Is this legal? - Page 5

Kellon · #41 01-12-2005, 04:21 PM

I may be (probably am) missing something here, but nobody has mentioned the effect of the rake on the "profitability" of such a scheme. If one person is controlling the majority of players at one table, isn't that one person much more likely to be an overall loser due to the rake?

WarDekar · #42 01-12-2005, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You failed to answer any of the legitimate points made by those who clearly have more knowledge than you about this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly have more knowledge than me about this issue? Maybe you should back that up? How often do poker sites close accounts of people for cheating without receiving specific complaints from other players regarding those accounts? I honestly have no idea the answer to that, but I would think it's slim to none. I'm not going to continue this discussion much further since the entire point is moot since none of us are going to be doing this, and anyone that is isn't going to be caught. And if they are, they'll do it again. Without any repurcussions, why wouldn't they?

WarDekar · #43 01-12-2005, 06:13 PM

That would certainly be an issue that would have to be overcome, and is the only flaw in a setup such as that. Definitely need to get 25% rakeback on each of the accounts, the issue still is there though.

AngryCola · #44 01-12-2005, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and anyone that is isn't going to be caught.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is still an incorrect and baseless opinion.

My interest in this discussion has waned.

You go on trying to conivce people without me.
I don't need to be here for them to see how wrong you are.

Mike_S · #45 01-12-2005, 06:26 PM

Man it is too bad Rich isn't still around, he would have a blast with this.
Sorry just had to add that

MS Sunshine · #46 01-13-2005, 01:14 AM

"How often do poker sites close accounts of people for cheating without receiving specific complaints from other players regarding those accounts? I honestly have no idea the answer to that, but I would think it's slim to none."

Bingo, I feel we have a winner here.

A couple of low-limit 1 BB/hr winners posted here and RGP a couple of years ago. The made up a few simple rules to cheat and not get caught. Not play more than 40% of the time in the same games. Not fold pp above a certain rank even if dominated pf. ect. They added a BB/hr to both their earns over like 40K hands. Even with them posting hands and giving a lot of detail the site never found out who they were.

Given just the sheer numbers of players at Party, the fact that even if red-flagged by the computer SOMEONE will have to review the case before taking someone's money and barring them from the site, and the fact that many of these barred cheats would be screaming here and RGP(like the ACR bonus cheats). We have seen none of these types of posts. Party has about a 20 million player base. If 1 in 1000 cheat that is 20,000. If Party catches 5% with their ACME software(or makes a mistake about an honest player, taking his $$ and barring him) that's about 1000 irate cheats(or those honest players mistaken for cheats). I think we would have heard about this many barrings.

I don't even think the stupid cheats get caught and barred without someone complaining.

I don't think any smart cheats are getting caught. IMO

MS Sunshine

MS Sunshine · #47 01-13-2005, 03:07 AM

Pssst dealer, you can push the pot here. He's done with his hand.

MS Sunshine

WarDekar · #48 01-13-2005, 04:06 AM

The reason is they honestly don't care...they have NO reason to want to keep the site honest, other than wanting to keep legit customers there. That means the only time they're ever going to even bother looking into it is if they receive a few complaints about the same player(s). Honestly, can anyone deny that if done correctly cheaters won't make a LOT of money? I'm not saying it's something we legit players need to worry about, all I'm saying is it takes someone with half a brain and some computer knowledge (and some resources/money to set it up) to make some real cash from this. Anyone that denies it is...well...in denial...It really won't affect winning players much anyway, but how can you honestly deny the possibility? If you do, then you don't know jack about computers and their capabilities...

meow_meow · #49 01-13-2005, 10:57 AM

Hijack.
I just got a new computer.
Your avatar used to be a static image on my old computer.
Now it is freaking me out with all it's twisty crazyness!
Yikes

CountDuckula · #50 01-13-2005, 11:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hijack.
I just got a new computer.
Your avatar used to be a static image on my old computer.
Now it is freaking me out with all it's twisty crazyness!
Yikes

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing you had image animation disabled on your old computer; I have my work computer set up that way, and only see static avatars here, but when I log in from home, I see them in all their twisted glory. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Mike