Aba found multiaccounting - his statement

Quoted from his blog on CardRunners:

My Apology
+ Show Spoiler +

I made a thread here because it's a pretty big event in the online poker world and worth some discussion as it's a controversial topic that raises many issues. Thoughts? I'll post mine later

Age 5: Superman
Age 12: Michael Jordan
Age 20: Haile Gebreselassie
Age 25: Aba20

This is the chronology of who were my heroes. It wasn't so much what aba did that makes me regret adding him to the list, but why he did it.

Pretty well played apology imo, I dont think hes going to get alot of shit for this.

Personally, I dont think this is a huge deal considering he used the accounts to play lower than his normal games(?) but its still a very stupid thing to do and it seems like he realizes this.

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.

i still <3 aba

weird moral to ban him and not PA tbh

I see nothing wrong with having a different acct or name u play under as long as he didn't collude/cheat/abuse/etc so insta forgive

Not a big deal imo ???

But I am not knowledgeable about this sort of thing...

He seems cool.

On August 27 2008 10:42 tloapc wrote: I see nothing wrong with having a different acct or name u play under as long as he didn't collude/cheat/abuse/etc so insta forgive

So he was ashamed that he had to play lower and he smurfed on it?

Dunno doesn't seem that bad to me. Still think he should've told his friends though.

i dont get why all people jump on him and ignore when Patrick or Benyamine or Durrr or any other high stakes player have done the same in the past.

On August 27 2008 10:42 tloapc wrote: I see nothing wrong with having a different acct or name u play under as long as he didn't collude/cheat/abuse/etc so insta forgive

main things to note surrounding the issue:

- using secret accounts is a way to gain a very significant "unfair" advantage at high stakes where the pool of regulars is small and elite against ones opponents and also can 'trick' people into playing you when they otherwise wouldn't if they "knew who you were" (inverted commas for unfair because there is no set universally-agreed upon definition of online poker ethics and this is a grey area).

- (re: sakisaki) he IS getting a LOT of shit for this and has inherited the generic label of 'cheater' from many. Though many other notable online players are known to have multiaccounted in the past and the public outcry against them was not nearly as severe. Examples: Lars Luzak (LarsLuzak, Tie53, present etcetc) having a double figure number accounts on full tilt and publically admitting this in chat. Patrik Antonius having had secret accounts for years and even explained in interviews posted on the web why he does it and how it gives him an advantage and gets him more action (more recently it has been announced by full tilt that they've 'told him to stop doing it' now that he's on team full tilt), David Benyamine playing on a bunch of accounts, Urindanger/trex bros (I even unwittingly gave one of their accounts a bunch of 50/100nl hu action last year not knowing it was them), and Barry Greenstein himself has publically talked several times in the past year about how he and his notable live pro friends such as the late Chip Reese were playing on several secret accounts online and doing well, and that it's just a part of online poker. Guy Laliberte the owner of Cirque du Soleil, billionaire and recreational poker player has several accounts he plays on ftp nosebleed stakes with though there's a commonly accepted double standard that it's perfectly fine for the 'fish' to have several accounts.

- Does he deserve to be treated differently to many other multiaccounters because he's a great player? Or because of his greater position of responsibility than most high stakes secret account users, to be a full tilt pro and lead cardrunners pro? is it even wrong to multiaccount when so many do it? Wouldn't you just be levelling the playing field against the other 'cheaters'? Since it's very hard for poker sites to enforce their TOC rule about not changing accounts should the major sites (Stars/FTP) just scrap it and allow account changes every few months like you can on party? Or every week like you can on Cake? While that's not the case right now probably most regulars do not use secret accounts and play only on their one account. Is it their own fault for being at a disadvantage? Is it the sites' fault for not taking proper measures to make it harder to have other accounts? Or not properly punishing most of the ones already now known not to have done it? Or is it the multiaccounters' fault for cheating and getting an unfair advantage by breaking rules that a lot of their opponents adhere to. Should BT have gotten the punishment he got from FTP? Is it okay to crucify him in order to make an example out of him to discourage future potential multiaccounters (like what was done to ZeeJustin for playing several accounts in the same MTT - different to the issue here)? Do you think this diminishes his respect in your eyes? If so do you feel the same about PA, durrr, benyamine, Guy, etc etc? If not what do you personally think makes it different for different people whether its 'right or wrong'? So on and so on, tons of questions trying to make black or white out of the grey area.

