The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths

One of the arguments of the cheaters (the word is used just for description, no offense intended) and the apologists is that the likelihood of a player with two accounts playing the same tourney and ending in the same table is pretty small, insignificant they say, “don’t worry about it”

Well, let’s take a look to see if you should worry:

________

Tournament: Daily PS $100 Rebuys
Number of players: 108
Starting tables: 12

Lets say Grandma has two accounts; lets call the accounts (just for description purposes); “supercheater” and “megagreedy”

What are the odds of cheater and greedy ending up in the same table at the beginning of the tournament?

Well, the answer is pretty simple; 1 in 12. Every 12 tournaments cheater and greedy will start the tournament in the same table, and 7 people in that table will be screwed. If grandma decided to play this tournament 4 times a week then she’s going to be cheating 7 people every 3 weeks. If she plays 6 of these tournaments a week; then every 2 weeks she’s cheating 7 people; and of course this is just at the beginning of the tournament.
Just looking at some information from the tournament results of some of the good players, we know that they usually bust after 60% of the field do it. So a good player is usually around with 50% of the people left; for our tournament this is 6 tables. Do you want to calculate the number of people cheated now per week by Grandma? You may want to calculate also how this number increases if Grandma has 3 accounts instead of 2.

_________

Tournament: $20 180 players S & G
Number of players: 180
Starting tables: 20

Now, just for fun, let's say Grandma has 3 accounts, “supercheater”, “megagreedy” and “IownFThaters”

Given 20 tables to accommodate 3 people, this can be done of 20*20*20 ways = 8000

Since we don’t want the 3 of them to be together then we have 20*19*18 = 6840 ways to do this. This means 8000-6840 = 1160 times at least two of the accounts will start together; this is about 1 in 7. So every 7 tournaments Grandma should be cheating 7 people in the table. If Grandma is healthy I think she can be doing this …… mmmmm ….. daily?

___________

Tournament: $150+12 Party Super
Number of players: 1000
Starting tables: 100

Granny playing 3 accounts gives us numbers of 29800 out of 1000000 starting at least 2 in the same table. This is 1 every 33 times. If Grandma can play 4 of this weekly (could be easily more than that with the Friday and Saturday); then even in this “big” tournament; Granny is cheating once every two months just at the beginning of the tournament. I guess that’s ok for some people standards.

___________

Tournament: $100+9 Party Midnight
Number of players: 450
Starting tables: 45

Here the numbers with 3 accounts are 5985 out of 91125. This is once every 15.23 tournaments. Playing 5 of this a week, she’s cheating every 3 weeks.

________

Summary:

Let’s suppose Grandma Schedule for the next 2 months is the following tourneys per week and she will be playing 3 accounts:

4 times the Stars $100 Rebuys (cheating rate: 1 in 4.24)
4 Party Supers (cheating rate: 1 in 33.56)
5 $100 Party Midnight (cheating rate: 1 in 15.23)

So she will cheat, 8 times in the $100R, 1 time in the Party Supers and about 9 times in the Party $100; and remember this is just at the beginning of the tournament. So with this schedule she’ll cheat about 18 times in the 2 months, about 9 per month, about twice a week.

Twice a week Grandma will be seated with 2 of her accounts at the same table at the beginning of the tournament; and for the poor 14 or 16 players in the table, well, it’s just bad luck.

I let others elaborate with corrections to my numbers (I’m not spending any time to check all the numbers), results changing some of the variables, like number of entrants, Grandma’s schedule, number of accounts; Grandma’s accounts in the middle of the tournament, Grandma’s accounts in the final table and of course dealing with multiple Grandma’s in the same tourney.



To the apologists : I’d really appreciated if instead of wasting your valuable time with insults to people like me and others in the “we care about this issue” camp or trying to generate sophisticated arguments why we shouldn’t care and why nothing can be done ever to solve this problem or even with disingenuous calls to moderation; you spend more of your time thinking about solutions; if you don’t want to do it, that’s ok; just don’t make our efforts harder.


To the multi-accounting people : I hope some of you look at these numbers and realize that this is not ok. And you don’t need to do it. You are a good player, there are tons of tournaments these days, and you can win tons of money without the need of multiaccounting.
I’m not calling you a cheater; maybe you just make a mistake like most of us have done at some time or another in the past with wrong assumptions. It’s time to realize this was a mistake and move on.

