@brianchastings: @ArianaGrande I did some dumb **** when I was 22 too. Everyone does. Hang in there #hatersgonnahate
Hopefully with encouragement like this, Ariana Grande will mature enough to stop licking donuts and insulting 'murica and get to the smart **** like just cheating and scamming for money instead.
What a difference 5 years can make.
To his credit though, BH has been cheating for more than 5 years so he did some smart stuff as well as whatever dumb **** he's referencing.
Haralabos Voulgaris retweeted Brian Hastings
I was following you on your other account @noelhayes my bad. Haralabos Voulgaris added,
Brian Hastings @brianchastings
@haralabob too bigtime to respond to my tweets these days or show up in Vegas for a piddly 500k tourney? :P who's winning NBA offseason?
On a separate note, it's interesting to me how this situation parallels the cheating allegations in the 10K HU event.
It's clear to me that, unless a B&M site or online poker site are harmed directly by a cheating incident, they appear to not want to do anything about the situation, unless there is incontrovertible proof that is made public. In other words, I don't trust that either an online site like Pokerstars or B&M like Caesars has any motivation to find evidence of player vs. player cheating when they know that the potential evidence is under their complete control.
Or to put it another way, if Caesars found the decks of cards used in the HU matches where the opponents felt they were being cheated, and found that the cards were indeed marked, then what? They admit that, under their watchful eye, cheating took place at one of their most prestigious events? What good does that do for them? It just makes it look like they are incapable of running a fair tournament. It's bad PR.
So instead, if they do any investigation at all, they perform a fools errand, they tell some lackey to look through a pile of 10,000 decks of cards for anything suspicious, and maybe even make it clear that "I don't expect you to find anything, though." Hint hint. And guess what? They find no evidence of cheating and the issue goes away and they come away with no egg on their face.
So now to online Poker and the Brian Hastings incident - and let me sidestep this for a second. If you steal a penny from Pokerstars, all your funds are confiscated, your account and any account you've ever done transfers with are banned for life. But if you steal $1,000,000 from another player through MA'ing, all of a sudden there's this tremendous burden of proof that Pokerstars MUST abide by before they can do anything about it. And I'm sure that burden is an endlessly high mountain such that it can never be reached.
My point is, in the end, Pokerstars doesn't give a **** about people MA'ing unless evidence outside of their own control is made public, which then makes Pokerstars look bad - then, and only then will they do something about it. Lee Jones said it in his own words - Pokerstars chooses when they enforce MA'ing rules, and when they don't. And you can bet money that if their security staff looked hard enough they could find many people MA'ing tournaments, cash games, SNG's, etc. But since every active player = more rake, then MA'ing = more rake, and so they have no financial incentive to seek out MA'ing unless it is made public and until it results in bad PR.
So the bottom line is, if you think Pokerstars cares about offering 100% fair games on their site, think again. If they determine that 95% fair games = $1,000,000,000 in rake per year, but 100% fair = $800,000,000 in rake per year, then they'll find a way to let that 5% of MA'ing, card sharing, ghosting, etc. slip through the cracks of their security department. They care about making money, period. And unless making money is at risk, they'll keep the "see no evil" status quo.
Now, here's what I wish Lee Jones would have said regarding the Brian Hastings incident:
Spoiler:
I am aware of the allegations that have been made public regarding this incident. As many online poker players know, there have been several high profile incidents of people using multiple accounts to gain unfair advantages in games in the past, and we take allegations like this very seriously. In live poker when you sit at a table you are either known or unknown based on who you are. Online poker is a different animal than live poker, and for "known" players, playing in their normal games under a different username can given them a tremendously unfair advantage. Especially when that new username is linked to another player with a completely different play style and different level of skill. I know if Phil Ivey could sit down in Bobby's Room wearing a Lee Jones bodysuit, he would likely win much more money than if he sat as himself, because people would think it was Lee Jones playing in the game. So, we're going to review the evidence that we have at our disposal, we'll be in touch with all of the parties involved, the owner of the account used, with Brian, and with the opponents who may have lost money during this, and if any wrongdoing is found we will take appropriate action up to and including confiscating and refunding of funds.
Instead of that, Lee Jones basically ripped off an old Randy Moss quote and said "We catch MA when we want to catch MA."
