taotao - some of your rudeness to others in this thread is really hurting your cause.
josem and others on 2+2 really can make a difference in helping on this type of thing if they see anything of substance.

So you seem willing to listen to my disagreements with you but with some others on here you are pretty quick to dismiss them and become rude to them. It just seems weird. Because anyone who is in a situation such as yours should be able to see the perspective of others who might be skeptical that it might not be happening as you claim.
People asking for something with a bit more substance are not out of line at all. They're here. They're listening. That's supposed to be what you want.
Your reactions to some of them are somewhat out of line though.

TTT,

I don't mean to be rude, but it is common for posts to arrive in the IG forum with claims of cheating with little/no evidence. This scepticism is healthy both intellectually, but is also borne out of experience of various claims of low credibility.

If you are confident in your beliefs, you should be willing to defend them to scrutiny - by doing so, your argument will become much stronger.

Speaking with only the converted (or, in this case, the numerous new and "anonymous" accounts that have been made for the purpose of posting in this thread) is a bad way of spreading the word.

For example, re: the disconnects - it seems odd to arbitrarily rule that some disconnects are accidental (eg, when they disconnect with the effective nuts) and others are deliberate, when there is no credible way of discerning between the two.

PokerStars Game #14758889178: 7 Card Stud Limit ($2/$4) - 2008/01/23 - 01:17:45 (ET)
Table 'Janus III' 8-max
Seat 1: hetokf22 ($87.50 in chips)
Seat 2: hotstuff111 ($101 in chips)
Seat 3: kevin1m ($107 in chips)
Seat 4: gyse ($29.25 in chips)
Seat 5: GFTen ($106 in chips)
Seat 7: AchillesOH ($50.25 in chips)
Seat 8: TaoJ ($79.50 in chips)
hetokf22: posts the ante $0.25
hotstuff111: posts the ante $0.25
kevin1m: posts the ante $0.25
gyse: posts the ante $0.25
GFTen: posts the ante $0.25
AchillesOH: posts the ante $0.25
TaoJ: posts the ante $0.25
*** 3rd STREET ***
Dealt to hetokf22 [Js]
Dealt to hotstuff111 [5c]
Dealt to kevin1m [Kc]
Dealt to gyse [9s]
Dealt to GFTen [Ks]
Dealt to AchillesOH [8s]
Dealt to TaoJ [7s 4c 4s]
TaoJ: brings in for $1
hetokf22: calls $1
hotstuff111: calls $1
kevin1m: folds
gyse: calls $1
GFTen is disconnected
GFTen is connected
GFTen: folds
AchillesOH: folds
*** 4th STREET ***
Dealt to hetokf22 [Js] [Tc]
Dealt to hotstuff111 [5c] [Kh]
Dealt to gyse [9s] [8d]
Dealt to TaoJ [7s 4c 4s] [2d]
hotstuff111: checks
gyse: checks
TaoJ: checks
hetokf22: bets $2
hotstuff111: folds
gyse: calls $2
TaoJ: calls $2
*** 5th STREET ***
Dealt to hetokf22 [Js Tc] [Ah]
Dealt to gyse [9s 8d] [7h]
Dealt to TaoJ [7s 4c 4s 2d] [2h]
TaoJ: checks
hetokf22: bets $4
gyse: calls $4
TaoJ: calls $4
*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to hetokf22 [Js Tc Ah] [Jh]
Dealt to gyse [9s 8d 7h] [6h]
Dealt to TaoJ [7s 4c 4s 2d 2h] [4d]
TaoJ: bets $4
hetokf22: calls $4
gyse: folds
*** RIVER ***
Dealt to TaoJ [7s 4c 4s 2d 2h 4d] [Ad]
TaoJ: bets $4
hetokf22 has timed out while being disconnected
hetokf22 is being treated as all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
TaoJ: shows [7s 4c 4s 2d 2h 4d Ad] (a full house, Fours full of Deuces)
hetokf22 is disconnected
hetokf22: mucks hand
hetokf22 is sitting out
TaoJ collected $30.75 from pot
TaoJ is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $31.75 | Rake $1
Seat 1: hetokf22 mucked [Qh Ts Js Tc Ah Jh 5h]
Seat 2: hotstuff111 folded on the 4th Street
Seat 3: kevin1m folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 4: gyse folded on the 6th Street
Seat 5: GFTen folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 7: AchillesOH folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 8: TaoJ showed [7s 4c 4s 2d 2h 4d Ad] and won ($30.75) with a full house, Fours full of Deuces

...which is why looking at one hand in isolation, and not the full 270 is bad.

