Multi-accounting

[psy]

I liked the article, but disagree with Matthew Kagan's conclusion that ethical problems with multi-accounters only arise when the accounts are seated together.

Even if a player never plays at the same table I still see a problem - the problem is one of identification.

Look at Justin Bonomo's last blog entry at his website where he talks about how much of an advantage it was to be an unknown at the high level sit and go's he played in. His opponents didn't realise they were sitting with Justin and therefore made plays vs an unknown opponent that they would not have against ZeeJustin.

This was a clear advantage to Justin Bonomo. He admits as much. He made a lot of money using these anonymous accounts. The terms and conditions of every poker website expressly forbids such activity and therefore this extra money making advantage was gained unfairly. In short, multi-accounting in all it's forms is cheating and unethical.

[betadecay]

There is one other big issue in multi-accounting, regardless of the possibility of collusion(which by the way, in a case like bonomo's was not minimal as kagan suggest). When a pro such as ZJ or JJ buy in multiple times to a tourney, the buy-in of the vast majority of other participants decreases. A common concept to tourneys is that buy-ins vary in value depending on the skill of the player. As an easy example, imagine a 10 person 10 dollar sit and go. 7 equally bad players pay to play. The value of their buy-in will be 10 dollars. Now ZJ buys in as well, the value of everyones buy in is now worth 8 bucks. ZJ buys in again(for simplicity we will avoid the issue of collusion or of ZJ's equity) and now everyone's buy-in is worth 7 bucks. Finally ZJ buys in a third time and everyone's buy in is worth 6 dollars.

When a pro enters multiple entries, he is essentially stealing from every other player that is less skilled then he/she is. Obviously the amounts are small in big tournies, but this should not be used as an excuse to mitigate the fact that it is stealing. It is also important to take into account that this practice is common among several top pros. One zj with 6 accounts in a 2000 person tourney might be small ev stolen from other players, but several pro's running several accounts of their own is not a trivial matter.

Kagan also talks about the ethics of rule breaking. I've said this in other threads regarding cheating. There is a distinct difference between cheating and rule breaking. Cheating involves the act of violating TnC's in a way that takes away EV from oppononents(ie. multiaccounting, collusion, buying hand histories). Other violations such as setting up a second account under different info(a violation) for the sake of changing the gender of your avatar will not result in negative ev for opponents.

The article also did not mention the issue of multi-accounting the SnG's, another common practice at high stakes. This was something ZJ was doing regularly. In both of his posts here at the forums, ZJ stated this was not cheating. I disagree. It violates TnC's and also takes away EV from opponents.

[roundhouse]

Kagan suggests that the chances of two doppelgangers, controlled by the same player, ever being seated at the same table are low. I'm not sure from the tone of the article whether he believes this, but others certainly do. This assertion is simply not true. (I'm too lazy to work through the maths, but others did so succinctly in the long chains on the subject after ZJ was outed.) The chances of them being seated together at some point in the tourney are quite good, especially if the controlling player is good and likely to progress all entries beyond the first rounds. The opportunity for collusion is more likely to occur than most people think.

Sites should continue to disallow multiple entries into the same MTT. We already have a well tried and tested structure to cater for excellent players who wish to maximise their chances by paying more than one buy-in. It's called a re-buy tournament.

The issue of anonymity providing additional EV is, I believe, a separate one. It is less of an issue in MTTs, more so in ring and SNG play. Some sites allow you to legitimately change your online identy with relative frequency. The ethical problem arises because the multi-accounter can effectively changes his/her indentity more frequently than a rule-abinding contempary.

I'd like to see an open and transparent association between poker sites where they pool knowledge about multi-accounters and other cheats. The sites could use some sort of common kite mark indicating that they were supporting fair play. Transgressors would have all their funds confiscated at the site on which they were caught, plus their accounts frozen (allowed to cash out but losing any WSOP entries won etc.) on all other sites signed up to the kite mark.

RH

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
A common concept to tourneys is that buy-ins vary in value depending on the skill of the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Harrington talked about this in a TV interview. He said that a big tournament like the WSOP ME is like a lottery where the average player has one ticket and he and other good players have 4 or 5 tickets due to their skills. If your skills give you a 4-1 edge over an unskilled player, that's poker, and everyone understands that and has the same opportunity to develop those skills. If you multi-account and have an 8-1 edge (4-1 skill edge times 2 seats), that edge does not reflect skill and is not an opportunity available to everyone.


[ QUOTE ]
Other violations such as setting up a second account under different info(a violation) for the sake of changing the gender of your avatar will not result in negative ev for opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Poker is a game of incomplete information. The more information you have, the better your chances to win. As the game is played, all players have equal access to all of the information that is available, but the skills of some players allow them to gain more information than others can, and to make better use of it. The poorer players have access to the information, they just don't know how to see it and use it. Multi-accounting denies information to players who follow the rules. In this case, everyone does not have equal access to the same information.

Both of these points discussed here are based on the same principle: equal opportunity. In the first case, you get one seat. Your skills may make that one seat as valuable as having 5 lottery tickets when the average player has 1 ticket. But everyone just gets one seat, and has the same opportunity to make it worth more than one ticket in the lottery.

