ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
You and Clark have referred to me as an idiot and a loser, respectively. Disagreeing with you does not prove my idiocy, Ratter. I actually was taking mathematics classes at Brown at age 12, have two graduate degrees from MIT, and was a proprietary trader at Goldman Sachs before I left to start a hedge fund, from which I retired at a pretty young age. I may not be as bright as the two of you, nor have matched your string of illustrious accomplishments, but I don't think I qualify as an "idiot", or as a "loser", after all. Even if it did, I don't understand why you would speak to someone as disrespectfully as that.

Other posters have said (and then deleted, of course) that I must be under 25 to disagree with what you've done. I'm actually 31, have a beautiful wife, and have a child on the way. When she is born, I will teach her both not to cheat, AND not to be a snitch (I think they call it being a "tattle-tale" at that age, yeah? Funny how much wisdom kids can have...).


[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Sun of Beach,
I am not impressed. You have been called an idiot and loser by other posters because you have made a tard arguement. All the brains and all the degrees and all the early retirements in the world do not tardproof any argument you make, just because you make it. Somewhere along the way, you must have been imparted with a similar kind of superiority complex to what ZeeJustin must suffer from. This is why you are so empathetic towards him. It's understandable. You are human. But it's not really excusable to take the side of a cheater, especially in this company. You may want to consider keeping your mouth shut sometimes.

Thank you for giving new life to this thread. It will doubtless reach new heights with all the ridicule which is about to come your way.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
The below doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Given that he's a pro and plays all the time, the number of times he ended up at the same table must be significant.

Ok, so what happens when he was dealt KK with one hand and JJ with another? AK versus AQ? There are actually a lot of combinations where one hand dominates the other. And given the speed of escalating blinds in these things, there's a lot of times when any of those hands would be an auto-allin, at least for us mortal players who pay our fee and play one hand.

Someone also pointed out that having six horses in a race is very different psychologically from having one. Fear of a bustout is a major motivating force for most players -- much less so if you have the repeatability factor of multiple accounts.

The guy won a *lot* of MTTs, and a number of big ones. He used an edge not available to the honest player. He probably took money out of people's pockets.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe he did listen to it. At least Im quite sure he didn't do anything like this since we spoke. In any case I know that there are many poker players who know ZJ a lot better than me. I also don't feel he was talking to me asking about whether it was ethical or not, he just kind of brought it up matter of factly, to which I expressed my feelings on the topic and directed him to the fact that I made a public statement against the practice in the past, that said I would turn anyone in who plans to multiaccount events in the future.

He was willing to tell me about this without any prodding, simply out of the blue. I can only imagine he has told many many others about this as well, and they never really told him how unethical it was, else I can't imagine why he would have pinpointed me in his statement.

If I recall correctly, the topic was brought up when I was asking what he thought was the highest attainable EV figures in the weekend tournaments. I basically commented tat no one will ever know since it would take years and years of playing them constantly before you have even a semblence of an accurate sample size, and by that time your skill level may have changed drasticaly and etc etc....at that point he mentioned that if people are using multiple accounts you can get reasonable figures much faster and etc etc.


btw I don't think this form of cheating was quite as bad as some people are making it out to be. By this I mean the circumstances involved, everyone was doing it, sites weren't speaking out against it, etc etc. Now that has changed, and not only do I agree that it's unethical, but its with the poker site's full support, which is what's really important. You can think someone is cheating/unethical all you want, but if the poker site you are playing on doesn't feel that way, then you are probably wrong, because all that really matters is the rules the poker site regulates against.

Anyway now it's very clear that Party and Stars agree that this is flat out cheating, and anyone who does so is undeniably a cheater. Sorry if I sound like I'm defending the action. I really do feel it was and is cheating, it's just that I feel that there are much more serious types of cheating that go on all the time, that actually have a serious affect on someones EV. This form of cheating in a very large field of players has a very minor effect at most.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


From your perspective it should seem as bad as you feel it is. El Diablo has posted a few times about how anyone who is naive enough to believe that these are the only ways he has cheated is a sucker. Despite that, based on my conversations with him, I actually believe that he went out of his way not to collude/do anything suspicious while playing multiple accounts in these tournaments, and only used multiple accounts in tournaments with gigantic fields.

Is this okay? No.

Should you be expected to believe it? No.

If I were you, which is someone who probably knows almost nothing about ZJ as a person and someone whom has read his statement, I would believe that he has cheated in many more ways than he is being accused of. My personal feeling based on my interactions with him is that he didn't do anything more than he is accused of and that he tried to do it in a way that he "believed" was ethical.

Again please realize that the above is just my personal opinion and not what I'd expect some random online player to believe. If I had never spoken to ZJ, I'd assume they may also do things such as collude with friends in a cash game, enter multiple times in SnGs and etc...and thus am not surprised if anyone else feels this.

