Good albeit depressing post.

So player plays bad, loses, and wants a refund because he supposedly would have played it differently.

If Stars allowed name swaps this wouldn't be an issue.

If he had played illegaly from the US on his own account, I think most people here wouldn't give a **** because lolUS law.

If he had played on a new account, it would be unethical to play against people he already had reads on but if he didn't I think most people would see where he's coming from because, again, lolUS law.

If he had played on a new account and told all his opponents it was him, I think most people would fall on the "who really cares" side of the argument.

Instead of any of these, he played on an already established account, played against opponents with reads on that account without telling them it was him and/or against opponents he knew would not play if they knew it was him, and preferentially told some opponents but not others.

I'm sorry, Vanessa, as I've always had respect for your game and you generally, but you're dead wrong here. Stinger should 100% be called out for being an unethical scumbag in this spot.

Yeah, being a pro that wants to play primarily online as an American has got to suck balls. I used to love playing online, but it wasn't my livelihood, so I never had to make those tough choices. But it sucking balls doesn't make what he did right.

Long term it does far more damage to the poker world to have the perception that the biggest players don't care about ethics or integrity than it does to out these players in spots like this and roundly condemn them.

The problem is that other than outrage probably not much else will be done. Even big pros who don't agree with what he did won't ostracize him, he'll still get action, and if he gets more than a slap on the wrist from Star I'll be (pleasantly) shocked.

oh hai bryan!

I like you.

In the thread many drivers in the far right slow lane are complaining about the speeding drivers in the fast lane. Many drivers in the fast lane are following with plenty of distance.

This is both true and not true!

This is a bit off topic and long so feel free to skip......****;dr

The UKGC role in terms of investigation and prosecution is limited to offences under the 2005 Act - most relevant here Section 42, cheating max of 2 years. They can make a decision to prosecute, seek a caution or say impose additional licence conditions or reach an agreement/financial settlement for stuff with a remote operator under the Act.

When they uncover evidence of offences outside the 2005 Act then that goes to the CPS. They work with the National Crime Agency and have access to the police national computer for their investigations.

The rubber stamp regulators are not prosecutors like the UKGC. Even where offences under the Act are prosecuted (say the Pakistani cricketers match fixing) then almost invariably they work with the CPS as there are other non 2005 Act offences too. In that case some of the charges they faced the CPS decided to pursue and some the UKGC made that decision. Then they dumped it all on the CPS prosecutor to handle the lot. In practice they go to them for all the 2005 Act stuff as the CPS have the experience.

They explain their role here in this long PDF.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...-statement.pdf

Now I know that with Woods the UKGC were involved, I know that they were involved in the decision as to whether to prosecute him under Section 42 that carries 2 years and where they have the prosecute or not decision OR to prosecute him for the same actions as fraud by misrepresentation that carries a maximum 10 year gaol sentence, but which the CPS not UKGC have the charging decision for. They could not prosecute both as it was the same action and the same burden of proof, there was no lesser charge for a jury to opt for if guilty then guilty. The decision as is usual in such cases is to charge under the offence with the higher tariff and he was convicted of three cheating offences and six other non cheating charges - all under the same fraud offence.

The UKGC role here as a statutory regulator is to work with the CPS and to advise the CPS. It is their job for instance to outline why they believe or do not believe a prosecution is in the public interest or of significance to them in their role.

Now let us look at the UKGC attitude to prosecutions. Their view is that they should be a last resort. They much prefer to pass the role of imposing sanctions on to the sporting bodies.

Do I agree with them? Well no, I have spent years trying to get them to prosecute people, hell I wanted the trainer using steroids on his horses charges under Section 42 too, never mind people laying their own horses where of course they should but the UKGC see prosecutions as lengthy, expensive, at risk of embarassing failure to convict and possibly ending in relatively trivial sanctions. In their view the quick ten year ban by the authorities for giving horses steroids which cost them no effort or money or risk was enough as a deterrent.

So when I next nag the UKGC about prosecuting someone will it be Hastings in these high stakes games for multi accounting vs a few other very experienced high stakes gamblers or will it be someone cheating thousands of regular players via a bot or collusion. Well I'll pick the offenders ripping off lots of little guys thanks not this.

For a couple of centuries the UK courts washed their hands of gambling. They got so sick of rich aristocrats suing each other and clogging up the courts with this sort of petty rubbish that they put gambling outside the law and made ganbling debts non recoverable in court. The 2005 Act changed that and now Ivey can sue Crockfords and someone can sue Hastings in a UK court. This would be under civil law and balance of probabilities not beyond reasonable doubt would apply.

