[MicroBob]

a few thoughts after reading most of this thread.

1 - wow, what a long thread. I have to admit that I can't help but be rather disappointed. The 8-men out reference is spot-on. My immediate reaction was, "Say it so Zee!!"


2 - kudos to party for figuring this out. thumbs-down for having to be told about it by someone else. seriously, he's on 6 accounts and they can evidently SEE that he's on 6 accounts if they just look at it. But they needed somebody ELSE to have a hunch about it before they even looked into it??
One assumes this wasn't the first time that Zee did this. So why did it take them so long to figure it out?


3 - Did we find out how urmeowed had this suspicion in the first place?


4 - Ed, your opinion is somewhat interesting I guess.

I think you greatly underestimate the chance of zee sitting with himself in a 1000+ player tournament.

There are 6 of him. There are maybe 100 or 200 tables going in some of these semi-large field tourneys.
And he's easily a strong enough player where he can get 2 or 3 of these accounts to the final 10 tables.

I wouldn't be surprised if he wound up sitting at a table with himself at some point in MANY of the tourneys he plays in.

With 6 accounts registered this can't JUST be about maximizing your chances 6 different ways.

There HAVE to be lots of scenarios where he ends up on the same table as himself and gets to benefit.

It would be tough enough to play in a tourney with 6 Zee's in the field (as has been pointed out before) but to say that the chances of him being at the same table with himself is miniscule is nuts.


I can't begin to count the number of large-field tourneys where I recognize somebody else at my table from the same tourney the day before (just for example).

23 random people in a room. The chances that 2 of them have the same birthday are greater than 50/50.

Stuff like that.

6 players: 200 tables.
Also some switching-tables (and losing players in there) he is going to be sitting with himself at some point more often than you seem to think.


5.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Your buddies should be lucky that it's not a "criminal act".


[/ QUOTE ]

It is a criminal act; it's called international wire fraud. Who's gonna enforce it though. It would have to involve US cooperation and extradition for this to happen, which I don't see as very likely at this time....however, I wouldn't be absolutely shocked if did happen.

[/ QUOTE ]


mempho - there is no way the WSOP is going to ban him from participating in their events imo.

Also, if this is international-wire fraud then the act of gambling itself is breaking the 1961 wire-act.

Trying to claim that this is international-wire fraud seems like it would be like trying to use legal-means to get to the bookie who decided not to pay you when the Knicks covered the spread.


I just don't think there is any international-wire fraud justification here because of the legal grey-area that surrounds online-poker.



Additionally, it's possible that Party is covered in their T&C's where I assume they say (not going to read it again) that their judgement on breaking their rules is final.

There was a situation in their tournaments. They have made their initial determination that cheating was involved...and they are continuing to look into it.