On August 27 2008 10:42 tloapc wrote: I see nothing wrong with having a different acct or name u play under as long as he didn't collude/cheat/abuse/etc so insta forgive

you are crazy and clueless if you see nothing wrong. a lot of people will have lost a lot of money to him that they would not have lost had they known it was Brian Townsend on those accounts, either through playing vs him differently bearing past history in mind or not playing him at all. it's definitely wrong, it's a question of how wrong and how punishable

Well, at least he knows how to say sorry.

Nguyen's appology about his shitty acting on HORSE $50k ft was a joke compared to that.

aba using new accounts has been fairly common knowledge for a while now, this is just the first time hes confirmed it.

Kinda lol since hes a 'bigger' name and has CR ties that FTP only suspend him for 6months, but Little got removed permanently

On August 27 2008 10:51 Baal wrote: i dont get why all people jump on him and ignore when Patrick or Benyamine or Durrr or any other high stakes player have done the same in the past.

yep this is definitely the biggest issue. clearly there's no set ethical code and both the community and poker sites are making it up as they go along with their thoughts on the issues at the time of them happening. This gives rise to inevitable inconsistencies and hypocricies. One possible 'difference' between BT and patrik+durrr as i said before is that they weren't affilated with any sites at the time they were doing it (durrr still isn't) so they have less of a responsibility to represent the site and lead by example in following its rules. Then again, I'm pretty sure DB was a red pro when he was using tons of different accounts and the fact ftp took no action against him is very puzzling? Maybe it's different depending on how important you are to ftp what you're allowed to get away with? DB is a high profile household-name pro whereas less people will be familiar with BT so DB gets off lighter than BT? Wasn't there some young online mtt player who had a couple decent luckboxed live tourny results and managed to become a red pro then got found just playing mtts on stars when his contract said he can only play ftp, and he just got straight up fired from red status? Who was that again? Clearly compared to BT and DB he was a total nobody so he just gets insta-booted for a much less severe infraction?

On August 27 2008 11:11 TwistedEcho wrote: aba using new accounts has been fairly common knowledge for a while now, this is just the first time hes confirmed it. Kinda lol since hes a 'bigger' name and has CR ties that FTP only suspend him for 6months, but Little got removed permanently

What little did was different -- he got friends to play on his account when he wasnt available to play so they could get 100% free rakeback and also make the hourly wage that these ftp pros get. I am pretty sure this is why little got removed. =

well i think there is something wrong with this. i dont think its THAT bad relatively, and i do not think the ppl who have done this in the past got nearly the rep hes getting for this, which isnt fair @ all.

that said, i still respect him for coming forward and giving a solid apology. gl to him!

Im not gonna argue about what he did and if it was good or bad since I think its besides the point. As long as he is treated like everyone else I dont see a problem, I dont know what the standard punishment but he should get it. I wouldnt be surprised if he doesnt get it tho, since thats how thing go.

On August 27 2008 11:17 KrappyKonnect wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 11:11 TwistedEcho wrote: aba using new accounts has been fairly common knowledge for a while now, this is just the first time hes confirmed it. Kinda lol since hes a 'bigger' name and has CR ties that FTP only suspend him for 6months, but Little got removed permanently What little did was different -- he got friends to play on his account when he wasnt available to play so they could get 100% free rakeback and also make the hourly wage that these ftp pros get. I am pretty sure this is why little got removed. =

yes i know what little did. I just wonder if it was someone like PearlJammer who made new accounts to play tournaments and got caught, if they'd bother with a 6months ban, or just kick him off (since no one would care really)

[B]On August 27 2008 11:21 shaneomac wrote:[/B that said, i still respect him for coming forward and giving a solid apology. gl to him!

pretty much everyone knew his second account on FTP, doesn't really take all that much to 'come forward' and admit to something people know you've done.

