On August 27 2008 13:24 Bigbobm wrote:
that is irrelevant to the discussion, but personally i think its silly and takes away multiple degrees of depth from the game, and this is where most great players excel.
i still think you are overlooking the advantage that the player receives for being anonymous, while retaining all of his reads on his opponents.
also the fact that its unenforceable should not be reason to allow it.
What's to discuss exactly? If we are discussing the question "is multiple account using" cheating then the answer is yes. It says so write in the terms of use on every single poker site I've signed up for. The advantage they gain by having reads and remaining unknown is obvious. They work with information and reads while the regular not on a smurf believes they are playing with a blank slate and no developed reads. However the fact is that people still do it and generally aren't even harshly punished for doing so. It is also extremely difficult to catch them at it if they are doing it well.
The real discussion should be what course of action should be taken when a player is actually caught playing multiple accounts. The action of course should be applied to everyone just the same no matter what status they have in the community. Currently it appears that the rewards far out-weigh the risks of being caught but I could be wrong.
Random options for punishment.
1. LIfetime ban from the software + Money taken from all accounts involved.
2. A significant fine like 10-25% of all money in the accounts + 6 month or 1 year ban
3. No monies deducted from the account but the information is published on a known multiple account users page on the poker client's main website as well as a 6 month ban.
Sorry dude he Jason Bourned me. -Johnny Drama
1
TalentedTom Canada. Aug 27 2008 14:46. Posts 20070
I think sites should allow people to change screen - names every 6 months or so
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
On August 27 2008 13:14 Bejamin1 wrote:
This posting really jogs my brain into a few odd thoughts. After first thinking I don't really care about the situation because it's somewhat unenforceable. Those that want to play multiple accounts will always find a way to do so and it will be extremely difficult to catch them if they are tactful about it.
Secondly I come to the thought that in live poker you will rarely remember most of the people you play with. You will only get to know the few regulars you play with the most often. With them you will play differently and get inside each others heads. You will not be able to have a database of thousands of hands giving you extremely useful information with which the game becomes a little bit more predictable or at the very least plays out in a more rigid pattern. You can't sit down at a live table and look at the other 9 around you and know exactly how often they open and what not.
Now I take that thought and think that perhaps the significant reduction in the amount of information about the game/players probably has a big effect on the way the game plays out. I'm not sure whether the reduction in information would make the games easier or harder but I am fairly certain there would be some change.
So what if Pokerstars had their system set up so that every time you log on you do this;
1. Log onto main account
2. Choose a handle/nickname for the session
3. Sit down and play
Instantly all information about you is removed. People will eventually get stats as they stay on the table with you for 100 hands or so but the large databases and knowing who the regulars are completely disappears.
So what do you guys think would happen then?
It is a perfectly fine idea in the sense of low stakes but that is because it means nothing since the player base is huge, the higher you go the more you recognize people and so on, just like in live poker the higher stakes, the more familiar faces. As northface said it only took him 20 mins to realize he was up against someone good. The only reason why I think your idea is partially good is it would promote more high stakes players to play each other instead of all the dead games. I am biased because I disagree about stuff like HUD and datamining, wishing they would no longer be used. Your idea would stop that but I have the same opportunity to use these programs so I am at no disadvantage. Smurfing on the other hand when others are not is gay. even for the short term gain before people realize who you are.
I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time
1
FrinkX United States. Aug 27 2008 15:25. Posts 7562
its lame and unethical imo but he shouldn't get ANY shit for it unless every other person who does it gets equal shit
It was definitely bad for him to do, but I think his apology was solid and sincere and I still have respect for him. I can understand being ashamed of having to move down - I know when I had a horrible downswing and dropped limits I stopped blogging about my poker progress.