In the second case, everyone should get an equal opportunity to access all the information available in the game. If Opponent X and I have information about each other based on previous games, multi-accounting allows X to use his information and does not allow me to use mine. This is not equal opportunity, and is not fair.

[fyodor]

I like this suggestion:

[ QUOTE ]
If two accounts shared by the same player were seated at the same table through the normal seat selection process, the lower-stacked account will instantly be eliminated and his chips removed from play. For example, if I played two accounts, 'mkagan1' and 'mkagan2,' and "we" made the final table as chip leader and chip runner-up respectively, 'mkagan2' would instantly finish 10th. If we experienced very bad luck and were seated together when the tournament began, 'mkagan2' would be eliminated before the first card was dealt.


[/ QUOTE ]

but should the bolded part happen I can already hear the cries of online poker being rigged.

[betadecay]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Other violations such as setting up a second account under different info(a violation) for the sake of changing the gender of your avatar will not result in negative ev for opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Multi-accounting denies information to players who follow the rules. In this case, everyone does not have equal access to the same information.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you are saying and it is the same principle that makes multi-accounting SnG's cheating. However this example was meant to show that some arbitrary violations do not steal EV from other players. Lets change the example and say Sara deposits 50 bucks into a real money account but accidently makes her avatar a guy. She calls support and they say they can not change it and that she can't make a new account either. Lucy cashes out then uses her moms info to make a new account for herself thus violating TnC's. She makes the new account with a female avatar, redopisits 50 bucks, and then continues to play. This does not effect the EV of anyone at the tables despite being a violation of TnC's.

[tipperdog]

Thanks for reading the article and for your thoughtful comments. I sincerely appreciate it.

A few quick thoughts on the points raised in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Kagan suggests that the chances of two doppelgangers, controlled by the same player, ever being seated at the same table are low. I'm not sure from the tone of the article whether he believes this, but others certainly do. This assertion is simply not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the article, I wrote that there was little chance of a 2-account multiplayer being seated at the same table as himself in a single 2,000 player tournament. This is clearly correct (although it certainly depends on your definition of "little chance.") I didn't quantify how small that chance was, both because I lack the ability to do so /images/graemlins/smile.gif and (more importantly) because it really isn't the point. The risk is present, and that's enough.

David Cossio (Sirio11) attempted to quantify the odds of being seated at the same table as yourself in this post http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...ue#Post4739815. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=tourn&Number=4739815& Searchpage=1&Main=4739815&Words=multiaccounting+si rio11&topic=&Search=true#Post4739815.) I wouldn't presume to check his math, but as usual, David's thoughts are precise and well-reasoned.

[ QUOTE ]

Even if a player never plays at the same table I still see a problem - the problem is one of identification. Look at Justin Bonomo's last blog entry at his website where he talks about how much of an advantage it was to be an unknown at the high level sit and go's he played in. His opponents didn't realise they were sitting with Justin and therefore made plays vs an unknown opponent that they would not have against ZeeJustin.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair point--and it's one of the reasons that multi-accounting is against the rules of online sites. [Remember that "it's against the rules" was an argument against multi-accounting that I considered persuasive].

However, I would note players generally don't have a right to know your true identity. PartyPoker allows user to change usernames every 6 months, so ZJ could have easily have done that to get some level of anonymity.

Here's a better example. Let's say that you play live a lot and the players in your game have a good line on your game. So, to disguise yourself, you paste on a fake beard and wear some stage makeup. In the game, a player says "don't know I know you?" and you say "No, I'm new in town," which is a lie. Have you done something unethical here? I don't think so. Do you?

[roundhouse]

[ QUOTE ]
In the article, I wrote that there was little chance of a 2-account multiplayer being seated at the same table as himself in a single 2,000 player tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a lazy reader - you wrote 200 tables, I read 200 players. Doh. We should probably note though that your typical mult-accounter will be a repeat offender and in time is almost certain to be seated with themself. Also, if stories are to be believed multi-accounters can and do play more than two accounts in the same MTT.

RH

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]



I agree with what you are saying and it is the same principle that makes multi-accounting SnG's cheating. However this example was meant to show that some arbitrary violations do not steal EV from other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed the point of your first example. I agree that a cosmetic change that does not hide a lot of history would have little or no impact on other players. I was thinking of a change by a well-established player to get a brand new table image.

[NickMPK]

The author of this article repeatedly refers to Corey Cheresnik as "Chesnik". Is this intentional? If not, it should really be changed. I generally don't mind typos in these web articles, but you should really try to get people's names right.

[tipperdog]

You are correct. I've asked Ed to fix. Certainly, the error was not intentional.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Dan Harrington talked about this in a TV interview. He said that a big tournament like the WSOP ME is like a lottery where the average player has one ticket and he and other good players have 4 or 5 tickets due to their skills. If your skills give you a 4-1 edge over an unskilled player, that's poker, and everyone understands that and has the same opportunity to develop those skills. If you multi-account and have an 8-1 edge (4-1 skill edge times 2 seats), that edge does not reflect skill and is not an opportunity available to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but irrelevant.

In the situation of a good player having 5 lottery tickets to the bad player's 1, the good player paid the same price for his 5 as the bad player paid for his 1, so there is an EV edge. In the case of a multi-accounter, someone playing 2 accounts gets 10 tickets to the honest good player's 5, but he paid twice as much for them so the EV is the same.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


This is true, but irrelevant.

