Guy brags about having 3 accounts at Poker Stars

[esknights]

Sitting at a table today and a couple of players start talking and the one says he signed up for 3 accounts on three different computers and currently uses all 3 on Poker Stars.

I thought Stars was pretty good about preventing that sort of thing.
I guess he could have set up 2 extras for his "mom" and "sister" and then it would be pretty hard to detect.

Thoughts?

[Guthrie]

I think I'd drop a dime on him.

I would definitely drop a dime on him.

[Pokeraddict]

Yeah Stars would be happy ot hear about this, maybe get a reward too if its true? They will have his chat records I am sure.

I have 3 Stars accounts and 6(!) PP accounts, doesn't mean I'm cheating.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I have 3 Stars accounts and 6(!) PP accounts, doesn't mean I'm cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're cheating the poker companies if you’re collecting all the bonuses. I don't care about you cheating PP, but Stars is run by decent human beings so cheating them is wrong.

[emonrad87]

You're retarded.

[daryn]

i heard from someone that pokerstars is actually OK with people having multiple accounts.. is this true pokerstars?

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'd drop a dime on him.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would definitely drop a dime on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in for the last fifteen cents so we can actually make a phone call.

[FlFishOn]

"I don't care about you cheating PP, but Stars is run by decent human beings so cheating them is wrong. "

Can moral relativism have reached such a pinacle? What twisted logic went into this above sentence?

[Sciolist]

Isn't that like arguing that a man who steals food to save his starving children is as bad as a man who steals food to sell on and buy puppies to drown?

Is it a good plan I didn't apply for any logic courses?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I'd drop a dime on him.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would definitely drop a dime on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in for the last fifteen cents so we can actually make a phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol nice

[ QUOTE ]
You're retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not. It's not for bonus whoring, I don't even do bonii. I just don't like to keep my money in banks.

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't like to keep my money in banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You're retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MelchyBeau]

pokerstars keeps your money in a bank.

Melch

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not. It's not for bonus whoring, I don't even do bonii. I just don't like to keep my money in banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This gets my vote for post of the year.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not. It's not for bonus whoring, I don't even do bonii. I just don't like to keep my money in banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, you're not retarded. You're clinically braindead.

[KINGOFINLAND]

Asked from the a while back if I could change my alias got this response:

Hello Axxx,

When you opened your PokerStars account, there was a message in the
dialog box stating the User ID would be displayed each time you play,
and cannot be changed once selected. Even though I understand your
reasons, to be fair to all players, we must enforce that rule equally for
everybody. I am sorry that we cannot accommodate your request.

If there is anything else I can help you with, please do not hesitate
to contact us.

Regards,

Matt
PokerStars Support Team



I have as well heard of some players who have several accounts at pokerstars, but they play high and do not whore the bonuses.

[octop]

Pokerstars made me change my screenname because the deemed it to be offensive.

Let him be, but I wouldn't play at a table with the known alias.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't care about you cheating PP, but Stars is run by decent human beings so cheating them is wrong. "

Can moral relativism have reached such a pinacle? What twisted logic went into this above sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's morally wrong to do both, but <u>I</u> don't care about people cheating party because that site is run by incompetent, arrogant morons. Obviously it’s a greater injustice to cheat an honest person then it is to cheat a crook. This isn’t relativism.

[emonrad87]

I wouldn't say that the heads of Party are incompetant. They may not do things exactly how people in the US are accustomed to businesses being run, but they are hardly incompetant.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that the heads of Party are incompetant. They may not do things exactly how people in the US are accustomed to businesses being run, but they are hardly incompetant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter where you're from, their customer service is an embarrassment.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that the heads of Party are incompetant. They may not do things exactly how people in the US are accustomed to businesses being run, but they are hardly incompetant.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I can see they are either trying to drive away high volume players, which seems petty dumb, or they don't understand that driving HV players away will result from some of the things they are doing. Also they're costumer support is just terrible. It's fair, IMO, to judge those running a business by those they hire to relate to their costumers.

if by driving away high volume players you mean driving away the high volume players from here, this is a good business move by Party. Do you see why?

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
if by driving away high volume players you mean driving away the high volume players from here, this is a good business move by Party. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]
I supposedly think it is a good for business? Or you don't think they are actually doing this?

If the latter, let's review some of their recent actions:
-killing Rakeback
-not even bothering to offer some high volume players that emailed them entry into the VIP club.
-Basically lying about how the VIP program works and then not making any offers for December
-They are about to eliminate datamining

Getting screwed pisses people off. High volume players usually make a lot from poker. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them, like me, decided to leave party for Stars even if it's a little -EV.

