I think the networks seem to invite more cheating and collusion with some players having 5-7 different id's. It makes them very hard to keep track of for any strange activity. I also have a problem when a player enters a room at minimum and is lucky and turns his $40 to $200 then leaves and 5 seconds later brings in his 2nd id in for $40 at same table .............and if he is lucky and runs that up he leaves and brings in his 3rd id for $40.................to me this flies in the face of the rules of the game if sites are going to allow this crap then they should just let everyone take money off the table when ever they feel like it for the sake of fairness
-
-
Whoa, Scotty...bad day at the tables?
There was one network (onGame) which had a pretty well-publicized loophole through which you could access multiple accounts. I believe that it has been fixed, though. All sites, whether network or independant, are cracking down hard on multi-accounters. Cheaters get banned and their bankrolls get confiscated. I don't waste much time worrying about it.
As far as your comment about people buying in short, it's a perfectly valid strategy. I've played that way myself a number of times. It infuriates people when done correctly. Learn to play against short stacks and you won't have to worry about them. By the way, you don't need multiple accounts to play short. You just leave the table for a minute, and buy back in for whatever amount you want. It doesn't work at Pokerstars, so play there if you want to escape the rampaging short-stackers.
One more thing. If somebody "is lucky" at your table, wouldn't you rather him to be playing a short stack?Last edited by QuickLearner; 05-11-06, 12:14 PM.Comment -
no not a bad day..........no losing days in over a month thanks.
Quick i think you miss my point ...........I have no problem with short stackers at all............i do have a problem with taking money off the table imo this is cheating.....giving one player who has multiple ids advantage over players who only use one id to me is not right. If this is the way poker is played they should just allow anyone to take a $100 or so off the table whenever they want(cause that is basically what multi ids are doing , if you think this is correct way poker should be played we disagree about how the game should be played but i very much respect your opinion .
Most of the sites I play dont allow you to leave with say $300 and comeback with $40 with the same id unless you wait a certain time i think this is 100% corre4ct.
This same site for example if i leave the table they make me bring in the MAXIMUM.........yet this same site continually allows someone with 7 ids to buyin for $40, leave bring another id buyin for $40 leave ect....yet i go for a beer and get kicked off the table and they wont let me buyin for anything less than $200 .........does that sound fair to you?.........................I have also seen players with multiple ids playing in the same tournament with 2 or 3 ids ,how can this not be cheating ? what happens if the end up on the same table?Comment -
I only wish I could say that.Originally posted by scottyy11
Well, ratholing is certainly not cheating. Some players may feel that it's unethical, but it really isn't. It's just part of a strategy that is profitable. It certainly isn't optimal, but it is undoubtedly +EV.Originally posted by scottyy11
At Party, for instance, you only need to be off the table for 1 hand. Then you can buy back in for any amount over the minimum. I've never really tested it at a lot of sites. I do know that Pokerstars makes you wait for 1 hour. Most people simply leave one table and sit in at a new one. Are you okay with that? Is it the part about them coming back to your table that bothers you?Originally posted by scottyy11
Please name the site that allows someone with 7 IDs to play. In fact, name the accounts that you think are being played by one person. I have no problem e-mailing a link to this thread to a poker site and asking them to investigate. There's not a poker room out there that wouldn't follow up on something like this.Originally posted by scottyy11
What you are implying is a very serious charge. Much more serious than just the part about whether short-stack system players are winning. It's bad for business. Mine, in that unsubstantiated stories like this scare away new players...and new players are where the future of my game is. And the poker sites as well, because you are flat out accusing them of being too stupid to prevent the most elemental kind of cheating. Worse, inexperienced players may get the impression that the sites just don't care.
I think you're very wrong here. I appreciate that you respect my opinion; I ask that you rethink your argument.Comment -
your dead wrong you can easily have 7 ids on a network. How many pokerooms belong to some of these networks 10-30 ?are you telling me that they limit the id's to say 3 or 4 or some magical number? whats to prevent me from joining all 20 rooms on the network?
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS SITUATION!!!
So let say im at a table in vegas i have a $550 stack, I should be able to just grab $500 in chips and toss them into my pocket and continue playing? Hell NO!!!!!!!!!!! its not aloud at any place i've ever played at against the rules . Now let say im online I pocket my $550 and bring in player B for $50 at the same spot.......well neato I just found a way to get around the rules of the game I'm sorry but this to me is cheating we simply disagree it goes beyond unethical.
Every place I play live doesnt allow this and I cant leave and comeback for 30minutes or so or I goto the bottom of the waiting list. Maybe i'm to use to live play.
