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

[Rekwob]

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

[Rekwob]

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

[Bond18]

Very good OP Jeff.

[Ontario_Tory]

[ 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.

[A_Junglen]

[ 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 ]

[nath]

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.

[NHFunkii]

[ 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

[nath]

[ 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.

[bettyqs]

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.

[NHFunkii]

[ 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)