If we accept that disconnecting in stud and being afforded all in protection is by nature somewhat helpful (and I'm not sure why it wouldn't be if being all in on the ante in full games is a winning proposition long run) then the regulars who aren't disconnecting start the game at a disadvantage.

To me that's the one issue Stars could/should try to address at this point.

If they are going to say that at times it's helpful and at times hurtful to disconnect- it comes back to the base premise that being all in with antes in play is a long term winning strategy. (again... if this is true, which i have no reason not to believe at this point)

I'm not even sure that trying to prove collusion or intentional disconnect abuse should even be the main focus at this point.

IF long run being all in with the ante is a winner and affects the game by X in favor of those disconnecting then somewhere between zero and X is the disadvantage players with a stable connection are suffering.

It's not just an inconvenience.

Bang on Apefish.

If Mason's article is correct (I assume it is) - one who disconnects more than *normal* is by default advantaged in the game of Stud.

Tolerating players who disconnect massively more frequently than normal is therefore creating an environment where cheats are favoured - obviously not good.

*off topic, sort of* - However, given Stars attitude towards datamining, I am nowhere near convinced they do not wish to encourage a pro-cheat atmosphere, much as it pains me to say it

Use the hand converter. What % of the time does this happen? taken alone it means nothing.

Also, you aren't being forced to play on Stars, are you?

Thank you.

That's the point I have been trying to make all along. Like I stated several posts ago, focus on the one thing we know for sure. And at this point, I don't care what the cause of their disconects are.

I've been requesting additional stud games for several months now that have no-all in protection but apparently this is not a concern for pstars.

It certainly would solve alot of issues though.. Maybe that's it, it's to simple a solution.

this is x-post from Stud

Hello:

I will put my 1 cent here and x-post at Internet gambling forum.

At Pacific, Stud games are deserted area for some time now and for some reasons. This is the case for at least 6 month, I know I monitored.
Last several days, out of nowere some chinese players did appear at leveles 2/4 and up to highest 30/60. It looks to me these are expelled players from PS.

Probably there are more new Stud players from China at other sites.

why would they have to be expelled players from Stars?

Couldn't they just be the same guys setting up accounts at a different site just like lots of other people do?
Couldn't they be completely different guys and perhaps be related to stud being a more popular game for some group of players over there?

Seems quite a stretch to see some stud players on Pacific and automatically assume that they play there because they got kicked-off stars.

Well, yes, quite a stretch...

It is interesting still to check if Chinese Stud players population is notingly up at other sites exactely when/if at PS it is down.

This is one hand. It doesn't prove much. Stars has been looking at their disconnection pattern for years and haven't found any wrongdoing.

And fold fourth for the love of Pete.

/agree, except I would say one hand proves nothing. I can probably prove that those players are great/terrible given enough hands, regardless of their actual skill.

TTT, the point many people are making right now is that you haven't given enough proof. That's fair right now. Getting angry at people is not helpful to your cause, and certain people in this thread are much more experienced at detecting this sort of thing than you. Remember, no one is posting in real time; if you're going to post something rash, you can always stop and think about it before clicking.

Also, I would say that people coming here and at least partially agreeing with you, instead of ignoring you or calling you dumb, means that you are at least getting positive results...

On FAST tables, they (the changles) are being prompted to post antes & given 7 second message warnings, and I've seen their connection as high as 86% & they are still being prompted to post antes on FAST tables.

What is Poker Stars connection threshold for ante post prompting messages on FAST tables? Is it published? Why would PS even have a connection threshold for FAST tables, that allows the poorly connected a warning message to post their ante?

