It's also one of the more clever approaches to team play that I've ever seen.

And it's not a "Ponzi" or a "pyramid" scheme. The idea behind a Ponzi scheme is paying an "earlier" person in using a "later" person's contribution to the plan. Yes, that is illegal.

This arrangement isn't "paying" anyone. In fact there's no guarantee you are going to make money, or even that you're going to be kept on the team (they say that further into the explanation). What they are saying is they're going to combine the bankroll of a team, distribute a portion of it to play on, hold a portion of it in reserve to protect against losses, and then split the profits while covering the losses. This is not uncommon at all--this is how poker teams work. The thing that I see that is rather unique about this arrangement is the way they distribute excess profit among all the members of their organization. Most poker teams never grow beyond five or six players, so they never have to deal with "excess profit". They just divy up what they win as they go. This plan looks pretty ambitious, as if they're managing a number of teams and then distributing overages among ALL the players in their corral. I rather like the idea.

I also agree that if they're going to provide training while you're playing for them, then between your increased knowledge and the protection of a team (any team offers protection--that's why you play team poker to begin with) you're only going to "lose" if you--and your teammates--are just atrocious players. By playing multiple people at the same table, they're just increasing their odds pretty dramatically in that at least if you lose a hand, one of your teammates is potentially winning it. This is something that most poker teams DON'T do. Most teams assemble four or five players and they play at different times than one another, to essentially "keep the bankroll in play" at all times. This outfit seems to do that too, just with multiple players at the same table and multiple mini-teams in play at different times.

I don't personally like the payout breakdown (I probably would rather have more immediate payout and grow the bankroll more slowly) but it looks like their goal is to move players into higher stakes a bit more quickly, so their approach concentrates on growing the bankroll rather than immediate profit. I don't really have a problem with this because the higher stakes a good player plays for, the more he's going to make...and another reason for playing a combined bankroll is to allow players to play stakes they otherwise couldn't "afford" to play in the first place.

Here's the thing, and this applies to this or any other "team" approach. If you're a good, solid, WINNING player--don't piss around with a team. That's pretty simple. You have your bankroll, you're making money, and the money is all yours. No reason to share, and no need to be protected because you're a consistently winning player.

If you're NOT a consistently winning player--or you are, but you don't have the bankroll necessary to win "good" money by playing higher stakes--or you can't handle the "risk" without some feeling of protection--or you win but you can't play more than a few hours a week, but you want to have your money in "action" more often--or you just like the idea of more than one of you--then a team isn't a bad approach at all. And as teams go, I think this one is pretty well thought out.

I definitely don't think it's a scam though. Too many things in their presentation are too well thought out--and right on the money, I might add. The approach may be a little dubious, but I imagine that has more to do with them not wanting to draw attention to themselves for one thing, and also the whole "hand-picked" players thing. They're not "hand-picking" pros, because a playing pro who's making money would have no reason to join. They're hand-picking people who are playing at a lesser level now, in the hopes that they can teach them enough to play profitably (with team protection) in order to grow bankroll and grow INTO a stronger player.

In other words, I wouldn't feel like Chris Ferguson because they "picked me". I'd just look at it that they think I have the potential to earn, and they think they can make me even better.

And I would almost guarantee they would take ANY player who wants to give it a shot, invited or not. This is online poker, after all. A monkey can be trained to play this game and win, if he's willing to learn. A team of monkeys properly trained could make A LOT of money doing this.

This is actually a pretty good idea. Wish I had thought of it.

If you think it's a scam but you'd like to try it to find out, tell them you'll hold on to your portion of the bankroll, thank you very much...but you're willing to pay their $125 and let them handle the math. This way, you're only out $125 if it's a scam. Remind them that it really doesn't matter WHERE the money is stored, so long as it's there and you're willing to move it when necessary to "cover" losses or pay off wins. Then, if they agree, hold up your end of the bargain. Play honestly, move the money honestly when that is necessary, and let them just do the "accounting". If they're a legit organization, they'll probably go for that. Once you see if they're treating you fairly and honestly, you can adjust as necessary. But honesty and trust in that situation would have to be a two way street. Don't question the integrity of the team and then turn around and be dishonest yourself.

If you approach them with this and they say no, tell them to screw themselves. If they say yes, you have a shot at a pretty good opportunity with only a little bit risked. In poker we call that "having the best of it".

That's my opinion, anyway. I might approach them in this way myself. If I do (and they don't go all CIA on me demanding my silence) maybe I'll come back and tell everyone...then you'll know.

Won't be for a while yet, though. I've got too many irons in the fire as it is.