Stoxtrader cheating/multi accounting discussion - Page 6 - High Stakes Poker Pot Limit and No Limit

**ike** · 03-15-2010, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoxtrader

There are online poker players who have used 2nd screenames for the purpose of deceiving others into giving them action, evading taxes, collusion, entering multiple times into the same tournament, ghosting, to obscure previous results and stats, to clear extra bonuses, to circumvent affiliate CPA or rakeback rules, to bypass the pokersites shortstack buy-in time limitation, to teamplay, to share action with others at the same table, to chip dump or otherwise engage in underhanded actions I do not know about. I have never done any of these things. Beyond that I cannot and will not comment on the screename issue, nor can I say why I cannot elaborate further other than to say that my reasons for that are serious and personal.

I have played a shortstack some of the time, I will do this when games are tough and I don't want to just not play, when there is a good game at a "shallow" table, in CAP NL games, or I think it's the most profitable strategy for that particular table. My poker results are shown over my last 650k hands or so in the HEM screenshot below, and they are sorted by stack size. A good percentage of the "under 50bbs" stack size games are from cap tables, where the buy-in is 30bbs. The rest are from 20-40 BB buy-in at "shallow" tables and a 20-50BB buyin at normal tables. The collusion allegation is laughable and completely false.

On a more serious note, how does whatever bull**** you told yourself was the "purpose" for your multiaccounting take away from the fact that it accomplishes the things I've bolded anyway? If you needed to change your screenname (I can't fathom what sort of "serious and personal" reason you might have) but were concerned with behaving ethically you should have made a public post letting everyone know you were closing your old accounts and opening new ones. You have cheated all of the HSNL regulars out of a significant amount of money and there is no ambiguity about it.

dw2006 · 03-15-2010, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by viffer

can anyone cross check the numbers of hands played to known accounts of his to see if he just admitted to multi accounting? i mean if his account only played a few hands but claims to have so many hands, ummmmmmmmm!!!!!

He admitted to multi accounting in the post I think. Just not for the "under-handed" reasons stated.

gordo16 · 03-15-2010, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ike

On a more serious note, how does whatever bull**** you told yourself was the "purpose" for your multiaccounting take away from the fact that it accomplishes the things I've bolded anyway? If you needed to change your screenname (I can't fathom what sort of "serious and personal" reason you might have) but were concerned with behaving ethically you should have made a public post letting everyone know you were closing your old accounts and opening new ones. You have cheated all of the HSNL regulars out of a significant amount of money and there is no ambiguity about it.

this is spot on and pretty much the only thing that needs to be said about on the topic before stox responds further.

Nick Rivers · 03-15-2010, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clayton

on a related note, why are we tagging kinetica/LittleZen(?) into the collusion accusations?

Did you not see the thread wherein it was demonstrated quite convincingly that 40putts and kinetica had at best soft-played/cooperated with each other and, at worst, had engaged in outright collusion? Because I saw it, and I was convinced.

aejones · 03-15-2010, 01:38 AM

this is... words can't describe it. comical though for sure.

Bigfoot · 03-15-2010, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Rivers

Did you not see the thread wherein it was demonstrated quite convincingly that 40putts and kinetica had at best soft-played/cooperated with each other and, at worst, had engaged in outright collusion? Because I saw it, and I was convinced.

Link?

Nick Rivers · 03-15-2010, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigfoot

Link?

I think viffer linked to it, but the link went nowhere. I have no idea if the thread still exists (or even if it was its own thread or just part of another thread).

another_rack · 03-15-2010, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ike

Did you open extra SNGs?

He didn't, but his Grandma might of

Paul McSwizzle · 03-15-2010, 02:34 AM

It seems that his response to accusations is even worse than his cheating. This observation isn't intended to minimize him cheating, it's to emphasize how ridiculous his response is. I can't possibly imagine what kind of brain-dead PR consultant for Stox advised him to post his insane response in both this thread and the one in the CR/Stox forum.

The obvious play for CR here is to quickly distance themselves from Stox as soon as possible, as Stox is sinking faster than the Titanic.

**NoahSD** · 03-15-2010, 02:37 AM

It's not ok to do something that's against the rules and gives you an edge just because you're not doing it to gain an edge. That's like saying that if I steal a 50k brick from you because I need a paperweight, it's cool since I didn't do it to get the money.

Posting how much money you made while cheating (I assume that's what that is?) is the douchiest way you can possibly respond to cheating accusations.

I think given the fact that it's now clear that stox actually did cheat, mods should explain exactly why they thought it was ok to get rid of the old thread.

La Peste · 03-15-2010, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by You'reGoingDown

Stoxtrader and Stoxpoker and doughnutz and the rest of them are going down, and they are going down hard. The racket that is poker coaching is about to be exposed. This is just the beginning.

I can see your aura.

rbracco · 03-15-2010, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

It's not ok to do something that's against the rules and gives you an edge just because you're not doing it to gain an edge. That's like saying that if I steal a 50k brick from you because I need a paperweight, it's cool since I didn't do it to get the money.

This is the first good analogy I've seen on 2+2.

Not joking

HopelessHousewife · 03-15-2010, 03:49 AM

people who has hands played by his other accounts in their DB's should check how often in those games where playing other stoxpoker coaches. maybe they were softplaying each other and after game shared profits.

zachvac · 03-15-2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HopelessHousewife

people who has hands played by his other accounts in their DB's should check how often in those games where playing other stoxpoker coaches. maybe they were softplaying each other and after game shared profits.

If they were gonna share profits why would they softplay each other? It's not like rake's a big factor in those games may as well avoid suspicion and play normal. I don't really know anyone in this and don't play those stakes so not qualified to comment at all just saying that if they were to collude/split profits there'd be no reason at all to softplay each other.

riverboatking · 03-15-2010, 03:59 AM

i feel like such a fish for only ever having one screename.

a big fat LOL at the "can't comment because the reasons are serious and personal"

jesus.