Brian Hastings

[DaveShoelace]

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.

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 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. 

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.

[tikay]

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.

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.  

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

[arbboy]

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.

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.  

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.

[MereNovice]

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.

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 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. 

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.

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.

[mulhuzz]

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.

[bagel]

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 .

[mulhuzz]

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?

[MereNovice]

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 .

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.

[MereNovice]

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.

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

[bagel]

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.

[tikay]

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.

 

[mulhuzz]

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.

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

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.

[mulhuzz]

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.

 

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.

[Tal]

Welcome back, arbboy.

[nirvana]

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.

 

Pretty funny