blonde poker forum

Saw some vitriol towards him on twitter etc and so googled to find out what he had done.

Turns out he was playing online from the USA using a VPN and someone else's pokerstars account.

It seems to me that this is not exactly the worst crime in the world. He was not multi-accounting in order to cheat (by having his opponents not know it was him), he was only doing it so that he could play some online tourneys whilst in the USA. And from what I gather he contacted as many of his opponents as he could to tell them it was him playing on the account.

What do you guys reckon? Was he really all that out of order/unethical? I realise ofc that by the letter of the law what he did was wrong, since it break the T&Cs etc. But it just does not seem that bad to me.

The account started off playing smaller stakes and played a lot worse. I thought it was a fish until a few days later I saw he'd 10xed the stakes and the games werent full anymore. Even if he didnt set out to cheat his opponents by hiding his name, the advantage he did from doing so was simply huge. The account played a bunch of plo against people who might not have played Hastings and he only contacted a few friends to tell them. David Baker who pointed it out had played thousands of hands with the account before being told it was Stinger. Berri Sweet posted 2 hands he would have almost certainly played very differently if he knew it was Hastings on the account, one where he 3bet bluffed a flop and one where he checked back a pretty slam dunk valuebet vs a reg. Stingers name change cost Berri probably 30k across those two pots and a pretty large amount in "ev" too if you'd rather not be results orientated.

Hastings has offered a bunch of his friends friends some equity back. I think this shows that he knows it was extremely unethical. I do kinda feel for him, and if he someone had got it out much wider in the community to the extent where he was just vpning I wouldn't particularly have a problem even though it is extremely harsh on the other american grinders that have had to significantly change their lifestyle to move out of the US to play on stars. He certainly exploited playing under a fresh account to get action. He even got to play isildur, a privilege the Hastings account probably doesn't enjoy too much.

http://calvinayre.com/2015/06/29/poker/brian-hastings-scandal-a-view-the-poker-world-doesnt-want-to-hear-by-obst/

The above link is the best summary/opinion I've seen.

****

If that was all he was doing (VPN), personally couldn't care less, but it appears muh more than that.
TBH, why the fuck would any new blood want to start playing poker. Pretty obvious there is a hell of a lot of very shady shit going on, what is still secret will no doubt be many times worse.

Even live is bad, when WSOP updates are stating that players on FTs are asking their rail for exact hand details in 30 mins time!

Okay fair enough, that does sound pretty shady then. I was under the impression after just a quick google search that all he had done was play some of the SCOOPs. If he has played loads of cash games using this different account then it is obviously very unethical - unless he told EVERYONE that he played against that it was him playing (in which case I have no problem with it), which he obviously did not.

Hi Stu,

Your OP had me gasping - "how can Stu be so wrong?" was my initial reaction - but it now appears you were not fully up to date, so that's fair enough.

And yes, he told SOME of his mates, who, please note, all said nothing. So the rest of us were getting screwed, unless we were amongst the elite clan.

And now he's offering to "refund some equity" (what that mean, what sort of clever form of words is that?) to those same mates. What about Billy No Mates though?

I've asked loads of people here in Vegas about the story. They mostly look down at the ground, afraid to make eye contact. It seems a whole bunch of people are doing the same thing.

This is eroding the very basis of Online Poker, & needs sorting.

Have PokerStars commented yet? They need to, they really do. As Mr H is such a prominent name, if 'Stars say nothing, & do nothing, they are effectively saying "it's fine guys, you can all, do it, off you go".

This sort of nonsense will soon destroy Online Poker at the higher limits.

Fortunately, the great bulk of players - 90% +? - are micro limit, & it does not happen much at that level, so it will be fine, & the smaller rooms who cater for small-ball players, & who have imaginative Promotions, & who disallow third party software, are seeing very significant y-o-y increases in revenue. No other sites are.  People need to be able to trust the Sites they play on.   

Care to mention any of these smaller sites?  ;whistle;

;D

There is another angle to this in that a lot of people had bracelet bets with Hastings this year - did he disclose that he had been playing (and crushing I understand) the big mixed games on Stars?

