Brian Hastings

[arbboy]

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.

 

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.

[Honeybadger]

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.

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

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.

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.

[GreekStein]

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.

 

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.

That's because you're...

a) trolling.

b) unintelligent.

You choose.

[Marky147]

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

It was e/w paying 4 places

[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.

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.

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?

[GreekStein]

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.

[Honeybadger]

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.

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.

[GreekStein]

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.

[tikay]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[doubleup]

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.

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?

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.

  
 

[tikay]

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.

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?

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.

[rfgqqabc]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[arbboy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Woodsey]

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.

[atdc21]

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.