ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[samr]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to post something in this thread 'cuz it's historic and everyone else was.

[/ QUOTE ]

[FakeKramer]

Theoretically Speaking: Could ZJ (or anyone for that matter) have used his multiple accounts to play at the same cash game table or SNGs? Or was his multi accounting ability strictly isolated to MTTs?

[El Diablo]

excession,

"3. If you haven't been spotting cheating as obvious as this so far, how can you be sure that ZJ or other players aren't using more sophisticated multi-ing or syndicate play methods to steal EV from honest players in your games?"

Exactly.

I also want to reiterate something from a prior post. A lot of people are not adequately considering the fact that ZJ is very likely to have cheated in other ways beyond simple mulit-accounting and he obviously is not completely stupid, so it would be very reasonable to assume that these accounts were just the ones that he used on the same IP block and he had other sets of accounts that didn't get caught. He had at least six on Party. No reason to believe that he didn't go to at least that level on Stars - and it wouldn't be surprising if he had 10,20, or however many accounts on each site.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet these kids are all pissing themselves right now

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad thing is that by now, they must have got all their money from all their accounts... So what's going to be the punish for these guys? Their reputation? They are just going to create more accounts? IP address?? just move to another place, with the money they make they can be playing from different places easily!! Or how about different internet services for the same place... I think it is a war that will never end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that you can only withdraw a certain amount per withdrawal (like 10,000) and then it takes days for that to clear before you can do another. If they have a substancial amount of money in their accounts it could take weeks to empty it. That might be a good way to identify potential cheaters - look at everyone rushing to close out their accounts.

[BassMasterK]

aeest400,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to all of my argument. I am no lawyer, and it seems that you have followed Party's business (re: advertising funds siezed) more closely than I have. However, I still would ask these questions:

It doesn't matter what our opinion is of the merit of the contract and if it is worth the paper it is printed on. Does it break any of the laws of Gibraltar? If Party has no assets in the US that can be seized, what penalty can be extracted from them? I suppose we could hold the threat (as I think is implied in your post) that the US could solidify its laws and forbid all online gambling. It would appear to be the only thing the US can hold over their heads. Oh great, what a great solution. So now someone who has been a victim of these cheaters, is no longer going to be able to play poker online because these online casinos go after the cheats? Victimized again. Dang.

You bring up someone who cheats and wins $5 and should he lose $100k honestly gained. I could attack the rediculousness of the extreme of your example because that isn't what is going on in these examples. But let me ask you this. If you were a prospective cheater, are you willing to take a risk to cheat, even if it is to win $5, if you know you will lose possibly all of your funds that this company holds?

There has been talk about seizing innocent peoples funds. Well, as we have seen in the forums here, there have been mix ups before and people have had their accounts frozen. They communicated with the proper company and after giving explainations they had their accounts unfrozen. I have not read one post so far where some innocent person had their funds taken, and I do not expect to.

We and our allies regularly freeze bank accounts and assets of people who are affiliated with terrorism and terrorist oraganizations (a practice I agree with...call me consistant). Do we only take money that was proven to be earmarked for terrorist activites and give the rest back, or do we take it all? Does this send a message to other terrorists about doing business in our country? Should Iran sue us in their courts and seize any of our assets that they can get their hands on since being a terrorist isn't against their law? I bring this up not because it is anywhere near the same level of what is going on here, but it is a case of two countries whos laws contradict each other and who actually has the power to do anything about it. It seems to me the country/company who holds the money has the power.

Lastly, until there IS a case of an innocent person getting their money confiscated, I wish people would quit implying it is going to happen to us all. It hasn't happened so far and to say it will happen to one of us is borderline slanderous (or libelous..you would know which one better). If I get busted for stealing something and as I pay my fines and do my time I yell out to the innocent people "YA! Just wait till it happens to you!" well that is retarded. If I don't steal, it shouldn't happen to me.

I look at having my money offshore as an inheirent risk of playing poker online. Because of that, I follow all the rules. I don't cheat, and I have never had trouble accessing my money. I don't expect this to change. I for one want to play on a site that is the least attractive to prospective and active cheaters. In the action so far, Party is leading the way in my opinion.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond.

