Potential Multiaccounting in the 530$ WCOOP - Page 5

LearnedfromTV · #41 09-17-2007, 01:46 PM

I really think it has to be reiterated that there are plenty of good cash game players or good live players who rarely play online tournaments but play the wcoop.

Not everyone who is good at poker plays the sunday million every week.

Obviously there's shady stuff out there, but witchhunts are silly without real evidence.

sirio11 · #42 09-17-2007, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone who is good at poker plays the Sunday million every week.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we all know this, I don't understand why some of you side track the issue.

OP wrote

[ QUOTE ]
his account has played 37 <10$ buyin tournaments only

[/ QUOTE ]

Are some of you telling us those good cash players don't play the Sunday but like to play the <$10 tournaments?

greg nice · #43 09-17-2007, 01:58 PM

say you didnt enter the tournament and therefore havent played

would buying a seat be considered multiaccounting?

would it be allowed?

FoldALot. · #44 09-17-2007, 01:59 PM

Indeed, and the other guy at FT apparently had played 271 SnG's averaging $4 with negative ROI.
Don't tell me someone with this record is a winning high-stakes cash player.

sirio11 · #45 09-17-2007, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
say you didnt enter the tournament and therefore havent played

would buying a seat be considered multiaccounting?

would it be allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not allowed Greg, the rules are clear

greg nice · #46 09-17-2007, 02:03 PM

ok some of the earlier responses in this thread are contradicting so i was unsure

stevepa · #47 09-17-2007, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ok some of the earlier responses in this thread are contradicting so i was unsure

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's because it used to be allowed, and there were a couple well publicized examples of it happening. It is now definitely not allowed.

NHFunkii · #48 09-17-2007, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
his account has played 37 <10$ buyin tournaments only

[/ QUOTE ]

Are some of you telling us those good cash players don't play the Sunday but like to play the <$10 tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

no one said that... just that although crablar's name was pretty well cleared in this thread, there are others who might be less well known who have now been accused of multiaccounting with very very little evidence, and while stars won't ban them without much more evidence, obviously, it would still suck to have your name associated with multiaccounting just because you satellited into a tournament and played ok/did well.

investigating someone suspicious is all well and good, but there's no need to post a thread with names of a bunch of people who did well in every tournament despite never having played in high buyins... email it to stars if you want, but posting it here is silly.

LearnedfromTV · #49 09-17-2007, 02:40 PM

jesus christ sirio, you're like a broken record. stop and read what i wrote, and what i didn't write.

Look, the one dude typed "jan is coaching me" in the chat box, and someone seems to know who jan is. Jan's probably a pro, who played the event himself, and shouldn't be giving advice. So fredmaniac seems shady. Or maybe the chat comment from the guy writing in his second language is being misinterpreted.

And someone else might have been a bought account, and the other guy might have been a total donk who had cards in all the right spots, and the guy with 2 $11 tourneys might have never put much money on stars until this wcoop, screwed around in something cheap every once in a while, have a friend who donks around on that account, etc. For example, my account (my wife) has played a ton of micros on full tilt. But all of these "mights" are really thin. We have no idea. There's no way any of us, expert mtters that we all are, saw enough of the hand details to know who played that final table the best, or even who played it well. We can make some guesses, we can note the really donkish things we saw, but we can't analyze what we didn't see, which is a pretty big part of what happened.

Personally I think donk getting lucky (both in the sense of running good and getting cards such that he looks better than he is, aggro in the right spots, happening to never show down when he's doing something stupid) is by far the most likely case.

That said, I'm sure that some accounts were purchased, some accounts were dupes, some people got inappropriate coaching. Trying to figure out who those were is a worthy goal. But sharkscoping someone to figure out what's what barely crosses the line between useless and circumstantial, especially when you can't see the hole cards for 95% of someone's plays. The line between "brilliant, aggressive, in control of the table" and a donk who blew up can be the difference between getting called and not getting called.

WarDekar · #50 09-17-2007, 02:48 PM

Sorry, didn't know who Crablar was just knew he was playing pretty solid and didn't have many tournaments played. Obviously a lot of cash game players will be playing WCOOP events.

Ansky: No I didn't have QQ, although I think I played that hand badly, what'd Carblar have? I was kind of tempted to shove but I OPRed him during the hand and saw he only had a few tourneys played and decided there was like no way he was pulling a move on me and also no way he'd be folding to a shove. Maybe I was wrong.