[ QUOTE ]
Getting screwed pisses people off. High volume players usually make a lot from poker. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them, like me, decided to leave party for Stars even if it's a little -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party doesn't care about high volume players, they care about recreational players. I don't think it would bother them much if the high volume players went elsewhere.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Getting screwed pisses people off. High volume players usually make a lot from poker. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them, like me, decided to leave party for Stars even if it's a little -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party doesn't care about high volume players, they care about recreational players. I don't think it would bother them much if the high volume players went elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Costs them money. It doesn't make business sense. It doesn't take that much effort or even intelligence to do enough to keep players that would rather play at your site playing there. The ring games at party are much better then anywhere else. If they had a VIP program like stars or allowed rakeback, I'd play there, but they'd rather not make that few thousand dollars a month in rake I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised if many of them, like me, decided to leave party for Stars even if it's a little -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good business move on Party's part. Do you not understand that it's in their best interest not to cater to you?

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised if many of them, like me, decided to leave party for Stars even if it's a little -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good business move on Party's part. Do you not understand that it's in their best interest not to cater to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't understand that some how. It would seem that you'd want as much rake as possible. I guess I'm just an idiot for not understanding Party's advanced strategy for making money.

Less sharks = noobs lose money slower = play longer. Noobs' relative skill level also goes up, which has a ripple effect of word-of-mouth advertising. Plus, Party knows that sharks are gonna play there anyway, why make accomodations that cost them money? It's true that Party employees are morons, but their business sense is almost so stupid it comes full circle to genius. They are really toeing the line where they make the most money without alienating old players. Party killing rakeback doesn't seem good to YOU, but it is fantastic for them.

[Kovner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Getting screwed pisses people off. High volume players usually make a lot from poker. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them, like me, decided to leave party for Stars even if it's a little -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party doesn't care about high volume players, they care about recreational players. I don't think it would bother them much if the high volume players went elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Costs them money. It doesn't make business sense. It doesn't take that much effort or even intelligence to do enough to keep players that would rather play at your site playing there. The ring games at party are much better then anywhere else. If they had a VIP program like stars or allowed rakeback, I'd play there, but they'd rather not make that few thousand dollars a month in rake I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring one key element of High Volume, profitable players: They take money out of the poker economy. If it was up to PP, no one would ever cash out and all the money that is deposited would eventually be raked.
So there's a tradeoff there between catering to HV players and casual players. Until you've seen PP's accounting statements and resulting analysis, you cannot make conclusive statements about the profitability of their decisions.

[excession]

But Party aren't catering to the casuals either as they offer obviously worse bonuses than most other sites.

They only got so big in the first place by offering the best bonuses.

Now they offer the worst bonuses for 1000 hand/month players and have removed rakeback and PT datamining for the 20k hand/month players.

Their numbers will drop off and once PS overtakes them as No.1 site (give it 3 months or so) their USP is gone too..and so will their share price

Once the nos. go the reason for playing there goes too..

They are being a bit too greedy and I'm not convinced that voluntarily giving up the No.1 slot for more profit/player isn;t going to come back to haunt them pretty fast

[2easy]

party only got so big by offering bonuses?

dont think so.

and if that WERE true, then you say that will make stars the leader.

and i can surely understand the logic behind that part of your argument, because stars has SUCH great bonuses compared to party...not!

and the dataming argument. yea sure, stars allows that, unlike party, so they'll overtake party for that reason? not sure that this is correct either.

and to your third point, yea party's eliminated rakeback,so how is this unlike stars?

think you've got some convoluted logic going here, and are basically a stars rah-rah guy.

not sayin that they wont overtake party SOMEDAY, but i dont think so

and one thing for certain in my mind, there's no way they'll overtake party as the #1 site in "3 months or so." i'll gladly cover any action on that, if you want to stand behind your prediction.

[Sciolist]

What was the ID? Octop seems fine to me.

[excession]

The Party and skins were always amongst the easiest to release bonuses on the net - that's how they overtook Paradise as the No. 1. Most other bonuses were 10x release, Party and skins had standard 7x (and sometimes 5x to release).

Why else - their great customer support? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As of right now Party has 47,662 online and Stars has 43,618.

Party have basically abolished (or is about to) the three reasons a lot of players would pick them over Stars - good bonuses (for casuals), rakeback (for semi-pros/pros) and datamining (for PT users).
Stars is launching a new VIP program that may well be better than what Party is offering in that regard.
And Stars has lower rake I think as they are 'no flop, no drop' and I don't think Party are (I could be wrong on that one).

Anyone else think 3 months for Party to lose No 1 slot is unrealistic?