In addition it looks like a number of PS Team Pro must have known that Hastings was behind the NH account.  Did they have an obligation to report this knowledge to their superiors at Stars (without a doubt imo), and if they did and failed to do so what sanctions should they face for being complicit?

He should have to pay every cent back he won whilst playing under another account and if anyone won from him he put himself in a position to be negatively free rolled.

It's really bad imo.

It appears  lot of them knew all along, but, we have to assume, failed to mention it to 'Stars.

'Stars are in a horrible spot now, they really are. They need to act though.  For the record, I think 'Stars are amazingly good, but if they openly allow this sort of stuff, including the fact that their Pros knew all along, they'll run into strong headwinds soon.

Online Poker needs to grab this stuff by the scruff of the neck & sort it. I-Poker failed to act when they should have, & as a result their y-o-y revenue decline is staggering. Soon, there will just be 'Stars & a handful of small sites. That can't be good. 

He played 376 tournaments at abi of 369 this year for 138744 in buyins with 308874 in cashes. He seemed to be playing virtually every day and virtually every high stakes scoop. I'd estimate myself and my horses played well over 2k hands with him across the month, which isn't loads and loads but these were some of the biggest buyins we will play all year. If I hadn't have seen some of the cash games beforehand and didn't have a good idea of what was going on my reads would have been a lot as the account played some crazy hands in some of the smaller tournaments.

http://www.highstakesdb.com/profiles/pokerstars/NoelHayes.aspx

Plus any games that were untracked, I saw him playing 10/20 plo zoom and 40/80 8game etc. This was really dirty.

What is the difference between this and me sitting in vegas using a VPN and using my mate's Hills sports betting account to have £5k on Murray to win wimbledon as i don't want hills (my customer effectively) to know it is me betting with them because they will refuse to take the bet but they are happy to accommodate my friend on his account?  Why can't Hastings play on another account in order to get 'action' he might not get under his own name?   Whether it is good for the game long term is another argument.  As long as he is not doing anything underhanded ie collusion with other players at the table who he knows i really don't see what business it is of anyone else who is actually playing on any account.  

FWIW this has been going on for years and is impossible to police in reality.  I lost count of the amount of 'new' accounts the stt regs on Crypto/ongame/betfair back in the day had every other month with new names who were effectively the same person.  

I really don't see what the big deal is tbh.  Everyone knows this goes on.  Why are you not going as mad at pro punters (or even Tikay/Tighty on TFT) who effectively do the same thing to 'defraud' online gaming firms in order to get their bets on?   Is it because we are 'defrauding' betting companies with our actions rather than individual poker players.  The reality is the two things are identical.  

Nope.

On a network like Crypto, the opponents factor anonymity into their decisions. They expect to be facing unknowns most of the time because there is an awareness that multiple accounts are likely. 

On Pokerstars this is not allowed and at the high stakes where the player pools are small, every assumes that the person they are playing against is who their name says they are. Previous experience, personal reads and reputation play a much bigger factor in the decision making process.

At the low stakes on all sites, multi accounting doesnt make much of a difference because the player pools are so large. At the high stakes it makes a big difference.

You are not allowed to have two Hills accounts either in the same name.   All the bolded factors will also play a huge part of Hill's decision as to whether to take your action sports betting wise as well.  Two punters can ask for an identical bet and stake size and one will get it and the other one won't.  Therefore i will ask the question again are winning sports bettors (TK/tighty included) as bad as Hasting's by betting on other people's online hills account in order to get their bets on?

If you are not smart enough to cope at high stakes then don't play.  It is a brutal world and survival of the fittest will always rule.

I'm talking about the difference between playing poker on a network like crypto you mentioned and a standalone site like PokerStars. You comparison to whether a bookie takes your action is sounds like a good point I'm not disputing that.

We punt against the house, whereas we play poker against each other. These are not identical at all.

When you play any decent level of poker online you are virtually 99% likely to be playing the house in effect.  He is a professional operator in the same way as Hills are.

