Do you need the definition of the word similarity? Is what you wrote even a complete sentence?


"the similarity's what" is not a complete sentence. Try using some nouns possibly. I know you're used to speaking in grunts and **** but if I'm going to respond it would help to know what you are typing.

I think he's saying that you don't pluralize using an apostrophe.

thread is still going?

The reason I keep bringing up the payment accounts is because I'm trying to determine if there are abuses happening with those accounts. I'm still not convinced that having them protects the player base even if they don't play poker on the site. There are many unanswered questions as to the number of them and the poker player accounts that control them. An additional final issue regarding that is are some of those accounts playing poker as it appears the cashmanbrian account may be doing.

I have a lot of questions and these issues are still under investigation.

1. How many of them are there?

2. Do some of the play poker?

3. Do any of the accounts have a conflict of interest that could affect playing results in actual poker games?

4. What purposes can I use my poker account for?

I want to clarify something about collusion too. I don't think collusion and softplay in staking is just limited to these ARMY stakes on PTP or other staking sites. I think there are plenty of other types of stakes and situations where it is more likely to happen and probably does happen. Of course like has been said by people in this post that it's difficult to prove. It's not nearly as difficult to identify situations where it's more likely to happen.

As is obvious I don't like some of the people that run PTP. I do not like a lot of the culture. I especially don't like the gist of the members from that site who posted in this thread that I should just shut up because I am an individual facing off against their forum. I just see me questioning certain aspects of their site identical to what they did to me and do to their members. You deserve no mercy if you give none.

Yeah they banned me as an extension of their selective ethics.(imo

so ur trying to end online poker, cool story bro

1. depends, probably in some situations
2. penalty is not specified but may be inherently implied in certain situations where the upside to taking the action is less than the downside of future opportunity to be staked
3. it's on the staking site. if there is card sharing it's probably done through other means like IM I have not explictly seen it as would be expected as most people would naturally hide blatant examples

No staking site needs to be involved for this to happen, sir.

having been a member here for 5 years or whatever i have seen countless threads with concerns about collusion

the players are looking to win money, not have some random other guy win more bc they softplayed him


do ppl accuse sheets and bax horses for softplay cause they both play for same backer?

Soft play occursbetween firneds sometimes, i play even more cutthroat with my friends however, gotta spitecall, but yah this issue is pretty meaningless because the only time ppl are doing "army stakes" is when they are staking tiny buy ins like 10 or under usually, and its not mean tto collude at all but offer busto degens a chance to win some money.

futhermore i have been an active member on parttimepoker both as a player and a backer for a year, and while some rules may seem weird, all the measures the have in place are to protect people from being scammed and other stupid ****, dont want multiaccters on PTP, if someone creates a PTP acct with stars name, and new PTP with FTP name, then it could be sketchy

the only legitimate concern is the payneverbeg acct recieveing transfers, and thats none of our business, becasue a stars representative is a memeber on the site, and pokerstars and FTP are well aware of what goes on with the site






basically just op is dumb, sorry u got banned for being a jackass

card sharing bro?

im sure that **** happens in some games, in fact ive gotten refunds from stars when they caught colluders, but to associate that kind of activity with a staking site makes no sense

colluders meeting on PTP would be the same as colluders meeting on PTP and deciding to team up, im sure both have happend in very isolated incidents, but to really blame the website for unknown and uncodoned behavior that probably happens extremely rarely if at all, is stupid

OK lets look at all three points and see where you are worng.

1. Why would I as a horse take a stake where it would be discouraged by the staker for me to not play as good as possible. And why as a staker would I not want one of my horses to accumulate as many chips as possible? Wouldnt I want one horse to have a huge chip stack and run deep as opposed to a few who may or may not min cash?

2. Again as in point 1, why, as a staker, would I want to penalize a horse for getting a big chip stack and have a possiblilty of scoring big?

3. So on the off chance that two people fought as hard as possible for mulitple hours to reach a final table, would they publicly collude to maybe finish better? Why would they risk losing out on a ton of money that they just fought so hard to get? And wouldnt this have actually come out by now, because there are cll out threads everyday on PTP?

Your logic is very very flawed sir, and it is apparent that you are a bitter person who is trying for some revenge tht will never come.

you're ****ing insane. you clearly have an axe to grind and every time anything you say gets shot down you go on a new ridiculous tangent

why couldn't this thread just stay locked?

OP, as someone else said, for such a rules nit you sure like to make a big fuss out of something that stems from you not being able to follow a simple rule. What was your PTP name?

I'm going to address your points one by one to give a different take on them.

1. You've seen countless points with conerns about collusion from members on this site. Response: Where there is a lot of smoke there might be fire as the saying goes. To stop the problem you have to look for and try to put out the fire. You can't find a fire if you don't look for it.

