Sorel Mizzi (Temporarily) booted from PokerStars

by , Oct 22, 2008 | 2:03 pm

Another issue of multi-accounting — not in a collusive way, but simply having multiple accounts and/or letting someone else play on it … initial suspension was for 6 months … but Imper1um appealed to the PokerStars judiciary and got his sentence reduced to 3 months.

6 Comments to “Sorel Mizzi (Temporarily) booted from PokerStars”

  1. TheUKShark

    I was impressed by the way in which PokerStars dealt with the V0id issue, much less so in this case.

    His reasons for allowing someone else to play his account, he claims is that “he needed to catch a plane from Barcelona to London”, like that is some sort of justification. It’s like saying “I was too busy, so I let my friend finish the game” or “I was too tired.”

    I’m sorry but if you can’t last the course, don’t play the game.If you have to leave, tough luck you get blinded out.

    It’s morally wrong and wouldn’t take place in a live casino. I understand the difficulties of enforcing this online and realise that it goes on at all levels of the game, but this doesn’t mean that we should accept it.

    In this case Mizzi has been caught out and recieved what I feel is too lenient a punishment, particularly given the fact he was barred from Full Tilt for doing the exact same thing.

    He obviously did not learn his lesson and is willing to cheat his fellow poker players at any opportunity and PokerStars have failed in their duty to protect their members by affording him such leniency.

  2. Bill Moos

    So, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the multi-user stuff — help me please.. This is prohibited on Poker Stars (along with other sites). Poker Players are people who play a game that has fixed rules (ie. a full house beats a flush). Yet, certain players will accept the rules of the game (what do you mean, your trip q’s beat my straight?), but refuse to accept the rules that govern the playing of the game?? And when are caught, are able to argue a lesser penalty?? WTF?

  3. jason

    ur not very bright are you? the two instances were totally different, this instance sorel let his friend take over the beginning of the tourney , last instance it was sorel taking over at the end for a les experienced player

  4. TheUKShark

    I think you will find the opposite to both those actions is to not break the rules at all! The only difference is Sorel’s role in breaching the rules the vast proportion of players abide by.

    Mizzi is fully aware that allowing someone to play on his account or playing on someone else’s is an infingement on the rules and yet he continues to carry out such actions.

    “Totally different”…and I’m not bright!

  5. seve

    @uksharks – Really it comes as a bit of a cheek of you propounding harsher punishments for afringments of rules. It was not so long ago that you affiliate site was selling text links (a clear violation of a certain search engine policies.

    To my mind, Sorel´s latest infringment, although perhaps a little silly, does prove how much he loves the game – being prepared to risk losing a tournament with someone else playing and still happy to play after his flight home.

    People are so quick to judge and only the truly virtuous can take the higher moral ground.

    It seems breaking Google rules is fine for you as long as it is for your own gain!

    And if you were truly a moral crusader you would not promote Sorel´s sponsor Betfair on your site.

  6. TheUKShark

    My affiliate site selling links? Are you getting me confused with someone else? We have never sold any links! Please elaborte or retract!

    We have affiliate banners like any other similar site would and yes this includes Betfair. I try to ensure that all articles displayed on the UK Sharks news portal are balanced and unbiased to reflect our values.

    I am however entitled to a personal view, which is what I have expressed both here and elsewhere.

    I haven’t at any point questioned the integrity of Betfair, merely the punishment handed down for an infingement of the rules which I feel should have been more substanstial.

    Just because you may disagree with my views, please don’t call into question my moral integrity.