On August 27 2008 11:01 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 10:42 tloapc wrote: I see nothing wrong with having a different acct or name u play under as long as he didn't collude/cheat/abuse/etc so insta forgive you are crazy and clueless if you see nothing wrong. a lot of people will have lost a lot of money to him that they would not have lost had they known it was Brian Townsend on those accounts, either through playing vs him differently bearing past history in mind or not playing him at all. it's definitely wrong, it's a question of how wrong and how punishable

ok, better said would be..
I think everyone should be able to change the handle that shows on their account

*edit*
this isn't just a dumb retort, I think it's worth saying as this plan of action would solve the problem and bitching as everyone would have to adapt and adjust

lol i'm like really out of the loop or clueless, aba20 is brian townsend? what about sbrugby

>.<

On August 27 2008 11:44 rockman255 wrote: lol i'm like really out of the loop or clueless, aba20 is brian townsend? what about sbrugby >.<

They are all the same. He used the nick Sbrugby on FTP before he became a red pro, and aba20 on stars for example.

On August 27 2008 11:01 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2008 10:42 tloapc wrote: I see nothing wrong with having a different acct or name u play under as long as he didn't collude/cheat/abuse/etc so insta forgive you are crazy and clueless if you see nothing wrong. a lot of people will have lost a lot of money to him that they would not have lost had they known it was Brian Townsend on those accounts, either through playing vs him differently bearing past history in mind or not playing him at all. it's definitely wrong, it's a question of how wrong and how punishable

I think theres room for debate on whether its wrong at all, in that we can't assume that we as online poker players should inherently have the right to know who we're playing. Most of the fish that play against us don't know anything about us. In fact if everyone knew how good everyone else was before the game started then not alot of poker would take place.

ya I didn't want to get into that debate to be honest so just tried to solve the problem ^^

the part where this all gets out of hand, is when low stakes people like me, and 99% of the other people on the forums, start judging people like him, for their actions, when they have no clue what its like at the higher stakes, and what different "shady" things do to the game or how common they are..

thats how a buncha brainless wanna b poker players jump on the "cheater" bandwagon and go fuckin nuts destroying someones rep

his apology was good, and hes a good guy, but as far as what should be done, if anything.. i duno/care!

On August 27 2008 11:55 tloapc wrote: ya I didn't want to get into that debate to be honest so just tried to solve the problem ^^

i made this thread because the only worth it has is discussing that debate

didnt think it was that big of a deal to multi account, felt like smurfing like on broodwar to me

fuck his 'HONESTY', obv he only 'admitted' it because it was already known by some
fuck respecting his apology, so what we should respect someone's ego problem with not being able to play lower than the highest stakes running?
what a pathetic piece of shit

at least for me, it's not what you do but WHY and/or HOW you do it.. everything is relative

This is irrelevant to me until it affects me. Then i´ll be outraged.

On August 27 2008 12:31 True wrote: This is irrelevant to me until it affects me. Then i´ll be outraged.

It has affected me a ton and i'm not too upset. It took me about 20 minutes to realize makersmark66 was a smart thinking player, definitely a pro (thought he was from a euro site) and adjust accordingly. I also realized very quickly that he was good at readjusting to my adjustments, and we played each other probably very similar to how we would if he were on his aba20 account. With that said Brian and I didn't really have TOO much history prior to this.

Guy Laliberte the owner of Cirque du Soleil, billionaire and recreational poker player has several accounts he plays on ftp nosebleed stakes with though there's a commonly accepted double standard that it's perfectly fine for the 'fish' to have several accounts.

if anything, this is what tilts me the most about this issue. how hypocritical can an entire society be? both of them multiaccount with the same motives. how is it possible that for over a year now, anyone following high stakes poker in the least bit knows about every one of Guy's accounts, yet nothing is said. while on the other hand, someone mentions that brian might be multi accounting in chat and the entire community breaks out in uproar and calls him a cheater. do you think its ok for people to collude as long as they are terrible at it? can they multi account tournaments if they have horrible rois?

i obviously realize why guy has been able to actively do this, but it just irritates me when someone can so quickly jump out and call Brain a cheater when they obviously don't understand how hypocritical they sound. .

lol maybe give money back to people who lost it to his 2nd account and not some silly 25k to charity --; i hate cheating in any form, black is black, dont bring this grey stuff shit

On August 27 2008 12:14 Fayth wrote: didnt think it was that big of a deal to multi account, felt like smurfing like on broodwar to me

money wasnt involved in sc -- and if it was it was always clearly stated in rules if you can smurf or not