I'm not going to get into naming networks as I have alot of money in pokerrooms and im not going there. But this player claims to have 7 ids and i have been able to verify atleast 4 so I would tend to believe him.
I did email the room about this and they agreed with me and said it something they brought up at their last meeting with the network but were unable to resolve but they are hoping to eliminate multiple id's in the futureComment -
Ratholing isn't cheating, but it's generally against the rules. I try to rathole as much as I can, if it is to my advantage. But, often the software prevents it, barring using a technique as scotty suggests, which I had never considered.Well, ratholing is certainly not cheating. Some players may feel that it's unethical, but it really isn't. It's just part of a strategy that is profitable. It certainly isn't optimal, but it is undoubtedly +EV.
With regards to scotty's first question of networks versus independents, it's night and day. The network CS is just terrible in my experience. I never considered the multiple account angle, but scotty makes sense. IMO, just stick with Party, UB, Paradise and you'll never have to worry about these issues. Their business is poker, not online casinoing, not sports betting, not bingo or whatever. If you want to play poker, stick with the sites that focus their energy on providing a quality poker product.Comment -
Scotty, I apologize in advance for the length of this, but you are discussing really important things here and I want to continue the exchange. I'm also happy that you didn't just get frustrated and call me a moron. Yet.
I now understand some of your points. There are a couple of flaws in your thinking here. First, live poker isn't the same game as online poker, just like whiffle ball isn't the same game as baseball. You have to stop wishing everybody was playing whiffle ball when you choose to play baseball. The reverse is also true. You can't play two tables at once live, even if the tables are adjacent and you could just swivel around in one chair. They won't let you...it's a different game than online. On the other hand, nobody comps your drinks when you play online.
This leads me to what I think your second mistake is: I think you're attaching a lot of importance to whether a short stack system is against the rules without realizing that if the poker room permits it, then it's not "against the rules." You can't argue it. You have to learn to succeed despite it. You're not the only player who resents it.
Your third mistake is in not naming the network where you are aware of multi-account cheaters. The rest of us deserve to know which network is vulnerable. Our money is at stake just like yours is, so again, please name the network so we can get it investigated. This forum is built around the concept of fair treatment of players. We should be watching each other's backs.
Your argument here is specious. If you have money in a network that allows cheating like this you should remove it. Just like I will. Name the network so we can get it investigated. While you're at it, you should also "out" the cheater you've verified as well. No smiley face here...I really want you to consider helping to catch the cheaters and punish the network that allows it.Originally posted by scottyy11
I misunderstood your original post. You said, ".........yet this same site continually allows someone with 7 ids to buyin for $40, leave bring another id buyin for $40 leave ect...." so that's what I thought you meant. Of course I know that you can have an account at more than one site on a network. But you can't bring your accounts together at one table to collude because the software doesn't allow more than one player per I.P. to sit at a particular table at the same time.Originally posted by scottyy11
On to the subject of short stack play...
You think that since someone has an account at 5 different crypto rooms (for instance) he can just parade a series of players into the same seat at the same table as he repeatedly gets lucky enough to double or triple his stack. I'll tell you the truth. I worry about an asteroid crashing into the Earth and causing an ice age more than I worry about that.Originally posted by scottyy11
Why would somebody go to that much trouble when they could just buy in at a different table? Besides, the frustration of having to manage that many waiting lists would make me crazy.
But watch out, I see that logical fallacy creeping back in. Remember, if the rules allow something, it isn't against the rules. So if you wanted to endure the agony, and could actually do it, well...I bet you know where I'm headed.
I called Foxwoods (where I have the most live experience) and asked them. Their rule is that if you want to rathole you must: (1.) Pick up all your chips and leave the table (giving up your seat). and either (2.) Join a waitlist at a stake higher or lower than the one you just left, or (3.) wait 1 hour before rejoining a game at the same level you left. As long as I'm willing to follow their rule, do you think I would be cheating if I did exactly that?Originally posted by scottyy11
One other thing, ask a floor manager the next time you're playing live what he thinks of the strategy. Playing a short stack is a +EV beginner's strategy. The poker rooms want to keep new players in the game so the keep paying the time charges. It's in their best interest for beginners to survive and playing a short stack is a very good way of doing just that.
I just can't understand why you don't feel the same way.
Comment -
[QUOTE=QuickLearner]
You think that since someone has an account at 5 different crypto rooms (for instance) he can just parade a series of players into the same seat at the same table as he repeatedly gets lucky enough to double or triple his stack. I'll tell you the truth. I worry about an asteroid crashing into the Earth and causing an ice age more than I worry about that.
