ULTIMATE BET CHEATS?

[pzhon]

Here are some relevant parts of the Ultimate Bet site rules:

MTT Rule 22: During game play, players are prohibited from chatting about the play of their and/or their opponents' hands until all actions for that hand are complete. Such chat could result in disqualification or other penalties.

General Rules:
The following is not permitted at UltimateBet.com:

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Collusion with another player of any sort or any other form of cheating.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Agreeing to check a hand when there is another player all-in

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Making any statements that could unfairly influence the action in a game

These all appear to have been violated by the request to check it down.

By the way, it is very often not the right strategy to check it down when someone is all-in. It is rarely right to bluff a dry side pot, but it is often right to make a value bet or a protection bet into a dry side pot. Many people are confused about this.

[spamuell]

These all appear to have been violated by the request to check it down.

I don't want to get in a heated debate about this because the only point I have to make is that there wasn't an explicit request to check it down. It was implied and it was certainly unsportsmanly but I don't think the implication is actually against the rules.

[Ro-me-ro]

On Stars, if this *could* happen in this situation (which it can't as discussed above) then I would be inclined to issue a warning to the player concerned. If the player already had a warning then we would either DQ or revoke chat depending on the hand in question.

99/100 times when reviewing the hands with cards face up, the result of the hand is clearly not affected -- in those 1% of cases when the results are affected either there is a DQ or we will issue a credit from good will (+ warning etc).

It is clear from the chat that there was an "offense", but it's really very close to borderline imho.

Just my 2cs,

Ellis

[dogmeat]

LIVE with it. Since it is generally agreed that the correct play is to not bet, who is to say that there would have been a bet anyway. Get over it.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[JayLeno]

Your post dosent make sense to me. Maybe thats the way you deal with things - sad for you.
My friend didnt just "live with it" - he did something about it cause it bothered him - so he wrote back and said he wasnt satisfied with their response. They reviewed the situation and issued the cheating player a warning.
Thats how you deal with things - dont just "live with it" or "get over it".....no - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

[RevAgain]

[ QUOTE ]

had he said "let's check it down", or someone said "don't bet", then it would be inducing action via chat and that is cheating at all sites.

since he said "don't be stupid", then he is just a dick with no ethics. it has to be black and white

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bizarre statement, what on earth is he doing other than attempting to 'induce (or more accurately here prevent) action', by saying that!? Is he giving some general advice for life here? It couldn't be more black and white, even if it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference if he never said it.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
These all appear to have been violated by the request to check it down.

I don't want to get in a heated debate about this because the only point I have to make is that there wasn't an explicit request to check it down. It was implied and it was certainly unsportsmanly but I don't think the implication is actually against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think "Check it ownday" would be merely unsportsmanlike, and not against the rules? How much more explicit does it have to be?

Any attempt to influence the action is against the rules, as I quoted them. Saying "dont be stupid" was obviously an attempt to get his opponent to check it down, or at the very least influence the action.

If you don't think this was an attempt to influence the action, please supply a plausible alternate interpretation. I see no reasonable way to read it other than a request to check it down. Maybe that's just because I've gotten into so many arguments after people have said something similar, and they have all meant, "check it down."

[JayLeno]

I agree totally with you Rev - if it was to be black and white(like asking specific to check) people would just find a way to get arround it - like in this example.
So of course it cant all be black and white!

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

had he said "let's check it down", or someone said "don't bet", then it would be inducing action via chat and that is cheating at all sites.

since he said "don't be stupid", then he is just a dick with no ethics. it has to be black and white

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bizarre statement, what on earth is he doing other than attempting to 'induce (or more accurately here prevent) action', by saying that!? Is he giving some general advice for life here? It couldn't be more black and white, even if it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference if he never said it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you missed my point.

the site won't act unless the language is specific. they will not act on this because they are not going to start interpreting remarks that may or may NOT mean he should check.

fwiw, you are yelling at the choir.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
you missed my point.

the site won't act unless the language is specific. they will not act on this because they are not going to start interpreting remarks that may or may NOT mean he should check.

[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot argue with this since it is obviously true, at least at UB.

I do think it's wrong on their part. If I were a juror in a criminal trial I'd probably let him off. But I don't think UB should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to issue an educational warning.

That's all UB needs to do. Send a nice email explaining the rules and asking the player not to make remarks that could be misinterpreted in the future.