As for being an apologist for Stars I actually hardly ever play Ring there - as my $1000 in outstanding bonuses will attest. Their bonus release is one of the worst around for sub $200 NL players and I played at Party, Prima, UB and Crypto mainly over the past 2 years..

I just think Party is blowing it - the markets certainly think so judging by how fast their share price has headed south..

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
sharks are gonna play there anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Getting screwed pisses people off. High volume players usually make a lot from poker. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them, like me, decided to leave party for Stars even if it's a little -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party doesn't care about high volume players, they care about recreational players. I don't think it would bother them much if the high volume players went elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Costs them money. It doesn't make business sense. It doesn't take that much effort or even intelligence to do enough to keep players that would rather play at your site playing there. The ring games at party are much better then anywhere else. If they had a VIP program like stars or allowed rakeback, I'd play there, but they'd rather not make that few thousand dollars a month in rake I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring one key element of High Volume, profitable players: They take money out of the poker economy. If it was up to PP, no one would ever cash out and all the money that is deposited would eventually be raked.
So there's a tradeoff there between catering to HV players and casual players. Until you've seen PP's accounting statements and resulting analysis, you cannot make conclusive statements about the profitability of their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I choose to judge them on what they put forward for me to see.

[ QUOTE ]
I choose to judge them on what they put forward for me to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is perfectly reasonable, but you have to understand that they are making the decisions based on what they see.

They do not care about high volume players for the exact reason mentioned above--high volume players take money out of their little economy. Low volume recreational players just shuffle it around and every time they do Party gets a cut.

And Party didn't get to be number 1 by offering bonuses, they got to be number 1 by having the most advertising on TV during the televised poker boom.

Make no mistake, Party isn't in it for the long haul. Three months might be a little quick for them to get knocked out of the top spot but sometime within the next year or three it's going to happen.

It's really simple, if your business plan is built for the long term you don't build it on crappy software and monumentally crappy customer service.

[Scotty O]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't like to keep my money in banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You're retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
The Party and skins were always amongst the easiest to release bonuses on the net - that's how they overtook Paradise as the No. 1

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong! They overtook them because of a good affiliate system and other marketing.

End of story.

[2easy]

[ QUOTE ]
The Party and skins were always amongst the easiest to release bonuses on the net - that's how they overtook

As of right now Party has 47,662 online and Stars has 43,618.

Party have basically abolished (or is about to) the three reasons a lot of players would pick them over Stars - good bonuses (for casuals), rakeback (for semi-pros/pros) and datamining (for PT users).

And Stars has lower rake I think as they are 'no flop, no drop' and I don't think Party are (I could be wrong on that one).

Anyone else think 3 months for Party to lose No 1 slot is unrealistic?

I just think Party is blowing it - the markets certainly think so judging by how fast their share price has headed south..

[/ QUOTE ]

as others have pointed out, party didnt get be #1 by bonus, but by marketing.

stars player count is grossly overstated as they get a lot of that count from microlimits, that party doesnt have.

and stars doesnt enable datamining, showing showdown hands, etc, without screenscraping aids.

and party is a no flop no drop, as are almost all sites.

im no apologist for party either, but found your arguments to be strange considering stars bonuses are worse, the dont do rakeback and their datamining stance is no different than party's.

but my offer to book any action on your predictions of stars overtaking party still stands.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I choose to judge them on what they put forward for me to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is perfectly reasonable, but you have to understand that they are making the decisions based on what they see.

They do not care about high volume players for the exact reason mentioned above--high volume players take money out of their little economy. Low volume recreational players just shuffle it around and every time they do Party gets a cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this would seem to refuted some of the things they have done. As I said, there are two options. They are trying to drive away HVP <u>or they are incompetent.</u> The latter seem much more likely. After all they tried to set up a VIP program and it sucked and was poorly planed.

[ QUOTE ]
And Party didn't get to be number 1 by offering bonuses, they got to be number 1 by having the most advertising on TV during the televised poker boom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone else said that not me. I don't know how they became number one.

[ QUOTE ]
Make no mistake, Party isn't in it for the long haul. Three months might be a little quick for them to get knocked out of the top spot but sometime within the next year or three it's going to happen.

It's really simple, if your business plan is built for the long term you don't build it on crappy software and monumentally crappy customer service.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're agreed here.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
showing showdown hands,

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're referring to them not showing mucked cards, then you're wrong. PA HUD picks them up from the HH's.

[ QUOTE ]
but found your arguments to be strange considering stars bonuses are worse,

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars bonuses are much more straightforward however. Party occasionally will not let you have some bonus for a seemingly random reason. Like you cashed out last week before the bonus was even announced.