In the situation of a good player having 5 lottery tickets to the bad player's 1, the good player paid the same price for his 5 as the bad player paid for his 1, so there is an EV edge. In the case of a multi-accounter, someone playing 2 accounts gets 10 tickets to the honest good player's 5, but he paid twice as much for them so the EV is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring the principle of equality of opportunity. Everyone should have the same opportunity to use their skills. If everyone can only buy one seat, the only difference in EV is skill, which everyone acknowledges as being part of poker.

Assume Players A and B have equal skills. If Player A cheats and buys two seats, he has an unfair advantage over Player B, who might also like to buy more than one seat, but doesn't, because it is against the rules.

You are saying that the cheater and the honest player are on the same footing because the cheater has to pay more money to cheat. That's like saying that it's OK to use loaded dice in a game, because you have to pay extra money to buy the loaded dice.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring the principle of equality of opportunity. Everyone should have the same opportunity to use their skills. If everyone can only buy one seat, the only difference in EV is skill, which everyone acknowledges as being part of poker.

Assume Players A and B have equal skills. If Player A cheats and buys two seats, he has an unfair advantage over Player B, who might also like to buy more than one seat, but doesn't, because it is against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK but none of this explains how this "cheating" is supposed to create any kind of EV for the multi-accounter. This does have some merit where things like prestige are on the line (i.e. you really want a WSOP bracelet so you somehow buy into the WSOP ME several times and have an unfairly high chance of placing first). I don't think any of this matters for online tournaments that much as I can't imagine the chance to be a popular online player is worth risking accusations of collusion and massive account freezes over.

[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that it's OK to use loaded dice in a game, because you have to pay extra money to buy the loaded dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you're playing a luck-based dice game then yes, you really haven't hurt anyone if you cheat but have to spend an amount equal to the EV of cheating in order to do it. If it's EV neutral then by definition it can't affect anyone else in the game from a monetary standpoint. Whether it's moral or not is a silly question because ultimately it doesn't do anything.

Look at it this way: If two people entering a tournament agree to split their winnings from the tournament, and don't cooperate in any other way, then there's no effect on anyone else in the tournament right? So what if one's a clone of the other? So what if they're the same person?

Of course I think this is an impossible idealized scenario, but the point is that "Oh no people get two chances to place" is not a reason to protest multi-accounting; I'm not defending the practice.

[psy]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if a player never plays at the same table I still see a problem - the problem is one of identification. Look at Justin Bonomo's last blog entry at his website where he talks about how much of an advantage it was to be an unknown at the high level sit and go's he played in. His opponents didn't realise they were sitting with Justin and therefore made plays vs an unknown opponent that they would not have against ZeeJustin.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair point--and it's one of the reasons that multi-accounting is against the rules of online sites. [Remember that "it's against the rules" was an argument against multi-accounting that I considered persuasive].

[/ QUOTE ]

Against the rules is wrong but not necessarily unethical. Cheating is a different beast and is unethical. Swearing and beligerent behavour at the tables, or spamming a website may be "aginst the rules" at most poker sites but it is not cheating.

[ QUOTE ]

However, I would note players generally don't have a right to know your true identity. PartyPoker allows user to change usernames every 6 months, so ZJ could have easily have done that to get some level of anonymity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, and would assert that players generally do have the right to know who you are. Having a read on a player you've played before is part of the game. In fact I'm learning that it is a large part of the game. If "knowing your opponent" is part of the game then "hiding your identity" also becomes part of the game (so the disguiser in your example example is not cheating - he is playing the game).

Party restrict screen name changes to 1 per 6 months as a consession to players who want this advantage but some other sites forbid screen name changes entirely.

Changing your name more than the rules state by using mulitple accounts is cheating even if you never play the accounts simultaneously. It is cheating because it is an advantage over other players that rule abiding players do not get. It is not cheating merely because it is a breach of the rules.

[betadecay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dan Harrington talked about this in a TV interview. He said that a big tournament like the WSOP ME is like a lottery where the average player has one ticket and he and other good players have 4 or 5 tickets due to their skills. If your skills give you a 4-1 edge over an unskilled player, that's poker, and everyone understands that and has the same opportunity to develop those skills. If you multi-account and have an 8-1 edge (4-1 skill edge times 2 seats), that edge does not reflect skill and is not an opportunity available to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but irrelevant.

In the situation of a good player having 5 lottery tickets to the bad player's 1, the good player paid the same price for his 5 as the bad player paid for his 1, so there is an EV edge. In the case of a multi-accounter, someone playing 2 accounts gets 10 tickets to the honest good player's 5, but he paid twice as much for them so the EV is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harringtons analogy was something he made to explain Buy-in EV to average joes, or average players. It makes sense but the actual values of buy-ins differ a bit from his analogy. If 99 players of equal skill buy into a tourney, it is like everyone having one lottery ticket to win. When a pro enters the tourney the value of everyone's ticket will change. The pro's ticket will be worth 1.99 tickets, and everyone else's ticket will be worth .99 tickets. This is where EV is being taken when pro's multi-account. A pro might be paying extra for a second entry but it is still going to take EV from other players.

