Stars vs. Party cheater-funds confiscation policy

[mbpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
but it still stands that all Stars is doing to punush ZJ is take his 1 buy-in

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Stars took his one win, not one buy-in, and he invested many buy-ins to get to this one win.

You can look at this different ways but the original premise by OP that there is nothing to lose with Stars policy is clearly wrong.

[mephisto]

ZeeJustin made a statement in that huge thread that they confiscated 100K from his account. Now that's pain. The kid had a great future in poker and threw it all away over quick short term gain. Tsk Tsk. Should be a good lesson to others. Next up: Gank must go down. If they did it, he for sure did it as well.

[betadecay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but it still stands that all Stars is doing to punush ZJ is take his 1 buy-in

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Stars took his one win, not one buy-in, and he invested many buy-ins to get to this one win.

You can look at this different ways but the original premise by OP that there is nothing to lose with Stars policy is clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the logic. His "WIN" is illegitimate and is does not belong to him. It is essentially stolen. He only loses his one buy in. The others, as you stated were an investment on his part and not confiscated by stars. Stars has done nothing to ZJ besides take his buy-in and ban him from the site.

[soah]

Upon what basis do you form the conclusion that only he only lost one buy-in? If you are saying this because you believe there was only one instance of cheating, then is it your opinion that if a full-time professional poker player is found to be cheating in one instance, then he should forfeit all winnings from his entire career?

[betadecay]

[ QUOTE ]
Upon what basis do you form the conclusion that he only lost one buy-in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Lee stated there was only one instance of cheating. The wins from this one instance were confiscated. The wins weren't his, so all he lost was the buy-in. I think that is pretty simple logic.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are saying this because you believe there was only one instance of cheating, then is it your opinion that if a full-time professional poker player is found to be cheating in one instance, then he should forfeit all winnings from his entire career?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course not. And I don't think ZJ should pay back what he has cashed out either. This is not an issue of retribution, but an issue of punishment. I'm not sure what happens in big events when someone is found cheating. I assume there are legal ramifications that can lead to jailtime, fines, CS, probation or all of the above. This is punishment. If all a pro has to do when cheating at the WSOP is give back his buy in and go home, I would be seriously concerned.

[soah]

Those examples are not the same. Stars investigated ALL of his play, plus they banned him from the site.

Aside from the fact that he would face criminal charges (which at present do not exist for online poker), it would be quite reasonable for Harrah's and other cardrooms to investigate all of his play, confiscate any additional money that was believed to be the result of cheating, and bar him from all of their properties. (Of course, it would also depend on what type of cheating was involved.) You seem to think it is not a big deal to have money taken away from you and get told that you cannot play anymore. This view makes no sense to me.

I still maintain that it is ridiculous to claim he only lost one buy-in, for the reasons already stated repeatedly in this thread.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure about the other questions.

But there's virtually no chance that it's actually as +EV as you might think.

Zee is still a pretty good player...and now he doesn't get to play the games there anymore.
this is hugely -EV compared to the little gain he got in those tourneys.


Taking the $400 in the party-cruise screw-up was -EV because it meant never getting to play their games again.
For the same reason, the risk of getting banned from a site is -EV too...especially so in Zee's case.


I'm not saying that getting banned should actually be considered enough of a deterrent here.

I'm just saying that it's not +EV to be able to take your little advantage that you gained if it means never playing there again.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Zee is still a pretty good player...and now he doesn't get to play the games there anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

Zee can easily make another account in another name with a different computer and a different IP address. (It doesn't even have to be a fake name, I'm sure he could find a real person who would let him use his name for as little as a 5 percent or less cut of Zee's profits). This is why being "banned" is not an effective deterrent, only getting all your funds seized is.

[mbpoker]

I think that you are implicitly assuming than when somebody is multi-tabling his chance to win is 100% and that's very far from reality. Let me bring another example. Say you play roulette in a casino. And you found a way (somehow placing a crooked ball into the game) to gain 51% advantage over the house. You bet only one bet each time - $100 on number 15. You play until you hit this number. But there is 50% chance (use your % if you wish) that when you win your cheating will be discovered and your win will be confiscated. Two questions:

a) Would you see such game as +EV?

b) would you also state that the only thing the house is confiscating is your buy-in ($100) when you hit 15?

[MicroBob]

if they catch him then he knows they would seize his funds again.

Playing under a different name means he doesn't get to play their satellites.
He qualified in a couple of EPT satellites I think. He might have qualified for the PCA too but I'm not sure.
And I suspect he WOULD have played in a ton of WSOP satellites.


If I had Zee's bankroll and ability I would sure be upset about losing the chance to play any of the Stars and Party satellites.