Posts Tagged ‘multi-accounting’

The Micros, Episode 2

by , Jan 24, 2011 | 5:08 pm

JimmyLegs and Rosenkrantz deliver again with the new episode of The Micros. The three main characters (don’t remember their names yet — the one dude, the other guy, and lego chick …) are enjoying the fruits of one dude’s binking a Sunday Mill. But with a bigger online bankroll come new levels of trouble …

Eli Elezra Semi-admits Multiaccounting on Full Tilt

by , Oct 23, 2008 | 5:30 pm

What starts out as background talk between Eli Elezra and Patrik Antonius during the Poker After Dark cash game last week ends up getting Howard Lederer’s panties in a severe wad … not just when Antonius extols the greatness of being able to play online anonymously, but even more uncomfortably when Elezra (wearing a Full Tilt patch) confesses: “I have 17 accounts on Full Tilt.”

About 2:10 is where the relevant discourse starts:

Seriously, this is such an issue that online poker will eventually have to deal with in some way. Get the feeling if one of the online rooms launched a multi-accounting crackdown, they might lose half their players/avatars? It’s a rule the online sites have in place for the sake of security and game integrity, or at least as a component of legal disclaimer. And yet it’s counter-intuitive to one of the things that makes doing anything online, let alone poker — semi-anonymity — desirable.

The same issue is relevant at PokerStars … and for now, because both these operations, FTP and Stars, operate outside the (American) law*, the fates of players in violation of this unpopular rule — and the money in their accounts — is left to the discretion of an unregulated company, in an anything but an open forum.

* Not saying these are illegal businesses … just noting that they operate off-shore, and therefore fall outside American jurisdiction in most legal and business matters.

Will be curious to see if Elezra faces any sort of patch suspension for his “breakthrough” during poker therapy. Lederer has been super-diligent about protecting the integrity of “Play with the Pros” ever since Phil Hellmuth got called out for letting an amateur friend play as “Phil Hellmuth” on UB. But then again, perhaps Elezra has a solid defense: “just kidding … trying to put Howard on tilt in a cash game setting.”

Also curious if we’ll ever see the likes of Justin Bonomo consulting online sites the way reformed shoplifters get hired to advise retail corps on how to limit their losses from grift.

Link props: Wicked Chops

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.

[Name Deleted] Proves NL 2-7 Single-Draw/WCOOP Prowess

by , Sep 17, 2008 | 5:11 am

click to enlarge

Well whaddya know … Pokerati fave [name deleted] still plays poker … and last night he (“luvgamble”) won WCOOP event #24: $530 NL 2-7 Single Draw. (Which really is the best psychology-based poker game of all.)

308 runners, 49 in the money. First Place paid a nice $42k … glad to see [name deleted] finally book a noticeable win in 2008, which will make me feel better taking a chunk of it in our presidential election wager.

The one unfortunate thing … [name deleted] always liked to play anonymously, and wouldn’t even tell me his PokerStars screen name for fear that I’d publicize it. But now, as it goes in poker because I have no conscience he actually won a semi-public event, I get to out him, and the “Shmonkey Shmomber” is stuck playing a Googleable screen name into perpetuity. Ha ha, er, I mean congrats!

Other notable money finishers with trackable screen names:

newhizzle – Mark Newhouse
Bill Chen – Bill Chen
GavinGriffin – Gavin Griffin
KidPoker – Daniel Negreanu
BeL0WaB0Ve – Kevin Saul

Meanwhile, here’s a moment of Zen from 10th-place finisher Bill Chen, speaking on “The Power of Acceptance”, and even the necessity of embracing plausible death:

RE: Brian Townsend Admits Multiaccounting (2)

by , 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.

RE: Brian Townsend Admits Multi-Accounting

by , Sep 2, 2008 | 12:31 pm

JKPrevo over at PokerWorks adds his two cents to the multi-accounting debate, which I find particularly valuable because he …

1) admits that he, too, is a multi-accounter (and unlike Townsend in ’08, a winning player!)

2) gives a great real-world example of how the letter of this online poker law doesn’t exactly add up with the spirit of it:

At the WSOP this year, Joe Sebok showed up with a full prosthetic makeup by a Hollywood professional. He looked older than me by a bunch and certainly didn’t appear as himself. There was some confusion at the time he took his seat and a private conversation with one of the TD’s people got him the seat. No multi-accounting there but it does demonstrate the deception available with such a setup.

Not to discredit Prevo, but he does have one factual inaccuracy (unless there’s something Jen’s not telling us?):

OK, I have insulted Jen – a good looking girl – married to an attractive but folliclely challenged fellow. Let’s get back to trashing Brian.

Umm … though California Jen and DanM do love to bicker, she’s already let me know that she’s not really into dudes who insist on multi-accounting, no matter how bald they get.

CORRECTION: Oops, it was Phil Laak, not Joe Sebok, who did the make up thing. (Thanks, Jen, for pointing that out.) I still think Prevo’s point about brick-and-mortar anonymity applies. Not so sure about my marriage and multi-accounting metaphor.

Brian Townsend Admits Multi-Accounting

What Is It About the Rule That Isn’t Clear?

by , Aug 29, 2008 | 3:43 pm

CardRunners and Full Tilt pro Brian Townsend admitted to multi-accounting on PokerStars and Full Tilt.

He wrote an admission and apology on his blog this week, noting that he had two accounts on PokerStars and two on Full Tilt (where he has a contractual obligation as a Full Tilt pro!). Full Tilt has suspended his “red pro” status for six months but didn’t seem to want to ban him from the site for clearly breaking the rules. PokerStars has not taken any action that has been made public. And to make up for his actions and show his remorse, Townsend is donating $25,000 to a charity and removed all but $100,000 in his online accounts. (If these actions evoke sympathy from anyone, please let me know.)

On one hand, Townsend did own up to his wrongdoings and apologize.

On the other hand, where to begin? Good-looking kid with everything going for him – great poker successes as a high-stakes player live and online, management gig at CardRunners, Full Tilt pro, fame, respect, good reputation – and he risked it all “because I enjoy anonymity when playing smaller and am very prideful in what I do.” He clearly sees what goes on in the online poker community and knows what happens to players caught multi-accounting. But instead of admitting to needing or wanting to move down in limits due to a recent downswing, he played under other accounts. I guess that risk didn’t pay off.

Is there something unclear about the multi-accounting rule on online poker sites? One account per player. You can play 40 games at once if you like, but use the same account. Simple, no? If you don’t agree with the rule, protest it and work for change. But for now, buck up and deal with it.