If arbboy really thinks there is no difference between the two scenarios I would strongly suggest that he desist multi-accounting on betting sites for the sake of his mortal soul.

There is a huge difference between multi-accounting at poker and "cheating" a bookie.

In poker you have accumulated knowledge of fellow poker players and then utilised that knowledge under a pseudonym so that your opponents are not aware of who you are and are at a disadvantage.
In multi-accounting betting you are not using any knowledge that is not freely available to any other punter. I suggest most people regard it merely as a levelling of the playing field.

I guess most punters consider that bookies denying them the right to bet is "immoral" and so they have a right to try to circumvent that rule.
If I were selling beetroot generally and refused to sell to a certain group of the population, I would be guilty of discrimination and would not be able to continue to sell my beetroot.
I suspect that some people feel the same about bookies.


P.S. I have never multi-accounted at either poker or betting sites.

Isn't it the case that multiing a bookie is depriving the bookie of information as to your skill level which has been obtained by 'playing' against you over a certain number of hands (bets..) and so it's actually irrelevant who you're playing against?

I fucking hate agreeing with arbboy ;) - but his logic (save the last post which I think gets to the 'right' conclusion for the 'wrong' reason) is troubling me here because I can't see obviously why it would be incorrect.

Edit: a word, and adding a smiley.

i sell beetroot every day, vacuum packed 4 for 90p.

however , if arbboy came into my shop i would not sell him any.

i would tell him to fuck off .

What if I came in to buy it on his behalf? ;)

I doubt he would try to purchase it from you. His wife/brother/dog/best friend/long lost uncle would be far more likely to visit your establishment.

The bookies may have accumulated that knowledge but you have not gained any information about them, so it's not the same at all.

we buy wholesale at market every friday.

during the week my boss tops up at tescos, rips the labels off and sells it at huge mark up.

arbboyled potatoes are the best in the business.

If I want £10 on Arsenal with Stan James, & they have closed my account, Marky or one of many others might well say "I have £20, you can have £10 of it".

That's not breaking any rules, nor does it seem to be unethical, to my mind.

Since bookmakers first came into being, people have been placing bets for others. I don't see anything improper, deceptive or unethical about it.

 

Why? There's still an informational asymmetry which is formed out of deception?

Like, if I play Pads heads up, he uses knowledge I don't have (he's BITB) and that's fine, but if all of a sudden I get Ivey to play for me then I'm using deception. Same principle when it comes to betting. Peter is using information bookies don't have (his knowledge and experience) to absolute howk them on Motorsport bets. In this situation Peter is Ivey. PeterIvey can't now get me to bet with Pads/Bookie because he's deceiving. Pads would never sit Ivey, and Bookie wouldn't lay Peter a bet.

Think that's entirely different as described. In this case Marky is just laying his own liability, which he's entitled to do. Nothing wrong with that.

Welcome back, arbboy.

Pretty funny

Since online poker first came into being, people have been playing on other people's accounts in order to get action they might not get on their own account. I don't see anything improper, deceptive or unethical about it.

Really good article, and makes some very important points on other issues too.


Yeah I definitely was not fully aware of what had happened. After reading this thread, and doing some more reading online about it - including the article linked above - it is clear that he went WAY further than just playing a couple of SCOOPs.

That's because you're...

a) trolling.

b) unintelligent.

You choose.

It was e/w paying 4 places ;)

The original asymmetry is that bookies accumulate knowledge about their customers over time. The customer does not gain any insight about the bookies that is not available to everyone else.

Anyway, they should sell their beetroot to everyone at the same price or not be able to sell it at all.
I'm sure that there is some law about the supply of goods and services that must apply. Where are the Blonde lawyers?

There are a few relevant things that have not been mentioned yet here about the situation.

- Hastings has made several big bracelet bets this year. Some people that have booked action were completely unaware of just how much practice he was having pre WSOP.

- Some of the people that did know he was playing on the NoelHayes account included 2 pros sponsored by pokerstars. They said and did nothing.

Well it is clearly deceptive. Whether it is improper or unethical is down to your own point of view on these things I guess. You make an interesting comparison with the punter vs bookies battle, which does make logical sense in many ways.

