Am I an angle-shooting douchebag?

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]
He should have his account suspended because you lost your money, yes of course you are right.
Lets not care about the problem, lets gamble it up, if we win great,if we lose, demand our money back.
Your making alot of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, he should have his account suspended because he was cheating.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should have his account suspended because you lost your money, yes of course you are right.
Lets not care about the problem, lets gamble it up, if we win great,if we lose, demand our money back.
Your making alot of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, he should have his account suspended because he was cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you can find the rule on Titan's site which states that what the guy did was cheating, go ahead. I couldn't find it, but who knows, maybe I missed it.

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should have his account suspended because you lost your money, yes of course you are right.
Lets not care about the problem, lets gamble it up, if we win great,if we lose, demand our money back.
Your making alot of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, he should have his account suspended because he was cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you can find the rule on Titan's site which states that what the guy did was cheating, go ahead. I couldn't find it, but who knows, maybe I missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, you're right, they don't specifically mention having to rejoin a table with the same sum. However it could fall under the clauses about abiding by the rules, not exploiting the software, etc.

BTW:

"8. YOUR WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS
You warrant and represent that:

8.1 you are not a resident of The Philippines, Antigua and Barbuda, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands Antilles, Estonia, Bulgaria, Hong Kong, China, Turkey, and/or The United States of America and its territories;

8.2 you are acting on your own behalf;

8.3 you are not restricted by limited legal capacity;

8.4 you are not classified as a compulsive gambler;"


OOPS

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you're right, they don't specifically mention having to rejoin a table with the same sum. However it could fall under the clauses about abiding by the rules, not exploiting the software, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF IT IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES TO REJOIN A TABLE WITH A LESSER SUM OF MONEY, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY NOT BE ABIDING BY THE RULES?


Obviously you have a defective thought process. You should fix this.

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, you're right, they don't specifically mention having to rejoin a table with the same sum. However it could fall under the clauses about abiding by the rules, not exploiting the software, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF IT IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES TO REJOIN A TABLE WITH A LESSER SUM OF MONEY, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY NOT BE ABIDING BY THE RULES?


Obviously you have a defective thought process. You should fix this.

[/ QUOTE ]


It isn't covered in the T+Cs

However it is controlled by the software which bans you from doing it. Therefore he is obviously acting in bad faith and giving himself an unfair advantage over other players, who can't take money off a table and return to it with less. I tried to rejoin a table with less and I couldn't do it, so he must have found a bug which he was exploiting, I'm not sure how - one suggestion was by selecting "Rejoin first available $5/$10 table" rather than directly selecting the specific table.

[Josem]

FACTS:

a) Player returns to table with less cash.

b) You claim that the software does not allow this.


CONCLUSION:

One of the following is true:

a) Software is defective

b) Your claim is defective.

I believe that (b) is more likely.

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]
FACTS:

a) Player returns to table with less cash.

b) You claim that the software does not allow this.


CONCLUSION:

One of the following is true:

a) Software is defective

b) Your claim is defective.

I believe that (b) is more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're not making any sense. So you think it IS possible for any player to leave a table and rejoin with less money? This isn't true. FACT if you leave a table and try to rejoin it immediately with less money, you can't.

He found a way to do it, as I said I suspect through selecting to join "any" table at this limit rather than the particular one. There must be a bug in the software which forgets to identify that he just left the table with more money. So he is exploiting a bug in the software.

[Mcbrag]

First off, it seems you have run into a glitch in their software, probably due to their having an incompetent/non poker experienced programmer and/or consultant who worked on their original programming. In the computer programming world it takes a while to get things like this fixed.

As you know, (and I'm still amazed at how many "online pros" don't) if you were in a live card room this would never have happened. The player attempting to rathole would be forced to sit out a certain amount of time before being allowed to reenter the game. I'm sure someone attempted this in the first card rooms in early America claiming it wasn't "against the rules", but these players soon were labeled cheaters and were shot by the other players. The card room managers at the time were getting tired of losing customers that way, so they were able to quickly implement the rules as they stand in most card rooms today.

Unfortunately, times have changed, and you are not able to shoot this scumbag angle shooter. (At least, it's not practical, what with travel, cleanup of DNA evidence, disposal of body, etc.). It looks as if you are just going to have to accept that your opponent was not cheating per se, but was unethical.

You have done the right thing by reporting the angle shooting glitch to the site and now you should let them know you will be taking your business elsewhere until the glitch is fixed and that they should contact you directly when it is because you are not going to check back. Much like the live card rooms of old, management will not really have an incentive to get this fixed until they start losing business.