so basically jungleman is a complete dirtbag?

or is this being excused b/c he has aspergers

But one can have multiple nicks on merge right?
If you didnt know who Girah was, how could you be sure that Girah wasn't just JM's other/new nick?

Yeah for once I completely agree with you. The fact that Tyler admits he didn't know who the girahh account was supposed to be and still thinks jungle cheated him is pretty lol since it might as well have been jungle's account for just that one match. If jungle actually did create a Merge account of his own (allowed multiple right?) and sat at the same time, the same match would have happened.

Also lol @ wobbly_au calling people scummy. Sir, you are just about the scummiest person I've ever played against at the tables and you obviously have very poor reasoning skills. Step out of this thread please.

erm... one account, allow nickname changes?

I'd just like to ask you Tyler, lets say the "Girah" account was Phil Ivey, I would imagine you would not want to play him hu.
Now if you found out later after losing 40k that it was Phil Iveys account, would you ask him for the money back?

I'm not saying your wrong or anything, besides the fact jm multi accounted here, but this account could have been jm on a different skin right, so how is this different?

Are you denying that Jungle could have easily (and legally) created another account in his own name and played you on the same day? Are you also denying that you would have somehow sat out this account? Of course you wouldn't, as you said you knew nothing about the girahh account so you obviously assumed it was someone worth playing. Same thing woulda happened if it was in jungle's name.

This is all assuming jungle could have legally created another account name. If that's true, then YOU are the one who is blind or dead for not realising that you didn't get cheated.

Whole thing is starting to remind me of "white men cant jump" where billy gets hustled by sidney and has to ask for the money back. "Under no circumstances do you ask for the money back."

To me maing is hustling not cheating. Its scummy but there isnt really an unfair advantage during the actual hands

This is completely different from the silly Phil Ivey analogy you guys are making.

1. DIH and Jose hype up Jose's fake results and put him on the public stage.

2. Jungleman plays on the Girah account (the main purpose being to deceive people into thinking it is Jose) with a 50/50 split agreement with Haseeb.

3. Tyler doesn't deserve any compensation because he didn't know it was Girah and Jungleman gets off scot-free.

Give me a break.

In the interface of the merge site/program, does it denote a site sponsored pro differently than a normal player? Obviously most sites highlight when a sponsored pro is playing (diff avatar/colored in the lobby/etc) so if tyler is playing someone who he thinks is a site sponsored pro then it throws the whole "well it could be JM on a different skin" argument out the window.

Deathdonkey's post is solid, altho I think that Lock's liability here is pretty minimal other than firing Jose and penalizing him.


Seems pretty clear to me that playing someone under a different SN that is potentially a semi-friend (interactions in RL, $$ swaps, etc.) without telling them who you are could be considered an ******* move and certainly probably won't make that person happy.

However, this specific case vs. Tyler is pretty nicely wrapped up by the fact that Tyler didn't know who the Girah account was, so it's pretty hard to argue that the matchup wasn't totally standard/fair.


That doesn't change the fact that Jungleman playing on that account is clearly questionable, especially by virtue of the fact that it was a very public account and there were potentially LOTS of people who played Jose (who might have been very average) at MSNL on merge and might have moved up to take shots due to their reads/information.

not really sure why you think it's different when a table breaks, but everyone does it which really tilts me.

This point is being lost in the fray because Tyler didn't know it was Girah. There was clearly intent by JM/DIH/Jose to deceive people into thinking Jose was playing in order for JM to play on the Girah account. Whether it was because JM was bored and didn't want to create a new account (lol), couldn't get action, or was trying to win the bluff challenge is an uncertainty.

Don't you think he (Tyler) would've mentioned that, if that was the case?
Would it matter if it does show but Tyler didn't noticed?
To put it in another way, our we speaking about how Tyler perceived villain or JM's intentions?

Another note: Wilt would you agree that whatever should happen in terms of refunding Tyler and/or punishing JM should be completely up to Lock Poker?

yeah I brought this up a few posts back and someone said it didnt have any notation although I have no clue. Little help from anybody who has played on the site please?

You're carrying the torch, Dean, I can dig it. Tyler not knowing about Girahh was just JM running very very good. There's no reason JM couldn't make an account on one of the skins, and even MAing on some unknown's account is nowhere near JM playing on one of the few accounts on the network that an opponent can be reasonably certain is not JM. It's a site pro account ffs!

Yeah this basically sums it up perfectly unless girahhh had a special site pro display.

I believe If the players are playing on the same skin they can tell if a player is a sponsored pro (Lock has red border around name for pro's) but if they are on different skins then there is no red border so there's no way to tell if the player is a pro.