Since stuff like this is fairly subjective, I choose to see a person betting through someone else's William Hill account as okay by me since they are fighting the nasty, evil bookies who try to fuck everyone. Same with someone, say, being a card counter at Blackjack - it is not allowed by the casinos, but I consider it perfectly ethical since the card counter is battling the big nasty casinos. But this is my personal (biased!) way of seeing these things, and I respect yours even if I do not see it in the same way.

If he had lied to pokerstars and somehow convinced them he was in mexico whilst playing on his own account using a VPN I would say anyone who makes an issue of it is just being lame. In my eyes there's nothing wrong with that.

Have you read the 2+2 thread, Stu? It's a bit of a jaw dropper.

For the record, it is not against any rules to get someone else to place a bet with a bookie on my behalf.

It IS against the rules to have 2 accounts with a bookmaker for the purposes of deception.

It is also certainly against the rules, T & C's etc to multi-account on an Online Poker Site for the purposes of deception.

Apparently the bookie's price is an invitation to treat and not an binding offer, although in any other trade they would by now have been told that they should have a minimum bet that they must accept.  

The key difference in the bookie multi-accounting is that it is the bookie who is operating unethically by stealing information.  The multi-accounter simply wants a fair price for the information.  

Pokerstars has a rule against multi-accounting and anyone playing there has a right to expect that rule to be enforced.  The crypto sites had no rule against multi-accounting as you could use a different name for every skin.  There certainly was no expectation that a "new" player was actually new.

  
 

Amen. And that may be one reason why I-Poker traffic has fallen off a cliff in the last 12 months.

I was going to write a post but I think this sums it up perfectly for me.

I'm pretty sure arbboy does see it a lot more similarly to honeybadger than he is leading on, but it is an interesting argument.

I see it exactly like that.  The issue here is punters don't mind ironing out PLC casinos and bookmakers but they seem to have this huge moral ground when ironing out fellow poker players, most of whom are effectively businesses themselves.

Some of the arguments about friends knowing/prop bets etc are crazy.  WTF has it got to do with other people if they are privy to info that other's are not.  That happens in all walks of life.  I walked into a Hills shop last week and placed a bet with 2 friends both of whom knew my hills account is closed and no bets are accepted.  Are they supposed to 'fess up to the staff in the Hills shop not to take my bet because my online account is closed and Hills don't want to do business with me?  Or do they just stay quiet because it is nothing to do with them? 
If you are guessing and don't know the full circle of information and don't want to get had over don't have prop bets with people.  

I didn't go into Hills the other day before i placed Chompy's weather bet for July to be the hottest month and tell them the 5 day forecast says on the 1st of July next week it is going to be 34 degrees.  I just crack on and place the bet.  If they don't know that information it is not my place to inform them.

It's all bollocks anyway. How many people on here have had multiple accounts on I-poker on the various skins under different names? Really no different than several aliases on stars tbh....

Yeah rules blah blah, but really doing just the same thing.

I think a lot of people are confusing what they believe to be ok or not morally, and the actual rules of the site.
I cant see how there is any arguement, IF the rules state you cant multi account , then how clear can that be ?
I dont see what relevance the extra work he has put in re the prop bets are. adifferent scenario altogether, imo.

If people don't have a problem with what I said above regarding I-poker, then I don't really see a break of the MA rules on stars anything other than a minor misdemeanour, but yeah rulzzzzz is rulzzzzz innit lol.

Jeez Woodsey, I expect this sort of post from Arbboy, not you.

On ipoker, people can have many different accounts on different skins. It's within the parameters and that information is open to everyone. No-one is at a disadvantage.

On pokerstars, you are entitled to only one account. At the higher stakes especially where the player pool is smaller and everyone builds reads on one another based on the hands they play it's totally unfair for Brian Hastings or anyone else to exploit that by using a different account. How can you seemingly not get that? Hastings puts himself at a very unfair advantage and those he plays against at an unfair disadvantage.

Survival of the fittest argument is bollocks.