Why would somebody go to that much trouble when they could just buy in at a different table? Besides, the frustration of having to manage that many waiting lists would make me crazy.
QUOTE]
Yes they can and do parade a series of id's this is exactly what they do , and as i said before its nothing against shorts stacks I bring them in from time to time also, basic thing here is a level playing field for all players whether they have one i.d or 5 i.d's. It goes back to if i get off the table for any reason I have to bring in the max $200..........now I'm playing against people with 5 i.ds who are constantly leaving the table and bringing in $40 and changing i.d to get around bringing in the max...........I feel all players should have the same advantages whether you have 1 i.d or 6 i.d's MY FRIEND DO U THINK THIS IS FAIR????? different rules for different players??????? would love you to explain that to me
And your statement about why would any one keep joining the same table..................well you fail to consider that some games like stud or hilo there might be only one table going as traffic is thin.
Yes what foxwoods does is perfectly what should be done as they abide by the rules of poker. This is similar to what many online rooms do. You leave your gone. You sit out one hour or a certain amount of time. Basically what multiple id er's are doing would be like me winning a pot throwing half it in my pocket and continue playing.....should not all players just be aloud to take money off the table if you support this type of multiple id bs..........please explain the difference
Why do you think foxwoods has rules like this?????? and its not foxwoods pretty much everyplace does this. If you cant see that its a unfair practise to continually let one player at a table take his money off the table while other can't while we dont have much to talk about on this matter, and believe me if your sitting a $1/2 table and a player who use the id's x1,x2,x3 sits in with x1 for $40 runs it $120 leaves brings in x2 runs it to $200 leaves brings in x3 for $40 (all with no time in between and at the same table) your sitting with $100 and go get yourself a drink and you get booted from the table........you go sit down at the same table and your forced to bring in $200 the max........................if you run into this yourself personally you might understand why its not fair, might be something you have to experience to understand.
Yes internet poker is different but when ever possible it should try and mimic the live game as far as rules go.
Bottom line to me is you leave the table you sit out for a certain amount of time or goto another table or you comeback in with the same amount. If you dont do this than change the rules of the game and just allow everyone at the table to take money off whenever they feel like it. Or do like party does allow everyone to leave and comeback with whatever they want I don't have a problem with what party does. My problem is when a site allow multiple id's to do things that a person with a single id can'tLast edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 11:14 AM.Comment -
another point i would like you to address do you not think that multiple id's can open the door to more cheating and collusion. I mean damn its hard enough to detect cheating with one id now give a person 5 id's and imo it would be extremely difficult to detect. I mean two players each with 5 ids could do some wild thing working together and dont give me that stuff about why would anyone go through the trouble of setting up 5 ids I think everyone on this site know what lengths cheaters will goto, and even your average player can spot funny stuff when a guy has one id not so easy to spot funny stuff when a guy has 5 ids. Multiple id's do nothing to enhance the game and only will take internet poker down a slippery slope and could put it back into the degenerate image that it only recently broke out of.
and lastly you want me to name the network where there are multiple account cheaters why should i bother since your position is that this is not cheating?
I dont care if im playing whiffle ball or crazy eights all players should be playing by the same rulesLast edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 11:03 AM.Comment -
Stop obsessing about short stacks. Just learn to beat them. If you can't then leave the table.
Perhaps you missed this part. It's the most important thing in my post, so I'll repeat it for you:
Your third mistake is in not naming the network where you are aware of multi-account cheaters. The rest of us deserve to know which network is vulnerable. Our money is at stake just like yours is, so again, please name the network so we can get it investigated. This forum is built around the concept of fair treatment of players. We should be watching each other's backs.
Name the network so we can get it investigated. While you're at it, you should also "out" the cheater you've verified as well. No smiley face here...I really want you to consider helping to catch the cheaters and punish the network that allows it.
