Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

I back everything Jeff posts.

And I'll fight you if you disagree. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunday
 

For what it's worth, I've been staked a few times by Timex and we've never discussed hands nor has he ever in any way tried to influence my decisions or ask me what I have or anything like that.

I guess I'm just naive and out of the loop because it never really occurred to me that this was going on until the ZJ/JJ scandals, and I haven't really thought about it since. I'm glad AJ brought it up, but I believe those of you who claim to have friends doing things you consider to be seriously unethical need to reconsider the meaning of concepts like ethics and friendship.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IMO, the shady [censored] in online poker will never end. Sheets/bax/timex staking infinite idiots is no different than multiaccounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense to bax/sheets, but I'm pretty sure that many, if not most of the people we stake are better than we are.

I'm trying to think of the last time I tried helping someone I back who went deep in an MTT, the convo went something like this:

"mind sharing hands, Dan"
"no, you [censored] suck, I'm blocking you until I win this thing"
rinse and repeat

[/ QUOTE ]

nah didnt block you, just minimized/ignored [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


At least 6-7 different guys with good poker reputations, some of which I really didnt know at all were offering me hand advice. These are people with no vested interest in me, I can only imagine some of these guys if they had a significant %.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunday
 

This was brought up before but didn't get much of a responce. I am interested in what everyone thinks about the differences ethically (I think it has been established that there is nothing illegal going on here) between these scenarios.

1. You are sitting at a desk with two laptops in front of you. Each is logged onto a different account and both are playing the same MTT.

2. You stake a player %100 and offer him $xx or xx% to just do what you tell him to. You each grab a laptop and sit down on the same couch and he plays every hand like you tell him to.

3. You and a friend are playing the same MTT while sitting on a couch next to each other. You both occassionally say "I think I'm gonna xxxx here, what do you think?"

4. Same as #3 except you have swapped %50 of each other.

5. Same as #3(or #4 I guess), except if you end up on the same table you go into seperate rooms specifically to avoid collusion.

Here's what I think.

1. Wrong...Just plain wrong.

2. Wrong, but somewhat profitable for your friend.

3. This seems ok to me. You couldn't do this live, but I just consider it to be one of the benefits of online play, like not having to keep a poker face when you flop a monster. Your friend may be offering advise, but it's up to you what you do unlike in scenario #2.

4. This still seems ok, but may be just barely crossing into the "grey area". It seems in this scenario that both hands are being played by two players. Not illegal (atleast on poker stars anyway) but a little grey in the ethical department.

5. If #4 slipped into the grey, this deffinately helps bring it back into the white.(white is good right?) It shows that your intent is not to cheat.

In conclusion, I think that we all need to make up our own minds about what is ethical behavior and what is not. I also think that we should discuss ethics in hopes of coming to a conclusion about what is ok and what is not ok. Not that we could enforce our conclusions. Ethics don't have to be enforced. They are not rules, just guides more or less. Someone mentioned earlier that if you don't like the way your friends are behaving ethically, you CAN do something about it. Don't invite them out to social gatherings, home games, etc. This will probably hit them hardest. Telling PS about there behavior won't do anything, but letting them know that you don't opprove and WE don't approve will. There is a lot of ego involved in this game, and no one wants to be known as a cheater. Thanks Jeff for bringing this subject into the light.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

1) Obviously very wrong
2) I think it depends on the nature of it, this is to some extent how I went from playing 1/2 limit to being good at poker within like 2 months(except I wasn't being staked).

If the goal is to teach someone how to play poker, I think this is a great idea, if the person playing has no intention of learning, then I think its pretty immoral.

I have had friends who I want to teach to play poker, and what I'll do is if they come by on a normal day, they'll just play their standard 4/180's, $6 SNGs etc, once they get better and come by on Sundays and want to have a shot at the Stars million(like just about every other person), I'd much rather pay a % of their buyin, or fully stake them then have them spending $215 on a stupidly high variance tournament on a 1k roll.


3) Perfectly fine
4) Perfectly fine
5) I'm pretty sure most people are smart enough(I could be wrong) to play the same independent of whether you are right beside your friend or in different rooms.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
I back everything Jeff posts.