When we became civilized, survival of the fittest went out the window. What do you think it is that prevents big tough young blokes from punching you in the face and walking away with your dosh and your missus?

Apart from the poker ethics, you do realise that if some LEA decided that they had jurisdiction, the use of an Irish account and a vpn is a conspiracy to defraud pokerstars (tricking them into providing illegal unlicensed poker in the USA)  and the subsequent transfers were slam dunk money laundering?

I have a friend who pokerstars caught playing their own account through VPN from America shortly after Black Friday and stars confiscated all of their winnings over that time.

I know some people that are/were banned from pokerstars for multi-accounting.

I know of lots of people who had to leave behind their friends and family and move to another country to continue being professional poker players and I know people that were forced to stop being professional poker players because they couldn't/wouldn't leave their family behind and move to continue and now they're pursuing other avenues that may be less profitable/fun/harder work etc

If stars don't take action here then it's a slap in the face to all of those players who have been punished for breaking the rules and knowing how it personally affected all of them I don't see why Hastings should get away with it because he is more high profile. Stars should take back every penny he has won and ban him from their events and site for an appropriate amount of time.

I've heard for a while now that there is a big group of Americans VPN'ing from America under new accounts. I think it's part of a new service that provides the setup and the account. It should be obvious in most cases, like the top American MTT grinders that aren't around anymore. They're not just suddenly quitting poker and not playing anymore. Hopefully this will highlight that to stars and try to go after the players doing that. From my point of view.

Why do you want Stars to go after players VPN'ing to play poker?

I personally have no real issues with people VPN'ing to play poker from the USA. Refusing to accept a stupid and unfair law that was passed in an underhand manner by the US government does not seem a particularly bad crime to me, even if it is officially against Pokerstars T&Cs. Provided they are playing using their own accounts it seems reasonable to me.

I guess one 'selfish' reason why players would like Stars to take action to stop this is because players using VPNs make the games tougher - it's not like your average recreational player is going to ever do this - pretty much every player using a VPN is going to be a good player.

As Boba Fett says, a less self-serving reason would be that it is unfair on those who have had to relocate to continue to play. Why should A, B and C have to move to Canada away from their families and friends in order to play but X, Y and Z just think "screw that, I am going to stay here and play illicitly through a VPN".

Also, guys from the USA playing via a VPN are dodging taxes/money laundering or whatever. Although this seems a bit pedantic in some ways.

I'd be utterly fascinated in watching a short documentry detailing the trace of dollars, the bits inbetween Stinger88>NoelHayes<Stinger88

One things for certain. If your an American who'd prefer to play from home, there doesn't seem to be a lot stopping you.

The IreAbu link makes so much sense too.

Stars big promotion at the moment is to get state legislators to legalise online poker, (mainly so states can get loads in tax) the states would be very unhappy if Stars were seen to be soft on VPN's which would allow players pretend to be out of state and therefore pay no taxes. Stars will want to be seen to be doing something in high profile cases.

I get all of that, but as a player, I don't have any gripe with players who have had their playing rights removed, trying to get around the issue.
The multi accounting side of it adds a complication. But if the main reason for creating a new account is to get back into the games, then I'm not that offended by that either.

What did Stars with the money they confiscated from your friend?

How was he caught?

Hmm I had my account banned from Jul-Nov after playing on a VPN in USA in 2011 (wanted to practice O8 before the O8 event and my VPN DC'd midway through). They didn't take any money (I lost in the 100 odd hands I played). Interestingly, after France legalised poker (sometime 2010 I think) I played a month on a VPN from France (holiday) because I couldn't figure out why my account wouldn't work and someone suggested I try that. Worked fine and got no ban. Lost money that month too. This was pre-black Friday.

If your VPN disconnects, does it reveal where you really are?

I had my account frozen for nearly a week, because I was playing from my hotel in England, the proxy server somehow showed me in the USA for a while.

Didn't understand it, but emailed my hotel bill and they re instated my account.

Pratyush
Pratyush –  ‏@pratyushbuddiga

Ivey snap goes "Alright Noel" the first hand Hastings raises hahaha
2:04 pm - 28 Jun 2015
93 RETWEETS306 FAVOURITESI'm

Yes - I think you can prevent it if you are really strong on the tech side, but your average bod just going through a setup wizard won't set it up properly.