InnovativeYogis.com
1
Matt98568 United States. Aug 27 2008 15:55. Posts 2391
On August 27 2008 14:25 FrinkX wrote:
its lame and unethical imo but he shouldn't get ANY shit for it unless every other person who does it gets equal shit
QFT
Anyone read that retarded long thread in NVG about this? FML for reading anything on 2+2 in NVG and expecting to learn something. There is prolly 20 times less posts in this thread and 100X more the content. <3 LP
everyone should get shit imo, multiaccounting is plain cheating...
and fayth ffs ... it would be like broodwar smurfing if you were gambling thousands of dollars per-game.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
MaidenFan United States. Aug 27 2008 16:17. Posts 450
On August 27 2008 13:14 Bejamin1 wrote:
Secondly I come to the thought that in live poker you will rarely remember most of the people you play with. You will only get to know the few regulars you play with the most often. With them you will play differently and get inside each others heads. You will not be able to have a database of thousands of hands giving you extremely useful information with which the game becomes a little bit more predictable or at the very least plays out in a more rigid pattern. You can't sit down at a live table and look at the other 9 around you and know exactly how often they open and what not.
Now I take that thought and think that perhaps the significant reduction in the amount of information about the game/players probably has a big effect on the way the game plays out. I'm not sure whether the reduction in information would make the games easier or harder but I am fairly certain there would be some change.
This post got me thinking: if multiaccounting enters into the gray area of cheating because it limits the amount of information your opponents have on you then using tools such as PT/HEM must also be in a gray area because it expands the amount of information you have on opponents beyond a level that is humanly possible.
Put another way, using PT/HEM is a step below using bots to play. With these tools players can play effectively on many more tables because of the massive influx of information. Is this an unfair advantage? I don't know, but if what aba did is cheating then using these tools must also be cheating for the same reason, it gives you an unfair informational advantage.
But everyone can use PT therefore it can't be cheating right? Well everyone can also make multiple accounts, and it's free. The only difference is one isn't allowed in the TOS and one is.
I think the most important question we have to ask ourselves here (and Benjamin sort of touched on it) is: How similar do we want online poker to be to live poker?
On August 27 2008 15:09 Baal wrote:
everyone should get shit imo, multiaccounting is plain cheating...
What about for Guy? What if every single person Guy plays with online on FTP doesn't care at all if he multiaccounts because they feel that him injecting 6 million or whatever dollars into their games from the very top of the pyramid earns him the right to "cheat" by playing them on as many different accounts as he pleases? Is it still "cheating" when nobody would feel wronged? This is my main argument for why it's OK for Guy to smurf but not for any professional regular.
On August 27 2008 15:09 Baal wrote:
everyone should get shit imo, multiaccounting is plain cheating...
What about for Guy? What if every single person Guy plays with online on FTP doesn't care at all if he multiaccounts because they feel that him injecting 6 million or whatever dollars into their games from the very top of the pyramid earns him the right to "cheat" by playing them on as many different accounts as he pleases? Is it still "cheating" when nobody would feel wronged? This is my main argument for why it's OK for Guy to smurf but not for any professional regular.
Guy shouldnt also be allowed to multi-account, regardless if others dont mind for the sake of being equitative.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
TalentedTom Canada. Aug 27 2008 17:35. Posts 20070
On August 27 2008 16:04 tomson wrote:
this is great on many levels
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
On August 27 2008 13:14 Bejamin1 wrote:
Secondly I come to the thought that in live poker you will rarely remember most of the people you play with. You will only get to know the few regulars you play with the most often. With them you will play differently and get inside each others heads. You will not be able to have a database of thousands of hands giving you extremely useful information with which the game becomes a little bit more predictable or at the very least plays out in a more rigid pattern. You can't sit down at a live table and look at the other 9 around you and know exactly how often they open and what not.
Now I take that thought and think that perhaps the significant reduction in the amount of information about the game/players probably has a big effect on the way the game plays out. I'm not sure whether the reduction in information would make the games easier or harder but I am fairly certain there would be some change.
This post got me thinking: if multiaccounting enters into the gray area of cheating because it limits the amount of information your opponents have on you then using tools such as PT/HEM must also be in a gray area because it expands the amount of information you have on opponents beyond a level that is humanly possible.
Put another way, using PT/HEM is a step below using bots to play. With these tools players can play effectively on many more tables because of the massive influx of information. Is this an unfair advantage? I don't know, but if what aba did is cheating then using these tools must also be cheating for the same reason, it gives you an unfair informational advantage.
But everyone can use PT therefore it can't be cheating right? Well everyone can also make multiple accounts, and it's free. The only difference is one isn't allowed in the TOS and one is.