Could they (the changles) be purposely altering their connection rates? Could there be any benefit to being able to alter your conection rate to the poker site? It is amazing that their poor conections that cause multitudes of allin discos are usually reconnected before the very next hand is dealt, and of course they are prompted to post antes on FAST tables

I'm a regular in these games, and I really don't think these guys are colluding amongst each other. However, their play is all very similar and you kinda just get an odd "off" feeling playing these guys. I am an overall winner against these guys and really don't mind them at my tables. I do see them frustrating the hell outta the non-regulars though. My main probelem with them is the disconnect issue that was talked about previously. Here is a prime example of the issue in the 100/200 game where the guys connection was 99% (i am not playing in this game).

PokerStars Game #14839315334: 7 Card Stud Limit ($100/$200) - 2008/01/26 - 14:26:40 (ET)
Table 'Berbericia' 8-max
Seat 1: harmonywo ($4760 in chips)
Seat 2: LOINGPOKERWR ($8646.50 in chips)
Seat 4: stratkomb99r ($19900.25 in chips)
Seat 5: poiuytrewq32 ($5626.75 in chips)
harmonywo: posts the ante $20
LOINGPOKERWR: posts the ante $20
stratkomb99r: posts the ante $20
poiuytrewq32: posts the ante $20
*** 3rd STREET ***
Dealt to harmonywo [Ks]
Dealt to LOINGPOKERWR [7d]
Dealt to stratkomb99r [6h]
Dealt to poiuytrewq32 [Kd]
stratkomb99r: brings in for $35
poiuytrewq32: calls $35
harmonywo: calls $35
LOINGPOKERWR: folds
*** 4th STREET ***
Dealt to harmonywo [Ks] [4c]
Dealt to stratkomb99r [6h] [Tc]
Dealt to poiuytrewq32 [Kd] [6s]
poiuytrewq32: bets $100
harmonywo: raises $100 to $200
stratkomb99r: raises $100 to $300
poiuytrewq32: raises $100 to $400
Betting is capped
harmonywo: folds
stratkomb99r: calls $100
*** 5th STREET ***
Dealt to stratkomb99r [6h Tc] [7s]
Dealt to poiuytrewq32 [Kd 6s] [9s]
poiuytrewq32: bets $200
stratkomb99r: calls $200
*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to stratkomb99r [6h Tc 7s] [6c]
Dealt to poiuytrewq32 [Kd 6s 9s] [7c]
stratkomb99r: bets $200
poiuytrewq32: calls $200
*** RIVER ***
stratkomb99r: bets $200
poiuytrewq32 has timed out while being disconnected
poiuytrewq32 is being treated as all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
stratkomb99r: shows [5d Ts 6h Tc 7s 6c Ad] (two pair, Tens and Sixes)
poiuytrewq32: mucks hand
poiuytrewq32 is sitting out
stratkomb99r collected $1983 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $1985 | Rake $2
Seat 1: harmonywo folded on the 4th Street
Seat 2: LOINGPOKERWR folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 4: stratkomb99r showed [5d Ts 6h Tc 7s 6c Ad] and won ($1983) with two pair, Tens and Sixes
Seat 5: poiuytrewq32 mucked




And converted but without the in-between action.



Card Stud High ($100/$200), Ante $20, Bring-In $35 (converter)

3rd Street - (0.80 SB)

Seat 1: xx xx K___calls
Seat 2: xx xx 7___folds
Seat 4: xx xx 6___brings-in
Seat 5: xx xx K___calls

4th Street - (1.85 SB)

Seat 1: xx xx K 4___raises___folds
Seat 4: xx xx 6 T___raises___calls
Seat 5: xx xx K 6___bets___raises

5th Street - (5.93 BB)

Seat 4: xx xx 6 T 7___calls
Seat 5: xx xx K 6 9___bets

6th Street - (7.93 BB)

Seat 4: xx xx 6 T 7 6___bets
Seat 5: xx xx K 6 9 7___calls

River - (9.93 BB)

Seat 4: xx xx 6 T 7 6 xx___bets
Seat 5: xx xx K 6 9 7 xx

Total pot: (10.93 BB)

Not including what poiuytrewq32 had makes that HH pretty un-useful.

Hello all,

I am a regular at the PokerStars stud games at many of the limits mentioned in this thread. I will make every effort to contribute to a logical, respectful discussion, focused on the issues, questions, and concerns which have been raised by so many stud players, both on this forum and on the tables everyday.

I agree with many of the regular players / forum posters overall assessment that there has not been sufficient evidence of collusion - at least not at this point in time.