[betadecay]

[ QUOTE ]

However, I would note players generally don't have a right to know your true identity. PartyPoker allows user to change usernames every 6 months, so ZJ could have easily have done that to get some level of anonymity.

Here's a better example. Let's say that you play live a lot and the players in your game have a good line on your game. So, to disguise yourself, you paste on a fake beard and wear some stage makeup. In the game, a player says "don't know I know you?" and you say "No, I'm new in town," which is a lie. Have you done something unethical here? I don't think so. Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]


PSY addressed this already and I'd like to make some comments as well on this point.

The big difference here is that this isn't against the rules in a live card room. Pasting on a beard and dying your hair to remain anonymous will obviously give you an edge over opponents. Being that this doesn't break a rule though, there is no cheating occuring. This isn't the case on-line. You change your identity with an extra account, you are now breaking a rule AND getting an edge over opponents. This is cheating.

[psy]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at it this way: If two people entering a tournament agree to split their winnings from the tournament, and don't cooperate in any other way, then there's no effect on anyone else in the tournament right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But what if one guy said to the other - "you're a better player than me so you can play my account too".

Is their combined expectiation still the same?

Who is disadvantaged because of this ploy?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. But what if one guy said to the other - "you're a better player than me so you can play my account too".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the line of reasoning was meant to extend to the situation where one person is playing both accounts. I don't know that it's possible to be better than yourself. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Who is disadvantaged because of this ploy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, technically there is an EV drop for everyone in the tournament, because the worse player experienced a slight increase in EV and that has to come from somewhere. But this is covered best by the argument in the first reply by betadecay (that adding another account is essentially dropping an extra pro into the tournament making the field that much tougher for everyone else), not because the multi-accounter gets an "extra life".

[psy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But what if one guy said to the other - "you're a better player than me so you can play my account too".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the line of reasoning was meant to extend to the situation where one person is playing both accounts. I don't know that it's possible to be better than yourself. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, my only point was that if you are a winning player then when you enter a tournament multiple times you are being unfair to all other players. And the better you are the more unfair it gets. But, as you say, this is covered better elsewhere so I'll leave it alone.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

The big difference here is that this isn't against the rules in a live card room. Pasting on a beard and dying your hair to remain anonymous will obviously give you an edge over opponents. Being that this doesn't break a rule though, there is no cheating occuring. This isn't the case on-line. You change your identity with an extra account, you are now breaking a rule AND getting an edge over opponents. This is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this entirely. That's one of the reasons that my "modest proposal" for 'legalizing' multi-accounting required that all multi-tablers disclose their multi-identifies. If they did this--and online sites changed their rules to permit the practice--everything would be OK, yes? No "hidden identify" and no "rule breaking."

One additional thought on "breaking the rules" vs. "cheating." PSY makes a big distinction between the two, and he may right. However, I don't think it's necessary get caught up in a debate over which is worse. "Breaking the rules" (assuming it's a clearly explained, non-abitrary rule) is fundamentally lying. You promise to do one thing by accepting the T&C and then secretly do that opposite. That's clearly unethical, immoral, wrong, whatever term you want to use. Is it "cheating?" Maybe and maybe not, but it doesn't really matter--it's 100% wrong.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that it's OK to use loaded dice in a game, because you have to pay extra money to buy the loaded dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you're playing a luck-based dice game then yes, you really haven't hurt anyone if you cheat but have to spend an amount equal to the EV of cheating in order to do it. If it's EV neutral then by definition it can't affect anyone else in the game from a monetary standpoint. Whether it's moral or not is a silly question because ultimately it doesn't do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that in this hypothetical, you only win the amount that you paid for the dice. The amount that you win has to come from someone else. The win here is 0 EV for you, but has to be -EV for someone else in order to cover the cost of the dice.

If you and I are playing a zero-sum, 0 EV dice game and you start using loaded dice, then my EV just went negative. If your +EV from the game due to using loaded dice cancels out the cost of the loaded dice, so that you break even, then my -EV is must be equal to the cost of the dice. So the result here is that I lose, you break even, and the dice seller wins.

Applying this to online tournaments, you are assuming that the multi-accounter never wins more than the cost of the additional seats. I think that the results of recent cheaters disproves that idea.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that in this hypothetical, you only win the amount that you paid for the dice. The amount that you win has to come from someone else. The win here is 0 EV for you, but has to be -EV for someone else in order to cover the cost of the dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was obvious from my response that I was assuming that the money "spent" was going back into the pool for the other people in the dice game to win. Much like an extra tournament buy-in.

[ QUOTE ]
Applying this to online tournaments, you are assuming that the multi-accounter never wins more than the cost of the additional seats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually what I think is that the multi-accounter takes EV from every player in the tournament worse than himself while either not affecting or even donating EV to players equal to or better than his own skill level.

[psy]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually what I think is that the multi-accounter takes EV from every player in the tournament worse than himself while either not affecting or even donating EV to players equal to or better than his own skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I'm not sure this is correct. I figured that if a +EV player enters a tournament then everybody shares that EV loss, including players better than the new entrant.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. I'm not sure this is correct. I figured that if a +EV player enters a tournament then everybody shares that EV loss, including players better than the new entrant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm sure you understand it doesn't necessarily have to be that way; the combined EV from all the other entrants has to equal -(EV of multiaccounting), but that doesn't mean that every individual in the tournament has to lose a piece of it.

