To the Multi-Accounters : some thoughts before this upcoming Sunday

[benza13]

[ QUOTE ]
i wish they'd just pass some sort of regulation/bill that would allow US companies to run sites. you know how much increased traffic there would be if you could play poker on yahoo or google w/ paypal or visa deposits/cashouts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets just say that this would easily make Party in 2004 look like a rock garden.

[dmk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wish they'd just pass some sort of regulation/bill that would allow US companies to run sites. you know how much increased traffic there would be if you could play poker on yahoo or google w/ paypal or visa deposits/cashouts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets just say that this would easily make Party in 2004 look like a rock garden.

[/ QUOTE ]

purrrrrty much. everytime i toss a penny into a fountain, thats what i'm wishing for

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
Legislation is currently circulating in the House of Representatives to exempt online poker from the current anti internet gambling act. This thread will be very helpful for the opposition, as I’m sure it will be printed and passed around.

Now I’m not trying to kill the messenger here as ActionJeff gets my vote for president. But all of you who are lying, cheating, and stealing will be one day known as those who killed the goose.

So from a fish who’s worked, and studied very hard to become a solid player.

My message to the cheaters is quit simply - FU ALL!

P.S. Why do I have this vision of AJ being forced to testify on the floor of the Senate one day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, ideally this thread could be held up as the poker community doing its part to regulate itself, and showing that, as a community, it has no tolerance for cheating. Unfortuantely, some here have taken the "cheating is inevitable, so deal with it" line of reasoning, which is about the worst thing we could possibly have from a PR perspective.

Maybe ActionJeff will end up outting a couple cheaters causing them to get banned and lose money, and that would look like a good way to end this thread.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
They would be back on their computers in the big MTTs within a few days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but they will have lost a considerable amount of money. Depending on that amount and the EV of multi-accounting, (and the chances of being caught), banning the accounts would almost certainly be an effective deterrent.

[Akala]

Now I’m not trying to kill the messenger here as ActionJeff gets my vote for president. But all of you who are lying, cheating, and stealing will be one day known as those who killed the goose.

So from a fish who’s worked, and studied very hard to become a solid player.

My message to the cheaters is quit simply - FU ALL!

Yep.The donks will always be there.


However the middle ass shot taking nits may bail, and just pound on the donks. If no one is outed, this thread has only served to reduce the payouts by a bit.

[OlDusty]

For those of you who are attacking Jeff for creating this thread, and not just outing those individuals he knows.

I believe this is much how AJ plays poker. He’s thinking a level above the rest of us. The man is well schooled in game theory and the mathematics behind every move, and I can tell you if he’s thought about this for a while like he says he has, then it has to be the correct move. Now I cant break it down in any great mathematical formula like he probably could, but lets just say Jeff knows the names of 10 top players who are multi accounting. But in fact there’s actually more like 80 top players who are multi accounting. Now if he just out’ed the ten he knows. That would be 10 less top pros playing under multi accounts. But now with this thread out there, the actual number of 80 who all know somebody, who knows somebody, have to worry that Jeff or someone else might know them, and that they will likely be busted if they continue with there shenanigans. So the wise move for all of the 80 would be to cut this [censored] out and stop there cheating, and the wise move for Jeff was to create this thread.

So from one of the honest players Thank You Mr. Garza

On another note.

I am of an older generation than most of you. I am 47 years old and was taught from an early age that cheating was wrong. Now I know that many of you youngsters grew up with computers and video games and have competed with each other playing these games, and that in order to compete across the internet you would go download the latest cheats for these game or get crushed by the other kids. But this is not a video game and there is a lot of money at stake here. Your not playing with kids any longer, and Cheating is WRONG so don’t do it, or you will at some point pay a very heavy price.

[Mama Poker]

[ QUOTE ]


So from one of the honest players Thank You Mr. Garza

On another note.

