Stars vs. Party cheater-funds confiscation policy

[EliotSpitzer]

Lee Jones over at Stars has completed his investigation of ZeeJustin and has determined that ZJ cheated honest players out of $5,000. PokerStars has decided to only confiscate $5K from ZJ's account and to let him cash out the rest. To me, this is inviting cheaters to play on Stars becaue the cheater is only risking their illicit gains and can then open an account in another person's name when they get banned. Thus, the cheater is essentially risking nothing. Please participate in this poll to let Lee know how you feel about PokerStars policy vis-a-vis Party's:

[BluffTHIS!]

Restitution and banning alone isn't enough. Punitive punishment is needed as an effective deterrent.

[gurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
Restitution and banning alone isn't enough. Punitive punishment is needed as an effective deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Punitive punishment. Well put.

[soah]

Your logic is only valid if the tournament is a freeroll. Paying money to enter a tournament is certainly risking something.

Would you pay to enter a tournament if there was a (make up a number) percent chance that your winnings would be confiscated?

[EliotSpitzer]

[ QUOTE ]
Your logic is only valid if the tournament is a freeroll. Paying money to enter a tournament is certainly risking something.

[/ QUOTE ]

What percentage of cheaters do you suspect are caught? I'm guessing around 5%. Stars would've never found out about ZJ if Party hadn't investigated hime first. Cheaters are risking very little considering the current surveillance conducted by the poker sites.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you pay to enter a tournament if there was a (make up a number) percent chance that your winnings would be confiscated?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I would happily pay to enter a tournament where there was a 100% chance that a multi-accounter's winnings would be confiscated. Single-accounters have no risk of having their funds confiscated.

[BluffTHIS!]

It's heartening to see that thus far only 2 cheaters or cheater-sympathizers have voted no on the last question.

[soah]

Making up arbitrary numbers is not a very convincing argument, nor is it relevent to the conclusion that you've outlined. You have claimed that a cheater risks nothing when he invests his own money in a cheating enterprise which could result in him losing 100% of his investment. I eagerly await your explanation of how it can simultaneously be true that he risks nothing, but that he might lose his own money.

[Phil153]

Stars only took the money he gained illictly (5K) and let him cash out the rest. Lee Jones said as much in his post. Where's the risk? If the chance of getting caught is <100%, cheating is +EV. Simple.

[soah]

So you are claiming that ZeeJustin did not have to pay anything to enter the tournaments in which he won that $5000? Or that if he had played in those tournaments without cheating, that he had zero chance to place in the money? Or that Stars refunded the entry fees that he paid in those tournaments? Because that is certainly not what Stars said.

[betadecay]

If the chance of getting caught is <100%, cheating is +EV. Simple.

nice post.

I voted party, yes, yes. Although the chance that your illicit gains will be confiscated(on top of being banned) is a deterrant, it is a very small one. I think punitive damages are very important in this scenario. I think the question that should be polled is

Where would you rather cheat?

Party or Stars

the answer is obvious.