Hey guys!

... i know its forbidden to play under a wrong name, but i did ...

ive been playing poker for 15 years, and ive been loosing in poker for 15 years ... im i socalled degen, adiccted, gambler ...

ive been playing all sites, till some point i wantet to quit, and banned myselfe from all my accounts ... ive been doing realy good not playing for some time, but suddenly the feeling of "i can be a poker pro" came back, and i needed to play again.

than i created a partypoker account with a wrong name, because my old one was closed. i spelld my name backwords at the registration.
i played there, lost again, and quit again.

than i started realising my bad play and gambling adiction was the reason for my losses, and tried again ... and now ive won (in a longer time) for the first time in my life.
no i wanted to cash out and found out i my account is not verificatet, and im registerd with a wrong name.

i now, they can close my account and keep my money, that would suck.

so what should i do?
anyone made similar **** like me?

hope you can help me!
KN

Tell them everything, and hope for the best, but expect that they will confiscate the money, as they should.

And of course, seek help from Gambler's Anonymous or something similar.

thgit ton = esool

niw ton = esol

sdrow ysae = htob


.tseb eht llA

Photoshop your id obv.

This.

If the original poster's story is true, this does not seem like a good reason to confiscate someone's money. The rules breach doesn't appear to have harmed anyone other than the OP, and fundamentally, it is his/her money.

There's probably a community benefit to discouraging such behaviour, but it isn't on PartyPoker to fine addicted gamblers to enforce such rules.


In addition, the idea that merely changing the spelling of your name (and writing it backwards at that!) is enough to circumvent PartyPoker's self-exclusion system is remarkable. I certainly hope that's not true, because they should be held to a much higher standard than that.

Problem solved :

Isn't this a great way to freeroll the sites? Register fake account. If you lose, tell them you want the money back because they allowed you to circumvent self-exclusion; if you win, cash out!

You may have a point here, though.

FYP.

I have not said, and do not believe, that the operator should (generally) refund any losses to the self-excluded gambler.

If the operator has made a good faith and reasonable effort to honour the self-exclusion, then I do not think the operator has a moral liability. However, if their system failed because of a lack of good faith, or a lack of reasonableness (eg, someone used the same device as the previously-excluded customer, and merely put in an obviously made up name, with no more checks performed by the operator) then there's a greater case to be made for some sort of compensation.


In addition to all of the above, I would be entirely on board with operators giving at least 100% of revenue from addicted gamblers to a third-party (either fined as punishment by a regulatory agency, or donated to an anti-gambling company, or so on).

Oh, I know you didn't. I was assuming that was a possibility under responsible gaming regulations/laws.

This makes sense to me. So in that case, I guess if there is a freeroll, the site would only have themselves to blame. Still, I see some potential for abuse, when players have a non-zero chance of recovering their losses.

I'm thinking the ideal solution would be that the player only be entitled to recover his initial deposit, and the winnings be forfeit. Not only does that lessen the possibility of abuse, but it also stops encouraging/enabling problem gamblers. I don't know that rewarding an addict for successfully gaming the system is a good idea.

Just to be clear, I am saying what I think the system should be, not what the system actually is today. It's disappointing that operators retain income from addicted gamblers.

I'm sorry dude but I legit laughed at this post.

Bobo,

Seems to me you have the direction of the freeroll kind of backwards. Instead of a regulated, publicly traded site like Party, let's use a site that pretends to follow regulations like WPN. They see that a degen creates an account with a LOLbad fake name and realize that if the dude wins somehow they can confiscate the funds (and keep them), and if he loses then they make rake and the degen's funds are spread to others within their network to then play with in the future. Note, Party did not do this in the above situation, but they probably should have caught this guy earlier.

I do not see the "freeroll" from the player's perspective, as even if they are not caught with the multi account they are still gambling in a conventional manner. They are not getting an instant bankroll. I also agree with Josem that if sites can simply keep this type of revenue then that is wrong.

Anyway, as the OP said - he ended up "loosing" it again and will now take another "brake." People like that make a lot of the debate moot with their innate inevitability.

Also, the sites have no right to the player funds. Depending on your point of view, there are plausible arguments for profits to be given to other players, or an independent third-party (regulator/responsible gambling charity).

I highly doubt any of the unregulated sites bother creating a policy for this situation. Most never bother catching it (or worry about it), and realistically if they do catch a multi-account they just take the funds, and the amusing thing is most people here will cheer that on (even though the evil sites now benefited from this in the end).

Nope. What I described, in response to a specific situation, certainly isn't a freeroll for the site:


LOL. Well, of course if you completely change the parameters, it changes the result.

In the situation I laid out, the player needs to put out the funds initially, but if they were guaranteed to receive them back, I'd still consider this a freeroll. I suppose one can argue that a true freeroll would involve no money laid out, or that there isn't a guarantee they'd get their money back so it's not a freeroll. My point was that in the situation I laid out, the poker sites are setting themselves up to be taken advantage of.

Agreed.

I'd agree with this as well.