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

[uclabruinz]

Gobbo,

That is an awful post. Jeff doesn't want to turn in known cheaters for fear of losing their trust? You don't see the absurdity in this statement? You don't see the damage he is doing to his reputation by admitting to being friends with multiaccounters and unambiguously stating that he won't turn them in or make their names known?

Your "they're going to do it anyway" arguments has already been exposed as ridiculous earlier in the thread so I won't address it again here.

[Nez477]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gobbo,

This is ridiculous. Stop using 'we' in this context. YOU don't feel like turning these people in. If I knew any, I may choose differently.

I'm glad Jeff could make a post to make himself feel more comfortable with knowing cheaters. That's a little harsh I guess, but I guess I don't see the point otherwise.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Redsoxsox got banned for multiaccounting.

It is common knowledge.

Also, Jeff claimed to me once he beat redsoxsox/a multiaccount of his 3handed in the 109r on two separate occasions.

Pretty ill accomplishment by Jeff I guess lolz.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO I didn't even know this, jebus.

the only reason I haven't said anything specific is because I was told a bunch of things in confidence and it's not my story to tell/I have all third hand information and no proof anyway. but take my word for it that it's a big [censored] problem.

okay, here's a tidbit: there are more *shared* accounts out there than multiaccounts by a factor of ten. this isn't ordinarily a problem (IMO - there are lots of legitimate ways to use a shared account, like 'one guy plays HSNL and his brother sticks to $10 SNG's'), except when there are a bunch of high stakes players all using the same name playing different styles. I had no clue that one fairly well known name could be a half dozen different people, all of whom know different things about my play. but okay, fine, I can live with that - this only really affects people that play each other regularly, and most of us are gonna be in the loop at this point/people are nice enough to AIM each other sometimes/when adanthar and nath share an account, everyone at the table know who is who within 3 hands. what makes this really fun is when a shared account is also multiaccounting, which apparently does also happen. dksklhfhjhsdhgjhkshgdkjd.

[djk123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redsoxsox got banned for multiaccounting.

It is common knowledge.

Also, Jeff claimed to me once he beat redsoxsox/a multiaccount of his 3handed in the 109r on two separate occasions.

Pretty ill accomplishment by Jeff I guess lolz.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO I didn't even know this, jebus.

the only reason I haven't said anything specific is because I was told a bunch of things in confidence and it's not my story to tell/I have all third hand information and no proof anyway. but take my word for it that it's a big [censored] problem.

okay, here's a tidbit: there are more *shared* accounts out there than multiaccounts by a factor of ten. this isn't ordinarily a problem (IMO - there are lots of legitimate ways to use a shared account, like 'one guy plays HSNL and his brother sticks to $10 SNG's'), except when there are a bunch of high stakes players all using the same name playing different styles. I had no clue that one fairly well known name could be a half dozen different people, all of whom know different things about my play. but okay, fine, I can live with that - this only really affects people that play each other regularly, and most of us are gonna be in the loop at this point/people are nice enough to AIM each other sometimes/when adanthar and nath share an account, everyone at the table know who is who within 3 hands. what makes this really fun is when a shared account is also multiaccounting, which apparently does also happen. dksklhfhjhsdhgjhkshgdkjd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez I feel dumb I didn't know any of this was going on. You're talking about MTTs right? If so could you or someone who knows please pm me who does this sharing thing? I play all the big MTTs on all the sites basically every day so it'd be nice to know.

[yellowdoyle]

AJunglen,

Just a casual reader, but you come off pretty poor in this thread. Not necessarily your ideas or what have you, but just the tone and attitude you take. Just an observer's opinion.

And poker is not everyone's life, as you say it makes up a great part of yours. Therefore things that are obvious to you will not be obvious to others, so you shouldn't be so condescending when they may not notice things that are apparent to you.

[Body Man D]

I’m an old guy who is out of the loop, so this stuff is all news to me. I assumed after the ZeeJustin thing that this type of stuff had stopped. I’ve been fortunate enough to make a fairly large amount of money playing MTT’s over the last year or so, but it sickens me to think that it could have been more if all was fair and square.

I’m in the Nath camp in that if I knew of anyone multi accounting I would have no problem reporting it. Hopefully some of you guy’s that are aware of whose doing this will step up and report it for all of our benefits.

[timotheeeee]

FWIW, before I read this thread I didn't realize the extent to which multi-accounting and top-players-IMing-each-other-for-advice occurred.

I've played many $100, $200, and $300 tourneys and sngs. Next time my bankroll justifies excursions into the higher buy-in tournaments I think I'll just save myself the paranoia.

I'm not going to get on anyone's ass for not ratting anyone out, but I'd like the people striding thin ethical lines (or crossing them), especially the professional poker players (or the already-well bankrolled ones), to know that you're pretty much a disgrace to people like me that feverishly study poker books for hours and grind out hundreds of thousands of hands so that one day we might be able to regularly play above the lower limits.

I understand greed is primarily what drives us to play, but next time one of you is about to open up another account, try opening up Theory of Poker instead to figure out how to make money.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
It just can't happen. To think that it can't is just really foolish

[/ QUOTE ]

It can, and it should; it's foolish and obtuse to think it can't. I just wish Stars gave me a job (well paid of course) to catch all these scumbags. I have plenty of ideas about how to do it. I just think Stars does not care that much, maybe a little just to save image, but not enough, hey, they love Exclusive(Noah), remember him?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, Gobbo, I'm speechless, very, very sad.

P.S. I just wonder how much money all the scumbagitis have cost me in the past 2 years, people multiaccounting, teams in the FT, people buying 1 (or maybe more accounts) near the FT of a big tourney, poker schools "helping out" his students for a % of the winnings. Do you guys think Stars has lost any money because of all these practices?

[whitcolumn]

It seems to me this whole thread is pointless. Everyone can talk about and debate right and wrong till this thread is 1,000 pages long, but... is any good coming of it? I'd say other then stirring up a little soon to be forgotten controversy, no. I myself assumed that this happens, and perhaps I am naive about the extent of which is occurs, but I still enter the major tournaments. Poker has always been a shady game IMO, and I guess this is that shadyness with a 21st century twist.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
How would I know such knowledge?

Casual observation you clown. When one of the best players on PokerStars disappears for a year he just MIGHT have gotten caught multiaccounting. JUST A HUNCH. (Sorry btw, but I have to defend myself against these retarded implications)

Jesus [censored] christ. Everyone's so [censored] paranoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the same Adam I just knew in Vegas?

Really Adam, no need for the name calling, DVault1 has conducted himself with a lot of class IMHO.

Nath, Ucla, MLG, DVault and some of the others with strong opinions on this. Let's do something, it's shocking we're in the minority between all the self called "professionals".

Poker was always shady in the past (think 70's 80's) with plenty of scumbags, I thought the Internet era and the new young guys with a little more education and hopefully more sense of ethics would change that, I guess not.