To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunday

[Annulus]

Adam,
Just from reading the last 10 posts on this thread I think you are the one who needs to "calm the hell down", and there is no reason to call Dvault a 'clown' based on his reply, which i thought was very good and well thought out.

[A_Junglen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do I know this? After traveling to Dublin, Bahamas, Australia, Monte Carlo and other major events I've talked to many PokerStars representatives. I'm incredibly well networked, and poker is my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. I think we agree about the facts: you're a well-networked poker player with access to information that most of us don't have. I just think admitting that you're very well networked with Stars reps and others in the poker community is questionable, at best. Given the climate, which you admit is teeming with paranoia, the inevitable accusation/suspicion will be that you (not you ajunglen specifically -- but you the high limit 2p2 MTT community) will use this network for nefarious purposes.

So, perhaps it's wise to not advertise all that which you know and others don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I've spoken to PS reps on dinner breaks casually. I see them once a trip...In Dublin we discussed how they closed down ZJ and JJ's accounts.

I have a lot of friends that play poker. That's how you improve. You discuss hands with better players. In order to become one of the best players it helps to develop a network of poker friends. I coach bond18 through MSWord reports and hand histories.

I don't see how any of this is questionable, and frankly I find it insulting that you're implying my friends are using our network for "nefarious purposes."

[MLG]

he's not. he's saying your posts in the thread will lead to that impression (whether or not that impression is valid).

[mflip]

This thread is titled "before this Sunday". Hopefully that was Jeff's way of setting a deadline for these players to cut it out. If he spotted them in the Sunday Million yesterday then hopefully they will be reported. I think it is fine for Jeff to try to handle this matter without going through PokerStars and tarnishing the names of people he considers friends. However, this practice cannot be allowed to continue so if his attempt at quietly ending it was not successful then there really is no alternative other than going to PokerStars and getting some accounts banned. Obviously he needs proof though and "I heard him bragging about it" is not sufficient proof. It is enough to get them investigated though and for their alleged accounts to be watched more closely.

[uclabruinz]

Jeff made clear in his OP he will not be reporting anyone, he was just warning the cheaters that someone "less discreet" then him might report them.

Also, if you see someone steal money is it ethical to say, "don't do that again or someone might catch you" and then let them keep the money?

The bottom line is that Jeff is in a tough spot, where doing the right thing is not easy, but what is right is not really unclear at all. What's right is to report the known cheaters immediately to Stars and let them do what they can with whatever information Jeff has.

[mflip]

Whether he reports them or lets the names slip to someone, say you, that he knows will report them he's doing the same thing.

Obviously it is ethically correct to turn them in. Is there really a way here that Jeff can make them give the money back without turning them in? No, of course there isn't. That's what makes this situation different from one where, say you see one of your friends take a $100 bill of someone's dresser at a hotel. He can easily give the money back. The situation online is more like everytime this friend goes into someone's hotel room they take a dollar and this happens over and over again. Eventually they amass a large amount of money. You know it isn't right what they are doing so you tell them you think they should cut it out. Are you really going to try to make them return every dollar they've ever taken to every person they've taken one from? It's impossible to do. (Obviously this is a gross understatement to what it really going on, but I feel as though it is similar).

[gobboboy]

All,

Jeff is just thinking of his poker career in the long term when he makes these decisions, one of which is to not turn the people in. He wants them to stop doing it, yes, but he doesn't want to go outside their trust to do it. Whether or not we want it to happen, the people who multiaccount will keep playing poker for a long time. It's not like we can throw them in jail or actually get them to stop playing poker online. It just can't happen. To think that it can't is just really foolish. So why should Jeff slaughter his relationships with those people in the long run when trust is such a huge part of being a poker player when you're dealing with such huge amounts of money?

Are you telling me that the countless underage people who play online should be turned in? It's not like everyone who posts here doesn't know of tons of underage people who have been and are still part of the online poker community. Why don't we do it? Because we think it's a stupid rule and we like the people involved. Other people have the same inclination about multiaccount or buying people's accounts or whatever, it's just that you disagree with their opinion.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how any of this is questionable, and frankly I find it insulting that you're implying my friends are using our network for "nefarious purposes."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it's not used for nefarious purposes, but I think alot of what's discussed in threads like these are close enough to the edge of what's ethical and what's not that donks looking for a reason to scream about how rigged the game is won't make a distinction.