2. Do people accuse Bax and Sheets horses of softplay because they play for the same backer? Response: If the financial conditions of the backing cause these people to play in the same tournaments and specific situations arise that increase the incentives to softplay yes they should be looked at.

3. People run Army stakes for low buy ins so it's not a concern and they are usually busto. Response: An army stake is any situation where you have more than one person tied to the financial interest of another person playing in the same tournament or on the same bankroll. Those situations should be looked at too.

4. PTP has the rules to protect against multi accounters scammers etc Response: I agree that these are good rules for members of PTP. My concerns are more with how the activitys of PTP's membership affect people who are not aware of those activitys like the rest of the player base.

5. Only legit concern is the payneverbeg account but Stars knows about it so it's fine. Response: I don't agree. I want to know about the other ones and who uses them.

6. OP is dumb and was banned for being a jackass. Response: I might be a jackass.

It's more likely to happen on staking sites verses the general playing population for a couple of reasons imo.

1. Players have financial interests in each other that are complex and unknown to the general player base.

2. There is a lot of movement of funds making it more difficult to investigate.

3. It provides access to like minded players who are active. Therefore making it a lot easier than a random person trying to do the identical thing.

4. Three or more parties have a stake in the outcomes making the effectiveness and the damage more pronounced when successful.

OK eventhough you ignored me last time lets take a look at your reponses one by one.

1. Just because people have brought up concerns in the pat about collusion, does not mean that it applies in this case. Every case is different and trying to link them is just irresponsible.

2. I dont even know what you mean by that. You just wasted everyone's time with that nonsense. So lets try again. The question was whether or not anyone has ever questioned Bax and Sheets' horses of soft play? You didnt answer this, you just rambled about financial conditions.

3. You are incorrect. An army stake is just a name someone puts in the stake header to let everyone know the staker is looking to put multiple people in the tourney. The vast majority of the time this is for tourneys with a buy in under $5 and in no way is one horse tied into another. If you dont believe me, search "army" in a staking forum and look at the results.

4. I noticed that you werent concerned until after you got banned for not following the rules, so that tells me one of two things: 1. You are still bitter about being banned and just want to stir the ****. or 2. You wanted in on all of this so called collusion and since you cant you want to disrupt all of it. Either way you look bad.

5. Who cares? How the hell is your life affected by one account on Poker Stars that has never and will never come into contact with you.

6. Finally something I agree with you about. Bravo sir, take a bow.

It was never locked. So how could it "just stay locked". Issues still exist here. I don't think we have even gotten started. I think I have been mostly calm and I've tried to be as clear as possible with my position. There have been a few people that have agreed with me and there are people that have disagreed with me.

are you 12 or have you just never had to use your brain before?

I can't believe you are still clinging to your ridiculous collusion arguments. People who are staked as a part of "armies" gain ZERO benefit if another player does well, nor do they usually even know other players. In most cases they don't really even know the backer. Again, each player is on a separate staking arrangement in an "army" and how other players do has no bearing on the money they make. It's just a name tends to be used for a thread where someone is giving out a bunch of SEPARATE stakes to players in the same tournament, which most often are the LARGE FIELD tournaments by the way.

People know each other on PTP, but when they play they always benefit the most when they do well themselves. Collusion and soft play are not encouraged in any manner, in fact it's quite the opposite. All of the good members of the site serve as watchdogs against wrongdoing and people who deserve to get the boot do. Regarding the money transfers hiding things, virtually all money transfers for stakes are directly between a staker and stakee so it is less likely to conceal things from a poker site's investigations whereas cheaters and colluders on their own can just as easily use intermediary accounts to transfer money between. You can nitpick on any of these points but all in all, it is quite clear you are just butt-hurt and while collusion and cheating exist in poker PTP does not cause these things to happen more than they do in poker in general.

Again, what was your PTP name?

I have staked the army stakes like you're talking about OP, and here's why I do it. When big special tourneys come up, such as the "world record tourney" that Stars had a while back, it was a $1 buy in. I staked a small "army" of players in that. There was nothing collusion about it, it was gonna be a massive field, and the likelihood of someone actually putting together a deep run/final table at it we very very slim. I wanted to have many horses playing the event so that I could hope to have some kind of a better chance at someone putting together a deep run for me.

I certainly am 110% against any type of collusion or unethical behavior, and told my horses to simply play their best, and whatever happens happens. I could care less if 1 of my horses busted another, or even busted me. The chances of them actually getting at the same table with another horse of mine are very rare in that size field of an MTT anyway, and they get no bonuses based on performance of others. They were all separate, individual stakes, and profit was split with each of them according to pre determined cut.

Can someone ask Men the Master to weigh in?

