RE: Brian Townsend Admits Multiaccounting (2)
by Dan Michalski, Sep 11, 2008 | 1:34 am
Just watched this week’s episode of the WSOP … and saw Phil Laak in the Old Man disguise for the first time. Couldn’t help but think, as pointed out by a commenter, how is this any different than someone’s having two different accounts online?
He gave an interview in July to CardPlayer* where he talks about the stunt sociological poker experiment, the benefits of anonymity, and how players can change their live persona at the table over the years.
*CardPlayer goes embeddable!?! Great, now what’ll we bitch about? Nice!
Best pic of Phil in disguise here.
Amrendra says:
September 11th, 2008 at 5:51am
Thanks for such creative idea.
DanM says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:06am
I don’t get it … what’s the creative idea? Multi-accounting? Or wearing an old-man disguise?
Ed says:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:06am
Is something wrong with the video or just the time? It says 29 min but it stops around 17.
DanM says:
September 11th, 2008 at 11:15am
i think that’s just you, Ed. I had no problem watching the whole half-hour. in case it’s an embeddable vid problem, however (they are new to this after all), here’s the link to where it came from:
http://www.cardplayer.com/tv/33083
Poker Shrink says:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:14pm
Phil got a fair amount of crap from other pros for wearing the disguise. They took exactly the position that is was like multi-accounting.
DanM says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:11am
Maybe that’s the issue — you can play big-time public poker where you are you without a doubt, or you can play in a slightly more private “underground” environment where such things like “identity” are less certain?
Ed says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:50am
Phil Laak did not do the multi account cheat. To do that he would have needed to clone himself and then dress his clone up in a disguise and play in the same event.
I see nothing wrong with hiding who you are.
DanM says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:52am
***I see nothing wrong with hiding who you are.***
Do you mean live or online or both?
(btw, were you able to get the whole video to play?)
Marvin C says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:31am
There is a difference between live and online. Generally it doesn’t take very long to know who you are playing live; either something will be said or someone will tell you. Plus it’s impossible for the live player to play multiple hands or have multiple players playing the same hand.
This isn’t true online. There are many pros that aren’t as famous as the ones we all see on TV who are smart enough to not disclose their online name. The problem with multiple online accounts is the fear that they are playing in the same game. If you believe it doesn’t happen, you believe Pete Rose didn’t bet on the Reds.
The other problem is that you don’t really know who is using the online name. At every local DFW club that I played in before the law and bandits made it unsafe; those that ran them had an online game going most of the time either before or during the live action. It was not uncommon for several players to advise the “Single” online player; although half would say to raise and the other half would say to fold. It also wasn’;t uncommon for someone else to sit in if the original player went for food or had to deal while the dealer took a break at the tables. At least in a live game, when someone sits in to play someone else’s chips, we can see who the new player is.
DanM says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:37am
***The problem with multiple online accounts is the fear that they are playing in the same game.***
I do believe you on this … but tend to think that making it against the rules to have multiple online counts is kinda like gun laws … where the good guys will (mostly) follow the rules, but the bad guys won’t. Playing multiple accounts in the same game is definitely wrong — but I’m not so sure that the multiple accounts themselves are wrong until you cross that line.
When you talk about the collective online play you saw in various poker rooms … do you think that is wrong? Because indeed I have seen that before, and to some extent have taken part in it.
But that does bring up one interesting comparison: I often felt like I was at a disadvantage in some live games until I eventually figured out on my own that certain people were house players, or playing with house money.
Marvin C says:
September 12th, 2008 at 12:47pm
To Dan M:
I agree with everything you say. We are all at a disadvantage the first time we play with players we don’t know, especially if everyone else at the table knows everyone else. When I sit down for the first time and the other players don’t know me, they don’t know if I am tight or loose.
People who want to cheat will always figure a way around the rules. And yes, the no multiple account rule only effects theose that don’t want to cheat.
There is no real solution.