I don't want to harp on IMing during hands, because it's clear the sites tolerate it and almost everyone does it, but I suspect it's something that scares/frustrates donks when they realize it's occurring. It's one thing to be in a hand against Phil Ivey, but it's even more daunting when Phil can get up from the table and talk to Daniel N. and Phil Helmuth in the middle of the hand about how to proceed. Even if that *doesn't* happen in the high-stakes MTT 2p2 network, some of you seem quite cavalier about discussing how you IM each other during your big scores. Many of you are world-class players and are well-known in the industry, etc., so the thought of you engaging in "team play", even if it not at all the reality of what's happening, is the kind of thing that frustrates/scares/annoys mediocre and casual players who can't IM adanthar and nath when they're deep in the Sunday Million. Again, this may not be what's happening at all, but some of you don't seem to care if that's the impression that observers walk away with.

It's inevitable that players are going to IM each other during hands, and it's completely understandable why the best players would want to seek out other good players for advice in the middle of a hand. So I'm not looking to castigate anyone for doing it, but I am asking for everyone to consider whether or not it's a great idea to openly broadcast that it happens.

I think multi-accounting is similar. There will always be players who will attempt it, and I suspect there will always be players who successfully do it. I think it's an open question as to how much we want to condemn those who do it. I'm of the ucla school of thought, which is to say I agree that ideally, players would rat out/report known multi-accounters. But I realize that's a tough decision.

Having said that -- and this is really my larger point here: I question the wisdom of threads like this, which do little but create that paranoia you seem so frustrated by. *I* don't know any multi-accounters; so there's not much action I can take. Jeff apparently knows some, but he's decided not to do anything either. I suspect everyone who is aware of specific players who multi-account have made their own decisions about whether or not to report them to the various sites. So I fail to see what this thread accomplishes, aside from scaring casual players away from the table. The online poker industry is already wrought with credibility problems, and I think threads like this just exacerbate the problem.

Suggesting you're well-networked with Stars reps and can get "inside" information from them is similarly problematic; those friendships may be completely above-board, but it won't stop the "zomg rigged" crowd from implying that your friends at Stars have turned off your doomswitch for you, or have let you know how to circumvent their multi-account security protocols. Particularly when you seem to openly flaunt that you're "in-the-know" about what Stars does to police for multi-accounters. I realize that's probably not the case, and the only information you had was specific players who had been busted in the past, but your first post in response to ucla ("you don't know all that Stars is doing") isn't clear, and could reasonably interpreted to suggest that you know what steps Stars takes to catch mutli-accounters.

This thread has 5000 views, and I suspect at least a couple of people who read it are going to think "the top players all have 10 accounts, IM each other when I'm in a hand with them, and are friends with the guys who run the sites. I can't possibly go deep in the big events", even if that characterization is grossly unfair. I don't really care to debate the ethical merits of multi-accounting or the 1-player-per-hand rule, but I feel pretty confident this thread and ones like it frighten people away from the tables. So I think it makes sense to either take action and report multi-accounters, or just stop making threads where the discussion centers around a continuing problem that threatens the integrity of the game.

[nath]

Reading threads like this just reemphasizes how good I must be, because I don't multiaccount and still put up a nice fat ROI. These cheaters are pathetic clown fish.


Gobbo,

Conflating multiaccounting with underage playing is not going to help the situation at all. Not to mention that cheaters should be [censored] ostracized from the poker community, so who cares about damaging a professional relationship with someone who shouldn't be allowed near the profession?

As you've probably guessed, I have zero problem throwing multiaccounters under the bus, which is why nobody tells me anything about what's going on.

[MLG]

gobbo,
yikes. I like to think that your underage analogy is just a hyperbolic one, because it completely misses the meat of the argument. Underage rules are not there to protect the integrity of the game, bans on multi-accounting are. To equate the two seems silly.

As for your argument focusing specifically on multi-accounting. While we can't throw multi-accounters in jail, we can clearly make it much harder for them to operate. We can make it easier for them to be caught which results in bans and funds being confiscated. Sure they can try again, and sure they can be caught again, over and over. But, in the meantime the more vigilant the community is the riskier it becomes for players to multi-account and therefore the less lucrative. Personally I could care less whether or not Jeff slaughters his relationships with these people. However, continuing his relationship with them, despite them doing thigns he considers unethical undermines the moral stance he's taking. His continued actions and relationships with these people would speak way louder than any words he posts here. And I can't stress enough, this goes for everybody in the high stakes community. Talk is cheap, but not backing up that talk with action makes the talk meaningless.

Additionally, let me add one more time, that I think this post by Jeff is good and important. Its a first step, but if the community as a whole doesnt follow up on the first step then it becomes meaningless.