David

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Nh

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Post..of..the...year...

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

can someone estimate how frequently the guy sitting next to me at a mtt has clone account or can this not be determined yet?

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Very well written, informative and spot on as usual David.
~Justin

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

This is an incredibly important post.

The cry of most people who multiplayer is that the chances of winding up at the same table are so small is to render them moot. Obviously thats not true. Lets see some justifications now.


That said, I think that multiplayering is much more rare in these smaller events than in the massive sunday fields. The party super argument is the one that for me carries the most weight.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

David,

Very well thought out and presented but a big argument for the "who gives" side is that a lot of these multi-accounters are only playing the really big field events. You laid out a very strong argument, but an argument that leaves out some important stuff.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

I apologize Sirio. I was of the indifferent camp. I just couldn't see how, in the very large mtt fields we get, how running more than one account would help that much unless both accounts reached the final table.

I now see your point, and agree that this is much more serious than I had initially assumed.

Very good post.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

I understand your argument and I appreciate your time put into quantifying the situation. It seems that even just one pair of offenders could make a significant impact.

However, how often is this really happening? I don't want to start going on some McCarthyistic witch-hunt based on some sweeping generalizations that have little or no merit. It may be difficult to quantify, but I think we need to somehow reach a conclusion if we are to make this argument. On the other side of the spectrum, is is happening too often to even bother playing large field/buyin online events? And is this even worth wasting our time with as we really can't do anything about it (I'm assuming)?

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
You laid out a very strong argument, but an argument that leaves out some important stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I left it out on purpose, so you can work it out and find out by yourself. Don't forget to add more than multiple grandmas in the formula when talking about big fields like the Sunday Party and Stars. And also remember this is just at the beggining of the tourney.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

It's likely that money making endeavors happen at ALL levels of the game. It's profit maximizing.

Sirio's estimates are probably way off, because a decent player is likely to last through the first break at which point the field size is cut in half.

He doesn't talk about the value of additional information at a table. With two hands it should be fairly easy to amass a huge chip stack simply by limping the nuts and raising with the shill hand, as well as additional information on complicated flops including nut cards discarded, suits, key cards. This is most damaging on deep stack tournaments, and will mess with other players reads.


The most profitable events from an ROI are going to be the smaller ones.

I am now wondering why I see the same names on the final tables of the stars 55K. Come to find out many of these players are multiaccounting, and I wouldn't put it past any of them to share key card info with their friends, at someone elses expense.

You help me build a big stack, I'll help you.

There is always HU.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

David,

By my own math in the Party 500k the odds of cheating or getting another grandma in your tournament is approximately 1 in 81.5 tournaments, or once every 19 months. This is assuming a constant tournament field size of 3500. Should the field size increase then the likelyhood could jump up to 90 or higher.

The odds of this happening increases when you throw in the Bodog 100k, the Stars big tournies, etc.

If my math is wrong, someone please correct it. I am about to sleep.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

im gonna get you get you getyou drunk. get you love drunk off my hump. my hump my hump my hump my hump. my hump. my little lump.

superb. vagina gina china men get those dumb cheaters out of this country!

seriously though. I get sick to my stomach when i replay hands and it would make perfect sense if there was the same person playing twice at my table. It happens a lot and the actual self knowing cheaters will target the smaller fields on sites like pokerroom so they can be at the same table regualarly. check it bitch

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

One ticket per IP address

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Doesn't the software prevent accounts from the same IP from being at the same table until necessary (i.e. until the final table)? I had been operating under this assumption. This makes a huge difference, clearly.

For the record, I don't like multiaccounting, but my main issue with it is the collusion possibility, not the multiple shots at one tournament possibility, so if I am wrong and Sirio's math is correct (of course, the math is correct, the question is whether his assumption that clones can randomly be assigned to the same starting table, etc. is correct.), then I have a bigger problem with this than I would otherwise.

