Aba found multiaccounting - his statement - Page 4

On August 27 2008 10:37 greenbastard wrote: Brian has showed a bit of poor judgement, but then again, which reg at 100-200 and above havent had multiple accounts at one point or another? For example, from what ive understood, Patrik Antonius has had more accounts than Paris Hilton has had pairs of shoes... Not defendig his actions though, but BT has done enough for me and prbly for you too, so forgiving him wont be the hardest thing ever.

On August 27 2008 16:36 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 15:17 MaidenFan wrote:   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?

I certainly agree with you that online vs live are two very different games. The point I was trying to make was regarding the availability of information. If players have the right to gather information indiscriminately using computer programs, do they also reserve the right to block others from gathering such information? If yes, then how far can they go? Also, on the one hand, stars allows people to use PT and HUDs but they've recently blocked sharkscope from being accessed while the client is active. Isn't that a double standard on their part, revealing perhaps that they would prefer people to play w/o such tools? (Keeping in mind of course, that you can block people from accessing your sharkscope information but you have no such ability when it comes to PT.)

While your point that most of the top players don't use these programs is a valid one, I wrote my post in the general sense with all poker levels in mind. Yes, poker maybe versatile enough to evolve along with tools such as PT, but after all this is a game of information. Internet poker is still a young game and the rules of information gathering are still being established. It's up to us as players and customers of the poker sites to drive the change of rules. That change obviously begins with discussions such as this one.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, in order to answer whether BT behaved ethically or unethically, we must first come to a consensus on how much information can be gathered, and to what degree can individuals block such information gathering.

Also, just to be clear. I'm currently of the opinion that using PT and HUDs is perfectly fine, and what BT did is also perfectly acceptable. However, these opinions are not set in stone, but I've yet to see a clear argument as to why what BT did was unethical. Because it's against the TOS doesn't really cut it for me. Just like it's against the law to smoke marijuana but it's certainly not unethical to do so.

On August 27 2008 13:46 TalentedTom wrote: I think sites should allow people to change screen - names every 6 months or so

what would you change yours to?

On August 27 2008 18:53 Roald wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 13:46 TalentedTom wrote: I think sites should allow people to change screen - names every 6 months or so what would you change yours to?

ABeautifulMind

wtf is online poker for anyway if smurfing is not allowed?

On August 27 2008 17:22 Hjorturkall wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 16:53 Ket wrote:   On August 27 2008 16:21 Baal wrote:   On August 27 2008 16:11 Ket wrote:   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.

solid post Hjort. Your post is exactly the sort of discussion i wanted to generate and you raised some good points. Your rhetorical questions in second paragraph clearly show why dealing with these ethics subjectively and on the fly in a case by case basis is messy at best. But I'm glad you also agree that specifically in the Guy case having a double standard can be for the greater good. I agree that a system that allows for a standardised set of rules that applies to everyone and is without any exception for the greater good would be the absolute ideal. But clearly the current TOC is not the ideal system because of the Guy case, and as youve pointed out it can't ever be an ideal system even with double standards at their discretion because they clearly can't be handled in a way that makes everyone happy. There'll always be controversy with the status quo. So I arrive on the same conclusion as you for what the best solution would be for a system that works best and enforces one set of rules for all, and that's the same conclusion PartyPoker arrived on and implemented a few years ago where everyone can change screen names every 6 months. I believe this is the best thing the major sites can do now to address this issue.

Also about his apology I understand why it makes total sense that it may not be very 'genuine' to be admitting and apologising for what he did after he's already been caught. But what I think people are mistakenly inferring from this is that he's then putting out his 'fake' apology purely to try and salvage his tarnished image for his own sake. Although theres probably a clear element of this, I believe there's also at least a small part of him that recognises he wronged other players and is geniunely sorry. But this irrelevance aside, the most important motive for his apology that people seem to be completely overlooking is this: if he didn't make the official apology statement he did, he would be committing professional suicide. For him it was never an option whether to officially apologise or not in the first place, he's just doing what he has to do regardless of if he truly means it or not.

