ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[ctj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jeremy,

Yes, please elaborate.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

Short version:
CreateFileMapping, if ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS then exit

[/ QUOTE ]

Longer version:
1. Create a 'Client Signature'.
2. Client periodically checks its own signature; shuts itself down if the signature has changed (and reports to SysAdmin).
3. At startup (and at random intervals afterwards) check other windows for same client signature; shut down and report if found.
4. make some changes to this algorithm with each new release.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
I have, however, heard William apologize for El Capitano's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have? please quote me, I will explain why you're not thinking straight.

Furthermore, I am also under the impression that both you and N have been trying to minimize ZJ actions quite vigorously. (with the occasional "I don't think what he did was right" followed by hundreds of "he's a good boy and I know that it was not his intention to cheat everybody"

If we look at the big picture, we have indeed learned a lot this 2 days, and not only about ZJ.

[jaydub]

Jeremy,

Perhaps you did not understand the problem. We are in an environment where we cannot trust the client.

As for how I would bypass the specific protection you mention, I would run the client inside of a debugger the second time I launched and modify the handle to point elsewhere. Were I to do this multiple times I might patch the exe to simply remove the check.

J

[mlagoo]

i agree with shane/curtains/mlg/strassa. other people are being hysterical/reactionary and need to relax. i have a feeling online poker will still be here tomorrow.

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like Stars warns offenders before confiscation and Party doesn't ... does anyone prefer the Stars policy to the Party approach?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, they should let em play until thet hit a big score... and then confiscate the cash.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have, however, heard William apologize for El Capitano's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have? please quote me, I will explain why you're not thinking straight.

Furthermore, I am also under the impression that both you and N have been trying to minimize ZJ actions quite vigorously. (with the occasional "I don't think what he did was right" followed by hundreds of "he's a good boy and I know that it was not his intention to cheat everybody"

If we look at the big picture, we have indeed learned a lot this 2 days, and not only about ZJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

William in a post back around 24 hours you said "What El Capitano did was not nearly as bad as what ZJ did" or words to that effect. And while it's obvious that ZJ's violation is WAY more flagrant, as I said before, the root of this corruption was planted during the El Cap thing.

And since there is clearly some kind of communication barrier between us let me make it black and white for you: I have not once in this thread (nor has N 82 to my recollection) made any statement designed to "minimize" the wrong behind Justin's actions. Not sure how it came off like that, but it's not the case.

I just feel we'd be better of looking at the bigger picture.

[jaydub]

ctj,

You are being way to vague to be taken seriously. How is the signature checked for starters.

J

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeremy,

Perhaps you did not understand the problem. We are in an environment where we cannot trust the client.

As for how I would bypass the specific protection you mention, I would run the client inside of a debugger the second time I launched and modify the handle to point elsewhere. Were I to do this multiple times I might patch the exe to simply remove the check.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

I was assuming that we're already smart enough to not allow the program to be run under a debugger. Also, based on what you said, you didn't even understand what I said.

BTW there are solutions to prevent running modified executables.

[William]

You are right when you say that we all have our viewpoints and are unwilling to make concession.
I am the first to admit I get carried away.

After all it is just a game and I might reconsider the many offers I get to become a part of a "poker business team". It seems the paycheck is much better on that side of the table.

(Yes, for the really thick ones, that last statement was sarcastic)

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, I am also under the impression that both you and N have been trying to minimize ZJ actions quite vigorously. (with the occasional "I don't think what he did was right" followed by hundreds of "he's a good boy and I know that it was not his intention to cheat everybody"

If we look at the big picture, we have indeed learned a lot this 2 days, and not only about ZJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I ever say it wasn't his intention to cheat people?

I said that I didn't think it was his intention to collude. That's a HUGE difference. If you don't see why, then I don't know how to explain it to you.

Let me say it again, I think his intention was to cheat people out of EV through the greater extraction from a single tournament than he is allowed to. That is definitely cheating. If his ROI is 100%, he's essentially taking $200 per Sunday tournament per account that he runs. He's only entitled to take $200. The extra $1000 in expectation from the extra 5 accounts is akin to stolen equity (which is money in the long run, so we can equate the two).

However, that doesn't not mean that he set out to collude between accounts. I don't KNOW it to be the case, but I am very confident that he didn't not do this with the primary intention of sharing hole cards or manipulating the action with two accounts at one table.

Once again, because you might have lost my point, that does not state that he didn't intend to cheat people out of money.