The site would get a big bang for the buck with FreeRolls..Imagine the advertising or what VIP level would you need to be to participate..."Come play in our biggest confiscated funds freeroll to date"...

IMO any incentive for a site to confiscated funds other then game integrity and player security/confidence is going down a slippery slope...

FTP should use account closure funds on a new RSA security token system and phone support.

Although I don't usually tend to sympathize with cheating jack-asses, I gotta say this is wrong.

Even so OP, I wouldn't get my hopes up about that money, if FT's actions fit even in the slightest with any vague footnotes in their contract, they will take full advantage of it.

There are lots of threads where FT has taken considerable sums from colluders and cheaters where the people have claimed FT has taken too much money or acted long after the incident occured. FT is accountable to no one for this money and I think it's wrong and stealing is as bad as cheating imo.

FFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU FT!!

I absolutely agree with your comment. However, I would draw a distinction between being critical and being hyper-critical (or cynical). My suspicion is that OP would not have revealed his SN, the SN of his accomplice, or the hand histories (admittedly limited) if all of the posters treated him like the Antichrist.

While I agree that OP is not an 'innocent victim' or deserving of the confiscated funds, he does deserve some credit for making some difficult, ethical choices. By revealing those hand histories and the screen names, perhaps somebody will have a chance at recovering losses suffered through unfair game play.

Jeff Oneye "Don't piss in the well that quenches your thirst."

Uh, have you ever lied/cheated? Ever in your life? Because if you have by that rational you're still a lying cheating POS. Still sticking with that?

Also, he did own it. If he was going to lie why not do what every other piece of crap on this board does. "OMG, my funds just got confiscated for ___insert infraction here____ but I never did anything wrong. Ever. WTF!!@111." Instead he admitted his past cheating. Liars tend to lie all the way...

Greetings,

I have to admit it is out of character for Full Tilt to render anything approaching a substantive explanation. In this particular instance, Rek made some very insightful commentary. In fact, Rek often contributes some fabulous posts that are replete with compelling arguments and penetrating analysis. I enjoy most of them.

My disapproval stems a perceived inconsistency in how he applies his critical analysis. I believe he demonstrates an overly critical attitude towards posters leveling complaints against the sites. However, he frequently seems to overlook, trivialize or rationalize controversial behavior committed by the sites. When he does apply criticism to sites like Full Tilt, it lacks the intensity and rigor he applies to the posters leveling complaints. At least this is my impression after reading many of his posts.

Jeff Oneye "Don't piss in the well that quenches your thirst"

Solution for Rek problem imo

Sorry Jeff. I guess I shouldn't ask a legitimate question in a thread made by a self-confessed cheat showing an email that is unlike any other I have seen from FTP in these sort of situations. Oh you mean the new poster who hasn't answered questions put to him and doesn't seem to have any proof of the deals he said were done.

I love liberals like you . How dare I pose a question and try to get to the bottom of some of these claims. I know I should just take the word of a random internet poster new to these forums.

Without full SS access I can;t check, but has Chocoo and OP only really ever played 3 SnG's together on Full Tilt?

Here's the problem now:

- mayo33cc and Chocoo have played 69 tournaments together, not 3.

- mayo33cc has been regularly playing SNGs despite OP's insistence he's a cash game player now. Chocoo has not been playing very many SNGs. When I checked through some other SNGs played by mayo33cc I couldn't find anyone he'd played more than 3 or 4 times, EXCEPT he's played someone with the SN Patricia Heaton 13 times (seem to be head's up matches). The Patricia Heaton account has not played since April 13 which is the same day as mayo33cc. This may be a coincidence or that account may have been locked at the same time. The Patricia Heaton account is a huge fish, -$830 over 125 SNGs.

HAHAH. GG Case closed.

These threads are almost always the same.

Oh really???

Wowww, great call!!!! Youre so smart, glad youre here!!!!!!

I agree. Cheaters should of course be banned and their cheating money confiscated. But FT really can't ban a player one year after the incident and then keep the money won from that time. I'm not sure I think the money should get back to the cheating player. But I really don't think they can just keep it. I have no idea what they do with confiscated money but if they just keep it, I think it's wrong

I think OP meant 3 in which he actually cheated. Not 3 times only.

This seems to be the common agreement in all the posts in this thread (except OP) so the infighting between 2+2 regulars is really unnecessary.

For me the only thing that does annoy me greatly is that FT took so damn long to catch OP and seemed to actually profit from incompetence as OP's account had ballooned to 7K by that time.

You have no idea how tired I am of these new posters who only come on to these forums to complain and then leave afterwards.

Interesting. This is the only reason why I'm kind of hesistant about Stars SS policy.

I agree that the OP should get his account banned, and I have no problem with him losing all the funds in his account either. Actually I think this is great, should make people who have cheated in the past sweat in general, which can only be a good thing.

However, I have a problem with the policy of FTP just taking and keeping the funds, as this provides completely the wrong incentives for their security to operate, and could lead to either a lot of innocent people being accused of cheating, or some other really funky things. For example, a player who's cheated in the past wins a big donkament for say 100k, FTP immediately swoops in, bans him and confiscates the funds, and as he didn't cheat in this donkament, no need to bump others up the structure, profit.

Taken further, they would have little incentive to bust people who have cheated in the past (but don't cheat anymore) that don't have money in their accounts. Why not just keep lists of these people and auto-ban & confiscate if their account balance hits a predetermined level, profit.

I can't think of an easy solution, but I can't agree with a system where the integrity of the games and chasing down cheaters is also a profit consideration for the sites, there is something wrong with this dynamic...

Assuming OP's story is true...

Maximum punishment here should be to DQ OP and friend from any events they played together, and allow cashout of remaining balance before being barred. That would be a few hundred bucks confiscated and would mean that as a team they suffered a net loss.

How can they justify seizing a 7k roll when they obviously aren't going to use it to compensate affected players?

Ok I just read the rest of the thread and it seems like OP's story isn't true. Assuming FTP distributes the funds to affected parties, this sounds like the correct resolution.

If chasing down cheaters wasn't a profit consideration it wouldn't be done. They aren't investigating cheaters out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it because they perceive that action as profitable for one reason or another. I know we'd all like to imagine a poker utopia where everything is done because it's the right thing to do, but that's not going to spontaneously happen. I'm fine with them making a profit off of cheaters. If they start sweeping up the innocent in their witch hunt then I'll be concerned enough to move my business elsewhere.

Well, it's kind of harsh that you lost $7k over it. Obviously you do deserve some kind of punishment, but this seems disproportionate. That said, we don't really know all the details of what happened, and people posting about this kind of thing have a well established history of embelishing the story to make themselves sound better.

I agree with this, maybe my last point was a bit badly worded, my point was mainly that this could lead to thinking around when / if to take down cheaters, in the type of situations I included in my previous post. But obviously if there was no profit consideration at all, why would they bother. At the same time, these things should be somehow in balance, like I said I don't really have a good solution either (although I like the confiscated funds freerolls )

It's possible - if I mailed in today and said "I think sokrateez is colluding in $10 SNG", they could easily go back and check your games from 2007. Or perhaps if you were noticed by security review for some other reason, like cashing out, receiving an unusual transfer, etc.

It's perfectly possible to reach sufficient level of confidence that people are maliciously colluding - i.e, with the intent of hurting other players - within three SNG, particularly if they cash a couple of times.