If you won't then I'm just going to assume that all you're doing is spreading gossip. You've already pretty much admitted your bias towards live play, so rather than trying to convert the rest of us into live players why don't you name some names. Or stop the rumor-mongering.Comment -
how many freaking times do i need to say this i'm fine with short stacks i love them.
so are you now saying multiple id's are cheating or are ok im unclear on your positon now?
can you please address this point.
another point i would like you to address do you not think that multiple id's can open the door to more cheating and collusion. I mean damn its hard enough to detect cheating with one id now give a person 5 id's and imo it would be extremely difficult to detect. I mean two players each with 5 ids could do some wild thing working together and dont give me that stuff about why would anyone go through the trouble of setting up 5 ids I think everyone on this site know what lengths cheaters will goto, and even your average player can spot funny stuff when a guy has one id not so easy to spot funny stuff when a guy has 5 ids. Multiple id's do nothing to enhance the game and only will take internet poker down a slippery slope and could put it back into the degenerate image that it only recently broke out of.
bud i've semt you a pm maybe you can better understand what i'm saying.......if a site allows ratholing i've have no problem with it............my main problem is when a site is designed not to allow ratholing and people are using multiple id's to get around it.Last edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 08:20 PM.Comment -
Gentlemen, I have been enjoying this discussion very much. 5 rounds so far, two 10-8 rounds for Kid Quick. But ya gotta give Scotty a lot of credit, this boy keeps getting back up. Scotty, I think he's getting tired, watch for him to drop his left, then stick him good.Comment -
A person having accounts at more than one site on a network is perfectly fine. Pick a network; call them; ask them. You can't sit more than one player from the same IP at a table. They log your machine ID, you know...Originally posted by scottyy11
Yes. Between the two of them they could get 10 bankrolls confiscated.Originally posted by scottyy11
...so what kind of funny stuff can an average player spot when "a guy has one ID?" How about when he has five since they can't sit together? No comment on the slippery slope deal.Originally posted by scottyy11
I must have missed the part when I said that multi-account cheaters weren't cheating.Originally posted by scottyy11
That's kind of the point. We are... Don't forget about naming some names.Originally posted by scottyy11Comment -
well were at it why dont you name names let us know what pokerrooms your represent or have interest inComment -
None. Zero.Originally posted by scottyy11
I'll tell you exactly what my interest is. My interest is in not having the game that I play professionally tarnished by innuendo. That's the whole enchilada.Comment -
HEY! No talking about a hand while its in play.Originally posted by PokerDeathComment -
Do you think its fair play that a site allows a person with multiple ids on a network to rathole while a person with only one id is not aloud to rathole? this is the basis of my complaint . Level playing field for all!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTION???? If you think this is wrong then we possibly agree and i just failed to communicate my complaint properly but if you think that there is nothing wrong with the above than while we will have to agree to disagree as I will never agree for special treatment of certain players over another
as regards to the multiple ids.......i think i can keep track and spot two players colluding together with only one id,a hell of alot easier than 2players with 5ids.Last edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 12:15 PM.Comment -
-
Ratholing doesn't require multiple accounts, or IDs, or anything other than the ability to leave a table after a win and buy in somewhere else for the minimum. You make it sound like quantum mechanics.Originally posted by scottyy11
Right. You can't get a seat at a table if there are 2 players with 5 IDs. That would indeed make it tougher.Originally posted by scottyy11
Here's one. A new player should have the option of joining many sites so that they can take advantage of sign-up bonuses. It's a great way to build a bankroll. Same thing for reload bonuses. There are no negatives. You think it somehow increases cheating. You're wrong.Originally posted by scottyy11
I'm a slow learner. Name the network. Then name the table IDs of those cheaters you know.Originally posted by scottyy11Comment -
dude your either chosing not to listen or something.
I play hilo and stud there is only one table going on some networks.
If I leave my seat I am forced to buyin $200 how the fk can I rathole? Yet a person with multiple ids can get around this by switching ids. You see no problem with this?
how can i rathole when there is only one table and the software is making me bring in the max? whats your secret ....Last edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 12:46 PM.Comment -
if you think multiple ids wont lead to more cheating well we wont agree on that either it definately doesComment -
again i dont care about someone buying in for the minimun not a problem..........its when you allow one player the ability to buyin for the min and force others to buy in for the max and if your playing a game with thin traffic where there is only 1 table that is whats happening. Can you still not see a problem with this?????????????????//
Why should player A be given the option to buyin from $40-$200
while player B must buyin for $200
should we not all be bound by the same rules when it comes to buyin?Last edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 12:54 PM.Comment -
FYP.Originally posted by scottyy11
Just curious, what network do you play on where there is only one game running...and why haven't you left to find a more active network? Not meaning to duck your question, I know of no network that allows some players to buy in short but forces others to buy in deep...so I don't believe that a problem exists.Originally posted by scottyy11
But if these was one (which I doubt) why would you even care? Don't you know how to play against a short stack?Comment -
i play everywhere ...........you must not play much hilo alot of sites will have only one $1/2 table going if your lucky. Not many networks have 3 $1/2 hilo games going. And yes this one site forces you to buyin for the max even doylesroom which is not the site but they forces you to rebuy for whatever amount you left with.
so lets look i'm at doyles and yes doyles (or any other network pretty much)will often only have 1$1/2 hilo table going . This is a inequity which is at every network pretty well that i know of though so im not picking doyles as i think its the best network out there
let say i leave with $200 , I am forced to rebuy for $200 well the guy who has multiple i.d's leaves with $200 switches i.d to say golden palace now they can have the option of a $40-$200 buyin.
so u think this is fair i guess?
again the unaswered question remains
player A (multiple ids)has option to buyin for $40-$200
player B (only one id)has only A forced $200 buyin
there it is since you basically called me liar about a room making you rebuy for the max i have given you same question in terms that you cant just shrug off and call me liar. Besides i'm sure there are some on here that know what room i'm talking about as they have probably played there.Last edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 01:37 PM.Comment -
i have to question whether you really play many sites if you know of no networks that force you to bring in the same amount of dollars you left with because just about eveyone I play at does. Its not a matter of liking shorts stacks or not its about both players having the same options to buyin for what they want.Last edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 01:26 PM.Comment -
I think I understand your problem. This is what you originally said:
And this is what you later said:Originally posted by scottyy11
And you're willing to conclude that I don't know what I'm talking about because you don't know the difference between the two terms. I don't think you're a liar, I just think you're really confused. [By the way, no need to get prickly...I didn't when you accused me of shilling for some poker site.] Everybody knows that you can't sit out, remove money from your stake, and then sit in again. But if you cash out, you can buy in for whatever you want. That's the short stack strategy.Originally posted by scottyy11
I guess there are a couple of things we can be sure of.
1. Your claim that some network allows multi-account cheating is BS (I've given up on you naming it so it can be investigated).
2. You're willing to argue about something that you don't really understand.
3. You're a stud player who is worried about a short stack system player. That's unusual because stud is a limit game and short stack is a NL strategy. I think all this time you've been getting beat by players in a limit game who just don't buy in for the max and figuring that it's some vast cheating conspiracy. Maybe you're just getting beat.
I should have known better than to get involved when you started off this whole mess with this whopper:
You're right about one thing, we are free to disagree. If you decide to name that network that you're gossiping about along with the player IDs owned by the person you supposedly verified as a cheater I'll be happy to take the lead in contacting the network. That way your $10,000 bankroll won't be in any jeopardy. I'll even post the results of the inquiry!Originally posted by scottyy11Comment -
dude still no answer to the question ? and yes the only games I play are omaha hilo and stud, and its only PL .
I apologize for whatever but i dont like my integrity questioned anymore (and thats exactly what you are doing)than you do and if you think it impossible to go a month without losing well its your right are sure there are others who have done it, and for the record I was not accusing you of shilling you said you were involved in the industry so i though you meant you worked for a site, this is what I honestly thought
and if you still cant see that you think its ok to be playing with a player who maybe gets luckys and takes a $600 pot from you and then leaves 5 seconds later is back with $40 and his 2nd id. and your money is bye bye.
You win the same $600 pot and your options are only to keep playing with the same $600 or leave outright and wait for one hour to comeback
you think thats fair so be it , i believe in giving both players the same options.
good luck to you sir on the tablesComment -
Where did I say that I was involved in the industry?Originally posted by scottyy11Comment -
Originally posted by QuickLearner
when you said "It's bad for business. Mine," I thought you were meaning you were involved in the business as a profession relating to one of the sites not as a pro player. If this was wrong I apologize but that was honestly what I thought you meant when you said that. I would never say someone was a shill but i thought you were saying you work for a poker room.
It seem like the above was only written to question my integrity and not answer the question as I thought I gave you a perfect example of doyles room (you could use most networks in my example as most run that way)was making some buyin deep well allowing others to buy in short and I have said over and over that i was not concerned about short stack. My problem was with allowing players different buy in options just because they have multiple id's is not a fair way to run a game.Last edited by scottyy11; 05-12-06, 05:31 PM.Comment -
I didn't read the whole thread. I can't make a lot of sense out of the back and forth. It seems like scotty says ratholing is unfair, and QL disagrees. I agree with both of you, in a sense. I play at places where ratholing is disallowed to my satisfaction, which means not playing in a network, which is the original question of the thread.
As far as naming names, here's a couple: Prima and BOSS networks are the ones I was referring, in my first post in this thread.Comment
