Overzealous security spoiling the game?

[AdamL]

I recently found out that the Party/Empire/etc. poker group has an interesting policy which to me, seems overzealous, but I thought I'd post and see what you guys think.

My wife and I are close friends with another poker player and enjoy playing with him online and live frequently as a way to keep in touch and socialize. The social friendly side of poker has always been a central part of the game for me. The human element is what makes the game entertaining to watch, live or on tv, and to play.

Well, recently we were over visiting him. He had to prepare to head out so we got on his machine, logged on and played a few rounds while we waited.

When we got home, we found out we can never play at the same table anymore. Apparently, you get an automatic "association" in your accounts. I emailed and found out the policy goes futher:

Any kind of association between players is grounds to ban them from playing together. If you obviously know one another, and they find out, that's it for you. (They still let you form a private table or play in multi-table tournaments.)

"This is simply a standard security restriction that applies to all of our players. It does not imply any suspicion on our end regarding the activity of your accounts on our card room."

"Associations are links that our system has identified between two or more players who know each other."

In sum: You aren't allowed to play with people you know. All gaming must be with complete strangers.

Seems overzealous. I don't think it will help the game, I don't want purely social players being told they can only play with anonymous opponents from now on. I know they'll just cash-out.

[AncientPC]

It's one of their methods for detecting collusion.

[radek2166]

Its great for the game

[Overdrive]

No, I do not think this is overzealous. I think they are right to do this, and they should do it more and be even more strict if possible.

[GrannyMae]

I know they'll just cash-out.

i would rather them cashout if they have shown that they have logged on from the same PC.

there is nothing in the rules that says friends can't play on same table (though i wish there were), so nobody is stopping the social aspect you speak of. they are just drawing the line and saying that if you guys have a history of sharing computers, they don't want you at the same table together because you are a higher risk for sharing cards.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's one of their methods for detecting collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, don't get me wrong. They aren't accusing anybody of collusion. It's a preventative measure. They make it pretty clear this is not a collusion thing, it is designed to keep the games as anonymous as possible so as to both prevent that kind of thing, and to keep people comfortable.

I understand why that may be desirable on the one hand. But making it policy that you can only ever play strangers seems, well, dull.

It helps the money/grinding side, but really hurts the social side.

[Thythe]

They aren't accusing you in particular of collusion, but this policy is designed specifically to help stop collusion. It has nothing to do with making the games as annonymous as possible.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
there is nothing in the rules that says friends can't play on same table (though i wish there were), so nobody is stopping the social aspect you speak of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't have to be a same machine issue. Any number of things can create associate accounts. It was indicated to me via email that chat logs showing that you know one another were enough.

Anything that indicates you know one another, which could make another player uncomfortable, gets you on the associated ban thing.

I dunno guys.

I like the idea of tracking the machines, and if people are regularly playing from the same machine this is totally appropriate. But killing the past-time for friends on such wishy-washy grounds as statements of acknowledgement or a one-time machine association (especially in different parts of the province) seems to be overzealous.

[BlueBear]

I am very happy with their current policies where linked accounts can't play against one another another. It's not collusion that Party is worried about but also softplaying. Softplaying is a disease rampant in B&M games and I am happy that steps are taken by Party to curb the possibility of this happening.

And besides, to me, Internet poker is a very cruel and heartless game, many have lost their small fortunes there, I rather play hard against faceless strangers and feel more comfortable doing so.

[GrannyMae]

adam,
in a seriousness, a lot of the small sites have a very strong community feel to them. an example is delta poker (which is temporarily down), but there are others.

you guys should play party for business, and join one of these smaller sites where everyone really does treat it like a home game. it can be a ton of fun, and the site operators at smaller places usually take great care of you.

just play party for the 'real' thing.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
adam,
in a seriousness, a lot of the small sites have a very strong community feel to them. an example is delta poker (which is temporarily down), but there are others.

you guys should play party for business, and join one of these smaller sites where everyone really does treat it like a home game. it can be a ton of fun, and the site operators at smaller places usually take great care of you.

just play party for the 'real' thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like an excellent idea, thanks GrannyMae.

If you think of any other small community type poker sites please post the names.

[GrannyMae]

i was just headed out, and if others have not given suggestions by the time i return, i certainly will give you some names.

off the top of my head, i was going to suggest dynamite, but they have changed to http://live.checknraisepoker.com/

this may still be a great option for you guys and hopefully others will add some sites where the base all know each other within a week or so of joining.

best of luck

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
adam,
in a seriousness, a lot of the small sites have a very strong community feel to them. an example is delta poker (which is temporarily down), but there are others.

you guys should play party for business, and join one of these smaller sites where everyone really does treat it like a home game. it can be a ton of fun, and the site operators at smaller places usually take great care of you.

just play party for the 'real' thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I for one, found the Paradise community very friendly especially compared to the Party atmosphere. There aren't nearly as many table coaches or braggers, it's a lot of small talk at those tables.

[Joe Taylor]

I've found that at least in part, PokerRoom.com has a fairly decent community feeling to it. They seem to encourage it through their poker forums and the ability to create your own profile page that people can see right from the poker table (it opens a browser window). Not every table is friendly, but I've had some fun conversations there with people, and it is the only site that I play at with a friend of mine regularly. (I wouldn't even consider it at Party, because I know their policies.)

I do understand their policy, though, since unfortunately friends will often soft-play against each other. My friend started doing this a bit initially, but I corrected him the second he tried to start, explaining to him what he was doing, and he hasn't done it since. I don't mind softplaying in person at our home game, but not online.

[Voltron87]

Not being able to play against a close friend is not quite what I call "spoiling the game".


Having several players at my table colluding, cheating me and scaring recreational (losing) players away is what I call spoiling the game.