Regardless, the toughest thing is that these rules are basically unenforcebable, as long as a blanket one-account-per-IP rule is justifiably absent.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Here is an excellent article by gank, in which he takes a stand against the Grandma issue, without calling JJProdigy out by name. As he correctly points out, it's about growing the online community. JJProdigy's actions increase skepticism about the fairness of online poker, and I believe such actions will work to decrease the popularity of online poker. This will hurt all of us.

http://pokertrails.com/articles/multiaccount.php

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
One ticket per IP address

[/ QUOTE ]

as i pointed out yesterday, this will not deter this from happening, you can have more than 1 IP address at the same street address.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Am i the only one not understand the 'edge' he's talking about?

Plyaing recklessly in one because you can play tight in the other is not an edge... thats just pissing away EV.

I don't see the possible edge this could have, unless a) they both make it aroudun to bubble time b) they are ever at the same table.
---


This isn't to say i dont think it's cheating, or that it's not a big deal, just it doesn't give them an extra edge. Until they are at the same table, or maybe if they both get to the bubble, it's the same thing as them playing the tournament on two seperate occasions.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am i the only one not understand the 'edge' he's talking about?

Plyaing recklessly in one because you can play tight in the other is not an edge... thats just pissing away EV.

I don't see the possible edge this could have, unless a) they both make it aroudun to bubble time b) they are ever at the same table.
---


This isn't to say i dont think it's cheating, or that it's not a big deal, just it doesn't give them an extra edge. Until they are at the same table, or maybe if they both get to the bubble, it's the same thing as them playing the tournament on two seperate occasions.

[/ QUOTE ]

how about negating some of the "variance" by getting 2 chances to FT a tourny. and of course the possibility that you end up at the same table.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Sirio,

You seem to think very clearly and present your thoughts very well when dealing with this math problem and those numbers are very telling.

I have done things like this, though:

- I'm on the bus on the way home, and I look at my watch and whoa its 4:15pm on sunday. I call a friend and ask him to log on and play the first hour of the sunday tourneys for me until I get back.

- My friend gets deep in a tourney and says, "strass, come help me out". So I go over to his room and talk with him as he plays.

- Friend calls me up: "crap I'm deep in xyz tourney and have to go, can you play for xx%?"

- This happened once: "Yo strass, I can never win a double shootout on stars, they are rigged. I want to go to the bahamas." So, with him in the room, I played a shootout and got lucky and won him a seat to the WPT.

I'm curious how terrible these things are. I always felt like I haven't crossed the line, but maybe I have.
-Jason

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One ticket per IP address

[/ QUOTE ]

as i pointed out yesterday, this will not deter this from happening, you can have more than 1 IP address at the same street address.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. But it's still the best (only) way I can think of to prevent it from happening. I think if you went to the trouble to get multiple IP addresses, you'd probably be at a cash table instead of in a MTT.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

technically, yes you have. but this is something that will never stop (taking over for another player or coaching another), because there is no way to regulate it. for EVERY TIME that you help another player make it through a tourny (be it satellite or other), you are basically eliminating SOMEONE ELSE's chances of doing the same thing on their own merits. That satellite you won for your friend eliminated someone else from being able to go.

I don't think you were trying to do anything wrong, it just isn't "fair gaming". He did not "earn" the seat.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

I have noticed the fields getting larger and larger on the Stars and Party weekend and super daily tournaments. About a month ago, I was thinking it was unreal the number of players willing, and have the resources, to play these large buy-in tournaments.

Say the increase was 1000 players/tournament the last few months. If half or 500 of these new players are duplicate accounts, or maybe a quarter or 250, then "Houston we have a problem"....a major probelm

I have this sinking feeling players realize they will not be caught so are opening multiple accounts. The sites are not policing accounts from the same IP address. Thus, the influx of "new" players to the major tournaments.

Thoughts???


Stipe_fan

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Um. Did you forget what game we play for a living (or for hobby, but still)?

Of course if we win something it prevents someone else from winning. WE'RE TAKING THEIR MONEY.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One ticket per IP address

[/ QUOTE ]

as i pointed out yesterday, this will not deter this from happening, you can have more than 1 IP address at the same street address.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. But it's still the best (only) way I can think of to prevent it from happening. I think if you went to the trouble to get multiple IP addresses, you'd probably be at a cash table instead of in a MTT.

