your definition of buying action seems a bit off

good point?

I'm very well aware of what buying action is and have done it many times, but ty for your concern. I used an exaggerated 99/1 staking deal to prove a point. The % shouldn't matter. Whether you have 99% on makeup or just 1% piece for sweat, it should still ethically be the same.

As does his definition of "sweating." Sweating need not imply that the sweater is giving the sweated real time advice. To me, it just means observing.

1) I honestly feel in the American ipoker climate name changes would turn out to be more trouble than they're worth.

2) If the sites are going to continue to stipulate MAing is explicitly against the TOS then THEY must be the ones to police it and properly punish it.

We should NOT be left with the burden of having to watch over our own shoulders for unethical players breaking a law they view as having no repercussions. All the while the upstanding citizens who abide by the law of the land are the only ones truly being punished.

Now there certainly are a lot things in the poker community I don't understand or agree with but my main pet peeve has to be the lack of organization amongst the players. We are the life blood of the game and yet we act as if we hold none of the cards when it comes to getting what we want from the major sites.

For example. If you took GP, Nick, NoahSD, FWF, or any of the other well know posters and asked them to start a petition in NVG saying they were boycotting the heads up games until the sites addressed the MAing problem PROPERLY I could almost guarantee the majority within the community would support you! If each of you asked only 1 or 2 more of your highly respected friends, and they in turn asked 1 or 2 more friends to support it publicly as well, sure enough you'll have a movement.

That's the thing gentleman, the masses are in many many ways nothing more than the mob (I know its a rip from Gladiator but its true). They want to be led. They want to feel as if they're doing something important and if it comes from the mouth of the very people they strive to be like then it makes them all the more passionate about it. All it takes is a small amount of self sacrifice.

For those that say "well there are gonna be people that will continue to play and reap the benefits of our boycotting" and yes it is true. But if after these people are informed of what we are trying to accomplish, and they still continue to play then that just puts them on blast for being the selfish POS's they truly are.

Now some of you will say "Kevin, I gotta eat" and I understand that. I'm not saying you guys need to give up the game and do something else. I'm simply saying boycott HU poker publicly. Continue to play 6max or full ring, tourneys, or SNG's. Just draw a line in the sand somewhere and say to the site's WE WILL NOT CROSS THIS LINE UNTIL YOU, THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPHOLDING THE LAW, ENFORCE IT PROPERLY!

As it stands now its a joke. I don't agree with a lot of what eskaborr has to say on the matter but I certainly understand why he does what it is he does. The punishment does not do enough to discourage the crime....

he wasn't talking about your percentages...

it's this... you can be staked and still make your own decisions...

i am under the impression that stars has no policy or stance on being ghosted, but full tilt has a one-player-to-a-hand rule and it is illegal to ghost someone or give advice while a hand is being played. anyone know whether i'm right or wrong?

Stars allows multiple people making decisions, as long as the owner of the account is the actual one clicking the buttons, Full Tilt indeed had a one player per hand rule.

AFAIK FTP has no published one player to a hand rule, nor do they have any published rules that could even arguably be interpreted as containing a one player to a hand rule. And there's an old thread where FTP solicited feedback and said they were considering such a rule, they never adopted it.

However, since players have no recourse against the sites, the sites are free to do as they please. There might be instances in which FTP enforced a one player to a hand rule. But since among other things they never reveal the results of investigations there's no way to know.

Name changes is not the solution to the problem. It hasn't encouraged more action on party at all, now nobody will play anyone because they MIGHT be someone that they don't want to play. Also, having skimmed the thread it seems that the people in favour of being allowed to change your name are the people that will play pretty much anyone but don't get action, the name change rule actually harms these people the most because it will be obvious more quickly who these people are when they change their name (since they are trying to play ppl all the time). The mass of bumhunters will constantly change their names, feel even less inclined to not act like giant douchebags as they have no reputation that will last beyond their next name change to uphold and nobody will know who they are, while they may also be able to work out who the non-bumhunters are and gain a further advantage.

Also the collusion issue is huge. Before I continue I should say that this is absolutely not an accusation, i have no evidence or even real belief that it is true but i guess it shows that even if there is nothing going on, the increased chance of it means that people will be less likely to want to start games. On party it seemed to me that before the name changes there were maybe 2 or 3 dutch players at the high stakes games and afterwards there seemed to be 7 or 8 at once, playing in the same games etc. Like I said, it's very likely that I only noticed the number of them because I was now more vigilant as I didn't know who anyone was any more etc but it meant that I would no longer start games with a couple of regs from the same country.

