Just as an example, this random Skype message was sent to members of a microstakes study group this month:


It's pretty sick that criminal groups are apparently renting out accounts on the Spanish and Italian sites to anyone that wants to multi-account illegally. I have little doubt that the practice of "account renting" is rife at higher stakes, and that .com accounts are available to US players.

ya. the kinda person who would post this:

is definitely the kinda person who would post this:

Just to make sure I'm understanding, VS:

American pros just really want to get into the HS games, so it's ok (or at least toward the shallow end of the ethics scale) to multi-account and VPN. They're circumventing a bad rule and their desire to play outweighs the deceit toward other players.

And, is there really deceit toward other players? Well, not those whom are their friends. This stuff happens all the time in the HS online community and they tend to let each other know. It's not a big deal because everybody in the clique knows.

People they are not friendly with don't get the news (or at least don't know until a later time) -- but, it's ok to angle shoot fish because fish are gonna get fleeced either way (ugh, mixing metaphors).

Right?


edit: I'm totally fine with not requiring Mercier to be a whistle blower. He probably does have a moral obligation to say something, but I don't think we can hold him to it.

We need limon ITT...

And PS

and for my sake you could stay out off 2+2 till 2027 vanessa

everyone does this **** anyways...I know for a fact a highstakes player from MD multi accounted on a friends account for a bit, Its standard...I dont think hastings should be crucified

^wrt to Mercier: he did not only not say anything BUT did play in the games with Hastings

Not true. He outed him as a MA and basically said it was Hastings.


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=2039

In this poker environment, opportunists are rewarded heavily. Watch vpn's increase ten fold this year.

^That's not outing someone, just because he mentions it at a random live table.

He also played with Hastings online at the same tables shorthanded on stars before that date.

The main question is:
Why doesn't stars ban all those people who are accused(and in most cases more or less proved) of cheating?

Stars can ban people according to their TOC whenever they like.
There have been several cases, where people got banned, when there was no proof of anything. Those people didn't gain stars any profit(like a plo hu bumhunter Ivanhoe or something like that).

Why do they always tell us, that they have no REAL proof and because oft that they can't ban those "accused" accounts? It's because those accounts are bringing them a lot of profit by generating a lot of action.

Seizing funds is a totally different question I quess!?

Is there any chance someone of stars pr stuff replies on that? I really want to hear their accuse.

Could very well be, I know nothing about how it is in 2015, and I don't know who runs these things anymore. And I don't want to know either, it's just so -ev (see people bashing Mercier itt, and people urging you to out them when obv nobody wants to be that guy). Someone tried to tell me about the current networks a while ago and I stopped him because I don't want to know.

It's also not "not saying anything".

Anyone that read the May HS thread or was live railing the game could put 2 and 2 together.

Said no one ever.

i was reiling TCFROMUB once on stars playing 25-50 against noelhayes, in t he middle of the match tc ask him if he wants to play 50-100 and noel snap say yes.. lol

not sure TC would ask if he knew it was hastings playing

He said it on some live table and because it might've been reported a selected few who monitored that event or 2+2 that day could have drawn relevant conclusions from it.

That is far away from making it publically available to all other people that did not follow the scene closely that day (99.9%).

If he had considered that a public announcement he would've spoken up until now anyway and neither of the parties defending hastings considered this an outing so far.

It has also been at a time after which Mercier played online with Hastings on the NoelHayes acc on stars, see the April 2015 HS Thread.

I feel like Chuck just pulled the curtain back on the HS online world.

and he didnt just use any account to play on!! was very well picked!

the bad thing is that this thread is so big that the ps security team will prefer eat a donuts than read it

Chuck well done.

I would assume at least 1 person playing those games googled 2014 10k razz WSOP and realized who he was talking about and spread the word. Or someone reading the May HS thread told their buddies that were in those games.

I don't know how long Jason knew or if he reported it to stars, but saying he didn't say anything is not accurate.

If he told stars about Hastings on the NoelHayes account and stars' integrity was somewhat to the level one considered it to be in the past the NoelHayes wouldve been suspended almost immediately.

As a stars sponsored pro he very likely did not report him to stars as he should have and I don't think that statement on that live table can be considered outing him to the poker community, I'm sorry.

Other posters are claiming that there are middle men acting as agents here. So, the choice of account may just be coincidental.

Hi Vanessa,

Thanks for taking the time to post. However I want to point out that it seems that you are extrapolating too much from your own personal experience.

I have played poker for a living for 10 years, playing as high as $50/100 and as low as $1/2 on a regular basis at various times, as well as playing tournaments up to a $10,000 buyin, both live and online. I have some poker contacts on Skype and have been a member of study groups at various stages, but I have never once been warned about cheating, and the only place I hear about it is when a scandal like this breaks on Twoplustwo, usually in "this POS forum".

In general I am doing my own thing and am not particularly involved in socializing or networking with other poker players.

So when someone who represents one of the sites that I have paid a lot of rake too posts that not only is there a ridiculous amount of cheating going on every day, but that "everyone who is actually in it is hears of it every day." ( I presume "it" refers to the poker world) it makes me feel like a sucker.

This has been my sole source of income for 10 years, during that time I have worked very hard just to survive, and I have never tried to find an extra edge by cheating.

Its been tough enough for me just to stay competitive at midstakes in the modern game, and I would appreciate it if I felt like these problems were been taken seriously by the people who have a (paid) position of influence within the game, not to mention a network large enough that they are made aware of the "ridiculous amount" of cheating going on that some of us are not privy to, difficult as it may be for you to believe.

You may believe that people should not be incentivised to keep their cheating quiet because the cheaters telling some people is better than telling none, but I can assure you as someone who has played honestly day in and day out for a decade, the thought that someone who is cheating me might have a friend at the table who has been notified of his deception is not particularly comforting.

I feel bad for Jason Mercier, because he was in a crappy spot. But, as the quote goes "Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same".

You can't be paid to endorse a poker site and be friends with people who you know are MA'ing high stakes games on that same site and not alert the site. You just can't. So either you cut off friendship with those people, or the site has to cut off endorsement with you. Period.

If nothing happens, then the message to poker players is "feel free to come and cheat on Pokerstars, and as long as you are friends with one of our Team Players you'll be ok, because they'll keep their mouth shut".

Youre a better man than I sirin by not rising to the tone of Vanessa's posts, and what you post there is absolutely spot on

All the posters who are just as outraged at Vanessa for expressing an opinion as they are at Hastings for multiaccounting are proving one of the (slightly nuanced, legitimate, not hard to grasp) points she was making.