4th there will be a “warm-up” tournament, boasting a HKD $250,000 buy-in (about $32,500 USD).

Interestingly, the tournament will be competing with early WSOP events for players, but considering this is a PokerStars tournament I’m assuming many Team PokerStars Pros will be making the trip to Macau for the event. Considering travel time, players leaving the WSOP to head to Macau for June 5th would be foregoing at least some of the following WSOP tournaments:

• The $2,500 6-Max NLHE event on June 4th
• The $1,500 Pot Limit Holdem event on June 5th
• The $5,000 7-Card-Stud Hi/Lo event on June 5th
• The $1,500 NLHE event on June 6th
• The $1,500 HORSE event on June 7th
• The $10,000 Heads-Up NLHE Championship on June 7th

According to the PokerStars blog seating is limited, so they may not even be trying to attract WSOP players:

“The field will comprise many Guangdong Group members, and limited seats are available to other players. PokerStars will also offer one player the chance to qualify for the GDAM event online. The prize package will be worth USD $132,000, and will be the biggest-ever tournament package given away on PokerStars. For more details about how to qualify, visit www.pokerstars.com/poker/promotions/GDAM/”

In the blog post, Danny McDonagh, Director of Live Poker Operations for the Asia Pacific for PokerStars said, “We are expecting over 100 players to sit down and play and one of the biggest prize pools for a poker tournament outside of the World Series of Poker. It’s going to be seriously huge! ”

Last year a HKD $2,000,000 buy-in tournament was held in Macau and managed to attract 73 players, so setting the bar at over 100 seems like an easily reachable goal. The aforementioned Macau High Stakes Challenge Super High Roller tournament is the current record-holder for the largest non-WSOP tournament prize-pool in poker history, coming in at over $23.5 million, so the goal to break that record may be a little harder to reach than the attendance record.

Stay tuned for more details on this tournament in the coming days and weeks.

The post PokerStars Announces New Macau Super-High-Roller Tournament appeared first on PokerEagles.com.