I do think it is too early to draw conclusions on some of the issues that have been raised here. There are simply too many unanswered questions relating to multiple accounts and potential selective disconnect abuse. I would like to see more energy focused on solving these questions together.

There is growing evidence of a relatively large number of PokerStars accounts (50+) with locations or relationships to accounts in the Fujian province of China, which includes Changle (Population. 0.7 million) and Fuzhou (Pop. 6.6 million). The number of these accounts continues to grow recently and several naming convention patterns linking the players have been identified. To complicate matters, many of these accounts are not listing valid location names. The location names are being changed (most likely after registration) to fictious or false location names, which makes it very difficult for the average player to detect.

Regarding location names, PokerStars policy states that players need to reflect their real information and Pokerstars reserves the right to update changes accordingly, or

Example#1: $100/$200 limit stud player harmonywo (one of the players in lambchop's post#240 above) had been using a ficticious location name JUTANCUN for quite some time (months). This was reported to PokerStars yesterday, PokerStars confirmed the location was not valid and took action on the account. The location name was changed to Beijing the same day.

Example#2: $100/$200 limit stud player reasonableme had been using ficticious location name farenace for quite some time (months). This was also brought to PokerStars attention and the named was changed to fuzhou city.

To put this in perspective, let's consider the overall size of the seven card stud ring games at PokerStars. The Stud Hi games peak daily at approximately 20-25 active tables at once (for limits $2/$4 and above.) At most hours of the day, at least 50% of the tables at limits $2/$4 and above have 2 or 3 players with either 1) a location in the Fujian province, or 2) a relationship to players from the Fuijian province (as evidenced by use of the same naming conventions in their screen name.)

IMHO, more work needs to be done before these issues will be resolved. But let's be patient. Many of us have other responsibilities and priorities. Please contribute anything you can.
1) Stud players
a. Please report potential abuse of disconnections & false location names
b. If you suspect collusion, please keep records and provide it to PokerStars security team as well as posting it here. Any HH research would also be helpful.
2) PokerStars - Please continue the ongoing investigation. We ask for 100% verification that actual account use is matched to the identity of the individual opening the account. I realize this may be difficult, as users may use various real names/identities to open an account. We also ask that users not be allowed to play on the same table from the same physical location (room or internet cafe), or IP address. We do appreciate your work on this and the serious attention given.
3) Non-stud players / Others following these posts but not directly impacted by it as most regular stud players may be: Please be patient. Don't expect instant HH's or even any at all. Many posters have already indicated collusion may not be involved. I'm inclined to also agree with them at this point in time, but that could change in the future if sufficient evidence is presented.

Thanks to all those who have put in hard work, research, and effort on these issues, including those who have posted in the forum, those that have provided valuable feedback, PokerStars security team, and others who may be researching behind the scenes (like me until now .) These issues are very important to many regulars. I'm confident that we can find more answers if we all work together on this.

Very nice 7cradguy, I knew your thoughts but I am glad you finally came out as well to give your views to the public.

Nice post apefish.

Way more than normal.

Just another fairly recent one:

