Yes but four extra is what i meant.

Lol WP equity. I hope they ban and confiscate funds from anyone caught doing this .

Pretty ridiculous that the software allows this. You'd think this would be #1 feature coded into the software seeing as how the network has multiple skins.

PokerHost shouldve went to WPN imo. Instead they chose a network where the biggest mtt is a 5k gtd and cash games that , all though run, leave much to be desired..

lol seriously... i almost have trouble believing this. someone should verify.

The network has multiple skins but players aren't supposed to have more than one account on the network. That PokerHost didn't close that account, I think, is where the mistake lies.

Don't worry though, if you win any money on PokerHost, they'll close it fast enough.

I will be bringing this to the attention of multiple operators and staff at EPN directly.

This should not be possible.

As was previously stated, players are not supposed to have two active accounts on the network. I can assure you anyone caught doing this would be closed and funds confiscated. In fact, to the OP, you may want to contact your operators directly and let them know you tested this and found a bug... and that you were in no way trying to cheat.


--
Kahn

This is a pretty huge mistake. There was a time that BetOnline and Action Poker did the same thing. At that time, the sites denied a network connection.

As Kahn mentions, don't try to duplicate this if you intend on playing on the network.

What a joke. This is not industry standard at all. Are all these bannings all on PokerHost? They are ruining EPN's reputation.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using 2+2 Forums

After reading this thread...

Why does anyone play on this network?

Maybe you don't always get what you want? It is not like you only send an email and whoops you get accepted by another network.

Umm yea obviously. I'm just voicing my opinion and saying there was better options.

Did you actually read the thread, or just the last 3 or 4 days?

Better options maybe but who knows whether or not they would even be welcome on other networks such as WPN?

cashouted 811 on skrill, received 731, and 51 was credited back to account
cashouted 51 on skrill, received 35, nice, facepalm.
flop set is totally rigged 7%

you missed the whole point of what i was trying to say. whether i said wpn or cake, point is obviously equity isnt an upgrade from merge as far as game selection goes. if it is, it sure doesnt look like it

According to Poker Host's T&C's, their company goes by the name Integer Marketing and Design LTD. I assume this is a coincidence?

"Equity Poker Network, where any1 who knows about "equity" in unwelcome"

Unfortunately online poker is not always wishful thinking. Get used to it

am i understanding that a lot of this is linked to pokerhost? i have not had a problem with IP and I am a winning player. support and sandy has been nothing but helpful tbh.

Today the article came on calvinayre.com by Lee Davy:
http://calvinayre.com/2014/04/29/pok...ayer-accounts/

He managed to get some answers from their representatives. it seems that statements that the network is banning players is just not true.

"The ‘Shark Tax’ is the EPN’s way of offering a much more balanced environment to their poker players, ‘without players losing all the time’, and they are very clear that their rules are not directed at individual players, but instead at the operators who choose the EPN as their network of choice.

They take a more overseeing approach and will work with operators and advise them how best to balance the network if they feel it’s needed, and they admit that this can lead to the removal of specific players, but did not admit to this being the case with the Poker Host account cancellations mentioned on 2+2."

At any point they mentioned the banns separate just the shark tax so it seems more like skins banning their biggest winners to avoid the tax.

Thats probably the reason why overwhelming majority of bans is comming from Pokerhost.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Management has contacted PH in this matter to ensure they adjust their TOS which appear to be a copy/paste from the IntegerPoker website since all EPN Operators are pretty much bound to the same TOS. However, we'd expect an Operator to copy content from EPN's site rather than ours as terms could contain Operator specific policies or guidlines.

Thank you!

NP Sandy, I wondered if it was a C&P or if they had the corp name before joining EPN, creating a bizarre coincidence.

anyone else have a check bounce? or was that an isolated incident?

The Equity Network has replied to the bannings by saying that their network is not “the universal panacea for all poker players and operators who wish to offer poker, but it is intended to appeal to a large subset of the poker community.”

So Equity only wants to cater to the most profitable subset of poker players. What is it that they think is so magical about their network that would enable them to pick and choose the very demographic to which all poker sites would love to restrict their player pools if they could?

Doesn't Equity realize that casual players are very very suspicious of rigged RNGs and the overall honesty of a site? When a site openly rigs the player pool to their own advantage, even if it does also benefit the casual player, the subset of players that Equity hopes to attract is just as repulsed by those actions as is every other player.