harrington's slience is so damning

People are arguing morality and rules simultaneously- these are two different discussions. You have to have defined rules and as such either the line gets drawn somewhere 'fair' (which seems absolutely impossible to agree on/really enforce) or you go to an extreme (no MA'ing is ok or all MA'ing is ok). Otherwise, this argument is going to go in circles forever.

Online poker rooms should try their hardest to create gameplay that resembles live play as closely as possible. Multi-accounting is like going out and playing live, perhaps in a game that you are a regular at, in a perfect disguise where one could only recognize you by your playing tendencies. If you were a regular in said hypothetical live game, would you think that was fair, Mr. Dwan?

It is mind boggling to this day how many so called respectable pros still think cheating is ok, and try to justify it by call it something else. It is these acts that will always plague the game and make most people think of it as a shady game for hustlers and cheats.

WTF is a black money guy?

Everyone knows MAing is cheating

Even durrr knows, so why does he say its not really cheating ? because he's been doing it while he was in macau, so if he says yes its cheating he is basically saying he's a cheater.

It is a shady game for hustlers and cheats (mostly hustlers). How could it not be? You've got a ton of money involved in an unregulated industry. We should all expect a great deal of cheating/collusion/manipulation as the norm.

Black money - Income illegally obtained or not declared for tax purposes.

Guy - A human male.

The reason why big whales want to multiaccount is because they get hunted like crazy by seating script and those "poker house 4vs1" regs.

Of course the whales want to protect themselves from that and after couple days of noticing how the same regs sit over and over they probably even feel cheated, saying regs share holecards or they softplay each other and so on.

In this case I think its completely fine to let the whales change their screennames. I do also think if stars/ftp had a rule that each player had to change its screenname once every month is fine too.

See how party allows you to change your screenname once/3months, I think its fine.

The main issue behind multiaccounting is that those guys who do it, they pretend to be fishy first time around or play very loose. A regular needs some time to start adjusting to their play and figure out what hes like while the multiaccounter abuses and exploits you from the beginning on.

Don't get the big discussion.

MAing is so bad and for Durrr to say something like that publicly makes me wonder.

Bunch of thieves all around poker players.

I was about to say the exact same thing. There are rules and there is the moral code of right or wrong and they are two separate things. And no, there is no way of saying who should be allowed to break the rules and who shouldnt. On a personal level everyone is entitled to ther view of right or wrong and may think some breach of rules is not as serious as some other. But sites should apply the rules the same way for everyone. Id be willing to accept that it may be in the spirit of those rules to be a bit more leniant toward a recreational low stakes player who may not have know about or fully understood the rules (although the line here too would be difficult to draw) but the rules need to be applied.

Btw, its interesting how so many take a very utilitarian approach to these questions, ie. someting is basically against the rules but its not that serious or wrong when the person breaking the rules is a bad player and therefore i can profit from him playing.

id like if u made that post in almost every nvg thread haha- on the money

Ok guys, sorry but I have to post anonymously on this.

Issue is not really multi accounting but any form of cheating. Multi accounting is only a tool cheaters use, just like if someone was killed with a hammer, you wouldnt go and ask authorities to make hammers ilegal. Also you have to separate rule issues and moral issues.

Multi accounting is generaly not an issue unless used for wrongdoing. How Victor was "robbed" on FTP is perfect example of whats true MA cheating. Few players ganging up and creating set up situation that target players just walks into.

But all that said, multi accounting is against the rules on poker sites and therefore that should be only criteria of determination weather it´s ok or not atm. Fact that pokersites are obviously turning the blind eye on the subject matter says a lot. I do not have a problem if someone has two accounts and use them to play just to play.

Phew, good job you posted that anonymously, what a bombshell

So you multi-account, which gains an edge on people like me who use only the one nickname you are allowed to have on Stars/FTP and you've made an anonymous account to back up your cheating. You're just part of the problem.

You say multi accounting is not an issue unless used for wrongdoing but this thread is about high stakes and at high stakes every instance of multi accounting means the player can gain a lot of edge in the games due to the smaller player pool and more HU/ short-handed games vs players who know each other well. There is levels of multi accounting obviously and if the allegations against Jared are true then obviously that is much worse than just someone making a new account after Black Friday to have a little anonymity but they are both instances of cheating.

here's an article about the Blom thing:

http://www.rakerace.com/news/poker-p...i-accounting-/

it's, actually, the guys accused of the cheating speaking out. they're saying it wasn't cheating so much, and they did what they did because of technicalities (not being able to deposit large amounts fast enough) and that Blom wasn't in a big disadvantage because he'd never played against the account that was used before

and from the following i understand Blom himself doesn't really want to talk about it anymore: http://www.highstakesdb.com/3746-the...ktor-blom.aspx

This is absurd. Crimes have victims. When a reg MAs the victims are his opponents, who are the victims when a fish MAs?

it's pretty easy, if the other players in the game are obviously OK with it then it's OK.




Exactly. In a poker game the players are the only ones affected. So if the players are OK with it it's perfectly reasonable to overlook something that is technically against the rules.

the fish can do w/e the fk they like , and if you think that's not how it should be , your dumb , regs however should stick to the rules, its fairer to have guidelines to stick to , or otherwise it just becomes a free for all until they sites are forced to act

I skipped most of the posts so not sure if somebody has said this already or not and I know its been discussed before but..

