hi im scott

better known as icantsng on statrs, as the title states i received a lifetime ban, and here is the reason why as quoted from a e-mail from jim the investigator of the case "This email is to inform you of the results of our investigation into your account and also that of 'WhySoMadFor?' on PokerStars and 'WhySoMadFor' on Full Tilt.

As you are aware, we had suspicions that you were making the playing decisions on 'WhySoMadFor?' on PokerStars and 'WhySoMadFor' on Full Tilt or actually controlling the accounts yourself and therefore breaking the Terms of Service for using your PokerStars account.

We have spoken to 'WhySoMadFor?' on the telephone on three occasions in order to ascertain whether she was the person in control of her own accounts. Based on the information she provided us and her answers to the questions we asked, we are confident that she was not the person controlling her accounts at our tables. For privacy reasons, we are not permitted to inform you of the details of our conversations.

Please note the following points from PokerStars Terms of Service (http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/tos/)

10.4 A User may only have one User account with PokerStars and shall only use the Service using such single account. It is prohibited for a User to open multiple accounts with PokerStars. In the event that PokerStars becomes aware of additional accounts opened by a User, PokerStars may close such additional accounts without notice and may confiscate funds held in such additional accounts.

3.1 PokerStars retains authority over the issuing, maintenance, and closing of Users' accounts on the Site. The decision of PokerStars' management, as regards any aspect of a User's account, use of the Service, or dispute resolution, is final and shall not be open to review or appeal.

It is our opinion that you have been controlling 'WhySoMadFor?' and 'WhySoMadFor' at our tables, by making the playing decisions for those accounts in real time.

For this reason, we will be closing your PokerStars account 'ICANTSNG' and your Full Tilt account 'SonnyBill'. Your accounts remain open without play privileges so that you may cash out your funds and spend your FPPs and FTPs. We invite you to do this at your earliest convenience. As soon as you have done so your accounts will be closed and you will no longer be welcome to play on any site operated by the Rational Group.

Do not attempt to open or use any accounts on Rational Group sites. Any account you either use, or open will be closed without warning and any funds therein will be forfeit. For the avoidance of doubt, we define 'use' in this instance as coaching/advising in real time, whilst hands are in progress as well as physically controlling an account."

now ill give a little background to this matter i am the coach and also house mate of this player, i did not act for them manually in anyway what so ever...

id also like to point out that in the terms of service
"10.4A User may only have one User account with PokerStars and shall only use the Service using such single account. It is prohibited for a User to open multiple accounts with PokerStars. In the event that PokerStars becomes aware of additional accounts opened by a User, PokerStars may close such additional accounts without notice and may confiscate funds held in such additional accounts.
"
ok so first of all there is nothing in the terms of service in which state you are not allowed to comment in game on a situation, infact i found a quote from poker stars rep lee jones regarding this matter

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=767

"
Here is our official position on this matter:

PokerStars requires that each account is played by only one player, and each player may only play on one account.

Of course, there is no way to control where that player might get advice from; if they have a book in front of them that details how to play a hand in a particular way, we do not prohibit that. Similarly, if they have someone by their side (or on the phone or whatever) giving them advice as part of some unplanned, ad-hoc, arrangement, this is not against our rules.

We certainly are not going to prohibit a friend watching and providing some casual advice at home.

However, we do prohibit deliberate paid services where the intent is very different. Such a service is materially and fundamentally different from ad hoc and opportunistic arrangements whereby one player might have a friend standing behind him and providing advice. Such a service would also be different to coaching services offering instruction based upon hands and tournaments that have already taken place. PokerStars allows coaching after-the-fact, but does not permit ongoing and planned real-time paid services.

Please note, in addition, providing or receiving such advice if you are dealt into the same hand, is against the rules."