It was more that the VPN service I used was unreliable than me setting it up poorly I think. Interestingly, while I was banned from Stars I had some of the best months I've had online grinding out the dailies on the other sites. Also, I wasn't banned from Stars.FR at the time, just .com lol

if you want to be a successful internet poker player nowadays then spotting MA'ing is a skill you need, either spotting it yourself or have a network good enough to keep you informed. IF you don't have such skills then that's going to cut into your winrate, this is the same as having a very unbalanced turn c/r range...

The one good thing about MA'ing is, except in a few specific situations it doesn't really damage the recreational player pools too hard (although a negative impact on any side of the economy is sure to have a negative impact on all other sides in some form) I used to think it was the scummiest thing possible, alongside masturbating in a shared shower and stealing from the homeless, now I just see it as part of poker, some people chose to do it and some people don't. I don't think people necessarily should do it as it's against the rules, but I'm neither surprised nor horrified when someone does, those with the righteous, hard done by attitude "I always play it straight, its so unfair I am victim of this deception" are just unrealistic, naive and if they are a professional gambler just frankly poor at their job. This is part of the world you live in now, you will never stop it, so adapt and move with it.

Herein lies the irony on all these "cheating" scandals, the outrage is always hugely hypocritical and it depends entirely on who the victim is, if it's an individual person or group of individual people who are affected then its outrage, 2+2 threads, tirades of abuse and so on, if it's a big organisation then it's pat on the back well done you for beating the system.

I have probably used over 30 betting accounts in other names than myself to place bets that my accounts would not be allowed, this is no different to what Brian Hastings did, and we all know I'm no fan of BH so I would have little to no desire to defend him.

Pokerstars really really need to allow changes of SN's, then the problem is cut significantly, the "integrity" of the games everyone on 2+2 is so determined to protect just does not exist, all this mythical integrity does is play into the hands of the deceivers as those that are determined to uphold it leave themselves the most venerable.

I always find it funny that people have such rigid morals, that bend entirely on the basis of the rules that are broken and the people they affect. For any "cheating" to get any recognition it has to either i) be for big money, or ii) affect individual pro's.  

So yeah, Brian Hastings broke the rules, but I don't even think this should be newsworthy at all, and I personally consider it not a big deal.

but I do think he was without a doubt doing it to deceive his opponents, this "I just wanted to play and didnt want to get my account banned" stuff is absolute bollocks.

If he did it to decieve his opponents, why did he tell anyone he was behind the account?

And also, why Noel Hayes? Hayes is a pretty big name in Irish poker/gambling.

Is it Noel's account?

it's pretty clear he picked somebody known as a sport bettor. Then apprently he played fishy at the start at the high stakes.

Looks very much like he was trying to look like a sport bettor taking a punt on higher stakes to get action. The whole thing is pretty scummy to be honest.

In the 2+2 thread a guy playing him showed hands where he lost a ton of money (was about 30k in PLO) where he didn't value bet river because it was a unknown whereas versus hastings he would bet every time

What makes it worse is a bunch of his HS pro's including some team stars pro's knew about this. Seems very dodgy to endorse a site but have your mates breaking the T&Cs

Also a interesting article by James obst on the matter

http://calvinayre.com/2015/06/29/poker/brian-hastings-scandal-a-view-the-poker-world-doesnt-want-to-hear-by-obst/

This is the bit i don't get.  If he keeps quiet (which, apart from ego, he has no reason at all to say a word) and the other guy keeps quiet (which should be easy as i assume he will be getting paid nicely just to let his account be used) then it is pretty impossible to ever prove that it is going on imo.  I would be amazed if the vast majority of high stakes guys haven't played on other accounts to get better quality action but have just kept it to themselves and it has never been found out.  Just like the vast majority of pro sports bettors have 'beards' who put bets on for them with firms so they can get better quality, higher margin action for bigger stakes.  They throw in some 'muggy' action at the start of the new account to come across as a 'loser' in order for the account to stay open longer.