My reasoning goes something like this:

-If everyone in the tournament was of equal skill level, multiaccounting would not affect EV at all as I've argued in my other posts.
-If the person multiaccounting is the worst player in the tournament, then both of his buyins must be -EV. Therefore the EV he is losing must go to the other players in the tournament (and some to the rake, but if he's really the worst he's still probably donating overall).
-If the person multiaccounting is the best player in the tournament, he is taking EV from the prize pool, simply because the tournament has two #1 pros instead of just one.

I know this doesn't conclusively prove that a multi-accounter only "steals" from players worse than himself, but it seems to suggest it.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that in this hypothetical, you only win the amount that you paid for the dice. The amount that you win has to come from someone else. The win here is 0 EV for you, but has to be -EV for someone else in order to cover the cost of the dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was obvious from my response that I was assuming that the money "spent" was going back into the pool for the other people in the dice game to win. Much like an extra tournament buy-in.


[/ QUOTE ]

How could anyone logically assume that you are talking about a dice game where you can buy loaded dice from the house? The concept is too strange to imagine. And why would anyone buy loaded dice with a zero gain in EV?

You are trying too hard to prove a point that is wrong. A good tournament player expects to win some multiple of the buy-in on average over time. Some top players have mentioned numbers like average winnings of 4 or 5 times the buy-in in the long run. By definition, the average tournament player is a net loser. Therefore, anytime one more above-average player enters a tournament, the expected EV for all players who are less skilled goes down.

For discussion purposes, let's say a good online player normally averages a payout of 5 times the buy-in. He enters a tournament with 2 accounts. Let's say that the resulting division of concentration now means each identity can only expect to win on average 3-4 times the buy-in. His EV has increased (he now expects to win maybe 6-8 times the buy-in on average), which means by definition that the EV of opponents has decreased. And his expected win is certainly much greater than the extra entry fee he contributes to the pool.

And if I am a good player with an expectation of 5 times the entry fee, the multi-accounter of the same skill level who is now getting an expected win of 6-8 times the entry is certainly putting me at a disadvantage, since I am honest and only play one seat.

Your assumption that the increase in edge is offset by the extra entry expenses does not make sense. Any good player correctly assumes that he stands to win more on average than the cost of an extra entry. If he didn't, he wouldn't do it.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
Any good player correctly assumes that he stands to win more on average than the cost of an extra entry. If he didn't, he wouldn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can reasonably assume that any player makes this assumption any time he plays, so it doesn't really help the discussion.

The logical problem in some of the arguments so far is that they imply that multiaccounting is wrong for winning players but would not be wrong for losing players.

Does everyone agree that if collusion could be ruled out, an 'average player' multi-accouting in a tournament would have no financial advantage in that tournament?

The lottery ticket analagy against multi accouting is flawed: if a pro has 5 metaphorical 'tickets' per entry and average players have 1, the fact that a good player's double entry lowered the EV of the field is not due to the fact that a player has 2 entries, it is due to the fact that a better player has two entries. The pro's legitimate first entry lowered the EV of the field, but that in itself doesn't mean that him entering the tournament was wrong, unethical, or stealing.

This is why some of you may have underestimated the importance of the "its against the rules" argument. As you may have realised while thinking of replies to what I have just said. The fact is that being good at poker does not make multiaccounting wrong, its the fact that its against the rules that what makes it wrong.

Alex

P.S. a good player entering a tournament deducts EV from all players, better and worse than him. Imagine an STT in which you are the pro with a huge advantage over a field of 9 weak players. If a decent player replaces one of the field, your EV would certainly be reduced.

[PokerSlut]

Matthew wrote the following:

[ QUOTE ]
This argument is fundamentally wrong. Poker players gain expected value (EV) by making the right decision for a given situation. If a multi-accounter, using the hedge strategy Jungblutt outlines, played tightly at one table and loosely at the other when the situation dictated tight play at both, he would be making -EV plays at the "loose" table. Far from an edge, that's a distinct disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree for the following reason:

Tournament play is based on survival and not on making +EV plays in isolation. Thus a tournament player will often throw away many smaller +EV edges if it means they increase their chance of cashing later on. The reason multi-accounting in a tournament is hedging is it allows you to take on this extra risk with one account and still be +EV for the whole tournament. The payoff is a much larger stack of chips, which of course gives you a nice big feedback loop of +EV plays to make as you progress. It is not about making "loose" -EV calls vs. "tight" +EV calls, but trading risk for reward. You can take all those 5%-10% edges with impunity, whereas the single-entry player has to throw those away most of the time, especially when confronting a larger stack.

[Q_and_A]

Just changed my Party screenname.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. a good player entering a tournament deducts EV from all players, better and worse than him. Imagine an STT in which you are the pro with a huge advantage over a field of 9 weak players. If a decent player replaces one of the field, your EV would certainly be reduced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point; this is almost certainly the hole in my arguments so far.

[ QUOTE ]
Tournament play is based on survival and not on making +EV plays in isolation. Thus a tournament player will often throw away many smaller +EV edges if it means they increase their chance of cashing later on. The reason multi-accounting in a tournament is hedging is it allows you to take on this extra risk with one account and still be +EV for the whole tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

PokerSlut, go back and read the rest of the thread. Just because the good player gets twice as much of a chance of cashing doesn't mean his EV is increased.