[/ QUOTE ]

why? all can be very profitable (understandably a cash game where you pick your table even more so). Big MTT's pay HUGE amounts of money, why wouldn't a regular cash game player ALSO play in MTT's and sitngo's? change of pace. game preference.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sirio,

You seem to think very clearly and present your thoughts very well when dealing with this math problem and those numbers are very telling.

I have done things like this, though:

- I'm on the bus on the way home, and I look at my watch and whoa its 4:15pm on sunday. I call a friend and ask him to log on and play the first hour of the sunday tourneys for me until I get back.

- My friend gets deep in a tourney and says, "strass, come help me out". So I go over to his room and talk with him as he plays.

- Friend calls me up: "crap I'm deep in xyz tourney and have to go, can you play for xx%?"

- This happened once: "Yo strass, I can never win a double shootout on stars, they are rigged. I want to go to the bahamas." So, with him in the room, I played a shootout and got lucky and won him a seat to the WPT.

I'm curious how terrible these things are. I always felt like I haven't crossed the line, but maybe I have.
-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW- I think all examples are variations on a theme. The real question you raise is "Is on-line MTT poker intentionally different from live MTT?"

If you believe it is, then a different code of conduct may apply.

If you believe it isn't, then none of the examples are allowable.

I believe that allowing on-line poker to play by different rules is a disservice to the game that we all love.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
Um. Did you forget what game we play for a living (or for hobby, but still)?

Of course if we win something it prevents someone else from winning. WE'RE TAKING THEIR MONEY.

[/ QUOTE ]

key words "WE", "WE" and "we're". not once did you say "I". He asked if it was crossing the line, i just pointed out that it was.

If Phil Ivey was a good friend of mine, would it be unfair for him to finish a final table for me that you were at? Would it be wrong? I'm not taking 1st away from you on my own abilities, he is.

edit: FWIW, i have been too tired to keep playing and had someone finish a tourny for me. Not that it matters, but they were a lesser player in ability (and it was only an hour into the tourny, $3 sat rebuy). It really doesnt matter if they were better or worse than me, it's still not fair to others (and i'm sure against any terms and conditions of the site).

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
why? all can be very profitable (understandably a cash game where you pick your table even more so). Big MTT's pay HUGE amounts of money, why wouldn't a regular cash game player ALSO play in MTT's and sitngo's? change of pace. game preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you'll have both your accounts at the same table in a cash game.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why? all can be very profitable (understandably a cash game where you pick your table even more so). Big MTT's pay HUGE amounts of money, why wouldn't a regular cash game player ALSO play in MTT's and sitngo's? change of pace. game preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you'll have both your accounts at the same table in a cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i just said that

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
- My friend gets deep in a tourney and says, "strass, come help me out". So I go over to his room and talk with him as he plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done this for my brother once. He's a super lag and can always accululate chips but always flames out. So he called me this one particlular night with desparation in his voice and asked for help. I was not in the particular tourney at all and didn't think I did anything wrong by coaching him.

Btw, he won the tourney. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- My friend gets deep in a tourney and says, "strass, come help me out". So I go over to his room and talk with him as he plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done this for my brother once. He's a super lag and can always accululate chips but always flames out. So he called me this one particlular night with desparation in his voice and asked for help. I was not in the particular tourney at all and didn't think I did anything wrong by coaching him.

Btw, he won the tourney. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we all have done this. It does go against the letter of the law, but compared to the point sirio makes it's like comparing jaywalking to manslaughter...

It's a matter of degrees...

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Another thing that should be considered is that these are only the odds they will be at the table at the start. But the odds they will be at the same table go up when we look at the whole tourney. The 1/80 odds they will share the same table at a big Stars might be more like 1/40 by the end of the tourney, but it is much harder to do the math for that.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- My friend gets deep in a tourney and says, "strass, come help me out". So I go over to his room and talk with him as he plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done this for my brother once. He's a super lag and can always accululate chips but always flames out. So he called me this one particlular night with desparation in his voice and asked for help. I was not in the particular tourney at all and didn't think I did anything wrong by coaching him.

Btw, he won the tourney. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we all have done this. It does go against the letter of the law, but compared to the point sirio makes it's like comparing jaywalking to manslaughter...

It's a matter of degrees...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. and i also think that it is something i can live with knowing that it happens (taking over for someone). The 2 account or playing on someone else's account, however, I would prefer not to live with.