PokerStars Game #xxx: 7 Card Stud Limit ($3/$6) - 2008/01/29 - xxx (ET)
Table xxxx 8-max
Seat 1: woetfh77 ($114.25 in chips)
Seat 2: "me" ($181 in chips)
Seat 3: badboypony ($399.75 in chips)
Seat 4: rivah1 ($120 in chips)
Seat 5: Howling ($253.50 in chips)
Seat 6: posp13901 ($244.25 in chips)
Seat 7: VegasClipper ($196.25 in chips)
Seat 8: nicosia56 ($136 in chips)
woetfh77: posts the ante $0.25
"me": posts the ante $0.25
badboypony: posts the ante $0.25
rivah1: posts the ante $0.25
Howling: posts the ante $0.25
posp13901: posts the ante $0.25
VegasClipper: posts the ante $0.25
nicosia56: posts the ante $0.25
*** 3rd STREET ***
Dealt to woetfh77 [5d]
Dealt to "me" [5c Ac 5h]
Dealt to badboypony [Ad]
Dealt to rivah1 [8c]
Dealt to Howling [7s]
Dealt to posp13901 [3d]
Dealt to VegasClipper [2s]
Dealt to nicosia56 [6d]
VegasClipper: brings in for $1
nicosia56: folds
woetfh77: calls $1
"me": calls $1
badboypony: raises $2 to $3
rivah1: folds
Howling: folds
posp13901: calls $3
VegasClipper: calls $2
woetfh77: calls $2
"me": calls $2
*** 4th STREET ***
Dealt to woetfh77 [5d] [6s]
Dealt to "me" [5c Ac 5h] [6c]
Dealt to badboypony [Ad] [Js]
Dealt to posp13901 [3d] [Qd]
Dealt to VegasClipper [2s] [7d]
badboypony: bets $3
posp13901: calls $3
VegasClipper: folds
woetfh77: calls $3
"me": calls $3
*** 5th STREET ***
Dealt to woetfh77 [5d 6s] [2h]
Dealt to "me" [5c Ac 5h 6c] [As]
Dealt to badboypony [Ad Js] [Kc]
Dealt to posp13901 [3d Qd] [Ts]
badboypony: bets $6
posp13901: folds
woetfh77: calls $6
"me": calls $6
*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to woetfh77 [5d 6s 2h] [7h]
Dealt to "me" [5c Ac 5h 6c As] [3s]
Dealt to badboypony [Ad Js Kc] [4c]
badboypony: bets $6
woetfh77 has ti"me"d out while being disconnected
woetfh77 is being treated as all-in
"me": raises $6 to $12
badboypony: calls $6
*** RIVER ***
Dealt to "me" [5c Ac 5h 6c As 3s] [Td]
badboypony: checks
"me": checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
"me": shows [5c Ac 5h 6c As 3s Td] (two pair, Aces and Fives)
badboypony: mucks hand
"me" collected $24 from side pot
woetfh77: mucks hand
woetfh77 is sitting out
woetfh77 has returned
"me" collected $45 from main pot
"me" is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $71 Main pot $45. Side pot $24. | Rake $2
Seat 1: woetfh77 mucked [4d 4h 5d 6s 2h 7h Jd]
Seat 2: "me" showed [5c Ac 5h 6c As 3s Td] and won ($69) with two pair, Aces and Fives
Seat 3: badboypony mucked [Kh 3h Ad Js Kc 4c 9h]
Seat 4: rivah1 folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Howling folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)
Seat 6: posp13901 folded on the 5th Street
Seat 7: VegasClipper folded on the 4th Street
Seat 8: nicosia56 folded on the 3rd Street (didn't bet)

I will start editing my hands from now on, as I should have done previously but rushed into posting them. Mike Haven has done lots of editing for me until now. Thank you Mike.

Nobody, has suggested to me until now what proof to look for in order to support my main argument/assumption that when 2 or more of these users sit at the same table could very well be sharing hole cards. True I haven’t and will probably never find solid proof against it, but all the patterns mentioned, relating them to each other indicate to me and some others that they are colluding and/or multi-accounting one way or another.

Apparently we have proof of disconnect abuse.

If some feel that the rest of the commonalities discussed could be pure coincidences then what else can I say?!
Reminding you that we currently have a list of around 60 users, which according to our common senses are related to one another.

Umm, not really. Apparently by disconnecting he gets to save $200 by seeing the showdown where his probable 1 pair is 95% of the time beat.

QFT

I got a reply from one new account recently that I have never seen before at the tables (and I do multi-table from 6 to 9 tables at any time during a day, so I would have had stats on him most probably if he/she played before). I have a screenshot, and will post later if needed. The player uses one of the new naming conventions that are similar to the new players popping up lately. I found it a bit strange, maybe you will too.

Conversation ($3/6 table);

Me: Hello xxx, where from if you don’t mind?
xxx: xxx
Me: never seen you before....1st time here?
xxx: just learned last week
Me: just learned last week?...wow...this is quiet a move to 3/6 don’t you think?
xxx: like the action
Me: ok...gl

In the meantime one other player at the table was mumbling to this new player, something about one of the changles who was currently at the table and how he is a bot etc.,(I was sitting out). The new player said thank you for the info and went on to play a nice, fairly tight/aggressive game, for a 1 week old learner.

