It's A Kidz game. Not.

[tikay]

A Dutch poker player by the onscreen name “zeurrr” has just received some gut wrenching news after his $518,402 winnings at PokerStars was withheld because he is just 17 years old.

According to PokerStars’ terms and conditions a player has to be at least 18 years old to play on the site, whereas “zeurrr” was only 17 when he lied about his age when applying for an account.

Dutch poker player ‘zeurrr’ won the incredible $518,402 sum after qualifying for the special 5th Anniversary Sunday Million tournament via a $2 satellite. He also had to overcome a massive field of  59,128 players before finishing in 6th place and agreeing to a 9-way deal with the remaining players.

However, after winning the life changing sum “zeurrr” must have suspected he would have to proceed cautiously for fear of being discovered and so apparently concocted a cover story with his father to protect the winnings.

Therefore, when a Netherlands newspaper reporter working for ‘Algemeen Dagblad’ called up Jimmy Jonker’s home looking for an interview, he was told by the boy’s 47-year old father Jos Jonker that it was he who was in fact the 6th place finisher in PokerStars Sunday Million tournament.

In addition, the father did not want to provide any details on his incredible win and so suspecting something was amiss, the reporter then did some extra digging.

On checking out Jimmy Jonker’s Twitter account, he then discovered various information had been altered including the name of the account to Jos Jonker. Also all the tweets had mysteriously disappeared, with the eventual outcome leading to a freeze on zeurrr’s PokerStars account.

Continuing the story, an extract from mpcpoker.com has confirmed the following news that:

“Pokerstars Holland Representative Simon Keijzer tells Dutch TV show Jimmy Jonker is registered as a 19-year old, while he is 17 years old at the moment. Keijzer declares that an under-aged shouldn’t have played the tournament and he will not be entitled to the prize money.”

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

[pleno1]

Of the 56,000 how many do you think were under 18?

How many do you think were playing on an account where the cashier said a different name?

[StuartHopkin]

Jimmy Jonkers!

Sigh, sure wouldnt be happy to punch the reporter in nose for him.

[MC]

How brutal for the kid!

[DaveShoelace]

How brutal for the kid!

Brutal my arse, serves him right for being young.

[tikay]

I should have acknowleged where this article arose - it was here.....

http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-news/general-poker-news/pokerstars-confiscates-500k-winnings-underage-dutch-player/9845

[ACE2M]

thanks mr reporter. what a tw*t. Surely wait until the money is trasfered then theres a better story.

[doubleup]

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

Don't see how they can do that.  There are complications over the final table chop/ did he play any other games/ tournies etc. 

I'd like to know what stars standard procedure is for this situation.  I'd guess that they just keep the money.

[DaveShoelace]

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

Don't see how they can do that.  There are complications over the final table chop/ did he play any other games/ tournies etc.  

I'd like to know what stars standard procedure is for this situation.  I'd guess that they just keep the money.

They'll just redistribute it amongst the final 8 players, as per the standard payout structure based on finishing positions, pretty straightforward, its happened before in a few high profile sunday majors/WCOOPs

[paulhouk03]

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

Don't see how they can do that.  There are complications over the final table chop/ did he play any other games/ tournies etc.  

I'd like to know what stars standard procedure is for this situation.  I'd guess that they just keep the money.

They'll just redistribute it amongst the final 8 players, as per the standard payout structure based on finishing positions, pretty straightforward, its happened before in a few high profile sunday majors/WCOOPs

can you tell me more pls?

[pokerfan]

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

Don't see how they can do that.  There are complications over the final table chop/ did he play any other games/ tournies etc.  

I'd like to know what stars standard procedure is for this situation.  I'd guess that they just keep the money.

They'll just redistribute it amongst the final 8 players, as per the standard payout structure based on finishing positions, pretty straightforward, its happened before in a few high profile sunday majors/WCOOPs

can you tell me more pls?

The Teltcher jobbie.

[DaveShoelace]

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

Don't see how they can do that.  There are complications over the final table chop/ did he play any other games/ tournies etc.  

I'd like to know what stars standard procedure is for this situation.  I'd guess that they just keep the money.

They'll just redistribute it amongst the final 8 players, as per the standard payout structure based on finishing positions, pretty straightforward, its happened before in a few high profile sunday majors/WCOOPs

can you tell me more pls?

Off the top of my head there was the WCOOP main event where Mark Teltchsers 'sister' got caught, cant remember whether a deal was done however. Cant remember any other specific ones but it has happened because Ive discussed this before on the subject of deals in stars events.

[doubleup]

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

Don't see how they can do that.  There are complications over the final table chop/ did he play any other games/ tournies etc.  

I'd like to know what stars standard procedure is for this situation.  I'd guess that they just keep the money.

They'll just redistribute it amongst the final 8 players, as per the standard payout structure based on finishing positions, pretty straightforward, its happened before in a few high profile sunday majors/WCOOPs

Thats different the disqualification was based on suspect behaviour leading to an advantage in the tournament in question.  Underage players play cash/sitngos, if they get caught, do stars redistribute funds to opponents?  If they do ok, but I suspect they don't.  So they have to be consistent in their policy.  

[DaveShoelace]

Ironically, zeurrr’s loss looks set to become the other players gains, who will now likely receive a share of his redistributed winnings.

Don't see how they can do that.  There are complications over the final table chop/ did he play any other games/ tournies etc.  

I'd like to know what stars standard procedure is for this situation.  I'd guess that they just keep the money.

They'll just redistribute it amongst the final 8 players, as per the standard payout structure based on finishing positions, pretty straightforward, its happened before in a few high profile sunday majors/WCOOPs

Thats different the disqualification was based on suspect behaviour leading to an advantage in the tournament in question.  Underage players play cash/sitngos, if they get caught, do stars redistribute funds to opponents?  If they do ok, but I suspect they don't.  So they have to be consistent in their policy.  

Of course they do, stars always redistribute prize pools in the same way when someone is booted out, why do you think its different here?

[doubleup]

Of course they do, stars always redistribute prize pools in the same way when someone is booted out, why do you think its different here?

you don't seem to understand my point.  There are presumably a significant amount of underage players on stars.  Some playing cash, some playing many small tournaments/sitngoes.  If stars find out someone is underage, do they review every tournament played, every cash hand, every sitngo and reimburse accordingly?