ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[Bullet_Dodger]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that. That would be nice.

[ghostwriter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's odd that most everyone else is so trusting of these sites to always do the correct thing.

[runout_mick]

[ 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 ]

Usually I'm in total agreement with you WG, but not this time.

Say you just won a MTT at party and currently have $30k in your account. Before you cash off, you decide to play some $0.10/$0.20 NL for kicks. Your cable goes out and you disconnect partway through a hand, activating your AI protect.

No problem right?

How about after party uses it's in house investigation team and determines that your disconnect was intentional, and you were cheating. Party, by way of their TOC can now sieze your account.

I know this is an extreme example, and would never happen, but can you tell me where the grey area starts?

IMO Party has too much power, and not enough accountability.

[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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying.

Unfortunatley, we are dealing with overseas companies in a business that is quasi-legal at best, so I have to rely on the site being police, prosecutor, and judge.

If I find the site is not doing these functions to my satisfication, then I have to vote with my $$$ and move where I play, it is my only recourse.

I would move from a site that is being unfair in investigations and handing out fines as quickly as one that didn't do anything.

Regards,
Woodguy

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suggested this in another thread at the Zoo, but the more I think about it the more I like it (flame away). There's a bigger chance than somebody from the sites reads it here, so here it goes:


I think sites should use confiscated money to buy space in all major poker magazines; Card Player, Poker Europe, etc... and every 2 weeks, once a month or whatever is dictated by how many online cheaters there are come public with a list of cheaters. Handles, real names, amounts confiscated, which countries they come from and how they where cheating and caught.

That would really be something that would help the poker community, both online and live.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


Idiot. Why would the sites (or why would we) want all that negative publicity to scare away all the easy money on these sites?

THINK next time you post. Do you realize that this would be negative publicity, even though the sites are doing something about the issue? It would open the eyes of the recreational players that there are likely other cheaters out there, and many would stop playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are not seeing the whole picture - many, many players I know do not play because they are afraid of cheaters. If they thought the sites had the ability to now catch them they would be more inclined to play. This I know as fact from speaking to two of them yesterday. Prove otherwise.

[betadecay]

I'm no lawyer but I assumer california was able to sue nike in vietnam because nike is a company based in america. Or am I wrong here aeest400?

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]

Say you just won a MTT at party and currently have $30k in your account. Before you cash off, you decide to play some $0.10/$0.20 NL for kicks. Your cable goes out and you disconnect partway through a hand, activating your AI protect.

No problem right?

How about after party uses it's in house investigation team and determines that your disconnect was intentional, and you were cheating. Party, by way of their TOC can now sieze your account.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am saying is that the punishment should fit the crime.

Of course I wouldn't like that, and if I ever got my $$$ back I would never play there again, and post on every poker message board that Party were cheating lying scum.

But that hasn't happened to anyone to my knowledge (losing their roll due to unsubstantiated cheating allegations)

What we are dealing with is how to deal with systematic cheaters who have been caught.

We can play "what if" all day, I'm just trying to deal with "what actually happened, and how should they respond"

Regards,
Woodguy

[aeest400]

Note, this took me an hour to write, so it doesn't respond to anything that's been posed after the post to which it replies.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to think that people who criticize Stars for not clamping down enough on alleged cheaters are just idiots. Unilaterally confiscating $100,000 after conducting an "internal" investigation and deciding that certain prohibited but previously ignored activities violate your illegal and unenforceable terms and conditions (you clicked on these when you signed up at Party) is a brilliant way to take a company down.

In fact, it's the best way Party can become hopelessly embroiled in the US legal system. Unfortunately, Party's IPO prospectus notes that its directors may be subject to criminal prosecution if found within the US. [For people who think Party could sue JJProdigy or ZeeJustin, LOLOL]

Seriously, from an informed legal perspective Party's actions are not only dumb, they are suicidal and threaten to kill some of your golden geese much more effectively than Grandma ever could. It won't hurt US investors very much, however, because it's a federal offense for US investors to buy Party's stock.

