The ZeeJustin/Rakeback Dilemma

[gurgeh]

I thought ZJ's rhetoric was pretty transparent. It sounded to me like he wanted a body of 2+2ers to go to bat for him against Party, thus perhaps getting at least some of his money back. "I didn't break any rules, but they used an overly general clause against me AND THEY COULD DO IT TO YOU TOO" seemed meant to incite enough paranoia to get people on his side. If he succeeds in making people fear for their money based on this, he has more leverage.

So since as far as I know, almost nobody cheats (or would even know how to) at online poker, he had to relate his situation to people in another way: Rakeback. He mentions it as unethical but this has nothing to do with reality, nor do I think he believes it to be unethical. It does have a very valuable property though, because it's not something Party wants to happen. Kind of like bonus whoring on Empire and suddenly finding yourself with a canceled account. Remember that fiasco? Did you get burned? Well look here, they burned me and they might burn you too and take ALL YOUR MONEY.

That's why he mentions rakeback, not because he thinks it's akin to cheating.

Of course it seems pretty pathetic to me in the first place, and I think if you read the responses to his post you'll find that almost nobody buys that line.

[Scotty.]

I think it is pretty clear to Party what everyone who just decides to close their old account and sign up a new one through an affiliate is doing. They aren't THAT stupid. It would hurt them pretty badly if they started banning all of these people.

[AA Suited]

was that confiscated $100k from 1 acct, or from all his accounts? (i havent read the mtt thread yet)

[4thstreetpete]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought ZJ's rhetoric was pretty transparent. It sounded to me like he wanted a body of 2+2ers to go to bat for him against Party, thus perhaps getting at least some of his money back. "I didn't break any rules, but they used an overly general clause against me AND THEY COULD DO IT TO YOU TOO" seemed meant to incite enough paranoia to get people on his side. If he succeeds in making people fear for their money based on this, he has more leverage.

So since as far as I know, almost nobody cheats (or would even know how to) at online poker, he had to relate his situation to people in another way: Rakeback. He mentions it as unethical but this has nothing to do with reality, nor do I think he believes it to be unethical. It does have a very valuable property though, because it's not something Party wants to happen. Kind of like bonus whoring on Empire and suddenly finding yourself with a canceled account. Remember that fiasco? Did you get burned? Well look here, they burned me and they might burn you too and take ALL YOUR MONEY.

That's why he mentions rakeback, not because he thinks it's akin to cheating.

Of course it seems pretty pathetic to me in the first place, and I think if you read the responses to his post you'll find that almost nobody buys that line.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. There's actually so much gold in his 'apology' post. I don't know which lines I enjoy more. The fact that he opened up several more SNG's to negate the advantage that he had with multiple accounts on MTTs, or the fact that he never did played in the same SNG. How about the fact that confiscating his funds was one thing but ending their affiliate relationship was crossing the line.

Is this guy for real? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Someone wrote now that he has lots of free time he should go back to school. Couldn't agree more.

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this guy for real? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, yes.

While it was the lamest (non) apology ever, I'm not sure I would expect any different. Great poker players? ... perhaps ... but he and JJ are still kids, and their responses reflect this big time.

Either way, I think it's great what Party did, I hope PokerStars, FullTilt, et al hammer these guys too.

BTW their policy on rakeback is clearly different. They know when people are doing this, and I know people who have been caught. Their accounts were frozen until the accounts were consolidated into one, and then everything was fine.

'Gnoming' for rakeback, however, is a far cry from making 6 entries into the same tournament. The fact he tries to imply otherwise is one of many reasons his response was a joke.

[MicroBob]

I've heard from another poster who informs me that this multi-accounting in tourneys is not as uncommon as you might think.

Also was mentioned that Party hasn't really been stopping it before...and thus backwardsly condoning it not unlike rake-back.

Party may not have minded this multi-accounting so much partly because it's more and more entry-fees for them.


I don't entirely buy this argument as they frequently have taken a pretty hard stance on ANYONE they happen to catch opening multiple accounts (regardless of whether they caught them in the same tourney with themselves or not).
But it could be argued that they are cracking down on it a bit more now just because it's 'out there' from the jjprodigy thing and they just can't afford to ignore it anymore.


Again, I don't fully agree with this line of thinking. I just think it has SOME merit.
I am not sure if the reason multi-account tourney-types haven't been caught as much before is just out of lazyness by the sites themselves to try to find suspicious activity.



However, they would already know when 2 accounts from the same ISP are on the same table (and wouldn't even let you play at the same table across skins like party and empire when they were still together) but they somehow NEVER bothered to check for similar situations in tourneys?

Seems dangerously close to back-handed tolerance to me.

Then again, this IS Party afterall and we all know that their history of weird logic and oversights on some obvious aspects of their site have been pretty mind-blowing.

If a site can accidentally let every member sign-up for their cruise and give everybody $400 then certainly it's possible that this aspect of the tourneys was just a long-time oversight as opposed to back-handed tolerance.

[umdpoker]

damn, i've actually heard of this guy. he was supposed to be a great upcoming player. why the hell would he cheat when he doesn't need to? it really seems like some rich people just can't help themselves from stealing to become uber-rich (enron, etc.). do you really need 5 mansions to be happy? oh yeah, he got what he deserved. he is clearly not a moron, and therefore knew that he was cheating.

[4thstreetpete]

I don't think the vast majority of 2+2ers believe that multi-accounting is uncommon. If you do then you are being naive and delusional. Most knowledgeable players would assume something like this is going on given the nature of internet poker. As much as party says that the integrity of their games are paramount, I don't buy in the fact that they are doing everything they can to stop this kind of cheating. In the past I have emailed support with some very suspect plays that I wanted them to look into. They emailed me back telling me they will look into it and never followed up after that.

From a common sense point of view, you'll have to know that players will work in 'teams' when playing online. Players will always find a way to counter any measures that poker sites take to curb this kind of behaviour. This is the main reason why I don't play high limit SNG's. Call it paranoia or whatever you will but in light of the recent events from JJ and zeejustin, none of this surprise me whatsoever. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Party should have their investigative teams put a temporary freeze on all major cashouts if they see a flood of them within the next few days.

[Mogobu The Fool]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is seriously begging for a FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[Layzie]

[ QUOTE ]
damn, i've actually heard of this guy. he was supposed to be a great upcoming player. why the hell would he cheat when he doesn't need to?

[/ QUOTE ]



hmmm