poker news
blondepedia
card room
tournament schedule
uk results
galleries
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
May 23, 2024, 06:03:48 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Search:
Advanced search
Order through Amazon and help blonde Poker
2272718
Posts in
66756
Topics by
16723
Members
Latest Member:
callpri
blonde poker forum
Poker Forums
The Rail
Brian Hastings
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
« previous
next »
Pages:
1
2
[
3
]
4
5
6
Author
Topic: Brian Hastings (Read 12426 times)
arbboy
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 13285
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #30 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:22:18 PM »
Quote from: tikay on June 29, 2015, 10:51:31 PM
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.
Logged
Honeybadger
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 1926
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #31 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:24:56 PM »
Quote from: rfgqqabc on June 29, 2015, 07:31:51 PM
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.
Quote from: tikay on June 29, 2015, 09:12:18 PM
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.
Logged
GreekStein
Hero Member
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 20912
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #32 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:28:11 PM »
Quote from: arbboy on June 29, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
Quote from: tikay on June 29, 2015, 10:51:31 PM
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.
Logged
@GreekStein on twitter.
Retired Policeman, Part time troll.
Marky147
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 22798
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #33 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:28:17 PM »
Quote from: nirvana on June 29, 2015, 11:14:39 PM
Quote from: tikay on June 29, 2015, 10:51:31 PM
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
Logged
Burning $$$ in Vegas 2021
http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=68840.0
MereNovice
Gamesmaster
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 9901
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #34 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:30:07 PM »
Quote from: mulhuzz on June 29, 2015, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: MereNovice on June 29, 2015, 10:46:25 PM
Quote from: mulhuzz on June 29, 2015, 10:42:28 PM
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?
Logged
Reigning Blonde Fantasy Ashes and Super League Champions
GreekStein
Hero Member
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 20912
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #35 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:34:26 PM »
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.
Logged
@GreekStein on twitter.
Retired Policeman, Part time troll.
Honeybadger
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 1926
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #36 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:35:20 PM »
Quote from: arbboy on June 29, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
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.
«
Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 11:37:44 PM by Honeybadger
»
Logged
GreekStein
Hero Member
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 20912
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #37 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:36:44 PM »
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.
Logged
@GreekStein on twitter.
Retired Policeman, Part time troll.
tikay
Administrator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: I am a geek!!
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #38 on:
June 29, 2015, 11:54:05 PM »
Quote from: Honeybadger on June 29, 2015, 11:24:56 PM
Quote from: rfgqqabc on June 29, 2015, 07:31:51 PM
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.
Quote from: tikay on June 29, 2015, 09:12:18 PM
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.
Logged
All details of the 2016 Vegas Staking Adventure can be found via this link -
http://bit.ly/1pdQZDY
(copyright Anthony James Kendall, 2016).
doubleup
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 7057
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #39 on:
June 30, 2015, 12:05:24 AM »
Quote from: MereNovice on June 29, 2015, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: mulhuzz on June 29, 2015, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: MereNovice on June 29, 2015, 10:46:25 PM
Quote from: mulhuzz on June 29, 2015, 10:42:28 PM
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.
Logged
tikay
Administrator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: I am a geek!!
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #40 on:
June 30, 2015, 12:09:38 AM »
Quote from: doubleup on June 30, 2015, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: MereNovice on June 29, 2015, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: mulhuzz on June 29, 2015, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: MereNovice on June 29, 2015, 10:46:25 PM
Quote from: mulhuzz on June 29, 2015, 10:42:28 PM
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.
Logged
All details of the 2016 Vegas Staking Adventure can be found via this link -
http://bit.ly/1pdQZDY
(copyright Anthony James Kendall, 2016).
rfgqqabc
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 5483
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #41 on:
June 30, 2015, 12:12:34 AM »
Quote from: GreekStein on June 29, 2015, 11:36:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Honeybadger on June 29, 2015, 11:35:20 PM
Quote from: arbboy on June 29, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
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.
Logged
[21:05:17] Andrew W: you wasted a non spelling mistakepost?
[21:11:08] Patrick Leonard: oll
arbboy
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 13285
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #42 on:
June 30, 2015, 12:20:16 AM »
Quote from: rfgqqabc on June 30, 2015, 12:12:34 AM
Quote from: GreekStein on June 29, 2015, 11:36:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Honeybadger on June 29, 2015, 11:35:20 PM
Quote from: arbboy on June 29, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
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.
«
Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 12:38:51 AM by arbboy
»
Logged
Woodsey
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 15846
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #43 on:
June 30, 2015, 12:41:58 AM »
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.
Logged
atdc21
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 1431
Re: Brian Hastings
«
Reply #44 on:
June 30, 2015, 12:48:27 AM »
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.
Logged
No point feeding a pig Truffles if he's happy eating shit.
Pages:
1
2
[
3
]
4
5
6
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Poker Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Rail
===> past blonde Bashes
===> Best of blonde
=> Diaries and Blogs
=> Live Tournament Updates
=> Live poker
===> Live Tournament Staking
=> Internet Poker
===> Online Tournament Staking
=> Poker Hand Analysis
===> Learning Centre
-----------------------------
Community Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Lounge
=> Betting Tips and Sport Discussion
Loading...