There are other benefits to not having name changes for the sites (and players imo). For example, if jungleman plays isildur at 100/200 HU, everyone is excited, the players get publicity, the site gets traffic, railbirds are inspired to play. Lower stakes regs play other regs to try to one day emulate the best guys around. I have never changed my name on party, but even with that being true, I've had crazy HU matches on there with Isildur, takechip, Mr Zahmat etc etc and nobody gives a ****. Nobody cares about unknown 1 vs unknown 2 whatever the stakes and allowing name changes would remove a lot of the interest and excitement from online poker.

Basically, the allowed name change thing has been tried on other sites and imo has failed miserably so let's not make the same mistakes with the big sites.

Also, Eskaborr seems to be a giant douchebag who is incapable of thinking well (or unwilling to think well because that would mean changing his stance). MA is a real douche move, I think it's fair enough to deny somebody action. After all, everyone is here to make money at the end of the day and if someone feels that somebody else has too big of an edge on them then they should absolutely be able to refuse them action. Trying to introduce rules to change that is unfair imo. MA to get action that you wouldn't usually get is ridic scummy and people who do it should be treated like the scum that they are. As a side note I do think there are different levels of multi-accounting and how bad it is depends on the reason it is done.

Btw, I think the best way solve the lack of action problem is for the sites to limit the number of HU tables per limit, not severely but just enough that weaker regs who want to sit at a limit have to play each other for the right to. Some KOTH situation where 2-3 guys have all the tables at a limit is unfair to the majority of players who aren't the best at a limit, but some competition for tables would def be healthy and should strike a good balance between stopping the ridic situation of so many people all sitting out bumhunting and allowing your average HU reg at a limit to have a chance of playing with fish and regs who aren't the best at the limit.

ftp does not have such a rule.

i am also very concerned about name changing effecting the community's ability to uncover cheating and i think that supersedes any other problems it may fix. it would be different if the site security was actually halfway decent but that just isnt the case.

i think i'm against all the name changing for all the reasons kanu just said.

Ya, I had kinda liked the idea before reading his post but now I'm convinced it'd be worse than the status quo.

great post

Hmm you appear to be right, sorry.

this is correct AFAIK. the fact that the many serious players don't know this illustrates a huge problem. i am sure many reading this thread have inadvertently broken rules on one site or another. it's hard to really expect everyone to strictly follow T&C's when not everyone is clear on the rules and rules either aren't enforced or it's unclear if they will be enforced. regarding this specific rule, it's nearly impossible to enforce.

kanu, you made a lot of good points.

edit: as of ~a year ago this was the rule. it could have changed for all i know, but it definitely was the rule back then.

I don't think this has ever been a rule, although (I think) very occasionally FTP have decided to pretend it is and punish someone who broke it.

The current terms of service are here: http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/site-terms

This rule:

5. Players and observers may not discuss a hand until the action is complete. Discussing cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed.

could possibly be interpreted to prohibit ghosting but seems to be talking about what you can say in the FTP table chat not whether or not someone can be in the room with you (or on aim or the phone or whatever) and give his/her opinion on a hand in progress. If this is supposed to be their one player to a hand rule, they couldn't have done a much worse job articulating it.

Relatedly, they do have this rule listed under "Prohibited Programs:"

2. Shared hand history databases and "data mining" software, including subscription services and the exchange of personal databases:

The use of shared hand histories provides detailed information on opponents a player has little or no personal experience playing against, and is deemed to be an unfair advantage. Violating this policy is subject to the maximum penalties for prohibited software use.

Players are not permitted to use the hand histories for hands that they have not personally participated in. Software designed to collect hand history information from games that the player did not participate in is prohibited. Some specific examples include:

* Poker Edge
* Poker Crusher
* SpadeEye
* IdleMiner
* HandHQ
* community shared hand histories
* exchanging hand histories with a friend


Which, if interpreted strictly, is violated by every conversation any of us have about poker, every strategy thread on 2p2 or any other forum, and every strategy video on Cardrunners or any other site, but, as far as I know, has only ever been enforced against Brian Townsend when NVG got all worked up about isildur getting "cheated."

The idea that "the rules" exist in some concrete, readily available form is, at this point, kinda laughable.

Observers is defined here by FTP as someone with the window open but not playing:

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/glossary/O/

Thus ike's first interpretation, that rule 5 relates to the chat box only, must be correct.

Could also move to Germany, sit at all HU tables, 6max tables and have a TV party against random fish.

And people wonder why poker sites should be regulated.

No, I really don't think people wonder that at all

yep +1

I think they should only spawn one table at a time. Either play that lineup or wait for a new one to open. Just like live poker.

Ike don't you think your attitude toward the data mining/HH sharing rule is similar to Eskaborr's toward the MA rule? Both are designed to prevent obtaining a tactical advantage the site has deemed unfair. Why do you get to pick and choose which rules regarding tactical advantages are important?

Obviously the rule is overly broad as written but purchasing or sharing 50k hand histories on a specific opponent is exactly what the rule was designed to prevent.