[scarr]

Nice article. I think you looked at all aspects, however, like PokerSlut, I do not agree with your counter to Jungblutt's argument.

Just like multi-tabling reduces variance in your bankroll, multi-accounting in the same tournament reduces variance in that tournament. And reducing variance, reduces risk.

That is just common sense, however, this reduction in risk is very advantageous in these large high buyin online tournaments where the winning strategy seems to have become one of acquiring a large stack and playing smart aggressive poker. Having multiple accounts in a tournament gives a player more chances to run across a few VERY profitable oppotunities to double, and triple up. The more accounts you have the greater the chance one of these accounts will be able to string together a few large pots and build that huge stack which can be used to pound on snaller stacks.

The poker sites have this rule for a reason, and the reason is that it provides an unfair advantage to a player.

-scarr

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]

PokerSlut, go back and read the rest of the thread. Just because the good player gets twice as much of a chance of cashing doesn't mean his EV is increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument in the article was that EV is decreased because the player plays "loose" with the other account. I was merely showing why this is false.

In any case, what you say is only true if his chances of winning increases proportionally with the number of accounts he plays, and everyone in the tournament has an equal chance of winning. For a skilled player against an average field, this is not the case. The dead money tips the scale even more in his favor.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]


I disagree for the following reason:

Tournament play is based on survival and not on making +EV plays in isolation. Thus a tournament player will often throw away many smaller +EV edges if it means they increase their chance of cashing later on. The reason multi-accounting in a tournament is hedging is it allows you to take on this extra risk with one account and still be +EV for the whole tournament. The payoff is a much larger stack of chips, which of course gives you a nice big feedback loop of +EV plays to make as you progress. It is not about making "loose" -EV calls vs. "tight" +EV calls, but trading risk for reward. You can take all those 5%-10% edges with impunity, whereas the single-entry player has to throw those away most of the time, especially when confronting a larger stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully think you're wrong, and posit this hypothetical to prove it. Please tell me where I've erred.

Let's say that you're a skilled tournament player with a stastically valid record of achievement. You play profitably using two different styles. $100 tourneys (with no rake, just for simplicities sake) are your game of choice.

Style #1 is a conservative, survivalist strategy. You play very tight early, actively avoid coin flip situations throughout (even on the "good" end of the flip), and play conservatively around the bubble. Using this strategy, you make the money a lot but don't make many final tables. Over 10,000 tourneys, your average return is $105, or $5 per event.

Style #2 is an aggressive gambling style. You seek out coinflips and hope to get a big stack early. Using this strategy you bust out early a lot but have a lot of big finishes. Over 10,000 tourney trials using this strategy, your average return is $110, or $10 per event.

Now, you decide to cheat by multiaccounting (assume there is no chance you will get caught and your $$ money will be confiscated). Which strategy should you employ?

To me, it seems elementary that the correct approach is to use style #2 both thimes. That strategy will yield $10 per person per event, or $20 per tourney. If you decide to 'hedge,' your expected earn will decline to $15 per tourney. Please explain, how is hedging more profitable?

Sure, if you used both strategy #1 and strategy #2 simultaneously, you would increase your chances of cashing, but you could increase those chances even more by using strategy #1 twice.

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]

To me, it seems elementary that the correct approach is to use style #2 both thimes. That strategy will yield $10 per person per event, or $20 per tourney. If you decide to 'hedge,' your expected earn will decline to $15 per tourney. Please explain, how is hedging more profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hedging has nothing to do with being more profitable. It is all about reducing risk. Playing loosely, given the setup above, is more profitable, but the cashflow is high variance. It is possible you would even go through your entire bankroll before winning anything.

[ptmusic]

Why do so many people, including the author, suggest that hedging is the strategy for multi-accounting? It's just one possibility of how a player would adjust play because he has more than one horse. I agree that hedging is not a good strategy.

But what if a multi-accounting player improves his play, either on purpose or inadvertently? Perhaps he plays a bit too tight with just one horse, but when he has 4 horses, he plays them all closer to optimal strategy.

Yes, he could also play the horses, on average, further from optimal strategy. But with Point #2, the author is connecting multi-accounters with diminished play, which isn't always true.

The fact is: sometimes players play better with extra horses, and that possibility is unfair.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do so many people, including the author, suggest that hedging is the strategy for multi-accounting? It's just one possibility of how a player would adjust play because he has more than one horse. I agree that hedging is not a good strategy.

But what if a multi-accounting player improves his play, either on purpose or inadvertently? Perhaps he plays a bit too tight with just one horse, but when he has 4 horses, he plays them all closer to optimal strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi PT,

The purpose of my article was to explore exactly why multi-accounting is unethical. I addressed hedging because one high-profile pro, Brett Jungblutt, argued that it was the core ethical problem with the practice. I argued that he was wrong, and it seems you agree /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

To your second point, you might well be right that some players (these would be seriously flawed players) might play better when slightly distracted by playing several accounts. Perhaps when focusing on one account, a player tries to "win every pot" with reckless bluffs and fancy plays when a more ABC approach is needed.

While this may be true, it's not what makes multiaccounting unethical. Let's say these same players play better (for the same reason) while watching TV and playing poker simultaneously...that doesn't make TV unethical!

