Fulltilt froze my account with 47 grand in it

[Mike Haven]

Here is what I have been permitted to pass on. I have asked for one more item of information to be released, and this will follow, if possible:

"Here is a summary of the pertinent details surrounding this case:

• Statistical profiling of the playing style of "pokergirl z" indicated some highly suspicious behavior, suggesting that the player could be using a computer program to make decisions.

• The player was questioned about this, and made a series of responses.

• The compiled evidence and the player's explanations were reviewed by senior staff of Full Tilt Poker, and presented to me for independent assessment.

• The player's arguments were found to have little or no merit, contained many inconsistencies and contradictions, and did not adequately explain the anomalous behavior.

• The player in question admitted to being dishonest in the disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the games in question.

• The player admitted to a violation of Full Tilt Poker policy by using multiple accounts, and initially lied about the use of those accounts.

• It was determined that gross misconduct had taken place, and it was decided that the seized funds should be redistributed to the victims.

From my perspective, the posts by "sillysal" to the 2+2 forums were highly selective, told less than half the story, and were clearly intended to mislead the 2+2 community.

The case is now closed.

Thank-you for your role in explaining the details of this case to the 2+2 community."

[KurtSF]

Sounds kinda like nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion. They took her money for "botting", couldn't prove it, found out she had multiple accounts, figured that would do, and used it as grounds to keep the money.

Meh, I think everyone looks pretty bad here.

[jbrennen]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds kinda like nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion. They took her money for "botting", couldn't prove it, found out she had multiple accounts, figured that would do, and used it as grounds to keep the money.

Meh, I think everyone looks pretty bad here.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

FTP comes off as, "Something's rotten here, we're not sure what, and we can't prove much of anything. The accused is evasive and inconsistent, a sure sign of guilt. She's used multiple accounts in the past, so if we simply revoke her playing privileges and release her funds, there's a good chance she'll be back under a different screen name and we'll be none the wiser. So since we don't want her playing her, and because it's really tough for us to stop her (history of multiple accounts), we can just leave such a bad taste in her mouth about playing here (by confiscating the funds) that she won't want to come back. Oh, and we'll say that we're giving the money back to the 'victims' to help us look good, even though we're not really sure what crime was committed other than multi-accounting, and even though funds confiscation is not part of our policy for dealing with multi-accounting."

Just my humble opinion... And I'm really not much of a cynic in general, but this whole thing stinks to me.

[LateNiteRush]

I know I posted this before, but now with this update from Mike Haven, I will say it again... I am so naive, here I was honesetly feeling sorry for sillysal. I was scared to play at FTP. I said to myself "this poor honest woman has had all of her funds taken away for no reason at all". And now I read Mike haven's post. All I can say is "wow". From now on, I will wait until all the evidence is laid before Mike Haven or the 2+2 community. I have lost faith in the human race, but I will say good job FTP for your investigation. Take care.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I know I posted this before, but now with this update from Mike Haven,

[/ QUOTE ]

this is such incredibly bad thinking, and why Mike Haven shouldn't let his good name be used by FTP.

Mike Haven was just copying and pasting what the FTP consultant said to him.


If FTP wants to have a representative on these forums, they should employ one - and not sully Mike Haven's good name with their poor, poor, behaviour.

[ QUOTE ]
And now I read Mike haven's post. All I can say is "wow". From now on, I will wait until all the evidence is laid before Mike Haven or the 2+2 community. I have lost faith in the human race, but I will say good job FTP for your investigation. Take care.

[/ QUOTE ]
But NO EVIDENCE has been laid before the 2+2 community!

[londomollari]

Are they going to redistribute the winnings Antonius has made using different usernames as well?

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]

They took her money for "botting", couldn't prove it, found out she had multiple accounts, figured that would do, and used it as grounds to keep the money.


[/ QUOTE ]

From the limited info we have seen (ty ty Mike) - this is what it looks like to me too [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

It seems anyone who has used the family member / new account trick to illegally get FTP rakeback should now seriously fear any investigation [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
But NO EVIDENCE has been laid before the 2+2 community!

