Party Poker SNG ethical question

ad101 · #1 05-10-2005, 10:01 AM

Hi, I have run into a bad situation for myself and thought I might ask for some opinions on this forum.

My party poker account has been closed and my balance (which was sizeable for me) has been confiscated. Here is the situation:

A few weeks ago, a buddy and I decided that we would sit at the same $30 SNG table and split any winnings made between us. We also agreed to maintain absolutely NO contact at all during the tournament itself. We figured that, since Party SNGs have pretty high variance, this would be a nice way for us to lower our own variance at these SNGs. We never let the existance of this deal change how we play, and of course never discussed any hands until after the SNG was over. We also used empty no limit cash tables to transfer the money afterward. These SNGs represented a very small sample of the total SNGs that I have played with no deal of this sort in place. Last week, I learned my account had been placed on hold because of an investigation. And yesterday I received an email telling me my account has been closed.

My question is this... does anyone think that the existance of this type of a deal should be considered collusion? (I was told that my account was closed because of collusion.) Is this type of a deal unethical? Finally, do I have any recourse at all? Ideally, Id like to recover my full account and continue playing on Party, but Id certainly be happy if I could at least get some or all of my balance.

Thank you all very much for any responses.

1C5 · #2 05-10-2005, 10:05 AM

You are an idiot. Of course that is cheating and you should be banned.

lorinda · #3 05-10-2005, 10:11 AM

We also used empty no limit cash tables to transfer the money afterward.

Nobody is this stupid.

Lori

schwza · #4 05-10-2005, 10:11 AM

i would say that that's cheating. however, it's relatively common for professionals to own pieces of each other in larger tournaments (paul phillips has a great blog entry about that). but, yeah, you cheated. if you were trying to reduce variance, you should have sat in different tourneys.

[ QUOTE ]
We never let the existance of this deal change how we play

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm skeptical, to put it mildly.

KJ o · #5 05-10-2005, 10:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is this stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish you were correct, but I fear you are wrong.

Verdi · #6 05-10-2005, 10:13 AM

You were not closed because of the S&Gs alone. You were closed down because of chip dumping. Even it it's on an empty table it's still illegal. Especially if they see you two at the same S&G every now and then...

And yes, you bloody well deserve it.

lorinda · #7 05-10-2005, 10:13 AM

I wish you were correct, but I fear you are wrong.

How would they remember to breathe in and out?

Lori

KJ o · #8 05-10-2005, 10:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How would they remember to breathe in and out

[/ QUOTE ]

That's taken care of by the autonomous nerve system (if that's the correct English term).

Please don't ask me how these people manage to get dressed every morning. (Maybe they don't? Ugh, scary thought...)

Nottom · #9 05-10-2005, 10:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You were not closed because of the S&Gs alone. You were closed down because of chip dumping. Even it it's on an empty table it's still illegal. Especially if they see you two at the same S&G every now and then...

[/ QUOTE ]

Chip dumping in a ring game is completely pointless and has nothign to do with why this person was banned.

lorinda · #10 05-10-2005, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Chimp dumping in a ring game is completely pointless and has nothign to do with why this person was banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is probably the only reason he was banned.

Lori