Cheating in Online Poker

[Foucault]

Adanthar,

I find it hard to believe you are actually this dense, but I'm not sure why you would feign it, either. Here's how the conversation went:

"This is a witch hunt. You're wasting everyone's time and distracting attention from real cheating. Clayton is a scapegoat."

"People with multiple accounts need to be investigated. Regardless of Clayton's specific situation, it is the only way to catch multi-accounters, and easy access to multiple accounts makes it too easy to multi-account."

"But some people NEED to have more than one account. What about anyonymity? What about rakeback?"

"Those aren't legit reasons for having more than one account."

It's really absurd that the people accusing UCLA, myself, and others of diverting attention from the problem are the same ones screaming to lock the thread, creating strawmen arguments, and shouting "Witch hunt!" rather than making reasoned arguments. Obviously I don't really care if people open rakeback accounts per se, but I don't think they have some God-given right to them such that they (or others on their behalf) can get up in arms when someone wants to be sure they aren't doing anything worse.

Going after the small stuff is the way to find the big stuff. In most cases it's going to be just the small stuff and nothing else, and presumably that's the case with Clayton, but it needs to be investigated anyway. Of course all multi-accounting will never be eliminated, but we can certainly make it harder than it is now, raise the level of social stigma against it, and at least raise the risk being run by those who choose to engage in the practice anyway.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow, ASPoker and kleath are really making complete asses out of themselves in this thread. Seriously, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh? explain

[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't have posted that right now since I don't have time to get into it. I'll PM you later if you're interested, and I don't want to clutter the thread more than it already is. Sorry everyone else.

[ASPoker8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow, ASPoker and kleath are really making complete asses out of themselves in this thread. Seriously, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh? explain

[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't have posted that right now since I don't have time to get into it. I'll PM you later if you're interested, and I don't want to clutter the thread more than it already is. Sorry everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

My posts have been basically defending Clayton and expressing that the manner in which he was confronted and attacked was unnecessary and immature.

I have also said that I hate how the thread has gone from positive progress (the JJProdigy bit) to negative progress (the Clayton bit).

If you think this qualifies as me making an ass of myself, then there's nothing I'd rather be than an ass.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really absurd that the people accusing UCLA, myself, and others of diverting attention from the problem are the same ones screaming to lock the thread, creating strawmen arguments, and shouting "Witch hunt!" rather than making reasoned arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
totally agree with this (it's also a good answer to aspoker's question).

hey, so JJ says multiaccounting still happens all the time. Guy with insider knowledge of what goes on, or guy trying to cover his own ass by diverting attention away from himself? I'm guessing "both", since I don't believe for a second what he says about not playing or not playing Sundays, but I also don't have the resources to substantiate any claims. Anyone in the know who wants to chime in here? Even doing it anonymously is better than not at all.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, ASPoker and kleath are really making complete asses out of themselves in this thread. Seriously, wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol you should meet me in person, you can see how much of an ass[censored] I can be.

I don't trust you avatar though, maybe you are more suspicious then initially thought? What are you trying to hide with the black and white?

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
For anyone wanting to know Clayton's names, and since he's posted our private conversation above I assume he has no problem with me doing the same:

ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:10 AM): i can just tell you them all
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:13 AM): i have no issues doing so
uclabruinz12 (8:29:15 AM): great thanks
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:23 AM): bluelabel
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:25 AM): followmyruin
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:32 AM): cnew27 (the one to my name)
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:01 AM): mommasub, papasub, agnet007 (these are shared accounts)
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:10 AM): that ive playe don
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:21 AM): and iknowalofpi
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:23 AM): i tihnk thats it
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:30 AM): iknowallofpi*
uclabruinz12 (8:30:51 AM): i thought it was bluelabel11?
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:54 AM): yea it is

[/ QUOTE ]


Ansky or someone mentioned looking at the accounts referenced as belonging to Clayton and seeing whether any of the accounts entered the same tournament. I spent 10-15 minutes doing that, so my conclusions may be incomplete.

I can't tell from the above-quoted post if Clayton played under an account named aknowalofpi or iknowallofpi*. I didn't find either account on pokerstars in tournaments. I did find an account named iknowallofpi, without the asterik at the end. I see that accounts named iknowallofpi and cnew27 played in the same tournament back on 9-27-06, a $300 buyin PL Holdem tournament with 1,741 entrants. Other than that, I didn't see any other overlap.

