Ehh I thought only the person who is registered to the account is allowed to play on that specific account?

I disagree with this one...

If a player knows he/she has a considerable edge, then intentionally disguises themselves to take advantage of said edge, it is my opinion that act can be considered cheating.

Yes, just as you are only allowed to download music for free if you already own it, and you're only allowed to cross the street at a crosswalk.

There's a difference between what is disallowed by the rules and what is actually a harmful practice.

For example, 17-year-olds aren't allowed to play online, but if one was caught playing, would you classify him a cheater? No. Why? Because while he's breaking the site's terms of service (and the law), he's not cheating.

If you are going to demonize someone for playing on another person's account when they visit Canada for a few days, you also have to demonize anyone who has ever had friends sitting next to them discussing hands in play, as well as anyone who has anyone who has hired a poker coach and played real money games during the coaching.

Let's stop this holier-than-thou nonsense and focus on the actual cheaters/scumbags of poker.

The only interesting story here is the stupid coverup and her flippant response to the whole thing.

I see where u coming from. But still. Oh btw, downloading music is completely fine in my country

I don't want to derail this thread with a debate about different types of cheating.

I can totally understand and respect your point of view, but it's still different than direct cheating where the player is violating basic rules of poker to gain an unfair edge in the game.

In the above situation, both players are still playing poker normally and fairly, but one of the players is taking on a different identity in order to confuse his opponent.

I will agree that this is scummy, and I will agree that if caught the player's account should be closed and money won refunded, but it's not actually cheating. It might be "game selection cheating", but it's not poker cheating.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a long debate about this, and I can understand how other people can see this differently. Obviously this doesn't apply to Harwood's situation.

lol +1

Based on the Twitter conversation that ensued after Donovan's removal of the Tweet (posted below), I also agree that this is more of a matter of ignorance than malice. As Charder and Pudge said, ignorance doesn't make it right -- at the very least, it's still a pretty foolish thing to do -- but I doubt this was done with any real ill intent.

Maybe I missed it ITT, but do we know whose account she borrowed? Even if Loni is an online newb (very possible), it seems the owner of that account would not be. That's the guy I'd keep an eye on.

Solid post, the #AdiosHaters hashtag post annoys me beyond belief. She isn't owning up to any of this instead she is just brushing it off with an arrogant attitude.

Agree so far.

Sorry No, this is rubbish. The game has a set of rules. They are in the TOS and they are explicit that account sharing is not allowed. it is breaking the rules of the game and is cheating. All these offer a potential unfair advantage and are explicitly banned in the rules of the game they are cheating

Here the picture is confused but only because Stars TOS are not clear.

Nope, again these are explicity banned in the TOS, they are cheating and offer a potential unfair advantage.


Nobody should be breaking the TOS. Nobody should be cheating. it is not OK, it might be convenient, it might be easy and it might be that the US gov stiffing you is grossly unfair but it is not OK to break the TOS and to cheat. You might not be cheating much but you are cheating.

Being a cheat is like being pregnant - you can't be a little bit pregnant nor a little bit of a cheat.

Semi-grunch

I think the only situation where this MIGHT be ok is on an anonymous site like Bovada. Otherwise it's clearly cheating.

Dan,

Not sure why you spent the time to type this extremely detailed breakdown of what constitutes cheating, unethical conduct, light ethical violations , etc etc . We all have opinions of what is a gray area and what is cut and dry. In poker and in every other part of our lives. I am sure most of us would agree with the majority of what you wrote however our opinions, mine and yours, on these topics are just that opinions. The Poker sites TOS clearly defines what is cheating and what is not cheating. The TOS is the only thing that matters because we accept those terms when we play on a site

Heard an interview she did for the Bernard lee radio show where
she talked in great detail about her online poker experiences

From Sept 4 interview on Cardplayer, she says "I enrolled at SUNY Albany in 2008...when I wasn't taking classes, however, I was playing online poker." She goes on to note that she would win satellites to larger events, then unreg and sell the tournament dollars to her father. "It was great for me because nobody was tracking satellites, so I was able to make $215 at a time and kind of remain unknown."

She knew what she was doing. And if I'm playing against "Joe Drunk" with terrible OL stats, but it's actually Phil Ivey or Lonnie Harwood sitting under Joe's name, I'm getting cheated.

that's fine... she has played online and probably knows right from wrong.
But who is really at fault when I ask you if I can borrow your account, and you say yes?

If I have no license and want to borrow your car and you say yes, Judge Judy will be pointing the finger at you.

They both are in the wrong. And driving a car with no license is breaking the law in most of the world. Playing poker from a country that offers real money gaming is not even in the same ballpark as that.

If you guys think Breaking TOS = Cheating in all cases, then we really have nothing else to discuss.

Anyone who says "cheating is cheating" is grossly oversimplifying this matter.

So Russ Hamilton looking at your hole cards is equivalent to a US player borrowing a friend's account on Stars while visiting Canada for a few days?

LOL

As I said, let's focus on the real cheaters/scammers of poker, and stop worrying about some girl borrowing an account to secretly play on Stars. I mean, seriously... Let's step back for a second and look at this rationally.

Stop with this inane devil's advocate **** that appears to be done for that reason only.

What devil's advocate. How would you apportion the blame? I'd give her maybe 20% at most and 80% to the account holder.

Well, analogies always fall short but she's not able to break that licensing law without the cooperation of the car's owner, and I think that part of the car-example translates directly to the root of this matter.

Thread has turned prematurely terrible.

Mods, lock it up.

From your earlier post "Taking over for someone mid-stream in a tournament - Definitely cheating." Don't see a great deal of difference between that and playing on the account of someone else. Perhaps you can explain the difference?

So if it wasn't a girl would it be different?

I don't understand how you think it's not cheating. If I'm playing someone who I think is player XXX but in reality it's player YYY then I'm being cheated. She probably wasn't doing it maliciously but at the end of the day she, her b/f, the account owner, and her group of friends knew it was against the TOS and unethical.

zackmorris always causin trouble at bayside

No the blame would not be 20/80. They are both in the wrong 100%.

I don't even understand splitting the blame. It just doesn't make sense.

The account holder gets the blame for letting someone use their account.

And the person who "borrows" the account gets the blame for using some other persons account.

Trying to split the blame is just idiotic.

It seems joeschmoe worded it strangely by saying "80 percent vs. 20 percent", etc. At risk of speaking for him, he would probably agree with you that both parties are in the wrong. However, one person's wrongdoing (that of the account's owner) is four times worse than the other's (that of the borrower). Hence the "80/20" split.

I don't at all take his post to mean he is saying Loni is 20 percent wrong and 80 percent in the clear.

Edit: by the way, assigning blame is the very foundation of tort law. It is NOT nonsensical.

that's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Suppose someone suffered damages amounting to $100.
A judge might consider both the 'account borrower' and the 'lender' to be equally liable, and split the compensation 50/50. The two guilty parties pay $50 each. The $100 total in damages is paid.

If both were somehow found 100% at fault, then the wronged party would get $100 plus $100 = $200 and that's not fair.

Neither is innocent, but it often happens that one person is more responsible than the other.