Considering they had no obligation to post in this thread at all I would say it is a pretty decent reply.

Will be interesting to see if OP has a reply to the cryptic Stars representatives post.

Does no one else see the purpose of a business not being transparent on a lot of these security issues?

If you're in a store, are asked to leave, and request a reason, do you think the owner is going to point to the hidden camera over there and say "I'm 60% certain that I saw you doing _____ while you were in that aisle over there with persons x, y and z, who were doing ____."

From that point on, and especially in the case of online security where it's posted for the world to see, that security measure becomes completely ineffectual after it's exposed to a single customer.

They are not giving away anything by stating 'you used a vpn' or 'you had another account'.
Simply stating what he got banned for doesn't lower the (in)effectiveness of Stars' security.

If you take out a lot of the filler, this response is actually quite ballsy and responsible by PS. We all know Michael to be a really good guy and it's obvious he put a lot of effort to do his job but to also give as much info as he was allowed to do so.

The security issue, we all know sites don't disclose it because it makes scammers better at what they do, but on the flip side, PS has a strong track record or correcting the wrongs- even if takes time and the result may not make everyone happy, they've done the right thing more than anyone else in the industry by a huge margin. And you see this also with the Ultimate Bet team who mostly are from PS originally too.

But in taking out the filler, it is clear that the OP has presented his case straight up, and he has been banned. And so thank you Michael for being straight with us on that. It's admirable by you and by PS. But what does that mean for the OP?

It means that your general play or profile fits into what PS doesn't want right now - for whatever reason, may it be that they think you make the game less fun or hurt new players or you are just too good and they'd rather have worse players online- who knows, but that- sorry to say this, you will never get back online with PS/FT/Rational ever again.

And what does that mean for the rest of the community of players who have made their lives around playing poker for a living on PS, - as some other posters have mentioned that it is a wake up call - that we aren't entitled to make a living off of PS, rather, if you as a player fit the profile or style of play that may not meet with PS's current or future criteria then one day one of these 'random' reviews for compliance will simply wipe you out.

For the OP playing 5 years, and then also being banned from FT, well hell, if PS has 70% of the market, well maybe he will end up being more profitable in the long run on some other sportsbook poker network and may end up thanking PS in the long run; but that doesn't take away that he's been playing on PS for the last 5 years and that may just hurt that he's been committed in good faith to PS and it's a major shock that his livelihood wasn't really anything real, but just an allowance by the powers that be. It is clear the OP takes it seriously, he knows the rules, he takes the same advantages that others do, but he sees the balance.

Hey OP, sorry mate, but you are getting the short of it here, but we all know PS is a good company that really if they did want to they could have just taken the funds - but unlike other shady poker companies, they won't because they do have cash and their motivation for banning you has something more to do with what kind of players they want. At least if you cut out the filler, it has to be something along the lines of that to get rid of a 5 year 1 chat warned player.

I am sure that most players, as seen by the hate here, will just love it if PS continues to do this in a systematic way. Will it make the game more fun? Maybe! Will the need to continue to tweak the profile to continue to make the game more fun continue? Probably if it works, and then where does it stop? And that really is a question that every player who plays regularly and uses PS for their actual income needs to question because first it 'random account's then when it is a systematic crackdown where does it stop?

We know PS is a great company, no one will deny that, and even with this reply, it's a mountain more than even what the listed pokersites like party.bwin do, but when you're ironically the USA equivalent of online Poker in terms of your scope for the industry, it maybe can get out of hand just because no one or competition is there to really give PS a pause to reconsider. Again I think this was internally regulated by a culture that loves poker, but it does seem like with this, thing have changed. The only upside here is the US regulators can't use the excuse that they think Isai is still in charge and running the show. Clearly he isn't and so at least now PS has a chance to get back into the US. Again, PS is great company, but as a Legend, I hope that time hasn't past.



I quoted you to say, I agree, but as a fanboy, I give them credit to be honest if you take out the filler, it is there. And if you're a reg, it can be a shock.

+1 on the hans112, learn to read what is there instead of what you want to hate on.

In this case it's pretty clear it has something to do with the other accounts. Telling someone what other accounts are accused of is a pretty massive tip off as to where those accounts screwed up in whatever they were doing if it's not blatantly obvious to themselves already.

Therefore whether or not OP is legit is moot:

1) If Stars doesn't tell, only OP is hurt, although in this case he keeps the money.

2) If Stars gives us a reason, those involved will know what not to do in the future. And there's nothing stopping them from sharing that information with much more intimate details of the process amongst other hackers/scammers. Every one of us loses security as a result.

There is zero benefit for the public knowing the details unless you place a higher value on transparency than security from a particular business, the fulcrum of that balance placed at that company's historical record. Until this becomes at least a quarterly track record of somewhat legitimate sounding complaints against Stars, I personally prefer the security. Additionally, if I distrust a company enough that I am willing to give up security of my own money for transparency, I shouldn't be playing there in the first place.

I agree with this.

Could it be related to self-exclusion?

Looking for other hypothetical scenarios that might fit the facts that we have:

Some sort of anti money laundering algorithm was triggered by some of the accounts that OP played against. He played against a higher percentage of them than other players do, because of camping on heads-up tables. OP gets banned, but gets to withdraw all his money. Stars does not want to indicate that there is an anti money laundering algorithm required by EU or some other jurisdiction.

