ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[curtains]

Okay you guys are overreacting IMO. Lets imagine a situation where someone is "convicted" of intentionalyl disconnecting in a cash game, in a $1000 pot, that they end up winning. They have 20k in their account. No pokersite in the world is going to confiscate all 20k. They are going to at most return the 1k pot to the victim if the disconnect seems to be ingenuine, and they will return the 19k to the offender and either ban them from their site or remove their disconnect protection.

They may search this player's history for more greivances, but unless you want all the money confiscated by anyone who is convicted of any cheating, then you need to stop being hypocrites. Also I honestly feel a lot safer knowing that they can't just take all of your money because they feel you cheated. You don't think a poker site has ever been wrong about someone having cheated? In these cases, they are correct, but I'm sure there are gray areas that could occur where they may falsely accuse you of cheating once. For instance you could make some comment at the table that affects gameplay, that may be construed as clear collusion/cheating. Do you really want them to now take every penny from your account?

Do you think that someone whom is found to have intentionally used a disconnect protection should lose everything in their account? If not, then I believe you are at least somewhat of a hypocrite.

[bigdog23]

Yeah because their system does not allow you 6 entries from one computer. This is so much worse than P Stars.
Lee addressed alot of the mult tourying in the noah boaken thread.
Essentially since thier system wont allow multiple entries from the same IP it is not a huge issue. Unlike Party which has always led the world in crap software

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes even with a lawyer (which the state seems to think is pretty important, it being unconstitutional and all for them to take things from you without providing one).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, that's what called a civil case. You certainly aren't entitled to an attorney.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]


Okay you guys are overreacting IMO. Lets imagine a situation where someone is "convicted" of intentionalyl disconnecting in a cash game, in a $1000 pot, that they end up winning. They have 20k in their account. No pokersite in the world is going to confiscate all 20k. They are going to at most return the 1k pot to the victim if the disconnect seems to be ingenuine, and they will return the 19k to the offender and either ban them from their site or remove their disconnect protection.

They may search this player's history for more greivances, but unless you want all the money confiscated by anyone who is convicted of any cheating, then you need to stop being hypocrites. Also I honestly feel a lot safer knowing that they can't just take all of your money because they feel you cheated. You don't think a poker site has ever been wrong about someone having cheated? In these cases, they are correct, but I'm sure there are gray areas that could occur where they may falsely accuse you of cheating once. For instance you could make some comment at the table that affects gameplay, that may be construed as clear collusion/cheating. Do you really want them to now take every penny from your account?

Do you think that someone whom is found to have intentionally used a disconnect protection should lose everything in their account? If not, then I believe you are at least somewhat of a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that you mention it curtains, I don't think the sites do enough against the disconnectors.

[BAK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hello Sean,

Our anti-collusion and anti-cheating policy is not set in stone. It is
simply too vague to say that someone who is cheating will have all of their
funds seized, and very possibly could be construed in many jurisdictions as
illegal. What we consider when seizing the funds of a cheater are as
follows:

-The exposure to harm of the victims
-The nature of the cheating
-The severity of the cheating
-The knowledge that the user was cheating
-The duration of cheating

As well as a few other mitigating factors. While I cannot disclose private
information about 'ZeeJustin' and his violations at PokerStars, I can say
that he only had one additional account on PokerStars that occasionally
played in simultaneous tournaments. The extent of his infractions at
PokerStars was not severe enough to warrant total seizure of his funds. We
understand that it is possible that the extent of his violations on
PartyPoker were much greater, however, we cannot speculate or base our
decision in any way related to their findings for reasons that should be
obvious.

If you choose not to play on PokerStars because of your views on our
collusion/cheating policy, we're quite sorry to lose you as a customer. I
personally hope that you review the email and understand that our anti-
cheating policy does not wholly exclude punitive damages but instead covers
a wide range of variables as stated previously. We feel that this issue is
so in depth for most users that a simple black-and-white approach to
alleged "cheating" is going to be more detrimental than effective.

If you have any further questions or concerns, do not hesitate to let us
know.

Regards,

Kyle

[/ QUOTE ]

I get their position, and its actually good that they think about things and do not just have one reaction, since it actually is *possible* for honest mistakes to happen (i.e. roomates playing in the same tourney and not colluding etc)

I'd hate to see an honest player lose thier roll because of optics and not evidence.

That being said, their lack of any punitive charges is disconcerting.

I misread Lee's first email, and thought they took his roll.

Their response to someone who set out to cheat is too tepid for my taste.

Add me to the list who won't play on Pstars.

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an industry where those of us in the USA have absolutely no legal recourse against it. Do we really want to insist that the poker sites impose punative damages when they have determined that their rules have been broken? Companies in the USA cannot do that - only the courts can. Frankly, as much as I admire Lee Jones, he is NOT a judge and jury and I appreciate the fact that he seems to understand that.

