Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

I know a fair number of cash game players who play the WCOOP for the large prize pools and slow structures. These players rarely play other online tournaments. Personally, I play these and the occasional Sunday Million but not a whole lot of other tournaments.

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know a fair number of cash game players who play the WCOOP for the large prize pools and slow structures. These players rarely play other online tournaments. Personally, I play these and the occasional Sunday Million but not a whole lot of other tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I mispoke really badly in my post, I guess it can happen when you've been up like 25 hours straight.

What I was trying to emphasize is that the WCOOP doesn't attract everyone and everything like some people think it does. People who already play online actively, are more likely to hear about it and enter, but the random selection of fish who play mostly live are not nearly as likely to play in these events as they once were.

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

FREDMAINIAC is playing like one of the top 10 online MTT pro's, there is NO way the actual player would be able to play the FT bubble (owning Bill Ivey) that well after playing for 15h+ straight...but then maybe we can get Bill Ivey's look at things

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

he called him jan!

suspicious?

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

666 INRI at table 666.

Isn't INRI the letters on top of the crucifix in the bible?

If so, ZOMG.

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

From the Sweat thread:

taktloss47 said, "nh jan"
fredmainiac said, "jan is coaching me"
taktloss47 said, "glgl ^^"
fredmainiac said, "but says hi"


Fredmainiac is being "coached" by Jan Heitmann?

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/play...=r&n=25825


Plot thickens, etc.

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

I don't really play tournaments, but I was under the impression that one person to a hand rule doesn't apply online.

Is it illegal to:
1) Have someone telling you what to do on every hand?
2) Have someone take over your account if they haven't played in the tourney?
3) Have someone take over your account if they have played in the tourney?

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

No, none of this is illegal, at least on Stars. It's definitely unethical, and I wish it didn't happen, but Stars has a policy that it's impossible to enforce, so they don't try.

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it illegal to:
1) Have someone telling you what to do on every hand?
2) Have someone take over your account if they haven't played in the tourney?
3) Have someone take over your account if they have played in the tourney?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the answer here is no, no, yes.

Re: Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP
 

I think things are getting out of hand when we start prosecuting players for being good and unknown.

A history limited to 4$ SnGs seems like strong argument against these accounts belonging to the type of people who want to spend 1000$ in weekly Sunday Mil buyins alone. Although I agree that it might be a case of bought accounts - keep in mind that the account would have been bought well into the tournaments - so were no longer comparing the play of these players to the standard of a "4$ sng player", we should be using the standard of a "4$ sng player who won/bought his way into a 530$ tournament and beat out like 95% of the field".

Unless the suggestion is that the accounts were bought prior to the beginning of the tournament for multiaccounting purposes which I suppose is possible, but why wouldn't a multiaccounter just create his own accounts?

I'm not saying don't pass on your thoughts to Stars and discuss and investigate them here, but keep in mind that unknown players coming into huge mtts and winning is common (certainly more common than multiaccounting not matter how widespread the prob is) and we don't have any real evidence to go on.