ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[ghostwriter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Certainly our choices would be appear to be limited in these matters. However, I still don't understand the blind faith in Party's ability to accurately and fairly determine when funds should be seized. This is a company that designed easily exploitable software, recorded these exploits, collected fees from the people doing the exploiting and then ignored the matter until people complained about it, at which point they then added over six figures to their bottom line by seizing the funds of the cheaters they had previously ignored.

They're the good guys in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the choices are limited, and that's not a good thing.

My question to you then is, if you don't trust the site to do the right thing, what are you going to do?

What's the other alternative to having Party in charge of Party?

If you are uncomfortable with Party being in charge, that's your perrogative, so are you just leaving or are there other measures that you would take?

I actually agree with you, I am uncomfortable with Stars and their stance, so I'm leaving.

I am glad that Stars is smart enough to have different punishments for different crimes, but I do no think they have gone far enough in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally at this point I feel no need withdraw my money from either site and while I do not begrudge your decision to leave pokerstars in favor of Party, I simply disagree as I feel Pokerstars policy to this point is more sensible.

You are right that, as long as online gaming remains unregulated individuals consumers will have to decide what they can live with. I just hope that everyone realizes what it is they are actually giving up.

[Nick B.]

For everybody who said that the most he can cash out at one time is $10,000, is that just for Neteller, or is that the max for checks too?

[bocablkr]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope he does to prove my point that he won't get back a dime. If I am proven wrong then I will the first to admit it here in the forum but I am not holding my breath.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
For everybody who said that the most he can cash out at one time is $10,000, is that just for Neteller, or is that the max for checks too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you worried - just kidding. Don't know about their check policy.

[FakeKramer]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]Can anyone answer this?

[aeest400]

Yeah, he may not win--but it might not be fun to own stock in Party while a US court contemplates these weighty issues. I'm not a contingency fee lawyer, but there are plenty out there, even some good ones.

[parappa]

[a bunch of posts carrying various degrees of legal research]

1. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that the player (if he's somewhere that online poker is illegal) also made the contract in furtherance of an illegal enterprise and it is extremely unlikely that a court will throw out party's boilerplate and then accept the player's terms or impose it's own "reasonable" terms? That a US court is more likely to find that the contract is unenforcable on both sides, meaning that party can keep whatever money it feels like keeping? Or

2. You don't think that this is likely? (I do, I think a player would have to "party on" in Gibraltar to have any chance in court) Or

3. You don't care b/c you're only putting the one side forward?

I'm just curious. My lawyer skills are long since rusty, I didn't do contract law, and this is off the top of my head, but I can't imagine a (edit: US) court asserting jurisdiction and giving the player his illegal poker money back.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]Can anyone answer this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the answer is obvious - yes. But there is a limit to how many would still be +ev. I think someone said it is 3 or 4 players. Beyond that you are -ev. If you had 9 people at a 10 person $11 SNG you would pay $99 to win $100 if you won every single time. Lose once every 100 times and you still only break even. Lose more than that - forget about it.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]Can anyone answer this?

[/ QUOTE ]


The answer has to be yes that he could tecnically since it's no different that multiple seats in an MTT. But stars does seem to take more proactive measures with high stakes cash games so he might not have taken the risk.

[FakeKramer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]Can anyone answer this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the answer is obvious - yes. But there is a limit to how many would still be +ev. I think someone said it is 3 or 4 players. Beyond that you are -ev. If you had 9 people at a 10 person $11 SNG you would pay $99 to win $100 if you won every single time. Lose once every 100 times and you still only break even. Lose more than that - forget about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How sure are you that he can do this? Wouldn't the sites block him from being able to sit in a cash game using his multiple accounts? (IP address similarities)?