Zero repercussions for Hayestings yet. No beating, no stars ban, no IRS investigation. Nothing.

Popcorn.gif for the fallout

did you set it up like this lol

http://web.archive.org/web/20140203012435/http://cranthetrader.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/dont-allow-non-vpn-traffic.html

I think this is completely different to what he did.

I work in the industry and have been on both sides of shadow accounts. Why is it different? It is still deception to get a bet that wouldn't necessarily be given if I knew who you were. Same as not sitting next to Hastings but happy to sit next to Hayes.

he told a very small fraction of the people, in the event of Bakes at the scoop final he apparently told his friend to tell him, this friend messaged bakes and told him a well known pro was behind the NH account and he would tell him in ex for a %, I'm sure loads and loads of people who both know and have long history with him could show you lots of  play and zero attempt to reveal.

Anyways, yada yada yada more multi-accounting like I say Idk why anyone thinks this is remotely surprising, so many people multi-accounting, lets talk about the guys who aren't...

And yes, it was NH's genuine PS account, which apparently he bought form him. I don't really know though this all hearsay

Has Noel Hayes got any heat over this?

Pretty disappointed he would be involved in a coup like this tbh.

Happy to do a swop for any high stakes pros.  My stars account for your Lads/Hills/365 betting accounts!  Happy to take any heat and bad pr as well.

 ;D

Why do we need to talk about those that aren't?  Why do you think those that aren't multi accounting are frankly poor at their jobs?  

Yeah I mean I get the point and I don't have a reasonable or rational argument. Just fuck bookies is all :D

Do bookies formally ban many?  They normally give me refer to trader messages and cut down stakes, but never tell me I am actually banned. 

I had 4 bets on horse races averaging £250 each lol

Hills refer me to a trader then hold the price for 6 hours too. Bookies bring it on themselves and somewhat expect it, and don't ban it in T&Cs. Stars do, and players on their site have a reasonable expectation that people aren't MAing.

Yes i have had VC, lolbrokes and several other firms accounts all formally closed/log in cut off by the firms and email sent saying bets will no longer by accepted of any stake and no phone bets accepted/wanted.  The vast majority just cut you to 1% but several have officially 100% closed accounts so you can't even log in and use the poker/casino which is quite stupid.  That is the main reason why 365/sky/paddy cut you to pennies but don't close you totally.

Yeah VC are the worst. I have had 3 accounts closed, and all three have been closed after my FIRST BET lol! And each time before the race had even run! They said they would honour the bet each time though... and all three bets lost lol. The first one was sort of fair enough because I was naive and made a pretty big bet. But the other two my bets were both only £100. I bet from an ipad using 3G on the second two accounts so it is not like they were tracking my IP address or PC or anything and could tell it was the same person.

Such a shame VC are the worst for shutting accounts down.

I think they have the best site by quite some distance, it is really well designed.

I understand your argument haha.

i dont think we should talk about them, I just think it would be quicker.

Every scoop/wcoop/HS game and even the regular old sunday million has so much MA'ing that there is little to no reason as far as I can tell to get wound up about it, im way more surprised BH told anyone it was him/got caught than the fact he was MA'ing.

Pokerstars have made it known that they will be banning many of their currently acceptable third party software aids.


PokerStars Increases Restrictions On Third-Party Software
A strategic review of programs which give players an unfair advantage will lead to greater restrictions in the future, PokerStars warns.

“I want to make completely clear that we are headed firmly toward further restrictions on 3rd party software in the future.”

Coincidentally, Full Tilt yesterday announced they will be adjusting their Business Model to focus more on recreational players in future. However, they might well have phrased their plans in a less clumsy manner;


“Whilst in the last six months we've taken baby steps towards a recreational direction, these will be giant leaps to much more significant changes”

"Full Tilt Upping Rake to Fund New Features for Rec Players"

Evil Pie's thread on here was brilliant.  His first time at sports betting, and he was struggling to get through the requirement to trigger his bonus.

He certainly managed to trigger mine  ;snoopy'sguns;