And I'll fight you if you disagree. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


seconded


also, i really don't understand the people hating on jeff. so what if he doesnt want to rat people out? hes giving cheaters a chance to clean up their act without smearing their names. i think this was a very classy warning to anyone who is cheating. maybe he has conflicting feelings about this issue, and wants to hear other points of view. well done actionjeff.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree a few people in vegas I've met I've told them straightup that what they are doing is sooo wrong and they should stop because they won't keep getting away with it. People have too much ego to not brag about winning so and so tourney even when their most common account was out in first hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would appreciate it if you would give an example of this. Most of us are
not "in the know" to the same degree as you and ActionJeff are. But my
money goes into the pool just like yours. I thought this whole messy
business was cleaned up a few years ago when several accounts were
very publicly confiscated. To hear that this sort of thing continues makes
me incensed!

Shawn, rather than tread on tiptoes on this issue, I think you would be doing
the community a great service is you showed the results of a few
tournaments where Player X claimed to win (or place high) and his
primary account got knocked out early. This would go a long way towards
making the game fairer for all, including yourself.

Thanks,
jonathan

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

I've never played a tournament on more than one account before, but I've gotten input from players (both better and worse) than me during a hand somewhere close to a trillion times. Most of the time without any prompting.

My conscious is pretty clear, and if anyone thinks solely sweating a friend/peer over AIM is morally wrong, well then [censored] your morals.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

wow this was such a useful thread and it got derailed into oblivion so fast.

you guys have no idea of the magnitude of the situation. I didn't either but I learned a lot this month. listen to Jeff, because he knows what he's talking about, and it's a Big Deal.

the fact that basically 3-4 of the last 100 people left in the Million (if not 8-10, who knows) are guaranteed to be dupes, trojan horses or JJProdigy is just [censored] sick.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunday
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why no one complains when people think I am helping people I stake...maybe its...oh jdhaskjfhksdhfksah.

I dont get warning letters, I get thank you notes from their opponents.

sheets

[/ QUOTE ]

¡Olé!

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

not going to name names? not like when you accused me of being kwob20s second account and tmay and sbrounder being the same person?

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

oh and when i was broke me and my friends used to split our sunday entries 4-5 way and play on one account, i have to say my expectation is probably doubled when i get to play on my own compared to having five different styles trying to come through

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

Very good OP Jeff.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
omg - i really thought this multiaccounting had been stopped.

it is terrible how you - mostly american - guys work together on hands as they are happening and have 2+ entries in a tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

you lost any and all credibility in your argument with this qualifier.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
wow this was such a useful thread and it got derailed into oblivion so fast.

you guys have no idea of the magnitude of the situation. It's a Big Deal.

the fact that basically 3-4 of the last 100 people left in the Million (if not 8-10, who knows) are guaranteed to be dupes, trojan horses or JJProdigy is just [censored] sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

here's a simple test:

imagine the stuff that happens online that comes up in threads like this-- some of which is taken for granted, some of which is shunned, some of which many people are unaware of, etc. take whatever action you're in doubt about, and put it in a live tournament setting. if your response to "should this be allowed?" is "lol, no, that's obviously ridiculous," it should probably stand the same for online.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
here's a simple test:

imagine the stuff that happens online that comes up in threads like this-- some of which is taken for granted, some of which is shunned, some of which many people are unaware of, etc. take whatever action you're in doubt about, and put it in a live tournament setting. if your response to "should this be allowed?" is "lol, no, that's obviously ridiculous," it should probably stand the same for online.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. I think the reasons for the one-to-a-hand rule not existing onoline are pretty solid and it would lead to a lot more problems if it didn't exist

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here's a simple test:

imagine the stuff that happens online that comes up in threads like this-- some of which is taken for granted, some of which is shunned, some of which many people are unaware of, etc. take whatever action you're in doubt about, and put it in a live tournament setting. if your response to "should this be allowed?" is "lol, no, that's obviously ridiculous," it should probably stand the same for online.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. I think the reasons for the one-to-a-hand rule not existing onoline are pretty solid and it would lead to a lot more problems if it didn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]
damn it, i was trying to get people to think, and now they won't [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

here's a point in response to your "one player to a hand" point, though: is there a difference, IYO, between a player actively seeking out advice from another during a hand, and players offering it unsolicited? Live, the former would seem to me like, well, a player going to the rail to ask a friend advice, while the latter is more like railbirds shouting advice while the hand is in progress.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

we have all seen pic's of 4/5 guys at the same table playing the same site. I saw it on ESPN last year when they followed a young gun home. I have always been concerned but I do not play at the same stakes as most of you.