I think the most important question we have to ask ourselves here (and Benjamin sort of touched on it) is: How similar do we want online poker to be to live poker?
my personal opinion is that people generally go overboard with using what's possible in live play as a basis on forming their views on what is and isn't ethical in online play. I don't know the reason for this, live poker and online poker are just two different forms of the game that are just different because one is played live on a table in person and one is played on a computer over the internet. I don't know why people try to deny the obvious differences that are going to arise as a result of this. players should try to take every advantage possible that's within the rules in both forms of the game. why do online sites spread 6max games? oh my god you can't find any 6max tables live what are they doing! do you think online players go to casinos and complain it's unethical for live players to watch for their body language tells because you can't do that in online play?
because we play live in person and we're creatures that act on biological impulses and brain chemistry and what not, it's just an extra side of the game that will naturally exist live. And because internet poker is played over computers and computers are extremely efficient at such tasks as keeping track of hand histories and extracting statistics, it's just an extra side of the game that will naturally exist online. And the fact is, poker by nature is the sort of game that won't be 'ruined' by this 'extra technological help'. Say with online chess if chess computers were allowed it would completely ruin the game because both sides could just rely on them entirely. But there's an infinite amount more to poker than hud stats and databases, how is it you think so many (easily way over half) of the very best players in the online game that play at the highest stakes don't even use a HUD to overlay stats at the table when they play. and how is it unfair when all major poker sites have officially allowed use of trackers and huds, and they're commercially available software anybody can use?
On August 27 2008 15:09 Baal wrote:
everyone should get shit imo, multiaccounting is plain cheating...
What about for Guy? What if every single person Guy plays with online on FTP doesn't care at all if he multiaccounts because they feel that him injecting 6 million or whatever dollars into their games from the very top of the pyramid earns him the right to "cheat" by playing them on as many different accounts as he pleases? Is it still "cheating" when nobody would feel wronged? This is my main argument for why it's OK for Guy to smurf but not for any professional regular.
Guy shouldnt also be allowed to multi-account, regardless if others dont mind for the sake of being equitative.
in the real world which state of affairs do you think anyone will choose: one in which no action is taken to affect the status quo and everyone remains happy (nobody does anything about Guy's multiaccounting and Guy remains happy, Full Tilt remains happy, and everyone Guy plays with remains happy)? or one in which full tilt ban all but one of Guy's accounts, which would make Guy unhappy for not being able to do what he wants, Full Tilt unhappy for having to upset a customer for something that does no harm to anybody and risk losing his business, and Guy's opponents unhappy that their poker site upset Guy and risked losing his business, all just for the sake of being "equitative" (lol dont make up words). It's just the way of the world that the wealthiest people with the most influence and power can often get special consideration and treatment and abide by special rules that can be bent just for them at the expense of others. To speak out against that is the way of an idealist. But when in this case the rules are being bent for someone for nothing but the benefit of all parties involved, to speak out against that in the name of idealism is just the way of an idiot. you're not an idiot are you baal?
On August 27 2008 15:09 Baal wrote:
everyone should get shit imo, multiaccounting is plain cheating...
What about for Guy? What if every single person Guy plays with online on FTP doesn't care at all if he multiaccounts because they feel that him injecting 6 million or whatever dollars into their games from the very top of the pyramid earns him the right to "cheat" by playing them on as many different accounts as he pleases? Is it still "cheating" when nobody would feel wronged? This is my main argument for why it's OK for Guy to smurf but not for any professional regular.
Guy shouldnt also be allowed to multi-account, regardless if others dont mind for the sake of being equitative.
in the real world which state of affairs do you think anyone will choose: one in which no action is taken to affect the status quo and everyone remains happy (nobody does anything about Guy's multiaccounting and Guy remains happy, Full Tilt remains happy, and everyone Guy plays with remains happy)? or one in which full tilt ban all but one of Guy's accounts, which would make Guy unhappy for not being able to do what he wants, Full Tilt unhappy for having to upset a customer for something that does no harm to anybody and risk losing his business, and Guy's opponents unhappy that their poker site upset Guy and risked losing his business, all just for the sake of being "equitative" (lol dont make up words). It's just the way of the world that the wealthiest people with the most influence and power can often get special consideration and treatment and abide by special rules that can be bent just for them at the expense of others. To speak out against that is the way of an idealist. But when in this case the rules are being bent for someone for nothing but the benefit of all parties involved, to speak out against that in the name of idealism is just the way of an idiot. you're not an idiot are you baal?