Party's taking such a hard-line stand without an ounce of subtlety, reflection, or an iota of legal authority is the best thing that it can do if it wants to cease to exist as a company.

Some people need to go beyond the first level of moral reasoning (El Diablo, do you understand now, can you help?) and open up their eyes to the consequences of making examples out of people.

Stars, however, is aware of the complexities involed with confiscation of peoples' funds and have crafted a policy designed to deal with these complexitiees. That is smart.

By the way, if Party has found you "cheating" and confiscated funds from you, PM me. You will be glad you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I have disagreed with your last three posts so apparently I must be an idiot. I can lay out my case and maybe you can point out why those of us who think Party did the right thing, and stars did not go are enough, are idiots.

First off, as others have tried to make the shoplifting analogy where the police don't come and confiscate your personal property at home, except maybe in Saudi Arabia: this is incorrect. If you get caught shoplifting, most shops call the police. Yes, at that time you only return that which you stole. But then you appear in court. You may have costs associated with an attourney. Depending on your state you may be assessed fines of $1500+. (This would be for a small item. In this instance people were cheated out of possibly tens of thousands for a final table finish. If you get busted stealing something that valuable the penalty is obviously way higher). You will probably do community service. There is also the possibility of jail time if you are a repeat offender. As you can see, even in a simple case of shoplifting, THE GUILTY PARTY PAYS BACK WAAAAAY MORE THAN JUST THE VALUE OF WHAT THEY STOLE.
[ <font color="orange"> </font> ]

Now we have a more serious problem here because these companies are not stationed in America and do not have to adhere to American law. They can't impose confinement on a cheater, so the only additional penalty they CAN impose is related to additional fines and/or confiscating monies of the guilty parties.

[Short answer: The Government can impose these "extra" penalties because it is the government (see your favorite political philosopher (excluding Jesus)) for why that is). The government taking things (like money and liberty) from you is punishment, which is separate from the extra costs you incur as a part of the process the government is constitutionally required to provide you, including a free lawyer if you don't have the means.

Private companies cannot legally impose such "punitive" measures. They can be sued under a number of different causes of action for doing so, depending on the state. The legal issue isn't whether was somehow "correct" to take punitive measures, it's whether they are legally empowered to.

Normally companies derive their power to do things through voluntary contracts. Here, your contract with Party is it's "Terms and Conditions." However, this is a classic contract of adhesion with some serious legal flaws, including: 1) contracts made in furtherance of an illegal enterprise are unenforceable (and Party admits that it's services are illegal according to the governing US authorities), 2) contract with vague penalty provisions are unenforceable, 3) overly one-sided contracts are unenforceable for being legally "unconscionable," and 4) in the case of JJProdigy, contract with minors are unenforceable, etc (there are a few more problems ).]

Now, generally the penalties a site can impose on a cheater are prescribed by their licensing authority (typically a government body). The problem, however, is while a companies actions may be copasetic in country X, if they commit some harm in country Y and are sued in country Y, it is the courts in county Y who get to decide, as a procedural matter, whether the company has sufficient contact with country Y so that granting legal jurisdiction does not "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

If the court does find jurisdiction proper, the issue becomes whether to apply the law of county X or county Y. This "choice of law"" analysis is basically made by considering the respective interest of the competing states. It would not be difficult, in my opinion, for a US court to decide that the US, which provides Party with the vast majority of its revenue, has a more compelling interest in holding Party to its laws that Gibraltar does. (which has a nice little arrangement where it taxes Party and derives revenue from those US dollars.) Once jurisdiction in the US is deemed proper, and a court determines the appropriate law to govern the case, enter US consumer protection law, and its GG Party.]

So aeest400, you seem to be connected in the legal field (I am guessing by your last sentance) so maybe you can answer a few questions for us idiots.

How is ZJ going to file suit against Party? Is he going to Gibraltar to file suit? Don't think so, although that would be interesting because then they COULD try him under their laws and possibly confine him in addition to taking his money.