[Bud Light]

SunOfBeach,

You must have missed an earlier post where someone provided the definition of "ratting out" or "snitching." "Ratting out" occurs when the rattor is participating in the same illicit activity as the person he turns in. If you and a buddy rob a bank and you later turn your buddy into the police then you are a rat. However, if you see someone doing something wrong and you yourself are not participating in the activity, then you are merely reporting wrongdoing.

Furthermore, when someone is on the opposite side of the illicit activity, when they are the transgressed, like for example if the person has only 1 entry in a MTT while a cheater has 6 entries and is thus stealing EV from the person with 1 entrant, then the person with only 1 entrant is justified in every way in reporting that person. Not reporting them would be like watching someone rob your own house and not calling the police.

If a thief took your wallet and you knew the thief's identity would you turn them into the police?

Edited to add a more apt analogoy: Because ZJ multi-accounted several times, not turning ZJ in would be like watching a thief rob your own house every Sunday and yet never turning them into the police. No doubt you would consider that honorable but I would consider it to be rather dumb.

[KotOD]

For those of you still reading, and those of you that read the comments by the attorney posting in this thread, you may want to take a look at this:

http://howardtreesong.livejournal.com/15868.html

The author is a well-known player in LA with a WSOP FT under his belt, as well as a well-respected LA attorney with 15 years of breach of contract and corporate litigation under his belt. The vastly different analysis of the situation should make you take pause.

[aeest400]

Mr. Treesong's analysis of the situation is not "vastly different." First, he only references one post I made, where I was thin on legal argument and long on bluster (he was correct about this, but it's a post on an internet poker forum, not an appellate brief).

Second, his analysis shows that he does not understand the overriding point of the post, which is Party's vulnerability if personal jurisdiction is found (regardless of the underlying merits).

Third, he states that both JJ and Zee are underage, and this it the principle reason he advances for why he thinks Party would have a good case. Zee is 20 and JJ is 16--and I believe that Party requires players to be 18. So, while Zee may be underage to play legally in California, he is old enough to play according to Party. This fact is not in Party's favor. Also, while JJ is 16, Party apparently does not make it difficult for him (or other minors) to play. Who gets into more trouble when a minor buys alcohol, the minor or the proprietor that sells it to him? Hmmm.

His second "argument" is that he'd "be comfortable defending either site on the merits." So would I. But who has more to lose in the case, they guy who has already had everything confiscated or the public company doing the confiscation without any hearing and without adequate notice of the consequences? Hmm.

His final arguments is that "equity abhors" a pig. This is true. However, who the pig is depends on the facts (of which Mr. Treesong admits he has very little knowledge). If I were party's lawyer and wanted to use equitable arguments on its behalf, I'd bring a lot of lipstick to court.

Mr. Treesong's post has an underlying snide tone re "plaintiffs lawyers." I recognize the tone because my legal career had been spent defending large corporations against plaintiff's lawyers and "patent trolls." Thus, I know from where he speaks, and his factual premise is mistaken there as well.

Additionally, Mr. Treesong actually concedes a lot when he says "he may be right there", etc. In lawyer's jargon, this means there is an acceptable argument you could make to a court and that would stand up on appeal.

The particular post to which he responded contained fairly insubstantial legal analysis and was rather "off the cuff." Knowing this, in subsequent posts I discussed various issues in greater detail and in a more moderate tone. I'd be interested to hear Mr. Treesong's thoughts on the points I make in those posts.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
His final arguments is that "equity abhors" a pig. This is true. However, who the pig is depends on the facts (of which Mr. Treesong admits he has very little knowledge). If I were party's lawyer and wanted to use equitable arguments on its behalf, I'd bring a lot of lipstick to court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the major problem with your legal advice and opinions, Treesong's legal advice and opinions, and any other internet forum lawyer's legal advice and opinions that none of you truly know the "facts" of the ZeeJustin case?

[Jooka]

I read Mr treestrong's advice/position of this issue as an actual unbiased opinion, not looking to defend/accuse either side. I read aeest400 opinions side as a prick just out of college looking for a big score of cash. You know those comercials about esbestis? well here's aeest400. You might know more about law than I do aeest400, but I can smell a cash sucking [censored] a mile away.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
So, this thread has now caused me to put three posters on ignore. Anyone have that beat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I was stuck on 123 or so when this thread started. I've lost track, but my loc has the current total.

[aeest400]

You may not have noticed, but the length of my replies is generally correlated to the quality of the post to which I am replying. Below is my reply to Jooka:


.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
You and Clark have referred to me as an idiot and a loser, respectively. Disagreeing with you does not prove my idiocy, Ratter. I actually was taking mathematics classes at Brown at age 12, have two graduate degrees from MIT, and was a proprietary trader at Goldman Sachs before I left to start a hedge fund, from which I retired at a pretty young age.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't quite 100% positive before that you were a maladjusted arsehole. Thanks for clearing that up.