What you say is true.
The fact that Guy get's to have multiple accounts keeps most, if not all, happy.
But the fact remains, that him having multiple accounts maintains a double standard.
Who is then to draw the line as to who is allowed to multi account and who is not?
Should it be based on average win rate? Annual income? or should one be required to have founded a succesful circus?
I do get what you're talking about and I think I agree with you (lol). But at the same time I think the same rules should adhere to all.
And saying that I sincerely hope I don't sound like an "idealistic idiot".
Regarding online play vs. live play, I think, as has been stated before, that it should not be compared so much.
We're talking about two widely different forms of the same game.
I especially liked the point about live tells and body language vs. online statistic gathering.
and regarding aba's "problem".
His apology indeed sounds sincere...
but common....
he was busted in the act, and thus found it best for his own interest to "come clean" and try and make things better.
Having been busted, I give him no credit for making a, imo, late apology.
The real question in my mind is weather or not he was at fault.
the argument that "everyone is doing it" is not enough in my opinion.
Just because everyone is doing it should not justify it. So I think it comes down to, do we WANT everyone to do it, and be able to do it, or don't we.
If we do, the datamining software will lose some of it's merit, which might in fact be a good thing. People could change handles as they wanted (every few months for example) and in the end we'd find balance.
If we don't, we need some ways to find those who are multi accounting and somehow punish them, and further make sure people can't multi account.
That is obviously a lot harder, but as with the former option, we'd eventually find balance.
After thinking this through and reading the points in this thread (many of which have been very good) think that people should be allowed to change a screen name every few months on your current account. As someone said - you log on to your main account, which is the same, but from there you can choose your screen name...
My points may come off kinda chaotic, I find it kinda hard to focus my thoughts right now lol - I apologize.
Mig hefur alltaf langað til að vitna í sjálfan mig - Ég sjálfur
On August 27 2008 15:09 Baal wrote:
everyone should get shit imo, multiaccounting is plain cheating...
What about for Guy? What if every single person Guy plays with online on FTP doesn't care at all if he multiaccounts because they feel that him injecting 6 million or whatever dollars into their games from the very top of the pyramid earns him the right to "cheat" by playing them on as many different accounts as he pleases? Is it still "cheating" when nobody would feel wronged? This is my main argument for why it's OK for Guy to smurf but not for any professional regular.
Guy shouldnt also be allowed to multi-account, regardless if others dont mind for the sake of being equitative.
in the real world which state of affairs do you think anyone will choose: one in which no action is taken to affect the status quo and everyone remains happy (nobody does anything about Guy's multiaccounting and Guy remains happy, Full Tilt remains happy, and everyone Guy plays with remains happy)? or one in which full tilt ban all but one of Guy's accounts, which would make Guy unhappy for not being able to do what he wants, Full Tilt unhappy for having to upset a customer for something that does no harm to anybody and risk losing his business, and Guy's opponents unhappy that their poker site upset Guy and risked losing his business, all just for the sake of being "equitative" (lol dont make up words). It's just the way of the world that the wealthiest people with the most influence and power can often get special consideration and treatment and abide by special rules that can be bent just for them at the expense of others. To speak out against that is the way of an idealist. But when in this case the rules are being bent for someone for nothing but the benefit of all parties involved, to speak out against that in the name of idealism is just the way of an idiot. you're not an idiot are you baal?
i meant equative and yes you are right, the problem with brian's smurfing is that he went down to 5knl, where he "affected" other people who would bitch about it, if you smurf in 60knl u probably wont last over 10 hands before they realize its a smurf plus the people who play the smurf wont bitch or make a huge deal about it.
Contact Users: 799 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 07:40
Canada. Aug 27 2008 14:46. Posts 20070
and yes you are right, the problem with brian's smurfing is that he went down to 5knl, where he "affected" other people who would bitch about it, if you smurf in 60knl u probably wont last over 10 hands before they realize its a smurf plus the people who play the smurf wont bitch or make a huge deal about it.
,
,
,
,