But yeah the real question in your mind is also the real question of this thread and to discuss ethics. What he did is far worse than say berating players in chat but not nearly as bad as say colluding. It's wrong but the fact so many others have done it and it's just an accepted inevitable part of the online poker landscape and others have gotten away with it scot free at least puts it in the grey area though it is definitely on the darker side of grey and it's definitely especially worse (imo) coming from an ambassador of full tilt poker and online poker in general to be doing such things than say for durrr or larsluzak who have no such ties or positions of responsibility. But exactly how bad it is and what appropriate punishment is is definitely an extremely tough question and I'm glad you recognised it's the real question in your mind because as i said it was the real purpose of this thread to discuss as far as I am concerned.

On August 27 2008 18:47 MaidenFan wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 16:36 Ket wrote:   On August 27 2008 15:17 MaidenFan wrote:   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? I certainly agree with you that online vs live are two very different games. The point I was trying to make was regarding the availability of information. If players have the right to gather information indiscriminately using computer programs, do they also reserve the right to block others from gathering such information? If yes, then how far can they go? Also, on the one hand, stars allows people to use PT and HUDs but they've recently blocked sharkscope from being accessed while the client is active. Isn't that a double standard on their part, revealing perhaps that they would prefer people to play w/o such tools? (Keeping in mind of course, that you can block people from accessing your sharkscope information but you have no such ability when it comes to PT.) While your point that most of the top players don't use these programs is a valid one, I wrote my post in the general sense with all poker levels in mind. Yes, poker maybe versatile enough to evolve along with tools such as PT, but after all this is a game of information. Internet poker is still a young game and the rules of information gathering are still being established. It's up to us as players and customers of the poker sites to drive the change of rules. That change obviously begins with discussions such as this one. Basically what I'm trying to say is, in order to answer whether BT behaved ethically or unethically, we must first come to a consensus on how much information can be gathered, and to what degree can individuals block such information gathering.

Stars are actually very clear and consistent in their rules about these things so lets do the same and not cause any misunderstandings.

Read this page thoroughly: http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/prohibited/

Cliff notes: PT is ok because it's your own hands you played at the table you're keeping on your personal database. Using illegal progs to datamine is not ok because you're building databases of observed hands that aren't your own play. Sharkscope is not ok because it's an online database of other peoples' sng results

sounds like the 6 month loss of red pro status isnt even a punishment

this is pretty bad when its done by anyone
ffs can we get some fucking good news about online poker for once

On August 27 2008 19:15 ggplz wrote: sounds like the 6 month loss of red pro status isnt even a punishment this is pretty bad when its done by anyone ffs can we get some fucking good news about online poker for once

that's 6 months of 0% RB when he usually gets 100%

On August 27 2008 19:15 ggplz wrote: sounds like the 6 month loss of red pro status isnt even a punishment this is pretty bad when its done by anyone ffs can we get some fucking good news about online poker for once

no news is good news. actually the fact that these are the worst sorts of things that happen that make a huge stir and they don't happen that often shows just how much infinitely better and cleaner the online poker environment today is than how poker traditionally used to be before the mainstream revolution, and still is to an extent more in the live poker scene: full of degenerate scumbags and all sorts of angle shooting, card marking, deck rigging, and countless stories of straight up cheating to rob people. For example listen to Sammy Farha's appearance on the 2+2 PokerCast when he talked about how he was cheated in the 80s in the homegame of someone whos a well known high profile old-school player today (whos identity he wouldn't tell) by the guy having mirrors set up to see his cards. Decades before that Doyle and his gang were getting mugged or held at gunpoint in and after poker games for all their cash on a regular basis, and playing with criminals and mafia members all the time. For the most part online poker is 1000000x a better purer environment for enjoying this great game than anything else that has ever existed in the history of poker. It's easy to focus on the negatives but let's not forget just what a great thing we have and how some exceptional poker sites with total integrity such as PokerStars and Full Tilt make this possible for us.

On August 27 2008 19:21 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 19:15 ggplz wrote: sounds like the 6 month loss of red pro status isnt even a punishment this is pretty bad when its done by anyone ffs can we get some fucking good news about online poker for once that's 6 months of 0% RB when he usually gets 100%

who cares its like nothing at those stakes or at least thats how i'd imagine someone playing those stakes would look at it

imo poker will never have "good" news.

i just wrote a ton explaining why there will never be 'good' news, but it sounded really depressing, so i just deleted it. just take my word for it