If I raised this rubbish with the UKGC they would say roughly what I think (though more politely) - the people involved in this are all big enough and ugly enough (and rich enough) to sort it out in the civil courts because now, if you are cheated on or welched upon over a bet you can.

lol "gray area"

This is part of the problem everyone has a different set of morals.

In your mind it is fine if someone uses a VPN and plays from a banned country. It's fine if they MA but use a new account. It's fine if they MA as long as they tell everyone. But it's a big deal when they MA and use an already opened account.

How do you draw the line on any of those?

wouldnt stars just ban him and take his money if he told everyone who he was?

+1 what did we miss?

PS needs to say something.

P.S. Anyone has a pic of Stingers GF?

So cheats should be allowed to cheat and he shouldn't talk. Just so that he can be informed of a future cheat when at his table. Ok cool
I feel sorry for you all in the USA. Comments like this will have the senate laughing, poker won't come back if a cheat is allowed to do so just so that Mercier can get the same info the next time a cheat pops up

How have you survived this long?

Yeah sorry this was the distinction I thought I was making and I thought it was an important point to distinguish between those two cases before crucifying anyone this harshly. I didn't realize this was an already established account which is obviously an entirely different scenario. Like I said I didn't know all the info and never should have entered the thread. Just super busy and didn't have time to read the whole thing and made a bad assumption based on false second hand info. Totally my bad there. Carry on.

What's stopping Brian from going back to his tracker and paying everyone back that was cheated by the multi-accounting?

It appears he is just picking and choosing his buddies to repay for equity.

Wow, this post is not far from the level of Brian Hastings posts/PM.
And you are a pokerstars pro? Sigh..

Presumably, I'm speaking more from a ethical standpoint.

Obviously PS would have a problem with him breaking the TOS. However, it seems as if the majority of the users (or the ones that have expressed an opinion here) don't really have a huge issue with people from the US using some kind of method to play.

Some do, but on the whole that seems a much smaller offense than was committed here.

and dan colman didn't want to promote this ****.... and was berated by a lot of players..
oh the irony

Also, to be clear, in my reponse to VS, I was postulating what the response of the general community would be to most of those scenarios (playing from the US on own account, playing from US on new account but telling opponents, etc.), not necessarily my own opinion on each scenario, although they would probably be very similar, depending on the exact situation.

It seems as if the poker community as a whole views a TOS breach like playing from the states as fairly minor, although obviously Stars can't allow it because of their agreement with the DOJ. They also don't seem to have an issue with switching names as long as a) everyone can do it or b) if it's against the official rules, a player doesn't do it to gain an advantage over those who are following the rules.

I would assume that all US members of 2+2, with the exception of government shills, believe that the law pertaining to online poker is bull****.
I'm not a graduate of Yale law school, but if my understanding of the law is correct, although it is against the TOC it is not illegal for a US player to VPN and play on Pokerstars. It is, however, illegal for Pokerstars to accept their action.

This being the case I can't see how any sponsored pro would support players violating the TOC in this way. I know you represent Stars as a player not a lawyer, but to support/see a gray area for something that could have legal consequences for your sponsor doesn't make much sense.

He pmd me apologising and offering compensation after I mentioned here that we played some hands in some lower stakes stuff over SCOOP. So I assume its anyone who makes it known.

Zero idea why he didn't just apologise and try and show some remorse in the thread.

I'm not supporting violating the TOC. What I'm saying is I think crucifying the few people that choose to come out to select people and thus get outed more easily will lead to a lot more secret MA'ing. Using these examples productively to show it's happening, can't really be stopped, and trying to create change in the rules is a more productive use of energy. That's all I was saying, and I stand by that.

And once again, it's obviously not as relevant in this specific case, but I do think it's worth mentioning seeing as how this is a MA thread. Why not lobby PS to make a change in the rules? Organize a player's union and have a strike? Fight harder for legislation? I'm just saying (as myself, not as a representative of PS obviously here) that there are more productive things to do and I believe that using so much energy for internet/real life hate is actually counterproductive to our goals given the real state of the online poker world.

Lastly, obviously I'm not arguing that we should forget it and move on and remain apathetic. Anyone that knows me knows I don't advocate apathy. It's just frustrating to see the same thing time and again - someone does something bad, everyone piles on forever until they forget, and nothing changes other than more people do the stuff in secret.

He is still clinging to the hope that this blows over and he can fade the banhammer.

it is quite clear from some of the responses from HS regs that they are just a bunch of scumbags (cts and a few others may be the exception).

**** em. Let them use shady software and MA, because, you know, that's just how it is.
Anything to gain an edge.