[Theoretically, Zee could sue anywhere in the US (not entirely true, but close enough for a poker discussion thread) It will be up to the court to determine whether its jurisdiction is proper. BTW, I think Party might have some trouble having Zee extradited to Gibraltar for Grandma-ing MTTs. (As a procedural issue, such extraditions would be handled by a preexisting extradition treaty).]



Is he going to sue them in American court? How? Playing online is already a gray area legally. Lets say he did and he somehow won a judgement. Now what? Is the government of Gibraltar held by American law? Are we taking them over after we are done in Iraq?


[Hmm, does Party have any property in the US? Does it send any money to affiliates? Yup. In fact, the Justice dept. earlier sized $2M that Party had paid to the Discovery Channel for TV commercials. This made Discovery mad, so now all of Party's advertising contracts indemnify stations against such seizures).]



How does he get around their terms and conditions which I just read through and they clearly state that if you are caught cheating they can close your account and confiscate your funds:


[See above, this contract, in my opinion, isn't worth the "paper" its printed on.]


THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT, IN ITS UNFETTERED DISCRETION AND IN RELATION TO YOUR ACCOUNT, ANY RELATED ESP ACCOUNT, ANY ACCOUNTS YOU MAY HAVE WITH OTHER SITES AND/OR CASINOS AND/OR SERVICES OWNED OR OPERATED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AND ANY SERVICES THAT SHARE THE SHARED GAME/TABLE PLATFORM, TO WITHHOLD YOUR ACCOUNT BALANCE, SUSPEND YOUR ACCOUNT, AND RECOVER ANY PAY-OUTS, BONUSES AND WINNINGS

That was taken from their account. It doesn't say 'winning from cheating". He has probably already cashed out money that they can't recover from before he was caught. He is still ahead in the long run and he doesn't deserve to be.


[What if he won $5 that could be traced to cheating? Is it still OK to confiscate 100k? Does Party get to decide?]


I agree with ElD that Stars has dropped the ball on this. You need to make the penalty stiff enough that people will not want to cheat. To just take only the cash won through what cheating they CAN detect is akin to taking the shoplifter, taking what you caught him taking THIS TIME, and shooing him out the door. This might have been the way they handled shoplifters in the '50s but times have changed. I will not be playing at Stars until they get more of a hard line against cheaters.

[/ QUOTE ]


In essence, what Stars' policy does is give them the leeway to flexibly handle a whole spectrum of potential cheating activities, from playing two accts in a 4000k person tourney, to "hole card" snooping (I don't know if this is possible), to stacking a cash omaha table with 4 players. Each case has to be evaluated on its on its own merits--unilaterally taking all of someone's money is very likely to land you in court, in one county or another. Thus, dealing with cheating cannot be a one-size fits all proposition and handing down punitive sanctions will likely place a company squarely in the sights of the US court system.

Isn't it interesting how Lee Jones' email said Zee never Grandma'd a SNG, although everyone has jumped on the Zee's a cheater who never won nutin fair n square and would do anything to maximize his profit?

So, maybe this isn't all that obvious to everyone (one forgets). But the inescapable conclusion is that Party is playing with fire and either its lawyers are too stupid to protect it or its executives are too stupid to listen. Either that, or they've let their support handle the matter.

[Nick B.]

"Say you just won a MTT at party and currently have $30k in your account. Before you cash off, you decide to play some $0.10/$0.20 NL for kicks. Your cable goes out and you disconnect partway through a hand, activating your AI protect. "


LOL, stretch it a little more. Let's figure this out. What are the chances that you win a big multi (~1/800), and you decide to play low limit game to blow off some steam after the win (~1/20, i am usually too tired to play after), then you disconnect due to cable modem (i have never had this happen while I was playing, but let's just say it happens once a year so ~1/365) and it disconnects while you were about to make a big decision (maybe 10 big decisions an hour so ~1/6) and then party decides that you have had a history of abuse even though you haven't (1/100, probably way low). So figure it out to be a .00000000026% chance of this actually happening.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no lawyer but I assumer california was able to sue nike in vietnam because nike is a company based in america. Or am I wrong here aeest400?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does business here and I believe it has assets here - neither I believe are true for Party. You really can't say they do business here because it is all done online.