On August 27 2008 19:23 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 19:15 ggplz wrote: sounds like the 6 month loss of red pro status isnt even a punishment this is pretty bad when its done by anyone ffs can we get some fucking good news about online poker for once no news is good news. actually the fact that these are the worst sorts of things that happen that make a huge stir and they don't happen that often shows just how much infinitely better and cleaner the online poker environment today is than how poker traditionally used to be before the mainstream revolution, and still is to an extent more in the live poker scene: full of degenerate scumbags and all sorts of angle shooting, card marking, deck rigging, and countless stories of straight up cheating to rob people. For example listen to Sammy Farha's appearance on the 2+2 PokerCast when he talked about how he was cheated in the 80s in the homegame of someone whos a well known high profile old-school player today (whos identity he wouldn't tell) by the guy having mirrors set up to see his cards. Decades before that Doyle and his gang were getting mugged or held at gunpoint in and after poker games for all their cash on a regular basis, and playing with criminals and mafia members all the time. For the most part online poker is 1000000x a better purer environment for enjoying this great game than anything else that has ever existed in the history of poker. It's easy to focus on the negatives but let's not forget just what a great thing we have and how some exceptional poker sites with total integrity such as PokerStars and Full Tilt make this possible for us.

what u said is true but seriously it just seems like theres NEVER any good news about online poker these days:
- Sites are going down & not refunding players
- Players who represent sites are fucking up (seriously, when did moneymaker/greg raymer or anyone who represents worth shit fuck up to the extent that people wouldnt be as attracted to play?)
- People constantly creating/swapping into new names (worst cases being at high stakes but does occur at midstakes & lowstakes too somewhat)
- Sites revealing massive superuser cheating scandals
- Cardrunners/coaching sites fast-forwarding people and not letting them get hustled for the most possible over long long periods


These are just some of the little things that are niggling away at this game and making it less appealing to fresh blood and inevitably going to kill it completely when u just cannot trust anything or anyone out there..

All of this shit combined is making the tables tougher than ever.

If any of you final table and win a big tournament please make it your fucking duty to attract as many fish as possible to the game. Make it sound really fairy tale like, go to events, do whatever u can to promote poker and keep the money flowing.

Last week or something we had Scotty Nguyen totally ruin the appeal to how many players at the 50k horse event? Hundreds? Thousands? Remember once u get 1 person into poker & they like it, it will spread amongst their group of friends most likely.

I dont care about YOUR action and neither should u, care about EVERYONES action.

--- Nuked ---

i see why it's wrong, but i don't have too much of a problem with it. the reason i'm nonchalant about it is because so many guys do it and it's just something about online poker that we have to accept. it's just too hard to pretend. you can't pretend to be someone at a brick and mortar obviously, but online you can create new accounts or just play on friends and family and nobody will ever know. that comes with the anonymity of the internet.

On August 27 2008 22:32 jkpickett wrote: i see why it's wrong, but i don't have too much of a problem with it. the reason i'm nonchalant about it is because so many guys do it and it's just something about online poker that we have to accept. it's just too hard to pretend. you can't pretend to be someone at a brick and mortar obviously, but online you can create new accounts or just play on friends and family and nobody will ever know. that comes with the anonymity of the internet.

i think you overestimate how many people do this with the same motives BT had. most people do it on ftp because they want rakeback, or because they dislike their name, or for some other stupid reason. as far as i know, people with multiple account are often quickly caught.

also i think its bs argument to say that if everyone does it, its cool, just accept it. just because you play poker doesn't mean you cant have a high standard of morals, decency, or honesty. people have been using the fact that poker is a deceitful game as an excuse far too long to break some fairly common moral boundaries that have been set in the poker community.

On August 27 2008 21:10 devon06atX wrote: hope all these video-instructional websites crash and burn

qft, except for lpers

GGplz you seem to seriously overestimate the amount of news that is actually reaching the ears of fish. All they hear about is how poker is booming and how fun it is. They aren't exactly hanging around on niche poker sites trying to become grinders. They load up a bit of money and play for fun. People who are playing for fun generally don't care too much about what happens with the money. The fresh blood will always be there as long as the advertising dollars keep getting spent.

On August 27 2008 22:46 Bigbobm wrote: some fairly common moral boundaries that have been set in the poker community.

this is very much a grey area though. i wouldn't say this is a common moral boundary by any means. if he was multitabling tournaments like zeejustin i would agree 100%, but townsend only did it for anonymity and i personally see nothing wrong with it. just my humble opinion though and apparently i'm in the minority here (per usual)