On August 27 2008 12:56 Bigbobm wrote: Show nested quote + Guy Laliberte the owner of Cirque du Soleil, billionaire and recreational poker player has several accounts he plays on ftp nosebleed stakes with though there's a commonly accepted double standard that it's perfectly fine for the 'fish' to have several accounts. if anything, this is what tilts me the most about this issue. how hypocritical can an entire society be? both of them multiaccount with the same motives. how is it possible that for over a year now, anyone following high stakes poker in the least bit knows about every one of Guy's accounts, yet nothing is said. while on the other hand, someone mentions that brian might be multi accounting in chat and the entire community breaks out in uproar and calls him a cheater. do you think its ok for people to collude as long as they are terrible at it? can they multi account tournaments if they have horrible rois? i obviously realize why guy has been able to actively do this, but it just irritates me when someone can so quickly jump out and call Brain a cheater when they obviously don't understand how hypocritical they sound. .

this

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?

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.

On August 27 2008 11:33 TwistedEcho wrote: Show nested quote + [B]On August 27 2008 11:21 shaneomac wrote:[/B that said, i still respect him for coming forward and giving a solid apology. gl to him! pretty much everyone knew his second account on FTP, doesn't really take all that much to 'come forward' and admit to something people know you've done.

i had posted that before page refreshed. i wasnt aware his alias was so well known.

and fwiw, after like a week everyone would be using the Bigbobm11 as their name because hes terrifying to play aganist

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.

I think sites should allow people to change screen - names every 6 months or so

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.

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.

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.

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 16:11 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

On August 27 2008 16:04 tomson wrote:

this is great on many levels

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

cant really multi-account on stars or u say goodbye to all the supernova benefits :[

just curious - how did he get caught?

On August 27 2008 16:38 lachlan wrote: cant really multi-account on stars or u say goodbye to all the supernova benefits :[

i dont think someone who does it to play nosebleed stakes would care about any supernova benefits

On August 27 2008 16:21 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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?

On August 27 2008 16:39 SneakrFreakr wrote: just curious - how did he get caught?

Samh133 leaked it in the public chat on a ftp table to durrr and genius, and then it got posted on 2+2 nearly a month ago here http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=238353

How samh or anyone found out is up for speculation but this is how it became a big controversy that caused public outrage.

On August 27 2008 16:53 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

On August 27 2008 16:53 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + 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?

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.

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)

lolol scum suckers have been doing this for a long time now everywhere

why so serious brian

-rekrul

you did it too rekrul

obviously i did, in the online greedy poker world one must fight fire with fire

On August 28 2008 00:38 [vital]Myth wrote: obviously i did, in the online greedy poker world one must fight fire with fire

or you could just call them pathetic faggots and take their money

jeah with a shotgun obv

On August 27 2008 23:01 [vital]Myth wrote: lolol scum suckers have been doing this for a long time now everywhere why so serious brian -rekrul

On August 28 2008 00:36 CrownRoyal wrote: you did it too rekrul

On August 28 2008 00:38 [vital]Myth wrote: obviously i did, in the online greedy poker world one must fight fire with fire

What a line of bullshit. :D

To compensate those that were hurt by my actions I am going to be donating 25,000 dollars to a charity to be determined in the future.

lolzers

So im assuming you never played a single time smurfing somebody who didnt smurf you previously did you Rekrul? if not... lol.

someone like rekruls motivation for smurfing is nothing to do with whatever youre talking baal. correct me if im wrong but rekrul smurfs to get action from people whod be too scared of the REKRUL name by reputation even many who have never even played him before themselves. on a secret account he can get action. which is the exact same reason why antonius has a long history of constantly smurfing and changing accounts over many years, not just on ftp.

On August 28 2008 09:02 Ket wrote: someone like rekruls motivation for smurfing is nothing to do with whatever youre talking baal. correct me if im wrong but rekrul smurfs to get action from people whod be too scared of the REKRUL name by reputation even many who have never even played him before themselves. on a secret account he can get action. which is the exact same reason why antonius has a long history of constantly smurfing and changing accounts over many years, not just on ftp.

i never said his motivations were the same as brian's i were saying that based on his comment: "lolol scum suckers have been doing this for a long time now everywhere", calling smurfers scum suckers, when he was confronted about him doing the same he said he battle fire with fire, meaning he smurfed smurfers, if he ever smurfed a non-smurfer that would rander a scum sucker and a hypocrite.