When Brandi was getting advice live from David, something was said to stop it. That will never happen on the net unless players stop it themselves. It's the mine field we walk though every Sunday as you know it's going on.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here's a simple test:

imagine the stuff that happens online that comes up in threads like this-- some of which is taken for granted, some of which is shunned, some of which many people are unaware of, etc. take whatever action you're in doubt about, and put it in a live tournament setting. if your response to "should this be allowed?" is "lol, no, that's obviously ridiculous," it should probably stand the same for online.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. I think the reasons for the one-to-a-hand rule not existing onoline are pretty solid and it would lead to a lot more problems if it didn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]
damn it, i was trying to get people to think, and now they won't [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

here's a point in response to your "one player to a hand" point, though: is there a difference, IYO, between a player actively seeking out advice from another during a hand, and players offering it unsolicited? Live, the former would seem to me like, well, a player going to the rail to ask a friend advice, while the latter is more like railbirds shouting advice while the hand is in progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean there's a difference in that the player isn't responsible for what other people yell at him (so he shouldn't be blamed), but I think both should be prevented (ie penalty for the player for seeking out advice, kicking out railbirds who give advice)

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IMO, the shady [censored] in online poker will never end. Sheets/bax/timex staking infinite idiots is no different than multiaccounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense to bax/sheets, but I'm pretty sure that many, if not most of the people we stake are better than we are.

I'm trying to think of the last time I tried helping someone I back who went deep in an MTT, the convo went something like this:

"mind sharing hands, Dan"
"no, you [censored] suck, I'm blocking you until I win this thing"
rinse and repeat

[/ QUOTE ]

My respect for KingDan has increased 100 fold!

I can not comprehend how you guys can think that AIM during any tourney or in person help is not an unfair advantage, even if it is not "against the rules".

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

This thread is pretty self-masturbatory until names come out. Until then, it's just "look, I'm good, because I don't do this...but other people do!!!!"

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
here's a simple test:

imagine the stuff that happens online that comes up in threads like this-- some of which is taken for granted, some of which is shunned, some of which many people are unaware of, etc. take whatever action you're in doubt about, and put it in a live tournament setting. if your response to "should this be allowed?" is "lol, no, that's obviously ridiculous," it should probably stand the same for online.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this test is a little to simple to work. For example, is it ok to play in the nude? Online is different from live. Each has its own pros and cons. More hands per hour online, and physical reads live. How about playing two tournaments at the same time? Obviously ok onlive, but live? I think a better simple test is to ask yourself "Is what I am about to do the right thing to do? What would my mom think? What would my friends/peers think?"

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

screw this thread, i wanna see some names

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
screw this thread, i wanna see some names

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

Sebok is quoted as having received advice from Barry G. during the final table of the WCOOP.

Too lazy to look for the quote, but I believe it was on the Pokerstars Blog!!!

Edit: I found it:

When I reached 90,000 in chips my dad came in and decided to sit down and watch me play. This was about six hours into the tournament. Now I can't deny that it certainly isn't bad to be able to have Barry Greenstein come in and take a seat next you, counseling you through the later stages of such a big tournament. Let me assuage your fears though, as he did not actually play for me, as you may think. We would occasionally talk through hands when things got a little dicey though.

At any rate, our partnership became one with the feel of student driver/instructor. Every time I was driving fine and parallel parking like a pro, we would have a conversation like this:

"Joey, you really need to raise in here again."

"But Bear, I have a 9-4 off. Come on, you are being ridiculous."

