Interesting. So all these decisions that stars makes to ban players are on a public register?

If their intent is to punish they would let at least the person involved know about the reason. Deterrence is a pretty critical element of punishment.

You seem to be missing the point that Stars' bans could very well not be intended as punishment at all, but just preventive though.

What is the difference between deterrence and preventive? They are both trying to stop the continuance of a future act, no?

Your link doesn't work.

Prevention = Making unwanted behavior impossible or less likely. I.e. someone that can't play on Stars can't bumhunt either.

Deterrence = Consequences that persuade someone from exhibiting unwanted behavior. I.e. people are less likely to bumhunt when they know that results in a ban.

ugh i sort of felt sorry for you until your north korea analogy and this.

and also this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=31

The link was from his thread: 'Lifetime bumhunting pays of', where he claimed to not play on Stars. Guess the title should have been: 'Bumhunting pays of until permban'.

There is no difference.

Both refer to consequences to certain actions with a view to desisting those actions from that player in the future. (if the decision to ban the player was for their eye's only)

Maybe Stars is of the opinion that there are multiple people using his account.

Shill accusation and comparing being refused service from a private biz to a life prison sentence for a crime you didnt commit. All we need now for the trifecta is a nazi/Hitler reference.

The reason Pokerstars players in some parts of Europe is regulated by Malta is because some parts of Europe tax gambling winning from outsite the EU, and Malta is part of the EU.

I have my doubts about the claim of an EU law making Pokerstars actions here illegal, but if they do being regulated by Malta should in theory make it more of a problem.

Yeah I mean, if you could look at this more objectively (which you understandably can't) you'd see this is not the case. It's clearly possible for Stars to have suspicions that are strong enough to ban you, yet not strong enough to hold up in court (where they'd might end up if they confiscated your money)

Come on man, I'm not above a little schadenfreude myself (**** and lol ivanhoe) but Stars closing accounts without giving good reasons is bad news for every customer they have.

Because those are totally different things?

A correct analogy would be if someone was working as a freelancer for the same client for years, and suddenly the client randomly stops giving him any business without telling why. Or if you have an account at a bank that randomly tells you well **** off we don't want to serve you anymore. It reflects badly upon them, but it's clearly within their right.

You don't have a right to be treated what you consider fairly by another private company or even person. Sucks to be you, seriously, but the sooner you get over this the better as there's 0 chance this gets fixed. From a broader point of view, I thank you for making a stink over this because I prefer Stars would not take actions like this.

The problem here is that you've put yourself in a professional situation where one decision kills 70% of your business in that career forever (just like me, I realize).

If you are not a pure bumhunter, playing only fishes HU, winning at 9BB/100, and probably not saying all the truth about what you have done*, I don't think you have to worry so much.



*if Op is 100% legit, I apologize, but you are not the kind of player I will regret because I think you are the worst thing in the poker, maybe just behind shortstakers pros.

+1 to kaby posts. Thread is tilting.

That's pure speculation on your part. People wouldn't need to speculate about it if Stars wasn't stone walling. While I'm sure there is some truth to what Josem said, I'd also be incredibly shocked if it isn't possible for them to say something more about this than they have.

... for now

There is a consequenz for the rest of the pool. Most of the time bumhuters know eachother so getting banned speacks around. Like here ..

Quoting from OP's first post of this thread:
"
At Jan 21th I recieved an email from investigation@pokerstars.eu in my native language (so i'm going to summarize this for you) stating: your account is locked, you have been flagged, tell us whats your relationship to these accounts is and send in a passport-scan + proof of residence:

olgvomn
gorjigWC
mortatidis
bimdarg
Palyonmes
reximosa
Lanlingo
"

Still linking bumhunting to the ban is borderline ******ed and you should read the first post again.
It's obviously related to the accounts above and has nothing to do with OP's playing style.

While you're most likely right, you can't rule out the possibility that it impacted his odds to be banned though. Stars employees are human after all and in borderline cases it's very percieveble the perception of the player playes a role.

If they'd research him they'd get to know that he bragged about bumhunting, doesn't have a positive additude towards his opponents, doesn't make Stars a single dime, that he was inconsistent about playing on Stars, that he has admitted breaking TOS on other sites meanwhile ratting ppl out for the same. And when he hopes to get things fixed starts stalking Stars and compares PS Mark to Kim-Jong-Un.

For sure it's possible that's all totally unrelated, but that doesn't make it ******ed to suggest the possibility.

Your conclusion about the significance of the 7 accounts appears to be correct, but it is useful to have other scenarios raised in this thread.

According to the information posted elsewhere, 6 of the 7 accounts only played against the OP, and the last one only played 7 relatively inconsequential hands against one other player (at lower stakes) before playing against the OP. All 7 went busto against the OP. We do not know if the new accounts received new player bonuses. We do know that Stars wrote

"In line with our internal security processes we carry out periodic business risk assessments on randomly selected accounts.

We regret to inform you that your account has not passed this recent screening process, which has resulted in the permanent closure of your account.

PokerStars Security Investigations Team"

Not all of the imaginable scenarios implicate the OP. The possible exculpatory scenarios include random play against these new accounts, and deliberate entrapment by another diabolical competitor to eliminate the OP from the pool. If there was a "confidential informant" that prompted the investigation, that fact might not be releasable.

And then there are the more traditional scenarios that involve bonus fraud, money laundering, etc.

The way you word your posts shows you most likely know who I am and have a personal problem with me, so i'm going to ignore this random hatred from now on.

I'm curious but why in 2012 did you say you actually don't play on stars but in here you say you have played on it for several years?

Ivanhoe - can you just explain the inconsistencies in your posts/threads. You claimed to never play on stars, but here you claim you've been playing for years.

I don't think this is very likely. 7 players (or at least 6), in their very first game after depositing, all buyin with their entire bankroll, in a HU game, all on the same day, all against the same player. There might be an explanation for all this, maybe even one that exculpates the OP, but in my mind, "coincidence" is pretty far down the list.

You beat me to it!

True

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is usually a duck.