I have emailed stars a list of users that have fictitious locations displayed as well but they have not taken action on them yet; I expect they will do soon because they did take action on me just 3 days after I changed my location to something non-existent.


Anyone wondered why no more than 2-3 of these users sit at the same table?
For their numbers and for so many of them playing at stars everyday they could well fill tables on their own, but they never do. This strikes me as a big surprise as well.


QFT

Positive proof of identity from each and every one of them.

Take measures to prevent them from changing their cities from the ones they have registered with, so that at least we can distinguish and table-select accordingly if you take no action against them.

Do not allow players from the same physical location to play on the same tables.

Force users that have poor connections and disconnection problems to play on no-disconnect protection tables.


That said, I got a fairly professional response from pokerstars finally a few days ago, indicating that they are still investigating the matter, and from what they said they are seriously looking into it (will not disclose what they actually said yet) and are trying to come to fair resolution which will be posted in this thread in due course(hopefully soon).

I fail to understand why players have to go to all the work to prove cheating, with limited information, when you have provided such solid grounds for a pokerstars investigation. Are they telling you they are not (or will not) investigate? Because this situation is so obviously suspicious, to say the least.

Just read the last post. That's great and all, but my goodness... it should not take this much work to get an investigation, and if stars has put as much money and effort as they claim into preventing collusion/cheating, this would seem to be at the top of the list of types of activities they might have detected themselves? Yes, stars responds more intelligently and fairly once they open a full-scale investigation, and they've been getting proper respect as 'the best' because of it. But situations like this underscore just how unmotivated sites are to invest in truly proactive measures to prevent cheating/collusion.

Obviously we have been contacting PS regarding this for over a year now but they keep insisting that nothing is wrong with this situation. Several of us got different responses from PS on this matter and in some cases contradicting each other. You can find some in previous pages.

I find the response of PokerStars to this issue rather troubling.

Disconnect allin-protection is an extraordinary measure to accommodate Internet poker. When you have a player who disconnects several times a day, every day, it spoils the game.

But it seems that PokerStars views disconnect allin-protection as no big deal, as “neutral”, unless the disconnect is intentional.

Every time someone disconnects and gets allin-protection, it disrupts the game. Regardless of whether the disconnecting person is advantaged by it or not, I don’t want the online cardroom to see this as a normal part of play, I want the cardroom to treat it as an extraordinary accommodation for unforeseeable disconnections.

If players from a certain IP address (or range of IP addresses) are disconnecting frequently, even if the cardroom is 100% certain that all the disconnects are unintentional, the cardroom should put a stop to it. The cardroom should say: “Sorry, this has become too disruptive; it is your responsibility to find a sufficiently stable Internet connection and so from now on, anybody playing from your IP address (or range of IP addresses) will not receive disconnect-protection.” They could be told this with a popup every time they play.

In general, I think that PokerStars has not responded well to this situation, and I would like to see a response here from PokerStars management.

As well, MicroBob made some salient observations in this post which deserve a response.

MBE - Nice post.
And I'm kind of disappointed we haven't heard more back from Stars about this since their initial participation.

Take away everyone's disconnect-protect or AT LEAST offer No-DP tables for those who clearly want it and that MAY solve many of the problems.

Nice post MBE. Totally agree.

That would be good. I am starting to get fed up with random people (not just the changles) who deliberately disconnect on me, loosing value on one side and forced to showdown my hands on the other. And the majority of times, if not all the times, I sent stars hands regarding disconnect abuse, they always respond in the lines of, it was neutral. wtf? Who is covering up for those neutral disconnects while I usually end up paying for them.


For everyone, I might start using them if they make some available but that doesn't mean disc. protect. tables won't be abused. Casual players are not going to choose on what kind of table he/she will sit 99% of the time in that sense and those are the ones who might be affected more than the regulars(changles don't frequently disconnect on people they have done so many times in the past) because they will rarely give a disconnection much emphasis and make the effort to report it.

Or, give everyone 1 disconnect protect per day or something. Just like Party does. That would be sensible as well, even though it could still be abused, will not be done so blatantly.

No idea what has happened, but PokerStars has currently 3 (IIRC) very important game security issues including this one they are yet to respond to

Please to be hoping PokerStars is not becoming the new PartyPoker / Absolute now they have a lead in the market... it would be a terrible shame imo.