I assume 'Tyler' was not playing on Lock so there was no indication that 'Girahh' was a sponsored pro for Lock. This is my understanding of it at least.

Thanks for this explanation. Can anyone else confirm that this is correct? If so, this means Tyler could not assume that he was NOT playing Jungleman, and shouldn't get anything back IMO. Isn't this extremely similar to the whole Prahlad/Ike scenario on UB? Not saying what JM did isn't wrong or anything fwiw. I know of at least 5 skins on Merge, so JM could have in theory had 5+ accounts, only one of which Tyler knew about. The combination of this and Tyler being oblivious to who "The Portuguese Poker Prodigy" (the real triple P is Phounder ) makes this fairly clear cut.

fwiw

ok this is my own fault. i was a little confused by what you guys were saying. (*if you didn't know who Girah was, how could you be sure that Girah wasn't just JM's other/new nick?
after re reading my post i see.. i should've went into deeper detail about everything in my summary... i intended on writing all of this but I had a ton of trouble uploading these pics and didn't write up all that really needed to go into the post. This is exactly how the session went down.

WHEN HE SAT I HAD NO IDEA WHO HE WAS DID NOT KNOW HE WAS some PORTUGUESE POKER PRODIGY. I just thought he was some rando taking a shot since i had never seen him before. So i posted and I googled this guys name brought up some stuff about him being a new lock pro etc etc. I mean 100% at that point thought it was Jose Macedo.

so girah sat we played a few hands. when i found all of the stuff on him. i typed in the chat box can only play for a few more minutes i have to go. i was up on him some at the time and didn't want him to think i was hitting and running Shortly after saying that we got in 100bb ak vs his aq and i lost. I should have left but i didn't. My mistake.

Regarding the Tyler v. JM match:

There is no way that JM should keep any of the money he won. There are Three reasons, at least two of which have previously been mentioned:

1. JM did not have an exploitable edge against Tyler for the simple reason that Tyler would not have given him action.

2. If partial reimbursement is permitted, then JM has been allowed to profit from cheating.reducing the cheater's Win rate provides an incentive to cheat, not a disincentive.

3. The health of the online poker world requires that cheating be thoroughly and completely disincentivized. JM MUST relinquish all of his profits from cheating Tyler.

In the justice system, restitution is required to restore the victim to the position he would have been in but for the crime. Here, Tyler should receive full restitution because he would not have given JM action. If Jm had sat opposite him, he would not have lost anything.

That said, I see that a lot of people do not think that is a fair outcome. I disagree, but acknowledge the merit in ideas such as FWF's assumption of the risk argument.

JM keeping any of the profit is intolerable, though. It is the only completely unjust outcome. Thus, I propose that Tyler be reimbursed fully. In the alternative, Tyler should be reimbursed an amount that the high stakes players who can evaluate his EV decide on, and that JM donate the balance to a charity selected by the same group of high stakes regs (with the donation being monitored).

Just to reiterate: if this community signs off on an outcome that allows JM to keep any of the profit from cheating, it amounts to the community condoning the cheating.

You should absolutely be able to freeroll against a cheater. Cheating shouldn't be profitable.

People saying "ZOMG then you get 100% of the money back when you lose but don't have to give any back when you win" seem to think that that's a bad thing for some reason. Why? Do you think that we should be careful to make sure that cheating is neutral or positive EV for the cheater?

HMMM, someone lying?

Just to be clear, I do think you should get back all the money you lost but you needed to clear up a few points.

So can we assume jm sat down to play you in full knowledge that was your account vis a vee the money transfer, cause that's really scummy.

Yeah ok..

When playing online for money you take risks. Sure, it was very unethical but jungleman doesn't owe anyone anything. He won the money fair and square. Jungleman didn't physically cheat at all, its not like he was able to see the hole cards. What if tyler would of won? Do you really think he would of gave a **** where it came from? Tyler chose to play online for big sums of cash and its his own fault. If he didn't want to deal with something like this he could of chosen to play live so he could see who he was playing.

I know nothing of tylers game but if he was playing jungle HU he should of sat out when he thought the guy he was playing had a significant edge over him.

Unethical, yes. Bad etiquette, yes. Money owed, no. Jungle by no means has to pay anyone, offering coaching was generous.

While I do think that multiaccounting is scummy and wrong, this solution seems pretty incorrect. Multiaccounting (I would include ghosting here too) is often hard to catch and enforce given how many poker players live with each other/skype while playing/etc, so I think it's better for it to happen within a framework where you can assume its part of the risk when you play, rather than one where people say its cheating and tons of multi-accounters get away with it anyway. Again, I certainly don't condone it, but I think that unless it can be enforced with consistency having jungleman just ship money back is pretty ridiculous.