[/ QUOTE ]
This is false. The stats post showing three nearly identical players was certainly evidence.

It seems reasonably clear that the same person or bot was playing on several accounts. If this was a bot then she's 100% guilty: close all the accounts, keep the money, and blacklist the owners.

Let's assume that all she did is use three accounts during the same time period (but not at the same table). Some have compared this with the socially accepted but rule-breaking action of creating a different account for rakeback. Sorry, I don't see it that way. A HU player sitting at tables under three different names is taking gross advantage of the other players. It isn't a fair fight the second time we play. She has a whole session of experience with me and I have no idea we even played before. For those of you who don't play HU, let me emphasize this is a huge advantage.

I understand that some networks do permit multiple accounts or screenname changes, but FTP isn't one of them. Someone who breaks the rules and gains a major advantage over other players is a cheater.

The way I see it, the *best* case for SillySal at this point is:

1. She's not a botter, she's merely a rule-breaker and high-stakes cheat who victimized other players out of a lot of money.

2. She's a liar who took advantage of the Zoo. She always had a very good idea why FTP might be investigating her. Probably all of here accounts were frozen at once. Certainly she wasn't an innocent victim.

3. She's a libeler who has smeared the reputation of FTP and online poker in general. FTP may have been insensitive and bungling but she is a malicious wrongdoer who created the whole situation in the first place.

If she had been upfront when the investigation started I would have supported mercy. But she lied, stonewalled them, and dragged their name through the mud. If FTP mistakenly concluded she's a botter instead of a multiaccounter then whose fault is that? She's the one who concealed the truth.

Cheater, liar, libeler, rule-breaker. Confiscation of funds is completely appropriate even if she isn't a bot. The rules say they can do it and the punishment fits the crime.

I'll save my tears for when a truly innocent person comes here and no one believes a word they say. That person will be another victim of SillySal.

PS: Don't misunderstand this post. I still think she's probably a botter. Alternative explanations are far-fetched.

[_dave_]

StellarWind,
[ QUOTE ]

Let's assume that all she did is use three accounts during the same time period (but not at the same table). Some have compared this with the socially accepted but rule-breaking action of creating a different account for rakeback. Sorry, I don't see it that way. A HU player sitting at tables under three different names is taking gross advantage of the other players. It isn't a fair fight the second time we play. She has a whole session of experience with me and I have no idea we even played before. For those of you who don't play HU, let me emphasize this is a huge advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of your points, however it is well documented that certain "high profile" players (Antonious, Bennymine?, certainly others) FTP is A-OK with having numerous accounts.

Certainly plenty of 2p2 have more than one FTP account, although this presumably without FTP's blessing.

Botting or not - if the final justification was "well, we can't prove any other offence - but you had multiple accounts so ty4themonies, bye." - then a good few 2p2ers should be very concerned.

And very annoyed at the hypocrisy of certain "blessed" accounts being allowed multiple usernames.

dave.

[GeniusToad]

[ QUOTE ]
StellarWind,
[ QUOTE ]

Let's assume that all she did is use three accounts during the same time period (but not at the same table). Some have compared this with the socially accepted but rule-breaking action of creating a different account for rakeback. Sorry, I don't see it that way. A HU player sitting at tables under three different names is taking gross advantage of the other players. It isn't a fair fight the second time we play. She has a whole session of experience with me and I have no idea we even played before. For those of you who don't play HU, let me emphasize this is a huge advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of your points, however it is well documented that certain "high profile" players (Antonious, Bennymine?, certainly others) FTP is A-OK with having numerous accounts.

Certainly plenty of 2p2 have more than one FTP account, although this presumably without FTP's blessing.

Botting or not - if the final justification was "well, we can't prove any other offence - but you had multiple accounts so ty4themonies, bye." - then a good few 2p2ers should be very concerned.

And very annoyed at the hypocrisy of certain "blessed" accounts being allowed multiple usernames.

dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

have players such as antonius been allowed to have multiple accounts at the same time or has FTP allowed them to delete an old account to start up a new one? i'm aware of the latter happening but not necessarily the former. clearly there should be a distinction though.