I am of an older generation than most of you. I am 47 years old and was taught from an early age that cheating was wrong. Now I know that many of you youngsters grew up with computers and video games and have competed with each other playing these games, and that in order to compete across the internet you would go download the latest cheats for these game or get crushed by the other kids. But this is not a video game and there is a lot of money at stake here. Your not playing with kids any longer, and Cheating is WRONG so don’t do it, or you will at some point pay a very heavy price.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second that.

I have watched my kids grow up on the computers and never liked it when my son got cheats for his video games unless he was absolutely out of options.
You never push yourself by taking the easy road.
If you are good-prove it on an honest playing field.

[prophet73]

So basically, after reading this long-ass thread there is only one conclusion you can come to based on the online pro's arguments and descriptions of their actions:

Online poker ISN'T real poker.

Besides the obvious differences with the lack of actual physical attendance and interaction, it is becoming more apparent that online poker isn't just a close "cousin" to actual poker, but in fact, a bastard offspring.

I don't even need to go too deeply into the obvious unethical nature of multi-accounting. It's unethical before it was a rule and always will be. If you don't care about ethics/morals, as some have stated in this thread, then you need to wake up. I don't need to go into a lecture on the importance of ethics/morals, but, in a nutshell, ethics and morals are supposed to be in place so each and everyone of us doesn't F**KED at some point based on someone else's greedy/evil nature. Without it, you can never rest assured that you are safe from getting screwed. If you don't get that, go pick up a book or take a class on it.

Anyway, more importantly, does everyone in here realize and understand the implication and intentions of the "one person to a hand" rule in live poker?

At the very least, during a hand, poker is an INDIVIDUAL game, not a team sport. That's the essence of the game. Taking/receiving advice is giving one player an unfair advantage over another player in the heat of the moment in which the players should be making the decision completely on their own without influence.

Sure, you can talk about hands afterwards to discuss and improve, but in the moment, poker is about that individual competition. By ignoring that, you are simply not playing poker and are playing some other game where there are basically "think tanks" and teams and whatnot.

Let me give an example: Let's say you are playing heads-up with some guy who is best friends with Phil Ivey (and therefore giving him advice on hands). Is it fair that since he just happens to be best friends with an elite player, the other player gets that advantage over you? Sure, you can have friends advise you too, but can the majority of people say with certainty, that Phil Ivey's advice isn't much more valuable than others?

And the reason they don't have it in the PS/FTP TOC? Not because it's deemed fair. Not because it's deemed ethical. But simply because it's deemed "unenforcible". That means they know realistically they can't determine who does what, but that does NOT change how unfair and unethical it is to do that. I guarantee if you ask them if would enforce it if they could, they would absolutely say yes. That's why EVERY live tournament has that rule.

From the way you guys describe it, it sounds almost like one of those old quiz shows with two panel of kids competing and answering questions. Sure, maybe only ONE student gives the final answer, but it's obviously a team competition.

But it sure as hell isn't poker.

Just as I'm starting to realize online poker sure as hell ISN'T real poker.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker ISN'T real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I agree with this. I see it as a different form of poker with it's own unique twists. Just like the difference between 7 stud, hold'em, and omaha. Or even better the differences between hold'em as a ring game or in a tournament. Trying to make on-line poker as close to live is in some ways like Sklansky wanting to change tournament pay-out structures to minimize bubble considerations (or more like "real poker"). Trying to make it close is reasonable, but to think that it isn't poker because it is different is questionable.

In any case I'm ambivalent on how I feel about "team" play, but multi-accounting is cheating and those who do it are scumbags.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even need to go too deeply into the obvious unethical nature of multi-accounting. ... If you don't get that, go pick up a book or take a class on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my first thoughts when this thread started is that it's too bad so many of the young, elite players have dropped out of or forgone college to go pro. An ethics class in college might have done them some good in this area(besides other benefits).

[the alex]

(I'm deleting my flame on the "Online poker isn't real poker" clown.)