On a separate note, it's interesting to me how this situation parallels the cheating allegations in the 10K HU event.
It's clear to me that, unless a B&M site or online poker site are harmed directly by a cheating incident, they appear to not want to do anything about the situation, unless there is incontrovertible proof that is made public. In other words, I don't trust that either an online site like Pokerstars or B&M like Caesars has any motivation to find evidence of player vs. player cheating when they know that the potential evidence is under their complete control.
Or to put it another way, if Caesars found the decks of cards used in the HU matches where the opponents felt they were being cheated, and found that the cards were indeed marked, then what? They admit that, under their watchful eye, cheating took place at one of their most prestigious events? What good does that do for them? It just makes it look like they are incapable of running a fair tournament. It's bad PR.
So instead, if they do any investigation at all, they perform a fools errand, they tell some lackey to look through a pile of 10,000 decks of cards for anything suspicious, and maybe even make it clear that "I don't expect you to find anything, though." Hint hint. And guess what? They find no evidence of cheating and the issue goes away and they come away with no egg on their face.
So now to online Poker and the Brian Hastings incident - and let me sidestep this for a second. If you steal a penny from Pokerstars, all your funds are confiscated, your account and any account you've ever done transfers with are banned for life. But if you steal $1,000,000 from another player through MA'ing, all of a sudden there's this tremendous burden of proof that Pokerstars MUST abide by before they can do anything about it. And I'm sure that burden is an endlessly high mountain such that it can never be reached.
My point is, in the end, Pokerstars doesn't give a **** about people MA'ing unless evidence outside of their own control is made public, which then makes Pokerstars look bad - then, and only then will they do something about it. Lee Jones said it in his own words - Pokerstars chooses when they enforce MA'ing rules, and when they don't. And you can bet money that if their security staff looked hard enough they could find many people MA'ing tournaments, cash games, SNG's, etc. But since every active player = more rake, then MA'ing = more rake, and so they have no financial incentive to seek out MA'ing unless it is made public and until it results in bad PR.
So the bottom line is, if you think Pokerstars cares about offering 100% fair games on their site, think again. If they determine that 95% fair games = $1,000,000,000 in rake per year, but 100% fair = $800,000,000 in rake per year, then they'll find a way to let that 5% of MA'ing, card sharing, ghosting, etc. slip through the cracks of their security department. They care about making money, period. And unless making money is at risk, they'll keep the "see no evil" status quo.
Now, here's what I wish Lee Jones would have said regarding the Brian Hastings incident:
Spoiler:
I am aware of the allegations that have been made public regarding this incident. As many online poker players know, there have been several high profile incidents of people using multiple accounts to gain unfair advantages in games in the past, and we take allegations like this very seriously. In live poker when you sit at a table you are either known or unknown based on who you are. Online poker is a different animal than live poker, and for "known" players, playing in their normal games under a different username can given them a tremendously unfair advantage. Especially when that new username is linked to another player with a completely different play style and different level of skill. I know if Phil Ivey could sit down in Bobby's Room wearing a Lee Jones bodysuit, he would likely win much more money than if he sat as himself, because people would think it was Lee Jones playing in the game. So, we're going to review the evidence that we have at our disposal, we'll be in touch with all of the parties involved, the owner of the account used, with Brian, and with the opponents who may have lost money during this, and if any wrongdoing is found we will take appropriate action up to and including confiscating and refunding of funds.
Instead of that, Lee Jones basically ripped off an old Randy Moss quote and said "We catch MA when we want to catch MA."
Spot on. I would hope that most are intelligent enough to understand this even though we might not like it
She seems like the kind of girl who would put "kitty" in her username after the fact that she has a vagina (post doesn't exist anymore, but yes she literally said that here on 2p2).
why is poker news interviewing them in the first place? If poker news and other poker media had any balls they would completely ignore hastings. No interviews, don't cover his bracelet wins, etc. I guess views and clicks are more important than integrity
why is poker news interviewing them in the first place? If poker news and other poker media had any balls they would completely ignore hastings. No interviews, don't cover his bracelet wins, etc. I guess views and clicks are more important than integrity
Its clear that their intention was for him (and particularly) his "girlfiend" to make a complete ass out of themselves. Mission accomplished id say.