Lee Jones Reiterates his policy on cheating; BOYCOTT STARS

[hecubus]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is a silly idea, but why can't Stars just automatically ban more than one account from logging in from the same IP? I understand that you may have a roommate (or more than one) and you guys may like to play the same tournaments, but if you DID happen to end up at a table together are we really supposed to expect that you would hide your screeens from each other and not reveal hole card holdings to each other?

I understand this would complicate things such as people playing from internet cafés and such, and that people who reaally wanted to have multiple horses in a MTT would simply use different ISPs to get unique IP addresses, but to me allowing one connection from one IP address seems like a simple step that would at least eliminate the ease at which people can multi-account.

I'm not asking them to install ADT and lucite windows, just don't leave the damn door wide open for anyone to walk right in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most campuses, for instance, have a single IP public footprint. Internally, everyone at a university has a different non-routable IP address, but when the traffic goes out from the firewall, it will apprear to be coming from one single public IP address. So the one-user-per-IP address thing won't work.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is a silly idea, but why can't Stars just automatically ban more than one account from logging in from the same IP? I understand that you may have a roommate (or more than one) and you guys may like to play the same tournaments, but if you DID happen to end up at a table together are we really supposed to expect that you would hide your screeens from each other and not reveal hole card holdings to each other?

I understand this would complicate things such as people playing from internet cafés and such, and that people who reaally wanted to have multiple horses in a MTT would simply use different ISPs to get unique IP addresses, but to me allowing one connection from one IP address seems like a simple step that would at least eliminate the ease at which people can multi-account.

I'm not asking them to install ADT and lucite windows, just don't leave the damn door wide open for anyone to walk right in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most campuses, for instance, have a single IP public footprint. Internally, everyone at a university has a different non-routable IP address, but when the traffic goes out from the firewall, it will apprear to be coming from one single public IP address. So the one-user-per-IP address thing won't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean it wouldn't work - it just means it would make it difficult for students and other similarly situated persons to play. One obvious concern from Stars' standpoint would be the loss of players/revenue. But perhaps that is shortsighted? Since none of us have access to Stars' financial records, we don't have any idea how many players/dollars that Stars would lose if they went to a one IP address/one user system. There is some credence to the thought that, if trust and confidence in online poker is decreased on a large sale, players/dollars could be affected even more severely.

[MaddHatter]

Regardless, this policy and mindset has led me to leave Pokerstars for Ultimate Bet - may their bottom line be hurt because of it ()

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: Did Noah play from two accounts?

Answer: "We don't know, and we don't care"

[/ QUOTE ]

Bit shady, Kane...that wasn't the question. Here's the actual quote from Lee Jones from P5:

"Did Exclusive "coach" Win during the final table? We don't know and we don't really care. We don't have a "one player to hand" rule at PokerStars."

[CamusEatsSumTum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: Did Noah play from two accounts?

Answer: "We don't know, and we don't care"

[/ QUOTE ]

Bit shady, Kane...that wasn't the question. Here's the actual quote from Lee Jones from P5:

"Did Exclusive "coach" Win during the final table? We don't know and we don't really care. We don't have a "one player to hand" rule at PokerStars."

[/ QUOTE ]

You open an internet cafe. On tourney night, you invite some friends over to play. You all enter the tournmanet. You also coach them. Do you see the problem?

This is the samething ZJ did, only instead of "taking over for them" he controlled them the entire time.

What happens if the player you are coaching ends up at the same table as you. Do you open a bunch of SNG's to negate your edge?

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: Did Noah play from two accounts?

Answer: "We don't know, and we don't care"

[/ QUOTE ]

Bit shady, Kane...that wasn't the question. Here's the actual quote from Lee Jones from P5:

"Did Exclusive "coach" Win during the final table? We don't know and we don't really care. We don't have a "one player to hand" rule at PokerStars."

[/ QUOTE ]

You open an internet cafe. On tourney night, you invite some friends over to play. You all enter the tournmanet. You also coach them. Do you see the problem?

This is the samething ZJ did, only instead of "taking over for them" he controlled them the entire time.

What happens if the player you are coaching ends up at the same table as you. Do you open a bunch of SNG's to negate your edge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I have three computers connected to the net in my house (one being my wireless laptop). My wife and daughter know a little poker, but not much. Putting aside the age issue, can they open up an account each, and I can go back and forth "coaching" them while I play my own hands on my wireless laptop? As I understand Lee Jones, this is perfectly acceptable.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is a silly idea, but why can't Stars just automatically ban more than one account from logging in from the same IP? I understand that you may have a roommate (or more than one) and you guys may like to play the same tournaments, but if you DID happen to end up at a table together are we really supposed to expect that you would hide your screeens from each other and not reveal hole card holdings to each other?

I understand this would complicate things such as people playing from internet cafés and such, and that people who reaally wanted to have multiple horses in a MTT would simply use different ISPs to get unique IP addresses, but to me allowing one connection from one IP address seems like a simple step that would at least eliminate the ease at which people can multi-account.

I'm not asking them to install ADT and lucite windows, just don't leave the damn door wide open for anyone to walk right in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most campuses, for instance, have a single IP public footprint. Internally, everyone at a university has a different non-routable IP address, but when the traffic goes out from the firewall, it will apprear to be coming from one single public IP address. So the one-user-per-IP address thing won't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean it wouldn't work - it just means it would make it difficult for students and other similarly situated persons to play. One obvious concern from Stars' standpoint would be the loss of players/revenue. But perhaps that is shortsighted? Since none of us have access to Stars' financial records, we don't have any idea how many players/dollars that Stars would lose if they went to a one IP address/one user system. There is some credence to the thought that, if trust and confidence in online poker is decreased on a large sale, players/dollars could be affected even more severely.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? Get outta here. There is no way -- no way in the world -- that PokerStars is going to make it so that no more than one person from any given campus can play at their site. They would lose a significant amount of money, and anger a hell of a lot of people. It isn't worth it.

And it would also anger those honest people that want to enter a tournament from the same household, knowing full well that the likelihood the two of them will end up at the same table is very small, and knowing full well they would not cheat. It's just a bad move, Stars won't do it.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have three computers connected to the net in my house (one being my wireless laptop). My wife and daughter know a little poker, but not much. Putting aside the age issue, can they open up an account each, and I can go back and forth "coaching" them while I play my own hands on my wireless laptop? As I understand Lee Jones, this is perfectly acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is!!!! What do you expect him to do, install cameras in your house?! What about the people that help out their friends over AIM? Do you expect the online poker sites to disable all instant messenger software when you log on? Do you know how many good (and, more importantly, bad) players would stop playing because of this?

There is no way to regulate it. Lee Jones recognizes that, and doesn't feel the need to front about it. That's fine with me.

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have three computers connected to the net in my house (one being my wireless laptop). My wife and daughter know a little poker, but not much. Putting aside the age issue, can they open up an account each, and I can go back and forth "coaching" them while I play my own hands on my wireless laptop? As I understand Lee Jones, this is perfectly acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is!!!! What do you expect him to do, install cameras in your house?! What about the people that help out their friends over AIM? Do you expect the online poker sites to disable all instant messenger software when you log on? Do you know how many good (and, more importantly, bad) players would stop playing because of this?

There is no way to regulate it. Lee Jones recognizes that, and doesn't feel the need to front about it. That's fine with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a huge difference between saying something is unethical and against the rules (regardless of whether it is enforceable or not) and saying we don't care because we can't enforce a rule if we were to have one. Do you see why?

[mlagoo]

No, I don't see why.

Having a rule that is impossible to enforce is having no rule at all.