When playing on someone else's account, what's the next step, playing both accounts right?

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
i just said that

[/ QUOTE ]

So we agree that cheaters with multiple IP addresses are more likely to cheat at cash tables than at MTTs?

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

One more thing on Sirio's math, reality is much worse than this when you factor in the average number of tables you sit at during a given tourney. My guess it is at least 2, which would increase the odds by 4 over what Sirio has calculated for the two account scenario.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i just said that

[/ QUOTE ]

So we agree that cheaters with multiple IP addresses are more likely to cheat at cash tables than at MTTs?

[/ QUOTE ]


No? Anyone that would cheat at a cash game, CERTAINLY would cheat in a big tournament where they could win 140k. It's not like the cheaters can pull in 140k every night in at the tables colluding.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i just said that

[/ QUOTE ]

So we agree that cheaters with multiple IP addresses are more likely to cheat at cash tables than at MTTs?

[/ QUOTE ]

mostly yes. sitngos would be same scenario and with a chance to lock up 2 pay spots. i do believe that it is also based on preferences. i guess, i'm just biased, i never really cared much for the cash games. i play them occasionally, but there's just something about having to stay the course of a tournament (be it sng or MTT). you are locked in, so to speak.

cash games would probably be the smartest choice for cheaters witht 2 IP addresses. just remember, they get bored too, everybody nees a little variety, plus those Sunday big money MTT's (with huge paydays) look awful tempting for those cleaning up on the cash games during the weak, they can easily fund several entries.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have noticed the fields getting larger and larger on the Stars and Party weekend and super daily tournaments. About a month ago, I was thinking it was unreal the number of players willing, and have the resources, to play these large buy-in tournaments.

Say the increase was 1000 players/tournament the last few months. If half or 500 of these new players are duplicate accounts, or maybe a quarter or 250, then "Houston we have a problem"....a major probelm

I have this sinking feeling players realize they will not be caught so are opening multiple accounts. The sites are not policing accounts from the same IP address. Thus, the influx of "new" players to the major tournaments.

Thoughts???


Stipe_fan

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're pretty much correct with your analysis.

The larger buy-in events have ballooned over the past few months, and I highly doubt that most of those are new players who simply thought it would be a good idea to throw down $220 on a tournament. Although it doesn't really bother me that much at the moment, every time a JJ wins and publicizes that he wasn't caught, more sharks will smell the blood in the water and start to multi-play.

No way to stop it unfortunately, which is why it doesn't bother me too much. There'd be about as much success in trying to stop the Earth from orbiting the sun.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

Yesterday, in the PS 180, I raise pf and two others call, I bet the flop and am reraised and I fold. The others then check down the turn and river faster than lightning. Could be nothing. But now that I know there are multi accounts out there, I can't help but wonder.

Re: The Grandma dilemma: Debunking the myths
 

[ QUOTE ]


- I'm on the bus on the way home, and I look at my watch and whoa its 4:15pm on sunday. I call a friend and ask him to log on and play the first hour of the sunday tourneys for me until I get back.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think most people have a problem with this. I think Lee Jones explicitly said this was ok, but I'm not 100% sure if he meant this kind of case.

[ QUOTE ]


- My friend gets deep in a tourney and says, "strass, come help me out". So I go over to his room and talk with him as he plays.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is kinda sketch, but again, nobody really cares b/c you're not cheating. The other players don't have an unfair advantage (except for maybe not knowing their reads are wrong now), but I'm one of those people that says you can't have a 100% read on anyone online anyway, so whatever.

[ QUOTE ]


- Friend calls me up: "crap I'm deep in xyz tourney and have to go, can you play for xx%?"



[/ QUOTE ]
you aren't hurting anyone else, this is fine.


As I think others are saying, the litmus test is "is it hurting others". Changing the person playing doesn't really hurt anyone else, especially considering how often we get moved during a tournament. Having two accounts does hurt others, as already explained.

I'm all for a 1 IP per tournament rule. For the big tournaments, as well as the small ones. If you're willing to fork over $215 (or I guess a little less to qualify), you should be able to pay $30 a month for your own cable modem line or whatever. I realize that the really skilled cheaters would just all do this, but its better than nothing and would help a little.