Let everyone change their sn's once/month = even playing ground for everyone.

More games will get started. Tracking becomes difficult/impossible. And players still have the option to keep the same name for the sake of attempting to achieve any sponsorships or attention for whatever reason.

People keep bringing this up and its really not true. It levels the playing field for sure, but all the sites that have implemented this have shown that it doesn't incentivise people to play. If anything iPoker and Party were two of the worst sites for getting games started. The tracking thing is also a little redundant these days.

The victim is the one who doesnt know who the person is and because of this loses money to him. Even a fish can beat someone if their perceived image is different that it would be if they knew who that person really is. If a fish MA's most people are likely winning, but not everyone. Difference can be huge.

That is also kind of a weird way to think of this issue. So if a professional who is multiaccounting and trying to win other professionals money happens to lose there is no crime? Since there are no victims. But if that person happens to win then it all of a sudden is a crime? Makes very little sense, do you see?

What if everyone is not OK with it?


Once again, if there is even one player opposing something that can be seen as breaking the rules then that should not be tolerated, right? It cannot be a majority vote.

This has been discussed many times before and there are good reasons not to do it. To name a few: collusion becomes harder to spot, less people will rail high stakes games and get interested in poker if nobody knows who anyone is, people generally behave worse when their reputation isn't affected by their behaviour. Also it's debatable if it does create more action as often people just deny action to anyone who is clearly a reg in case it is someone very good they are playing. It was allowed on party poker with detrimental results imo and the day that stars/ftp start following where party poker lead will be a sad day for all of us lol.

Also, most people seem to get it but to the few who do not, try not to get so caught up in the words that are used to describe things. Language is just a way of communicating ideas and isn't perfect. Just because 2 things are both called "multi-accounting" doesn't mean they are both the same and that blanket rules/punishments should be used for everything that can be described by that word. Think about what is actually going on, who the victims are and how badly they are harmed and then form a judgement on how serious the crime is (if it is a crime at all).

If a reg breaks the rules by creating a new account with the specific purpose of gaining an unfair edge on their opposition then their opponents are harmed by the rule-breaking, it costs them money compared to playing the rule breaker on their own account and the regs who were cheated will rightfully be unhappy and the sites should attempt to stop this behaviour and reimburse the cheated players where possible. If a fish makes a new account to preserve his anonymity because he enjoys playing poker but would be embarrassed to have his name linked to large losses then nobody in their right mind will be offended by this. It is what the fish desires and it keeps him in the game longer which is what the regs and the sites desire. This is clearly not a crime, nobody is a victim here. The fact that you can link the fish's behaviour to the previously mentioned multi-accounting regs behaviour is just a flaw of language in that we use 1 word to describe a broad spectrum of actual behaviour. The fish technically breaks the rules but only because there is a rule in place using imperfect language which is there to protect people from the multi-accounting reg scenario so the sensible option is to just assess multi-accounting on a case by case basis and deal with it based on the severity of the case. There are a lot of multi-accounting scenarios in between these 2 (such as getting a new account for rakeback, getting a new account because you are in a country which denies you the freedom to play poker online etc) which could be discussed at length but the most important thing is to deal with those cases on the most severe end of the scale and then perhaps a discussion on the grey areas and where the line should be drawn could take place afterwards.

Yeah v good points.. tbh I hadn't spent all that much time thinking about it, and you've quite easily converted me to thinking its not a great idea.

This is the most offensive thing posted in this thread. There are SO many people who CAN relatively easily make multiple accounts knowing it will give them an edge and likely a lot of money but consciously choose NOT to because they're not ****ing scumbags.

Maybe you think it's *FOS* but some people have morals. Some people value certain things higher than money as hard as that may be to believe. And these fantastic people are the ones that suffer at the hands of those who break the rules.

Sure MAing isn't as bad as marking cards in a live game or having the dealer rig the deck. But when it's clearly against the ToS of most sites and when it grants a person an unfair advantage over their opposite it's definitely immoral and to suggest that "everyone would do it" or that it's "okay" is just a joke.

I don't think anyone besides the sites should be allowed to grant a screen name change under today's system.

The other approach is as lefort say, granting everyone a change every 1/3/6 month or maybe every y month or x hands (or VPP earned) whatever of those that is coming the fastest.

I do think anonymous tables is to drastic approach and change the game entirely, while screen name changes seems reasonable to level the playing field.

So under today system I think if a businessman or fish does want to change their sn its not their decision but they should request it from the site (and I think they should be very helpful with the request to true recreational with honest intentions). Think a self governing system is doomed and will be heavily abused.

Afaik players like G*y only had 1 Pokerstars account, and was possibly allowed by FTP (where he had more accounts) to account changes.

Tbh in most cases I think the fish are fine with one account but as said earlier pokersites should (and have) the power to grant changes.

Edit: very good post and points from Kanu, guess more safety measures to play highstakes is another way to go to make the games more fair. How widespread is multiaccounting in HSNL?

Wish Durrr would have the same standpoint and view as Roy (stars online pro)..