I would rather that poker sites take a more measured response to the individual cases they catch, while ratcheting up the processes they are using to catch those individuals in the first place. Lee says they are doing that at PokerStars and I have not reason not to believe that he is telling us the truth.

I think it is amusing to see so many people suddenly trusting Party to do the right thing. We have not actually heard anything from Party in this matter.

[betadecay]

[ QUOTE ]
EL Diablo--You seem like a smart guy. However, your suggested confiscation "policy" is dumb. It would expose the policy enforcer to bad things. There is a reason that the US Constitution includes the right to "due process." It is important. Would you like to be an "illegal" gaming enterprise defending punitive confiscatory measures against in an "unfair business practices" suit in a US court? I didn't think so. (Hint: It could really hurt your stock value.) So feel free to play at Stars--Party's having bad lawyers is not a good reason to support their site.

Edit: I directed my post to El Diablo because I respect him and he is an influential member of these forums. Others have signed on to criticism of Lee Jones' post re Stars' policy regarding "cheaters." As would be expected, Stars' approach is generally correct and Party's is deeply flawed. With respect to posts about the "ironclad" nature of Partys' terms and conditions: LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted before finishing the thread. There is a terms and conditions you agree to before playing at party. It says if you are caught cheating then all your funds are liable to be confiscated. If cheating is black and white(obviously it was at both party and stars) and they both have this clause in their terms and conditions, then I think you are incorrect.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that someone whom is found to have intentionally used a disconnect protection should lose everything in their account? If not, then I believe you are at least somewhat of a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I should get the rest of their stack that they had at the table when they DC'd. I lost that money because they didn't have to put it in.

I'm not saying ZJ should lose his whole roll on Stars, but some sort of fine as well as being banned seems correct.

Having your account shut down and keeping all your money is not a punishement. Another account is easy to set up, and they gave you the funds back to start the whole process over again, and hey since I really didn't lose anything, I have no disincentive to stop trying to cheat.

My biggest problem with Stars Curtains, is there really is no disincentive to keep people from cheating.

If all they are going to lose is the $$ that Stars can *prove* was ill-gotten, then I may get in the stealing-cheating at Stars business because I can deal with the cost of occasionally getting caught because I will never lose more than that, and they won't catch all I do......I won't cheat at Party because bloody hell, they take yer freaking roll.

See where I'm coming from?

Think like the cheater.....I think they'd prefer to take their chances at Stars than at Party....no roll risk at Stars.

Regards,
Woodguy

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that someone whom is found to have intentionally used a disconnect protection should lose everything in their account? If not, then I believe you are at least somewhat of a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I should get the rest of their stack that they had at the table when they DC'd. I lost that money because they didn't have to put it in.

I'm not saying ZJ should lose his whole roll on Stars, but some sort of fine as well as being banned seems correct.

Having your account shut down and keeping all your money is not a punishement. Another account is easy to set up, and they gave you the funds back to start the whole process over again, and hey since I really didn't lose anything, I have no disincentive to stop trying to cheat.

My biggest problem with Stars Curtains, is there really is no disincentive to keep people from cheating.

If all they are going to lose is the $$ that Stars can *prove* was ill-gotten, then I may get in the stealing-cheating at Stars business because I can deal with the cost of occasionally getting caught because I will never lose more than that, and they won't catch all I do......I won't cheat at Party because bloody hell, they take yer freaking roll.

See where I'm coming from?

Think like the cheater.....I think they'd prefer to take their chances at Stars than at Party....no roll risk at Stars.

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]


I hear you....In a sense there was the fine, meaning that every tournament that ZJ bought into and multiaccounted, he lost the buyins for, regardless of his results.

I'm just scared of giving poker sites the encouragement to take absolute and total power against the players. I'm sure they are capable of making a mistake.

Anyway if I thought like the cheater, I'd make sure to cash out as often as possible and never leave a large amount of money in a poker site. Whats funny is that this is what I do now, as I suspect most others do as well. It's strange that someone who had done something unethical would do otherwise, although I suspect its very difficult to cash out so much money from 6 accounts.

[lunapark]

A while ago someobody did a study of ZeeJustins results...I can't find that thread now. IIRC if you took away his big wins he would have lost money in the big buy in mtts. Knowing the other names that he used can the person who did the study go back and see what his overall results were including the other accounts?

[ColdCaller]

[ QUOTE ]
Think like the cheater.....I think they'd prefer to take their chances at Stars than at Party....no roll risk at Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Every single buy-in that the duplicate account made was going in 100% dead money. What don't you get about this?