By this, I assume you mean those accounts self-excluded, and that OP is either the same person or is suspected of being inextricably linked to them?

No. I was agreeing that it has something to do with the other accounts.

Changing gears, this is on a different site, but it gives some indication of what is possible:

Everyday you write the book:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/58...elist-1360966/

Last email i've gotten from investigations:

This, along with the post of Micheal J, still doesn't tell me ANYTHING of what I have done wrong. They seem to be unable to come up with a reason. I've sent them another email asking for a reason as I want to make a case with the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, and I need to know what part of TOS I have broken in order for this to happen.

@VP$IP: why are you quoting completely unrelated year(s) old posts? In the dispute with Ipoker I got a call from a VIP manager shortly after to make apologies and I've had my account fully reinstated. Ipoker now has a software enforced 4 table max rule which my case probably sparked. But w/e. Please stop sidetracking this topic.

"In line with our internal security processes we carry out periodic business risk assessments on randomly selected accounts."

"We regret to inform you that your account has not passed this recent screening process, which has resulted in the permanent closure of your account"

Maybe this incident prompted a full investigation into his account and past playing history. Maybe they found something else they didn't like in their audit of his account. And maybe they coupled the new development with those accounts with the fact that they found something else in his past playing patterns that they didn't like and it was enough for them to shut him down. That's Purely speculation obviously but that would be my interpretation of not passing the review of his account.

Honestly, this is bull****. Stars needs to provide a reason or get the **** out.

Using the information that is available, it appears that your account was closed because of bumhunting. Isn't that the most likely reason? Even if they don't want to put it in writing. If you have any other information that you can share with us, please do. Otherwise, we have to use what is on the record.

Lifetime bumhunting pays off. Period.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...eriod-1216287/

Michael, I agree PokerStars has a history of transparency, for which it deserves much praise.

However, I'm confused by PS's inability to say *anything* in regards to the reasons for banning this account. HappyCat has made some very compelling posts ITT in which he opines that business reasons - profits, making the site more fun for new/casual players, etc. - may be the driving reasons for this decision. Regarding OP, HappyCat wrote:

I don't know anything specifically about the way OP conducts himself, and so I can't comment on that.

What I do understand is that PS has not cited this behavior, which some posters have discussed ITT, as a reason for their decision in this situation:

I do note the very intentional wording of the above quote. "Just to be clear, PokerStars has made no suggestion..." is a factual statement that PS hasn't suggested any such thing. It provides no new information, and anyone reading this thread knows PS hasn't made such a suggestion. Unfortunately, it provides no clarity and no transparency.

As you noted (and I quoted farther above), "there are various thresholds" of proof and/or evidence as it relates to certain situations. Well, the same can be said for different levels of transparency. Here, PS has chosen to offer no transparency. It has selected a transparency threshold of zero.

Surely PS can provide a greater threshold of transparency that would:

- Allay other players legitimate concerns (will I also get banned with no explanation? am I doing something wrong?)
- Provide a reason to the OP who is a long-time customer and indicates he made a living on PS (OP, how much rake have you generated for all-time at PS?)
- ... all while achieving PS's stated goal, which you noted and I quoted above, of being "as transparent as possible" while still adhering to whatever external/regulatory constraints may exist.

An illustrative examples of such transparency could include: "Please know, this decision was based on a matter relating to [XXXX], and while we would wish to provide more transparency, it is not our practice to / we are forbidden from / we do not comment on [XXXX] matters like this one."

HappyCat is clearly a big supporter of PS and calls it "a great company," but his posts here are also asking big and important questions. Specifically, he's asking if there is a changing dynamic within PS to abandon its poker-focused codes of ethics and standards to adopt more of a gaming industry standard:

This is a very important discussion, and it goes far beyond the implications for the OP.

I would respectfully ask for PS to please provide a far greater threshold of transparency in this matter.

Isn't stars waging war on bumhunters as of recently? Looks like this is the only reason they don't want OP playing. OP bumhunts fish, fish plays no more = bad for stars. Why would they keep such a client?

It is a legitimate topic of discussion.

Hey aren't you that "dude" that told me the same thing 2 weeks ago, then accused me of mulitaccounting (being Harrington im sure!)?


Anyways, as much as I don't particularly care for the OP, this does seem like a total bull**** situation. I think there's basically 0 chance he was involved in anything shady with these 6 accounts that came and played him.

I actually had a similar thing happen to me on party where these brand new Swedish accounts would join me and just play absolutely horrendously, like 0 attempt of actually playing poker and winning, he just wanted to see all the money go in. There was up to 3 of these brand new accounts in the same day, and it was very obviously the same person (3bet literally 100%), and I've probably played 7 of them over time. It actually made me nervous as I knew something shady, and very likely fraudulent, was going on, and I didn't want party to think I was somehow involved with it. I reported it to party support every time, but like what can I do, sit out on anyone from Sweden? I don't really know wtf was going on but I'm pretty sure it was some kind of like stolen credit card or charge back type stuff going on.

Maybe Stars is somehow obligated by their regulatory body to take action on this. Or it's a situation where even if they think it's a 5% chance OP is involved they still would rather ban than run the risk of doing nothing and then face repercussions from their regulatory body, or some situation like that...

not sure if ur innocent or guilty because the info is too vague to determine that ITT. wish stars could be more transparent without giving out too much sensitive info so u at least have a direction to go in.

looks like u reached a dead end with stars and need to go directly to the regulator: