The major issue for me is the edge that the playing is gaining on the casual players of the site.
Most of the high volume regs will have known it was him pretty much instantly, and thus played him as they normally would if he were on his normal account. He is not gaining any edge of these people. It doesn't bother me if he changed his account on a month by month basis, he has such a special form of poker that its easily detectable and easy to adapt to.
However imagine if you are a casual player....you hvae played on the site for a couple of times/week for a year or so. You have reads on all of the regs at the levels you play and suddenly theres this new guy at the tables....you have no info on him but he has a years worth of info on you.
The casual players HAVE to be protected. There are a lot of reasons why online poker is still seen as 'dodgy' to the general public and multi-accounting is one of them.
And Tikay yes you dd take the matter very seriously and I knew that you would be posting here. But I still think that too long has gone on. While I do not know what methods Sky use to prove this, a week of him being able to play on versus everyone on the site is FAR FAR too long.
I am still glad I started this thread. There are a couple of fairly high volume players on this thread who seem to have become aware of it. Thats all I wanted to do because what this individual is doing is VERY VERY wrong.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Scotty77 is not as high profiled. Posted by 5toneFace
lol i agree.
but this is a high profile player. he is the type of player who when you are talking to randoms in card rooms and you say you play on sky poker, said random will say does player ABC still play on there.
because of this Sky should be taking this matter more seriously. they shouldn't be seen to be favouring anyone.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : So, think that one through. I get the needle because a player busts me. So, miffed, I report him for fraud, or Multi-Accounting, & Sky Poker are supposed to snap suspend him while they investigate my malicious allegations, made simply because I have an "angle". How long would it before everyone who busts someone gets "spite-reported" & is suspended? This rhetorical reply does not in any way refer to the OP. Posted by Tikay10
stars suspend players suspected of multi accounting until their investigations have finished. In terms of your example, sky could take a quick look and if there is any possibility of multi accounting then just suspend the account while the investigation takes place. So not 'snap suspend' but have a brief look and then suspend.
The major issue for me is the edge that the playing is gaining on the casual players of the site. Most of the high volume regs will have known it was him pretty much instantly, and thus played him as they normally would if he were on his normal account. He is not gaining any edge of these people. It doesn't bother me if he changed his account on a month by month basis, he has such a special form of poker that its easily detectable and easy to adapt to. However imagine if you are a casual player....you hvae played on the site for a couple of times/week for a year or so. You have reads on all of the regs at the levels you play and suddenly theres this new guy at the tables....you have no info on him but he has a years worth of info on you. The casual players HAVE to be protected. There are a lot of reasons why online poker is still seen as 'dodgy' to the general public and multi-accounting is one of them. And Tikay yes you dd take the matter very seriously and I knew that you would be posting here. But I still think that too long has gone on. While I do not know what methods Sky use to prove this, a week of him being able to play on versus everyone on the site is FAR FAR too long. I am still glad I started this thread. There are a couple of fairly high volume players on this thread who seem to have become aware of it. Thats all I wanted to do because what this individual is doing is VERY VERY wrong. Posted by scotty77
There it is again though, Ryan. You make the whole Post on the basis that you have 100% factial evidence that he is guilty, & never once say "allegedly".
But the PM you sent to me, & I sent upstairs, had no proof in it whatever - it had your very strong circumstantial suspicions.
There is quite a difference, in Law, & in judging these matters.
And that is why - contrary to almost everyone else, I have said I don't belive the thread serves any good purpose. Note - because I know you will understand this, though many will not, that is just my personal view, & I have as much right to hold that view as others to hold the opposite view. I also explained my view, & gave the reasoning. Some of the Posts on this thread - not by you - are outrageous. Which is why I don't think it's helping, because now the conspiracty theorists are on the case, God help us all.
Clearly, with hindsight, I should not have commented, in my efforts to provide that dreadful thing called "balance". And facts......
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : stars suspend players suspected of multi accounting until their investigations have finished. In terms of your example, sky could take a quick look and if there is any possibility of multi accounting then just suspend the account while the investigation takes place. So not 'snap suspend' but have a brief look and then suspend. Posted by BlackFish3
You're a law student, I believe? It seems that you are not a big advocate of "innocent until proven guilty".
There is a huge amount of ill-informed speculation on this thread. Why don't we all just let Sky Poker carry out their investigations which many of us, I think, have agreed are delicate and tricky (and likely to be time consuming).
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : stars suspend players suspected of multi accounting until their investigations have finished. In terms of your example, sky could take a quick look and if there is any possibility of multi accounting then just suspend the account while the investigation takes place. So not 'snap suspend' but have a brief look and then suspend. Posted by BlackFish3
Tikay put up a totally acceptable reason why banning instantly isn't a good idea.
I think as a happy medium, a suspension whilst an investigation is taking place would be better. Good reason would be required to take the step to suspend someone. But once they are suspended gives you a reason to get the investigation done asap and find out whether they are multi accounting.
Are the consequences of multi accounting available anywhere on the sky site?
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : You're a law student, I believe? It seems that you are not a big advocate of "innocent until proven guilty". There is a huge amount of ill-informed speculation on this thread. Why don't we all just let Sky Poker carry out their investigations which many of us, I think, have agreed are delicate and tricky (and likely to be time consuming). Posted by MereNovice
i didnt say ban him for being guilty, i said suspend him while the investigation takes place to protect affected players if the player in question is guilty. It's just a precautionary measure.
Sky will sort it out. They need to investigate properly so it is only fair that its is deliberated over in the proper manner. Might be time to put the lid on this thread now, not doing anyone any good. (imo)
On the subject of allegations though, I have it on good authority that the target of the NOTW this Sunday is our very own Rich Orford. Seemingly the "Fake Sheikh" has him on film admitting that he is a Luckbox....in exchange for a KFC Bargain Bucket.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : lol i agree. but this is a high profile player. he is the type of player who when you are talking to randoms in card rooms and you say you play on sky poker, said random will say does player ABC still play on there. because of this Sky should be taking this matter more seriously. they shouldn't be seen to be favouring anyone. Posted by scotty77
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : stars suspend players suspected of multi accounting until their investigations have finished. In terms of your example, sky could take a quick look and if there is any possibility of multi accounting then just suspend the account while the investigation takes place. So not 'snap suspend' but have a brief look and then suspend. Posted by BlackFish3
I've given about 20 heavy hints already, & if you can't see them, well there is not much more I can do.
Perhaps they did "take a quick look", & found no reasonable proof.......and so they are are continuing to investigate?
The level of jumping to assumptions is reaching epidemic proportions now, perhaps I ought not reply any more.
Do you have any hard (factual) evidence of wrongdoing in this matter? (Hearsay is invalid in any reasonable appraisal of the facts I'm relieved to say). If so, have you sent it to Sky Poker?
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : There it is again though, Ryan. You make the whole Post on the basis that you have 100% factial evidence that he is guilty, & never once say "allegedly". But the PM you sent to me, & I sent upstairs, had no proof in it whatever - it had your very strong circumstantial suspicions. There is quite a difference, in Law, & in judging these matters. And that is why - contrary to almost everyone else, I have said I don't belive the thread serves any good purpose. Note - because I know you will understand this, though many will not, that is just my personal view, & I have as much right to hold that view as others to hold the opposite view. I also explained my view, & gave the reasoning. Some of the Posts on this thread - not by you - are outrageous. Which is why I don't think it's helping, because now the conspiracty theorists are on the case, God help us all. Clearly, with hindsight, I should not have commented, in my efforts to provide that dreadful thing called "balance". And facts...... Posted by Tikay10
I think people will get easily confused as to why you are posting Tikay. but if they take the time to read what you've said (even the acronyms ) then they will see what you are trying to get at. And the position from which you have posted.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : i didnt say ban him for being guilty, i said suspend him while the investigation takes place to protect affected players if the player in question is guilty. It's just a precautionary measure. Posted by BlackFish3
And I replied, explaining that such a system would obviously & immediately lead to gross abuse.
It's more than a little sad that not one person has been able to invert the problem to help understand the difficulty.
I hope they do not implement your system Mr Blackfish & then you fall out with someone. Because you know what will happen......
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : I've given about 20 heavy hints already, & if you can't see them, well there is not much more I can do. Perhaps they did "take a quick look", & found no reasonable proof....... and so they are are continuing to investigate? The level of jumping to assumptions is reaching epidemic proportions now, perhaps I ought not reply any more. Do you have any hard (factual) evidence of wrongdoing in this matter? (Hearsay is invalid in any reasonable appraisal of the facts I'm relieved to say). If so, have you sent it to Sky Poker? Posted by Tikay10
yea then that's fair enough. I wasn't looking for hidden clues as this matter doesn't directly affect me, i was just trying to suggest a way of dealing with it that would be a happy medium as beaneh put it. If sky took a quick look and found no reason to suspend the player temporarily while they investigate then fair dos.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : And I replied, explaining that such a system would obviously & immediately lead to gross abuse. It's more than a little sad that not one person has been able to invert the problem to help understand the difficulty. I hope they do not implement your system Mr Blackfish & then you fall out with someone. Because you know what will happen...... Posted by Tikay10
if someone reported someone out of spite, then sky would take a quick look and see it was just out of spite and then there would be no need for a suspension at all. so i dont really think such a system would be abused. you will obviously get people reporting people, but sky should only suspend if they suspect something, if not then the allegation could just be dismissed. But i think if there is any worry then a temporary suspension would be a good happy medium. just my opinion
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : I think people will get easily confused as to why you are posting Tikay. but if they take the time to read what you've said (even the acronyms ) then they will see what you are trying to get at. And the position from which you have posted. Posted by beaneh
You'd think they would, but many of the replies suggest otherwise. All the hints & steers are there!
I'm not really clear why they would be confused as to why I am Posting.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : yea then that's fair enough. I wasn't looking for hidden clues as this matter doesn't directly affect me, i was just trying to suggest a way of dealing with it that would be a happy medium as beaneh put it. If sky took a quick look and found no reason to suspend the player temporarily while they investigate then fair dos. Posted by BlackFish3
Invert it........
What is "a happy medium" in this case? A happy medium to Scotty, to you, & to the guy who is being accused, would be three different things. And so not a "happy medium".
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : lol i agree. but this is a high profile player. he is the type of player who when you are talking to randoms in card rooms and you say you play on sky poker, said random will say does player ABC still play on there. because of this Sky should be taking this matter more seriously. they shouldn't be seen to be favouring anyone. Posted by scotty77
Think high volume of play is being mistaken with high profile lol...... in my eyes not high profile at all
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : lol i agree. but this is a high profile player. he is the type of player who when you are talking to randoms in card rooms and you say you play on sky poker, said random will say does player ABC still play on there. because of this Sky should be taking this matter more seriously. they shouldn't be seen to be favouring anyone. Posted by scotty77
I dont have a clue who everyone's talking about but as i only play up to 50nl i doubt il be playing them.
At least i know their a man...this narrows it down slightly lol.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Think high volume of play is being mistaken with high profile lol...... in my eyes not high profile at all Posted by ChirpyChip
Still more high profiled then scotty tho, hahahaha ;-)
Comments
Most of the high volume regs will have known it was him pretty much instantly, and thus played him as they normally would if he were on his normal account. He is not gaining any edge of these people. It doesn't bother me if he changed his account on a month by month basis, he has such a special form of poker that its easily detectable and easy to adapt to.
However imagine if you are a casual player....you hvae played on the site for a couple of times/week for a year or so. You have reads on all of the regs at the levels you play and suddenly theres this new guy at the tables....you have no info on him but he has a years worth of info on you.
The casual players HAVE to be protected. There are a lot of reasons why online poker is still seen as 'dodgy' to the general public and multi-accounting is one of them.
And Tikay yes you dd take the matter very seriously and I knew that you would be posting here. But I still think that too long has gone on. While I do not know what methods Sky use to prove this, a week of him being able to play on versus everyone on the site is FAR FAR too long.
I am still glad I started this thread. There are a couple of fairly high volume players on this thread who seem to have become aware of it. Thats all I wanted to do because what this individual is doing is VERY VERY wrong.
but this is a high profile player. he is the type of player who when you are talking to randoms in card rooms and you say you play on sky poker, said random will say does player ABC still play on there.
because of this Sky should be taking this matter more seriously. they shouldn't be seen to be favouring anyone.
But the PM you sent to me, & I sent upstairs, had no proof in it whatever - it had your very strong circumstantial suspicions.
There is quite a difference, in Law, & in judging these matters.
And that is why - contrary to almost everyone else, I have said I don't belive the thread serves any good purpose. Note - because I know you will understand this, though many will not, that is just my personal view, & I have as much right to hold that view as others to hold the opposite view. I also explained my view, & gave the reasoning. Some of the Posts on this thread - not by you - are outrageous. Which is why I don't think it's helping, because now the conspiracty theorists are on the case, God help us all.
Clearly, with hindsight, I should not have commented, in my efforts to provide that dreadful thing called "balance". And facts......
It seems that you are not a big advocate of "innocent until proven guilty".
There is a huge amount of ill-informed speculation on this thread.
Why don't we all just let Sky Poker carry out their investigations which many of us, I think, have agreed are delicate and tricky (and likely to be time consuming).
On the subject of allegations though, I have it on good authority that the target of the NOTW this Sunday is our very own Rich Orford. Seemingly the "Fake Sheikh" has him on film admitting that he is a Luckbox....in exchange for a KFC Bargain Bucket.
Perhaps they did "take a quick look", & found no reasonable proof.......and so they are are continuing to investigate?
The level of jumping to assumptions is reaching epidemic proportions now, perhaps I ought not reply any more.
Do you have any hard (factual) evidence of wrongdoing in this matter? (Hearsay is invalid in any reasonable appraisal of the facts I'm relieved to say). If so, have you sent it to Sky Poker?
It's more than a little sad that not one person has been able to invert the problem to help understand the difficulty.
I hope they do not implement your system Mr Blackfish & then you fall out with someone. Because you know what will happen......
I'm not really clear why they would be confused as to why I am Posting.
What is "a happy medium" in this case? A happy medium to Scotty, to you, & to the guy who is being accused, would be three different things. And so not a "happy medium".
At least i know their a man...this narrows it down slightly lol.