"I'm telling you, these guys are so scared of you that you should be raising every hand. If they refuse to stop you, then you shouldn't stop yourself."

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/2005/0...ok-speaks.html

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

This thread is a nice reminder of why I don't post on 2p2 as often s I used to.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

it is not ok to talk on aim/phone/in real life to other players about the hand while in the hand.

how can you think it is ok? most of you do it. just play by yourselves ffs.

the only thing your friends should be saying are stuff like "you can do it man!". talking about a hand being played with you in it is immoral.

how can no-one see this?

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
it is not ok to talk on aim/phone/in real life to other players about the hand while in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're entitled to your opinion, but if you cared to read the thread ( [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]) you'd know that at least Stars' management agrees there's no "one hand one player" rule. Notice that poker is always played according to the house rules.

This thread is not about "hand advice" or shades of un-ethical behaviour.

It's about cheating players bragging about their blatant, undeniable cheating. And how the community needs to respond to that.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
it is not ok to talk on aim/phone/in real life to other players about the hand while in the hand.

how can you think it is ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Lee Jones has come on this board and told us it's okay.

That's a pretty good reason to have that notion I think.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

im not a known player or a highly touted player but at least i can take pride in the fact that i have never cheated.

just recently my friend and i made it to a final table of a $33r at UB. we have always sweated each other and told each other our hands over chat. this is the first time we final tabled toghether. he was in EP and told me what hand he folded and i told him bluntly, "lets play this hard and serious, no hard feelings" and i logged out of yahoo. i was shocked and disappointed that he would even do that. what was even more disturbing is that he is a pretty popular player/high volume player who chats with dozens of players and im sure this is common practice for them.

im under the impression cheating is 'not a big deal' to most. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is not ok to talk on aim/phone/in real life to other players about the hand while in the hand.

how can you think it is ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Lee Jones has come on this board and told us it's okay.

That's a pretty good reason to have that notion I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said it's allowed because it's impossible to enforce. I'm sure his personal thoughts on the subject is that it's wrong.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

everyone can yell and shout all they want about why things are right or wrong.

what most of you fail to see is that, by playing on a site you AUTOMATICALLY agree to their Terms and conditions. Their TERMS state nothing about being helped by a friend over your shoulder online but state EVERYTHING about not being allowed to multi account. Why do people insist on their opinions justifying this either/or dichotomy? If you're going to play on the sites, you're going to follow the terms of play, or you will be found and banned. plain and simple. Jeff is within his right to say this because, believe it or not, it is only an enforcement of the sites terms and conditions. If you do not like it, too [censored] bad. if you feel you cannot abide by the terms that jeff speaks of/that all sites enforce, either dont play or find yourself at the end of a nice long ban stick, being stripped of winnings and crying alone in the gutter like a little bitch.


edit: also, I find it laughable that people are trying to bank on the honor and gamesmanship of others to not help a friend online. this is the nature of online poker, and it cannot be altered due to how the game is conducted and implemented online. sites do what they can to enforce appropriate gameplay, and everyone has the option to have a friend/coach/hooker on the phone while they play. no one has the option of multi accounting.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

I wonder if this thread has perked up the ears of the powers that be at Stars that browse this site?

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if this thread has perked up the ears of the powers that be at Stars that browse this site?

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately there is not much stars can do until someone drops some names. If the multiaccounters aren't stupid, they have their tracks pretty much covered with account names and IP masks, the only way they can get caught is by being greedy or letting their ego get the best of them and telling someone that they shouldn't have told. I personally think it is immoral for people who know multiaccounters to not give them up to stars. It's hurting everyone's expectation that is trying to play legit and make it without cheating.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

This thread is the reason Live poker pwns.

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if this thread has perked up the ears of the powers that be at Stars that browse this site?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it has..op knew that

I would like all multi accounts found and banned

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
why someone who wants to play more than one multi on the same time does not simple register on another one but prefers to multiaccounting?

[/ QUOTE ]
great idea, i think ill just play 6 different sunday millions next week

Re: To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunda
 

[ QUOTE ]
why someone who wants to play more than one multi on the same time does not simple register on another one but prefers to multiaccounting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Useful Link