[PauliF]

sorry for being inane but i gotta be in this thread too
anyway i kinda feel sorry for the guy
then again he is a cheat

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
example: I have a set, my opponent has 2 pair, I put him all in on the river, he has $500 behind, and I cover.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the earlier talk was about some $100(?) pot that the disconnector won. I see now that you wanted to point out the opposite case.

It's good that I posted anyway. I really needed to get that other stuff off my chest. And I'll add that I also think some laws about gambling operators came into place because people were running crooked games (the rake-free game operated by the guy with the diamond pinky ring), not necessarily due to people opposed to all gambling.

Added: I think that confiscated funds would fall under the category of an uncollectable debt on one's personal income taxes. (Editing my post as part of my effort to keep post count in thread down.)

[aeest400]

The abstract I posted just tees up the internet jurisdiction issue. While the state of the law is not cut-and-dry (hence party's ability to go public last summer without too much doom and gloom--though their prospectus is a page-turner [do a local google search on the party gaming site]), the strong trend in recent case law, in which I am expert, makes it highly probable that US courts would find jurisdiction over Party to be entirely proper and, further, that the US would apply US law in considering Party's actions.

(Gibralter can file a diplomatic complaint on behalf of its 2sq miles of territory, and I'm sure its arguments will be given appropriate weight).

I do not believe enforcement of any US judgment against Party would be at all difficult. They have many assets in the US and, as indicated, the Justice Dept. has previously conducted successful enforcement actions against them.

The cliff notes version of the article is that legal jurisdiction can be based solely on "interactive" internet activity with no type of physical presence is required. This is entirely consistent with the general "purposeful availment" standard articulated by the Supreme Court in 1945. In fact, more recently the Supreme Court as ruled that mere advertising in a venue can be sufficient to confer legal jurisdiction.

I have no particular knowledge, but the recent $250 million "buyout" (read CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL SETTLEMENT) of Empire by Party has all the earmarks of being the direct consequence of a legal strategy (code name: "dump the affilates") that was not properly thought out.

It appears to me that the canceling and confiscation of these "cheaters" accounts was simply another example of the great legal minds at party doing their thing.

Any questions?




PS As far as Zeejustin, I am aware that he is very seriously contemplating legal action against Party.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, until there IS a case of an innocent person getting their money confiscated, I wish people would quit implying it is going to happen to us all. It hasn't happened so far and to say it will happen to one of us is borderline slanderous (or libelous..you would know which one better). If I get busted for stealing something and as I pay my fines and do my time I yell out to the innocent people "YA! Just wait till it happens to you!" well that is retarded. If I don't steal, it shouldn't happen to me.

I look at having my money offshore as an inheirent risk of playing poker online. Because of that, I follow all the rules. I don't cheat, and I have never had trouble accessing my money. I don't expect this to change. I for one want to play on a site that is the least attractive to prospective and active cheaters. In the action so far, Party is leading the way in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for saying what I have been trying to say.

Regards,
Woodguy

[BluffTHIS!]

I agree 100% with woodguy and others, that for any punishment to have deterrent value, it must include punitive measures past confiscating actually provable cheated winnings. Otherwise it is a freeroll given how easy it is to set up a new account under a different name and start again. Stars has been a day late and a dollar short in this whole thing. And while party has shown no impetus to enact truly proactive measures, it has sent a strong signal to cheaters of what they stand to lose if caught.


El D: I too am somewhat willing to give stars and Lee the benefit of doubt, in that I hope they will address other points fully for the future. I tied all these issues together in the thread I started in the zoo, Poker Stars and Game Integrity - The Emperor With No Clothes . But Lee doesn't own stars and he has to go by what management says and tells him to say. So they are the ones who need to get on the stick and honestly and fully address all these game integrity issues. I'll continue to play there in the meantime, but probably won't much longer if they don't answer these things with the right answer, including the soft collusion thing with twin/H@LL.