1. Just because people have brought up concerns in the pat about collusion, does not mean that it applies in this case. Every case is different and trying to link them is just irresponsible.

A: Staking sites not only make collusion easier they remove most of the barriers to entry that people who wanted to do it would face.

1a. It's easy to transfer money.
1b. I can put the same people in tournaments over and over and use the excuse that they are good players as the reason why.
1c. Frequent transfers between players is so common place on these sites that investigating situations is more difficult.
1d. I can find people that are actively playing in large numbers on the site I play on.
1e. Zero value accounts(accounts that have never made a deposit)could actively throw away accounts for the sake of total returns and suffer no personal penality due to being able to use the transfer facility in an almost unlimited way and have it look completely legitimate from a staking perspective.

2. I dont even know what you mean by that. You just wasted everyone's time with that nonsense. So lets try again. The question was whether or not anyone has ever questioned Bax and Sheets' horses of soft play? You didnt answer this, you just rambled about financial conditions.

2a. How can I know who has complained about these accounts?
2b. How can I know who has complained to PokerStars or other poker sites about these accounts?
2c. How can I know to complain about the accounts unless I had access to the hole cards even if I wanted to make a complaint?
2d. I mentioned the financial conditions because they mirror the likely conditions that would exist in situations where softplay has happened. If you made a check list of things that would have to exist before soft play could happen those conditions would be on it.

3. 3. You are incorrect. An army stake is just a name someone puts in the stake header to let everyone know the staker is looking to put multiple people in the tourney. The vast majority of the time this is for tourneys with a buy in under $5 and in no way is one horse tied into another. If you dont believe me, search "army" in a staking forum and look at the results.

3a. I agree with you that an "army" stake is just a name for putting multiple people into the same tournament by a backer. That is exactly the type of situation that creates incentives for people to softplay. Or in the case of preplanning the members of their "army" outright collusion.

4. I noticed that you werent concerned until after you got banned for not following the rules, so that tells me one of two things: 1. You are still bitter about being banned and just want to stir the ****. or 2. You wanted in on all of this so called collusion and since you cant you want to disrupt all of it. Either way you look bad.

4a. I did not get banned for not following the rules. I got banned for disagreeing with a new rule that forced me to open a Full Tilt Poker account that didn't exist before I registered and that wasn't being enforced for 100's of other members who were actively using the the site. I probably woudln't have given it a second thought if my poker account screen name didn't show up in a search engine linking me to the account that they had labeled with an Investigation Gear over a year after the investigation was over. They removed that investigation gear after I made them further aware that it was still there.

4b. Actually I've always been concerned about game integrity online. They attacked me unfairly I attack them fairly. So even when attacking them I'm attempting to be ethical.

5. Who cares? How the hell is your life affected by one account on Poker Stars that has never and will never come into contact with you.

5a. I want to know if other accounts exist that do play poker.
5b. I want to know what conditions have to exist for me to be able to use my account and be able to violate the TOS that I've been trying to follow by not using my account that way. I've avoided using my account for business reasons so that I am following the rules yet now I learn that I could have ignored the rules this whole time and been fine? I don't see how that is right.

wow you people are all actually so stupid.

THE BACKER BENEFITS BY THE HORSES SOFTPLAYING. THE BACKER. THE ONE WHO CONTROLS THE MONEY. THE CONCERN ISNT THAT THE BACKED PLAYERS WOULD WANT TO SOFTPLAY. ITS THAT THE BACKER MIGHT ORDER THEM TO.

you would take the stake because you are a **** busto idiot. if you had money you wouldnt need a stake. The staker has more equity with 2 accounts with x chips than with 1 account with 2x chips. you are wrong.

because it decreases the stakers equity in the tournament. i realize you dont understand this concept, so we'll just leave it at that.

they wouldnt publically collude, bank robbers dont post on their blogs 'goin to rob the citibank on 15th street lulz'.

god, there are so many insanely ******ed arguments in this thread. its too bad the OP is making a fool of himself because there is a legitimate concern here.

fwiw, i dont play many tournaments, im a MSNL grinder, but most of you are just plain stupid and cant grasp the actual issue here which is that there is a giant moral hazard.

yes they do. you are an idiot.

Wow, im impressed. You can try to insult people and use capital letters. I guess that means whatever you say is true. Well lets just see about that. If you were to actually some investigating, you would see that big percentage of people playing backed actually invest in other players at the same time. And actually in a lot of cases, mine included, the amount of money that we actually play staked with is a small fraction compared to what we invest back into the community.

And while we are at it, can you explain to me how a staker would lose equity if one horse played hard against another horse? I would figure at worst it would be a wash, but would think the equity might be a bit higher if one horse had a big stack instead of two with medium stacks. But what do I know I dont hurl insult or use all capital letters