So once again pokerstars has manipulated there use of power and for the second time (for those who didnt see the thread where they claimed i purposely stalled which was a breach of tos, when in fact steve did come out and apologise they whereincorrect.

pokerstars is an inadequate poker site with there senior integrity rep contradicting himself as hjim quite clearly stated to the user whysomadfor? that recieving any guidance in game is not breaching any terms what so ever.

you are a pathetic company who abuses there power and i hope the gaming commision of the isle of man sticks it to you, and does the right thing and forces you to compensate me for this ridiculous mockery..

pokerstars reps please i invite you to comment

GG, you multiaccounting scum.
Nobody will believe your stupid lie about coaching that person, when she was unable to give appropriate answers to the questions that PS asked her on the phone.

I can smell that you are full of **** for many miles aginst the wind, am happy that PS banned you, and hope that "bansky11" (dolmren on PS) is next.

reading between the lines, it looks like your housemate/student did a bad job of convincing Stars security that they're capable of playing competently, so they've determined that you must be telling them what buttons to click. That's clearly against the TOS, so gg

its actually not fwiw

It actually is, if you're doing it every hand

fwiw

wow.. gl

correct me if im wrong, but at no stage have they claimed i am giving advice everyhand nor do they have any proof what so ever that this is the case, secondly if that was the case id like you to point out where in the tos it says this, and why lee jones would advise that it is totally fine unless involved in the same hand/same table

So essentially ghosting, I always rule that as shady.

Meh, will follow but suspect no help coming your way.

Honestly, why would you even risk it?

Dat puzzy dog, he needed it.

Firstly i really hope this turns out well, its sad that you've paid the site so much rake over the years and based on a player who may potentially not be able to verbalize their thought process well enough but still play ok that you may be coaching they decided to ban you.

Has your student been studying with you over hand histories? Surely its feasible that they picked up something and decided to experiment with the plays they saw without fully understanding them?

Juk

I'm neither on your side nor theirs.

I'm just pointing out that if you advise on every hand, then you're basically the one operating the account, even if the person in whose name it is held is the one physically clicking the buttons. That would contravene the one account per player rule , and one player per account rule, even if it doesn't necessarily contravene the "coaching" rule.

you're clearly misinterpreting the TOS. A friend spontaneously advising a friend when he's deep in a tournament is fine; someone with a financial interest watching every hand and specifically telling the monkey at the keyboard which buttons to click is obviously not.

Either way gl getting any sympathy or support on here! You're clearly screwed, and most will be pretty pleased to see it.

I want to know what makes you think you are important enough to create this thread in NVG?

I find scott quite a big name in sngs.

He can create it imo.

i dont get paid to coach this person on a hourly basis, nor is advising planned or ongoing..

scott

You don't deny you did make playing decisions for the other player (your gf?).

Reading between the lines, something must have made PS suspicious in the first place (you don't say what). Then PS spoke to her and presumably realised she had limited poker knowledge. Presumably they saw her play in similar games to you (not those a beginner might choose), with a similar style at similar times and from the same IP. If so, gg Pokerstars.

You're being a bit cryptic about what you actually did.

- Was her account playing in similar games to the ones you frequented?
- How often were you "coaching" her?
- How long was her account open?
- Did you make decisions for her?
- What alerted PS to the issue initially?
- Did she ever play on the same PC as you use?
- How many tables did she play at once? (Beginners = 1)

incase your unaware i 24 table myself, if you are trying to imply im 24 tabling while wathcing every hand of a student you are clearly over estimating my multi tasking skills

But it's more than "a friend watching and providing some casual advice at home"...?

Juk

What's the motive here, why does OP need 2 accounts?

i have no relation eg gf to this person other then a student.
i coached her whenever we both had time outside of playing times.
her account has been open for 6months at a guess
i commented on situations if it was a spot they where unsure of, occasionally would even be a stretch, more like rarely
stars did not inform me what alerted them initially

My personal view is: One player to a hand.

However, if a site specifically states a different philosophy such as: The more the merrier!, then on that site I would go by that.

u might believe its a credible story ..but its not...its soo obviously ur other accounts..and nobody cares about ur ban.

while i do agree as i have financial interest somewhat, i can safely say that i have not breached the tos...would you disagree?