Also, this obviously doesn't mean that Clayton was the person playing on those two accounts in that tournament. It could have been two different people. And, again, I am not sure that aknowallofpi is an account that belongs/belonged to Clayton. I hope that this helps end speculation focused solely on Clayton and gets the discussion back to the general problem.

[Body Man D]

I for one would like to applaud UCLA for what he is doing. Yes, he is a little more of a vigilante than I would be, but I can see he is passionate about the problem.

I also agree that the Clayton bashing should stop. He was forthright and honest about his accounts (I assume based on what others have said) and I at least applaud him for that. I do think however that he deserved to be reported.

Call me old school if you will, but I believe honor and integrity are critical traits for success in life as well as poker. Therefore I have no problem reporting anyone who violates the sites rules to gain an unfair advantage, whether this advantage is perceived or real.

I’m also disappointed in the number of people in this thread that have bashed UCLA for what he is doing rather than trying to offer anything constructive towards fixing the problem. There seems to be a growing trend in our society of condoning cheating as a way to get ahead this day and age, and the sadly the attitudes of many in this thread only seem to confirm that perception.

Ending on a positive note, I’m at least glad to see from reading this thread that some of the posters are more concerned about the integrity of the game than they are about offending any of their poker friends. I think having known, respected posters like Foucault and Shaundeeb stand up for what is right is what is needed to help sway others into doing the same.

It seems strange praising Shaundeeb for his principles, but I guess it goes to show that even a degenerate like Shaun can still have morals. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For anyone wanting to know Clayton's names, and since he's posted our private conversation above I assume he has no problem with me doing the same:

ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:10 AM): i can just tell you them all
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:13 AM): i have no issues doing so
uclabruinz12 (8:29:15 AM): great thanks
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:23 AM): bluelabel
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:25 AM): followmyruin
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:29:32 AM): cnew27 (the one to my name)
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:01 AM): mommasub, papasub, agnet007 (these are shared accounts)
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:10 AM): that ive playe don
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:21 AM): and iknowalofpi
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:23 AM): i tihnk thats it
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:30 AM): iknowallofpi*
uclabruinz12 (8:30:51 AM): i thought it was bluelabel11?
ItsLikeThat7427 (8:30:54 AM): yea it is

[/ QUOTE ]


Ansky or someone mentioned looking at the accounts referenced as belonging to Clayton and seeing whether any of the accounts entered the same tournament. I spent 10-15 minutes doing that, so my conclusions may be incomplete.

I can't tell from the above-quoted post if Clayton played under an account named aknowalofpi or iknowallofpi*. I didn't find either account on pokerstars in tournaments. I did find an account named iknowallofpi, without the asterik at the end. I see that accounts named iknowallofpi and cnew27 played in the same tournament back on 9-27-06, a $300 buyin PL Holdem tournament with 1,741 entrants. Other than that, I didn't see any other overlap.

Also, this obviously doesn't mean that Clayton was the person playing on those two accounts in that tournament. It could have been two different people. And, again, I am not sure that aknowallofpi is an account that belongs/belonged to Clayton. I hope that this helps end speculation focused solely on Clayton and gets the discussion back to the general problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

[DVaut1]

My guess is that $300 PLHE with 1800 runners is a WCOOP event; so if it really is two of the accounts Clayton named, one of them is probably a shared account.

[NoahSD]

FWIW, I've played against clayton when he was on three different names. Each time he actually went out of his way to identify himself to me (don't remember if it was on AIM or directly in stars chat). We barely ever talk, and I'm pretty oblivious, so he really had no motivation except that he didn't want to be a scum bag.

I know he still broke the rules, and if all that's gonna happen is he's force to play one account, I think that's probably for the best. I just thought that I'd chime in and point out that he really went out of his way to not gain an unfair advantage from this.. at least with me.



That said, I def agree with MLG et. al. who say that the best way to prevent playing multiple accounts in the same tournament (or, even worse, an STT or cash) is to enforce the rules against doing [censored] like what Clayton did. It would be particularly cool if they did this but also allowed people to create new accounts in exceptional circumstances.