[ QUOTE ]
the dont do rakeback and their datamining stance is no different than party's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but allowing something and then taking it away certainly feels worse to players then just saying "We don't do that here" like stars does. Stars is increasing the reasons to play at their site at the same time Party is decreasing the reasons to on theirs.

[ QUOTE ]
but my offer to book any action on your predictions of stars overtaking party still stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty much inevitable IMO. I doubt it will be in 3 months, but continually making poor business decisions will catch up with you. Also, we only see the public [censored] ups. If they're cutting corners in service, they are probably cutting corners else where.

[Emmitt2222]

I just wanted to say that at this moment the numbers are

Party - 53,500

Stars - 55,600

That's the first time I have ever, in the past 2 years, seen Stars overtake Party. I'm not sure if it's because of the new VIP program or what, but its very impressive. I still like Party for rakeback and ringgame play, yet at the same time I would rather pay rake to a site that has good customer service and seems to be run well. At the moment I'm still splitting my time, but before I never played Stars at all so they are doing things right at the same time Party is doing everything wrong.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to say that at this moment the numbers are

Party - 53,500

Stars - 55,600

[/ QUOTE ]

It's happened a few times before that I've heard about.

[ QUOTE ]
I still like Party for rakeback and ringgame play, yet at the same time I would rather pay rake to a site that has good customer service and seems to be run well.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least at the levels I play 3/6 6m and 5/10 6m the rake is lower. So that's a little rakeback right there. If you add that to the VIP program, I think you would get something at least competitive especially for people that plan on getting the supernova fast. Plus PP and RB is sketchy. You're affiliate could get canned and then you'd have to find another one and close your account ect... At Stars the stuff is guaranteed pretty much. Those are just some of the factors I've been thinking about trying to choose between stars and party.

[rabbitlover]

One word: Amen Brother
No, that's two!

Thats cuz stars counts play-money. They aren't overtaking. Not even close.

[Azizal]

I declare this thread to be "Conjecture Fest" '06. And it's not even '06 yet.

[DarkKnight]

While Stars player count may get &gt; PP's the game selection at low-mid stakes limit is absolute crap compared to PP. Right now there are like 5 3/6 tables at PP for every one at Stars.

That one fact alone is going to make it impossible for me to move from PP to Stars

[ghostface]

Post his sn so we can all e-mail Poker Stars and complain about him.

Frankly, I don't see why three separate players shouldn't be able to sign up from the same computer. My wife, sister and I all share the same HS internet connection. We all would like to play poker online, using our own accounts. The only way for us to do so is to create spearate accounts from differnet internet connections.

Even when we do that we run the risk of having our acounts frozen if Party decides that there is some sort of malfeasance afoot.

If one terminal is used to create several accounts there can still only be one player logged on to a site from that computer, at any given time....so what's the rumpus?

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
That one fact alone is going to make it impossible for me to move from PP to Stars

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes you practice better table and seat section. I agree that it would be hard to find 4 great tables at one limit certain times of the day. That's why I'm splitting time between 3/6 and 5/10.

u can create a second accoutn under tyour dads name and use your same credit card that u used on your character and it works, as logn as the last name is the same as on the visa it works out, stars dotn care as long as u dotn play the 2 guys on the same table, they get their rake money and no other player r harmed for it.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I don't see why three separate players shouldn't be able to sign up from the same computer. My wife, sister and I all share the same HS internet connection. We all would like to play poker online, using our own accounts. The only way for us to do so is to create spearate accounts from differnet internet connections.

Even when we do that we run the risk of having our acounts frozen if Party decides that there is some sort of malfeasance afoot.

If one terminal is used to create several accounts there can still only be one player logged on to a site from that computer, at any given time....so what's the rumpus?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, in fact have different accounts for different people on the same computer. It's multiple accounts for the same person that are the problem

[ QUOTE ]
party only got so big by offering bonuses?

dont think so.

and if that WERE true, then you say that will make stars the leader.

and i can surely understand the logic behind that part of your argument, because stars has SUCH great bonuses compared to party...not!

and the dataming argument. yea sure, stars allows that, unlike party, so they'll overtake party for that reason? not sure that this is correct either.

and to your third point, yea party's eliminated rakeback,so how is this unlike stars?

think you've got some convoluted logic going here, and are basically a stars rah-rah guy.

not sayin that they wont overtake party SOMEDAY, but i dont think so

and one thing for certain in my mind, there's no way they'll overtake party as the #1 site in "3 months or so." i'll gladly cover any action on that, if you want to stand behind your prediction.

[/ QUOTE ]

PARTY POKER SUCKS [censored]!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[2easy]

always nice to see a well reasoned and clearly elocuted point of view.