Rather (I would argue) the reasons that multi-accounting is unethical are those stated in my article. All these ancillary issues may affect the play of multi-accounters, but they don't get to the heart of whether it's right or wrong.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PokerSlut, go back and read the rest of the thread. Just because the good player gets twice as much of a chance of cashing doesn't mean his EV is increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument in the article was that EV is decreased because the player plays "loose" with the other account. I was merely showing why this is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually all the article was saying is that proper strategy is the same for each account independent of what the other account is doing, unless they are in a position to collude.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, what you say is only true if his chances of winning increases proportionally with the number of accounts he plays, and everyone in the tournament has an equal chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If a player's EV is n for entering a tournament, his EV for playing on 2 accounts can be no more than 2n unless collusion is involved. This is regardless of anyone's skill.

[ QUOTE ]
For a skilled player against an average field, this is not the case. The dead money tips the scale even more in his favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an issue completely distinct from the point you were initally making.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice article. I think you looked at all aspects, however, like PokerSlut, I do not agree with your counter to Jungblutt's argument.

[deletia]

Having multiple accounts in a tournament gives a player more chances to run across a few VERY profitable oppotunities to double, and triple up. The more accounts you have the greater the chance one of these accounts will be able to string together a few large pots and build that huge stack which can be used to pound on snaller stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for reading the article and thanks for your kind comments. I really appreciate it.

On variance, I certainly agree that a hedging strategy could reduce variance. That doesn't mean it's +EV, though.

That said, I'd again note that the purpose of my article was to explore the advantage to players that stems uniquely from multi-accounting. In my article, I suggested that the way to do this was to compare a multi-accounting situation to a multi-tabling situation.

If you are right that hedging has value, is that value any different if the player enters two accounts in the same event or one account each in two simultaneous events (these days, players can easily play multiple $100 buy-in events at almost any time)? Based on what you seem to be saying, you think the value is the same. In other words, the value comes from the hedge strategy, not the multiaccounting opportunity.

If so, it indicates that the opportunity to hedge is not what makes multi-accounting ethically unacceptable.

[Hume]

[ QUOTE ]
The article also did not mention the issue of multi-accounting the SnG's, another common practice at high stakes. This was something ZJ was doing regularly. In both of his posts here at the forums, ZJ stated this was not cheating. I disagree. It violates TnC's and also takes away EV from opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here, but ZJ has repeatedly stated that he never played more than one account in a SnG.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The article also did not mention the issue of multi-accounting the SnG's, another common practice at high stakes. This was something ZJ was doing regularly. In both of his posts here at the forums, ZJ stated this was not cheating. I disagree. It violates TnC's and also takes away EV from opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here, but ZJ has repeatedly stated that he never played more than one account in a SnG.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it appears at least one poster believes him.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The article also did not mention the issue of multi-accounting the SnG's, another common practice at high stakes. This was something ZJ was doing regularly. In both of his posts here at the forums, ZJ stated this was not cheating. I disagree. It violates TnC's and also takes away EV from opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here, but ZJ has repeatedly stated that he never played more than one account in a SnG.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it appears at least one poster believes him.

[/ QUOTE ]

And didnt he admit to at least occasionally playing SnGs under an alternate ID?

[Kuso]

I still think that there is an ethical issue that MK's proposed solution doesn't cover.

Let's say a multi-accounter is somehow able to get two accounts down to the last two tables with one elimination left before the final table (and removal of one of MAs accounts if he survives). At that point there very well could be a big incentive for the MA player to play ultra-aggressive with one of the accounts in an effort to accumlate chips or bust out trying. Assuming that the MA would not necessarily take this line if he had only one account, this could change the tournament dynamics for one of the tables. It also gives the MA player a kind of freeroll to double up.

[Xhad]

Kuso: You are making the same argument as the hedging situation. The only difference is that it's later in the tournament.

[wired_c4]

[ QUOTE ]
There is one other big issue in multi-accounting, regardless of the possibility of collusion(which by the way, in a case like bonomo's was not minimal as kagan suggest). When a pro such as ZJ or JJ buy in multiple times to a tourney, the buy-in of the vast majority of other participants decreases. A common concept to tourneys is that buy-ins vary in value depending on the skill of the player. As an easy example, imagine a 10 person 10 dollar sit and go. 7 equally bad players pay to play. The value of their buy-in will be 10 dollars. Now ZJ buys in as well, the value of everyones buy in is now worth 8 bucks. ZJ buys in again(for simplicity we will avoid the issue of collusion or of ZJ's equity) and now everyone's buy-in is worth 7 bucks. Finally ZJ buys in a third time and everyone's buy in is worth 6 dollars.

When a pro enters multiple entries, he is essentially stealing from every other player that is less skilled then he/she is. Obviously the amounts are small in big tournies, but this should not be used as an excuse to mitigate the fact that it is stealing. It is also important to take into account that this practice is common among several top pros. One zj with 6 accounts in a 2000 person tourney might be small ev stolen from other players, but several pro's running several accounts of their own is not a trivial matter.

