Sites should take these steps immediately...

[RedBean]

Odoyle, I agree with the meaning behind your suggestions 100%, but the practical implications of implementing these type of things are not small issues.

1. IP restrictions on MTT's aren't as easy as it looks. Sure, from a software standpoint, it can be implemented, as most of the sites do this already for STT's and ring games, but look at the impact it has on those playing behind bridgeheads on campuses, dorms, apartment complexes, and even regional AOL dial-up bridgeheads.

Do you really want to restrict the amount of eligible students from WVU to 1 person in each MTT? Or, for example, if an AOL users in upper manhattan dials in an signs up for the MTT, then his external bridgehead IP (the one party sees) prohibits any access to that MTT for the other 60,000 AOL users on the island.

The other stuff I agree with and could be practically applied as far as I am aware.

[Robby Box]

[ QUOTE ]
Odoyle, I agree with the meaning behind your suggestions 100%, but the practical implications of implementing these type of things are not small issues.

1. IP restrictions on MTT's aren't as easy as it looks. Sure, from a software standpoint, it can be implemented, as most of the sites do this already for STT's and ring games, but look at the impact it has on those playing behind bridgeheads on campuses, dorms, apartment complexes, and even regional AOL dial-up bridgeheads.

Do you really want to restrict the amount of eligible students from WVU to 1 person in each MTT? Or, for example, if an AOL users in upper manhattan dials in an signs up for the MTT, then his external bridgehead IP (the one party sees) prohibits any access to that MTT for the other 60,000 AOL users on the island.

The other stuff I agree with and could be practically applied as far as I am aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is absolutely correct.

Whilst Party prevent accounts associated by Computer ID, playing from the same IP, and who knows what else in Ring games and SNGs, for the reasons in the above post how can they possibly apply this to MTT?

It is unreasonable to expect any Poker site to have preventative measures to catch all kinds of cheating, because a cheat can always go to any length to hide his identity and location.

Sure they COULD take some more steps, but these would only prevent genuine players from playing too.

If they did put the IP interlock on, I can imagine the scene on the PPMV cruise on Sunday, when the numerous passengers crouched over their laptops find out that only one of them can enter the big game, because they are all sharing the same IP.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Either make rakeback completely above board or eliminate it...

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand why airline fares are so unbelievably complicated? Ever asked yourself what purpose this serves? Why even the occasional upstart airline that simplifies pricing gradually makes it complicated again?

If you don't like to fly we could talk about pricing for wireless phone service instead [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].

Rakeback (known as "discounting" in other industries) exists in its current muddled state for a very good reason. Online poker rooms want it that way.

[Anders]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either make rakeback completely above board or eliminate it...

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand why airline fares are so unbelievably complicated? Ever asked yourself what purpose this serves? Why even the occasional upstart airline that simplifies pricing gradually makes it complicated again?

If you don't like to fly we could talk about pricing for wireless phone service instead [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].

Rakeback (known as "discounting" in other industries) exists in its current muddled state for a very good reason. Online poker rooms want it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]


The comparison between airline ticket prices and online poker rakeback is perfect. The reasons for allowing rakeback to exist in its current form are exactly those that keep ticket pricing the way it is. Good connection.

[Baulucky]

[ QUOTE ]
Rakeback (known as "discounting" in other industries) exists in its current muddled state for a very good reason. Online poker rooms want it that way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I would also argue that various forms of cheating exist for the very same reasons.

[smoore]

1) If you ban HUD's only savvy people will have them. Consider this:

A computer connects to the site with the official client. Unbeknownst to the poker site, this "computer" is actually a vmware virtual machine. Pokertracker is running on the host machine. A HUD is running on the host machine.

Result: The same thing we have now for the user but the poker site has no idea that PT is even collecting data, let alone that there is a HUD overlay.

2) Forget setting up multiple computers to multi-account. Again vmware comes to the rescue, this time fully over the cheating "line". 1600x1200 display on host machine. Four vmware virtual machines running simultaneously @ 800x600. These either use a full service proxy or four physical connections in the host machine to avoid dupe IP addresses. Simple.

Result: Same ability we have now, just slightly more complicated for the end user. This is a case of giving greedy people enough rope to hang themselves. If a cheater is prevented from connecting twice from the same IP he/she may think, "How can I get multiple IP's to all display on this monitor?" The way it is now there is a very good chance of catching them. If separate IPs were required then there would be nearly no trace in the network, you'd be down to standard collusion/softplaying detection methods. Give the cheaters enough rope, please.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Odoyle, I agree with the meaning behind your suggestions 100%, but the practical implications of implementing these type of things are not small issues.

1. IP restrictions on MTT's aren't as easy as it looks. Sure, from a software standpoint, it can be implemented, as most of the sites do this already for STT's and ring games, but look at the impact it has on those playing behind bridgeheads on campuses, dorms, apartment complexes, and even regional AOL dial-up bridgeheads.

Do you really want to restrict the amount of eligible students from WVU to 1 person in each MTT? Or, for example, if an AOL users in upper manhattan dials in an signs up for the MTT, then his external bridgehead IP (the one party sees) prohibits any access to that MTT for the other 60,000 AOL users on the island.

The other stuff I agree with and could be practically applied as far as I am aware.

[/ QUOTE ]


I signed-up at a site to receive high-rakeback/prop-pay.
They told me I wasn't eligible because there were several accounts already signed-up via my ISP (I was on the Verizon-Wireless broadband card...so I guess they just looked at us all as one user??).

I had never been to that site before and didn't even know if I wanted to play there because I had no idea if the games were any good.
So I don't really consider it a big loss they they won't let me sign-up for their rake-back program.

But it was just kind of weird to be black-balled like that since I had never been to their site before.

[mroels]

Note: i've posted this elsewhere too but never got an answer..still relevant though!!

[ QUOTE ]
No more than one account from the same IP can enter a MTT...
(obvious)

[/ QUOTE ]

What will happen to people who share an external IP but play from different computers whose users have port forwarded their internal IP's as static to their routers?

Coz like my younger brother lives in a dorm where everyone is on the same wireless network...meaning that they all share IP's...and a lot of these kids are playing poker!! From what i've seen they're pretty much legit and don't sit in each other's rooms and play together...but how can websites garauntee safety without getting rid of many of these legit accounts?


What I really don't understand is how these guys can cashout money to Neteller? (I personally use Firepay coz its cheaper but I assume that Neteller operates on the same principles) I mean doesn't you name and email address have to match on your pokersite account and Neteller account have to match? And Neteller requires ur real name, ssn, and bank info to be verified. So how could the websites not recognize multiple accounts with the same email address cashing out to the same Neteller account?

[SmileyEH]

I pretty much dissagree with most of this idealistically, and in practicality I disagree with all of it.

-SmileyEH

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]

You started off great then slowly went off the deep end. Rather than just stating your opinion, how about you back them up with why you feel the way you feel?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just a big picture type of guy.

If the major press reports that online poker allows rampant cheating, allows "tech savvy" players to use software that basically eliminates any chance that the average player can win and secretly awards some players with a "kickback", how many new players are going to be jumping in the pool?

Once the poker playing public at large views that the online games are not fair, game over!

Technical issues aside, at least MTTs should be the same as ring games and STTs are now treated once the site has established some sort of connection between players, (by logging on to the same computer)and not allow a player to register for that MTT.