On August 28 2008 09:05 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2008 09:02 Ket wrote: someone like rekruls motivation for smurfing is nothing to do with whatever youre talking baal. correct me if im wrong but rekrul smurfs to get action from people whod be too scared of the REKRUL name by reputation even many who have never even played him before themselves. on a secret account he can get action. which is the exact same reason why antonius has a long history of constantly smurfing and changing accounts over many years, not just on ftp. i never said his motivations were the same as brian's i were saying that based on his comment: "lolol scum suckers have been doing this for a long time now everywhere", calling smurfers scum suckers, when he was confronted about him doing the same he said he battle fire with fire, meaning he smurfed smurfers, if he ever smurfed a non-smurfer that would rander a scum sucker and a hypocrite.

no?

I believe this is wrong. But since this has been done many other times before I think other pros shouldn’t be pissed at all. (Like northface said that he isn’t)
This law has been broken so many times by so many people that its basically its now a law anymore.

On the other hand I believe that this is a good opportunity for Websites to use this guy as a scapegoat to bring the law back in strong action. And inject some regulations into the online poker world.

On Guy I have to say that if u have over $1bil then the laws basically dont apply to you! I think he should be allowed to do whatever da damn he wants cause he IS helping the online poker in MANY MANY ways.

I find it laughable that people draw the line at multiaccounting being OK for losing players but a form of cheating for winning ones. It's a pretty transparent way of saying "it's cheating if it could cost me some money". If you guys are trying to position the rules solely as to benefit your own wallets, at least have enough decency to admit you are being hypocrites rather than getting all high and mighty and saying cheating is wrong, especially considering how many high stakes players have used multiple accounts. What's most amusing, is that some of you at least, have deluded yourselves into believing your own arguments. There should be no double standard dictated by players who are directly served by it.

i think u guys take reks post to serious, reality is he was prolly rly rly drunk anyways and just felt like typing something.

On August 28 2008 09:24 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2008 09:05 Baal wrote:   On August 28 2008 09:02 Ket wrote: someone like rekruls motivation for smurfing is nothing to do with whatever youre talking baal. correct me if im wrong but rekrul smurfs to get action from people whod be too scared of the REKRUL name by reputation even many who have never even played him before themselves. on a secret account he can get action. which is the exact same reason why antonius has a long history of constantly smurfing and changing accounts over many years, not just on ftp. i never said his motivations were the same as brian's i were saying that based on his comment: "lolol scum suckers have been doing this for a long time now everywhere", calling smurfers scum suckers, when he was confronted about him doing the same he said he battle fire with fire, meaning he smurfed smurfers, if he ever smurfed a non-smurfer that would rander a scum sucker and a hypocrite. no?

well tough and elaborate post, congratulations.

On August 28 2008 10:29 phexac wrote: I find it laughable that people draw the line at multiaccounting being OK for losing players but a form of cheating for winning ones. It's a pretty transparent way of saying "it's cheating if it could cost me some money". If you guys are trying to position the rules solely as to benefit your own wallets, at least have enough decency to admit you are being hypocrites rather than getting all high and mighty and saying cheating is wrong, especially considering how many high stakes players have used multiple accounts. What's most amusing, is that some of you at least, have deluded yourselves into believing your own arguments. There should be no double standard dictated by players who are directly served by it.

dont get me wrong the hs reg community know its still wrong what guy's doing and against the rules but they're just prepared to allow it because he's the fish. same reason as why nobody tells hellmuth to stfu with his disrespectful retarded antics when hes playing in cashgames, because they wanna keep him happy and keep him playing because he loses so much to them. youre trying to put a spin on it with clever wording which makes it seem terrible. it's just what happens in poker and something else poker pros do to help them get the best results

On August 28 2008 09:31 capaneo wrote: I believe this is wrong. But since this has been done many other times before I think other pros shouldn’t be pissed at all. (Like northface said that he isn’t) This law has been broken so many times by so many people that its basically its now a law anymore. On the other hand I believe that this is a good opportunity for Websites to use this guy as a scapegoat to bring the law back in strong action. And inject some regulations into the online poker world. On Guy I have to say that if u have over $1bil then the laws basically dont apply to you! I think he should be allowed to do whatever da damn he wants cause he IS helping the online poker in MANY MANY ways.

my personal opinion is exactly the same as everything here

u know how many bumhunting faggots there are that sit at hu tables all day every day and will only play vs terrible fish (that also change their IDs all the time)?

its really pathetic and no way around these idiot nitty regular fish than to smurf them and take all the bum hunted money they've earned

and the whole issue is just too much of a gray area...what about making different id's from site to site and playing against other people with the same id on every site...etc etc...it can't be controlled...

i really hated ppl that did this for a loooooooong time and never did it myself but now its past the point of return and all sorts of players do it, plus fuck the bumhunters...so fuck them all

fwiw i let my friends know so don't worry buddies

-rekrul

i've had people refuse to play rekrul id, they i come back 30 mins later with a smurf id and after 30 mins when i'm up 10 buyins they call me the luckiest fish idiot alive and vow they will play me every day of my life if i want

LOL

On August 28 2008 11:49 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2008 09:31 capaneo wrote: I believe this is wrong. But since this has been done many other times before I think other pros shouldn’t be pissed at all. (Like northface said that he isn’t) This law has been broken so many times by so many people that its basically its now a law anymore. On the other hand I believe that this is a good opportunity for Websites to use this guy as a scapegoat to bring the law back in strong action. And inject some regulations into the online poker world. On Guy I have to say that if u have over $1bil then the laws basically dont apply to you! I think he should be allowed to do whatever da damn he wants cause he IS helping the online poker in MANY MANY ways. my personal opinion is exactly the same as everything here

TY sir!

man if these cowards are afraid to play you heads up, there are other ways to go about it other than smurfing

just talk insane amounts of shit to them until they get so tilted that they play with you, or just sit in at every one of their tables until they leave. people can take being ego bashed for only so long. everyone breaks in at some point.

you don't understand the bumhunters, bigbobm

just break out with yo momma jokes

at least one has to have a fat/ugly mom that gets made fun of all the time

Well there are some sick nits who really dont fall in those games ever... but well Rek is the king of bashing so it would be interesting to see what happens when an unmovable objects meets an unstoppable force.

On August 28 2008 19:11 RaSZi wrote: yawn who cares next

Just got to page 3 and have to go out just saying - I really like the idea of choosing your handle as you log into the poker client - there'd be so much more action from random crappy regs Not only that to be honest but it would actually make the game much more 'fair' imo

eh i think a new handle every time is excessive and takes away a very interesting and important part of the game, when you start having a lot of history with people youve played with. new handle every 6 months seem perfect. how surprising that of all the amazing sites out there it was partypoker, the one that otherwise didnt give a crap about anything but getting more customers, to have come up with it

I agree that that would definately be an improvement Ket - however it says on my name AlcateL00 (Brentwood) Therefore when I come back with another name and (Brentwood) in brackets then its not going to take long for people to work out who I am (maybe 30 seconds for the particularly slow people).

And I agree that it is excessive and takes an interesting part of the game away, however it would completely eradicate these 'bum hunters' who to me are one of the biggest problems with the online heads up tables at the moment, because basically theres so many people (as you know) who will sit on tables for 3-6 right the way up until 25-50(at the same time, so 4 stake ranges from 600-5000), but wont play anyone who knows how to even spell poker and who isn't sitting there drooling all over themselves and their computer screen. Its a huge range of stakes but they're only playing the bottom 20% of players who join their tables and its just pretty lame, almost like stealing in some ways, because they're not willing to play someone whose half decent. Someone earlier suggested sitting at all their tables, insulting them etc. Now I've never tried this because I can see what their mind thinks like and it'd be a complete waste of time. I've joined these peoples tables when they don't know who I am and sometimes they'll sit out after you fold 3 big blinds in a row to them because you're not playing every hand out of position thats it you're 'too good'.

Obviously its not such a problem for 6 max tables and w/e in some ways people knowing you name helps because some other regulars are just there hunting fish and staying out of your way for the most part, but once again that'd make the game more 'fair', so when 3 regs are sitting on a table playing and a person joins they'll not know immediately if he's likely to be a strong player or not (ie if you don't recognise the name at 25/50 and in many cases 10/20 the chances are much more likely for them to be a weaker player).

Because these 'bum hunters' (I hate that term it sounds so American) are literally taking money from the fish and not playing anyone and just stealing money from the poker community I think it'd be great if they were removed .

Can you imagine how much more action there'd be for everyone, yeah occasionally you'd have to play someone tough but how much more fun would it be (esp for hu players =p)

x-post

Originally Posted by Rekrul
Such is my life. I sit on 15 tables alone trying to bumhunt a bunch of horrible little fishies hunched over my computer screen waiting with drool pouring out of my mouth jerking off to japanese porn calling up my fat little friends to brag about how balling out of control I am while I blog about my monthly profits then say NA NOT RIGHT NOW when someone that might be better than me tries to play me. Then I continue to wait while tellin that guy I just denied how good he is and respect him then I get back to my daily activities jerk off another time then upload the pics from my previous night where I was wearing a piss stained t-shirt out at the bar with my white homeboys throwing up gangster gang signs hitting on ugly fat bitches (yeah I banged one for 200 ship it playa playa u ma boi) with my phat ass bling bling necklace that matches my ****ing braces. Hell Yeah I'm blingin. Just bought this new sick diamond studded rolex too I'm one of the best online players now when I play live I let everyone know just how good I am. Look at me and my phat stax, how dare you get that much money in preflop with 42 suited thats just not enough equity bro where'd you learn how to play? Anyways I'll pass on the KJ offsuit preflop cause I'm probably dominated and I know better. Can't **** with me ballaz. Oh **** I just doubled up and coincidentally my supermodel hot girlfriend just called guys so I gotta go bang her. Playas gotta play BOIS!!! Whats this Townsend playing on multiple ID's? THATS ****ING BLASPHEMY. How dare he abuse the rules like that I lost ****ing 3 buyins to him that one day. You know how many weeks I had to sit there drooling all over myself waiting for some fishies to join to earn those buyins? Well atleast I knew to sit out after 30 minutes of play. I deserve my money back! What a ****ing cheater! If I knew that was you I would have been able to play vs U much better cause I've watched all ur videos on cardrunners, and CTS taught me how to four bet ur ass but I didn't think I had fold equity cuz I thought u were a fish and I was just gunna bum hunt and grind aces until u stack off light with AKo cuz ur just a big dumb fish and only donkies do that ****. O well I'll just buy some more bling and fly to thailand where the womans really want my hot ****. Oh hell yeah bois keep playin playaz.

On August 29 2008 09:24 Ket wrote: eh i think a new handle every time is excessive and takes away a very interesting and important part of the game, when you start having a lot of history with people youve played with. new handle every 6 months seem perfect. how surprising that of all the amazing sites out there it was partypoker, the one that otherwise didnt give a crap about anything but getting more customers, to have come up with it

why should anybody be able to choose handle at all? its not like u can change face in live poker, i mean i can see it if u get bored of ur nick u could make a special request and it should be possible having like a note saying "AKA borntodogbaby" for a couple of months.

lol

as much as it hurts my soul to agree with Baal... i agree with Baal

shmeh i see no problem with it.

On August 29 2008 11:49 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 29 2008 09:24 Ket wrote: eh i think a new handle every time is excessive and takes away a very interesting and important part of the game, when you start having a lot of history with people youve played with. new handle every 6 months seem perfect. how surprising that of all the amazing sites out there it was partypoker, the one that otherwise didnt give a crap about anything but getting more customers, to have come up with it why should anybody be able to choose handle at all? its not like u can change face in live poker, i mean i can see it if u get bored of ur nick u could make a special request and it should be possible having like a note saying "AKA borntodogbaby" for a couple of months.

I'm pretty sure people have tried everything from wearing masks to getting prosthetic surgery to hide their identity in live casinos. Especially the Blackjack card counters but that's obviously a different situation. There is also wearing wigs and big sunglasses .

If it can be made impossible to multi then make it so. If it can't then make it easy. Breakable rules just reward abusers. The 6 month thing still gives an advantage (albeit less of one) to players who ignore it and multiaccount.