I would like to see more detail about what happened here, if I was a Hu pro Id be very nervous about having money on Stars at this moment

Chances are OP is dodgy though

This seems accurate, what else could it be then?

A remaining exculpatory scenario is:

• a jealous competitor created and funded the new accounts and had them all lose to the OP under suspicious circumstances in order to get him banned

but he should not have written:

with the grapg from the other thread, this appeas to be the case


for real stars????

Someone read through all the regulations and list any such regulations that might be pertinent in this case. Lets see if its a regulatory reason why PS can't explain, or simply that they don't want to (bad PR or whatever).

When I read a passage like this, in the context of everything said in this thread:
It seems to me that I can only think of 2 possible explanations:
1. Named accounts were shady (eg. chargebacks) and you collected the money which is highly suspect
2. The money you make proportional to the rake taken is really high and business analytics stuff now determines that to be negative value for the site.

The problem is that in explanation #1, the response from PS would have been to just come clean with that explanation. It's public knowledge that with credit card fraud or whatever, how those emails would go. So it seems to me that it is explanation #2, which is really alarming that they are now basically deciding to ban winners.

I cannot think of any "regulatory reason" that PS cannot explain themselves here but admittedly I did not dig through the law. I hope someone does so that we can get to the bottom of this (Namely, after a thorough reading of the regulation, we can present all of the things it could be, and it must be one of them) because this IMO is ridiculous.

guys dont be paranoid

this is a isolated and rare case like pokerstars just said.

and its obvious they hade enough evidence to do the easier thing and ban OP from the site then (what takes more proof) and confiscate his funds first.

bottom line is the agent knows a lot more about this case then we do from this thread.

we dont know if OP is guilty or not.

pokerstar's agent thinks he is.

What I would like to see is , OP's sharkscope compared to how much funds were dumped from said hacked accounts. gives a clue.

They won't do this, but the have the right to refuse any consumer the allowance to play -that is black and white- what would be an issue if the funds were confiscated, but PS knows that; so the openness to say, ' you can go make a complaint' is not really giving a true option because they know that they are completely by the book here by the regulatory standard. And the will not disclose anything further by their right.

The only way if PS were to make an addition statement on this is if this became a PR disaster waiting to happen, in which case they would apologize to the OP, reinstate his account and everything goes back to PS normality, IF, it really is about his playing style/profile. If it about something else, like actual fraud, I think they will 100% stick to their guns and not issue anything further. But because they didn't confiscate his funds, I'd say the response will be the later.

PS is a great company, 100%, but up to this point, it has been a special company, I think we can give the benefit of the doubt to PS - but yeah, not to beat a dead horse deader, pros and regs should be concerned to at least have a possible backup plan. There may never be a golden age of online poker ever again as even if PS get back into the states, certain regs may never be welcome again.

Is it ridiculous or the new paradigm of business for PS? Either way the impact on certain players will painful.

This case really stands out from a multitude of other such cases with usually the OP of that thread gets outted by the 2nd page by not sharing all the information and that they really were at fault. For Michael to say that it basically is as the OP represents- I think the real question is not about the OP's guilt or actions, but on what basis PS has made the decision because if they claim it is a security issue, they can use that as a blanket reason to hide a multitude of other reasons which may not be security related at all for preventing play.

Again, paranoia or not, we recognize PS to be the best company in the industry, but because of their market position as well as how some players depend on PS for their income, can we also just assume everything is as it was, when this case doesn't fit the normal cases of what we've seen over the past years? You said, it was an isolated and rare case, not PS, they said it was a random regular check. Have you ever heard of them doing random regular checks before? I haven't.

I have never heard of this before, but I did find the name and photo of a PokerStars employee who appears to have this in his job description.

Happycat will you stfu with your Pokerstars dick juggling

Try and make a post where you don't refer to them as great, the best in the business etc.

Wow, this thread is still going i see. Kind of surprising considering even if the OP is completely innocent of any wrong doing and PS just decided to ban them "because they can", there is likely nothing anyone is going to do about it, imo. This reminds me of certain unethical things that go on in the government, among other places, that are outed/exposed and most people just express their displeasure, yet do very little to nothing to induce change. If PS made a policy of doing what it seems they may have done in the OP's case, which is seizing the opportunity to do a cost benefit analysis while allegedly investigating the OP's link to TOS violation(s), the vast majority won't really care because it's not them.

I guess I'm typing all this to say, it would be nice to see the 2+2 community, that can currently play on PS/FT, come together. Who knows what could be next, random checks to ban a certain percentage of accounts that are deemed to not be bringing in sufficient rake?

Found another "risk assessment" case. This one with a happy ending:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...olved-1227133/

lol sorry for annoying you, and point taken. lol.

Im loving this war on bumhunters by the sites. nj stars keep getting rid of scumbags it's good for everyone.

Stars closed accounts because they didnt deposit enough or selfbanned them to often?

Given Michael's post, I can't see how this can be an issue around the way in which OP plays the game - if they were booting him for something like bumhunting or grimming, what regulation could there possibly be that would stop them from telling him?

Sounds to me like they have suspicions about something fraudulent, but don't have enough evidence to confiscate his funds. Giving the reason for this would be tantamount to accusing him, which would undoubtedly be an issue in many jurisdictions, especially if they feel they are unable to provide their evidence, for security or other reasons.

They haven't taken your funds so they don't really have to give you a reason to refuse your business.

This is obviously the correct answer, I don't understand why some still speculate on grimming and other stuff after Michael's post.

This would be an issue when it comes to outing their suspicion in public. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where it's a potential problem to out suspicions in private communication with the party involved, whether those have merit or not.

This is not the same circumstance and is a different jurisdiction, but here is an example of regulations that apply to some suspicious financial transactions:

from the link:

"5.1 Confidentiality

You are not allowed to inform anyone, including the client, about the contents of a suspicious transaction report or even that you have made such a report, if your intent is to harm or impair a criminal investigation. This applies whether or not such an investigation has begun.

Because it is important not to tip your client off that you are making a suspicious transaction report, you should not be requesting information from the individual conducting or attempting the transaction that you would not normally request during a transaction. See section 4 for additional information about identifying an individual conducting a suspicious transaction. "

http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/publ...2-eng.asp#s5-1

This is just a general comment regarding Pokerstars lack of specificity and is not meant to imply anything regarding OP. A quick internet search reveals Isle of Man does have similar legislation, but I didn't look closely enough to know the details.

They won't be private communications. He posts every email to this thread.

Making arrangements isnt a bad plan ..

The only thing I can think of is: Chip Dumping. PS cannot prove it, but they might think that it is highly possible.
How much did you win from those guys?

$2683, only $21 in EV. Hardly looks like chip dumping.

He also posted all HH in this thread.

So far looks like he hasn't done anything wrong and has been treated appallingly by Stars.

Highstakes pro and chip dumping for ridiculous small amount of money. Are you guys serious? No one is that stupid.

Bad situation to be in, ivanhoe has been very open in this situation and I'm 99% sure he's not done anything wrong here. If he's grimmer, thread would be full of screenshots and stats from other regs to prove that. At the moment I haven't seen anyone complain about that. If it's because of bumhunting, stars should ban 90% of HU-players, including players like nanonoko and many other high profile pokerstars pro players + of course whole 2+2 HU regs community.

He's also been very open about having no problem to break sites TOS', that's quite a difference with 90% of HU players, and definitely with Stars sponsored players. If a sponsored player would admit to that like it's nothing, he'd also be in big trouble.