Kagan also talks about the ethics of rule breaking. I've said this in other threads regarding cheating. There is a distinct difference between cheating and rule breaking. Cheating involves the act of violating TnC's in a way that takes away EV from oppononents(ie. multiaccounting, collusion, buying hand histories). Other violations such as setting up a second account under different info(a violation) for the sake of changing the gender of your avatar will not result in negative ev for opponents.

The article also did not mention the issue of multi-accounting the SnG's, another common practice at high stakes. This was something ZJ was doing regularly. In both of his posts here at the forums, ZJ stated this was not cheating. I disagree. It violates TnC's and also takes away EV from opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic is correct, in that multiple entries by a very skilled player will slightly decrease the EV of every other player in the tournament. You refer to this as "stealing."

But, even a single entry by this player decreases the EV of every other player in the tournament. By your logic, you would also consider this "stealing." I think that your argument can be completely disregarded due to the fact that it shows no difference between single-accounting, which everyone agrees is fair, and multi-accounting, which is up for debate.

You defined cheating as "the act of violating TnC's in a way that takes away EV from oppononents." I think this definition is incorrect. Using your definition, if I made a site in which multi-accounting was allowed according to the TnC's, then it would not be unethical, but on a site where the TnC's say it is not allowed, it would be unethical. I don't think TnC's should have any effect on whether or not multi-accounting in general is ethical or not. If, for example, a loophole in the program exists that allows you to change your cards at the river so u can win the pot, and you abuse it, then most would consider this cheating, but assuming the TnC didn't cover this loophole, you are arguing that it is not cheating in any way.

[Botchman]

[ QUOTE ]


Tournament play is based on survival and not on making +EV plays in isolation. Thus a tournament player will often throw away many smaller +EV edges if it means they increase their chance of cashing later on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would this logic be right what happened to not passing up even the smallest +EV edges???

[wired_c4]

Yes, he played under alternate ID's. They are saying that he was playing under 2 or more accounts in the same SNG, which isn't true.

[psy]

Pull your head in wired_c4 and QUIT TRYING TO JUSTIFY CHEATING!

What is so hard to understand?

[ QUOTE ]
You defined cheating as "the act of violating TnC's in a way that takes away EV from oppononents." I think this definition is incorrect. Using your definition, if I made a site in which multi-accounting was allowed according to the TnC's, then it would not be unethical, but on a site where the TnC's say it is not allowed, it would be unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct! Everybody would be playing the same rules.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think TnC's should have any effect on whether or not multi-accounting in general is ethical or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it ok to do something that is against the rules and is unfair to other players? Is multi-accounting something you freely admit you do? Why not? How is it justifiable at all?

[ QUOTE ]
If, for example, a loophole in the program exists that allows you to change your cards at the river so u can win the pot, and you abuse it, then most would consider this cheating, but assuming the TnC didn't cover this loophole, you are arguing that it is not cheating in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best argument you could come up with. Don't even you think, re-reading it, that it's a bit lame?

It's hardly realistic, the argument is totally full of holes which I simply can't be botherd going into and apart from anything else we don't need to talk about it to argue about the "merits" of multi-accounting.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he played under alternate ID's. They are saying that he was playing under 2 or more accounts in the same SNG, which isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated in the OP there are other reasons why multi-accounting S&G's are cheating, even if you never play at the same table.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he played under alternate ID's. They are saying that he was playing under 2 or more accounts in the same SNG, which isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you possibly know he didn't play under 2 or more accounts in the same SNG? You're still talking about Justin, right? Do you take his word for it? Are you Justin?

[MichaelMizrachi]

Hey Guys...This is my first Post.. this is the 1st I've ever heard of me multiaccounting. First, I don't even play much online poker unless it Absolute Poker... 5 months ago I played a stars tourn under my only account The Grinder and had to go.I allowed my friend to takeover.. not knowing this was allowed I came back and took over my Grinder acct..I've never played on multiple accounts in cash or tourn online. My brothers and friends play in the same tourn but thats all. Best Regards,
Michael " The Grinder" Mizrachi

[snakekilla88]

Allowing your friend to takeover is against policy of almost all poker sites. But I am happy you came to 2p2 and welcome to the forums..

[Hume]

[ QUOTE ]
Allowing your friend to takeover is against policy of almost all poker sites. But I am happy you came to 2p2 and welcome to the forums..

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I'm pretty sure that's not true. For example, Lee Jones has explicitly stated that it's allowed at stars.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Allowing your friend to takeover is against policy of almost all poker sites. But I am happy you came to 2p2 and welcome to the forums..

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I'm pretty sure that's not true. For example, Lee Jones has explicitly stated that it's allowed at stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very misleading (unintentionally, I'm sure). Lee has said that Stars will look the other way at tiny infractions (a friend takes over your account for 2 mins. while you take a phone call). But, letting a friend take over your account for a serious duration is expressly prohibited.

[blueodum]

Therefore, anytime one more above-average player enters a tournament, the expected EV for all players who are less skilled goes down.

*********************

Actually, the EV goes down for everybody, even for players who are better than the multi-accounter. The multi-accounter has just made the average skill level a little higher (provided he/she is better than the average in this particular field) and this affects EVERYONE in the tournament. This point is so basic that I marvel that some people can't understand it.

EV is neither created nor destroyed: one person's gain in EV is someone else's loss, REGARDLESS OF HOW THAT CHANGE OCCURS.