Door HansytheKing, geplaatst op dinsdag 11 mei 2010, 15:00. Views: 3.

Waar Stoxtrader al eerder in het nieuws vanwege Multi accounting op PokerStars en dat bekende via zijn blog en 2+2 heeft PokerStars nu passende maatregelen genomen. Door de problemen rond om Stoxtrader is deze video site op gegaan in Cardrunners per 1 mei

Nick Grudzien is nu door PokerStars gebanned. Justin "Zeejustin" Bonomo die ook al eerder op multi-accounting werd gepakt mailde met PokerStars over deze zaak. Justin Bonomo was in 2006 een van de eerste die verwikkeld was in een multi-accounting schandaal. Bonomo speelde in 2006 met maar liefst 6 verschillende accounts op Party Poker. In Februari 2006 maakte toenmalig PokerStars pokerroom manager Lee Jones bekend dat Zeejustin ook op PokerStars met meerdere accounts had gespeeld en ook daar resulteerde dit in een ban. Wel vreemd dat juist Justin Bonomo contact op nam met PokerStars inzake de problemen rond Stoxtrader, de volgende emal krijg hij terug van PokerStars:

Hello Justin,

Thank you for your email and sharing your concerns about 'stoxtrader' and
associated accounts. We acknowledge the length of time it has taken to
conclude our investigation, but believe that it is important to take as much
time as required to reach the right conclusion.

In summary, it is PokerStars' view that:

a) The multiple account abuse by 'stoxtrader' (and the accounts 'knockstiff'
and 'gr3atvlewbr0′) were a serious breach of our Terms of Service.

b) That in regards to the allegations of collusion, it is our view that
there was *probably* prohibited activity, but a comprehensive review of the
information has failed to prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubts.

Let us explain in greater detail:

MULTIPLE ACCOUNT ABUSE (MAA)
PokerStars recognises and accepts the confession (both in emails to
PokerStars and posted publicly elsewhere) by the operator of the account
'stoxtrader'. We note that there were three accounts in question:

a) 'stoxtrader'
This account, while it has played a small amount on PokerStars, has been
largely dormant over the last three years.

b) 'knockstiff'
This account was operated by the individual who owns the 'stoxtrader'
account. This account has played almost forty times as many hands as the
account 'stoxtrader' and thus, is clearly the main/primary account of this
individual.

c) 'gr3atvlewbr0′
This account was opened in January 2010, and played over a period of two
months, before it was frozen by PokerStars during our most recent
investigation into the issue.

Given the very small volume of play on the 'stoxtrader' account, the
substantive rules breach which harmed other players was the individual
effectively changing his own User ID against other players from 'knockstiff'
to 'gr3atvlewbr0′.

PokerStars will take the following actions:

1) The three accounts listed above will be closed.

2) The operator of the three accounts will be barred from playing at
PokerStars in the future.

3) The individuals listed as owning the three accounts will be barred from
playing at PokerStars in the future.

4) Close associates of either the operator or registered owners of the three
accounts will be barred from playing at PokerStars in the future. Any such
individuals will be asked to cash out their remaining balance.

5) PokerStars will be seizing the funds (and frequent player points) from
those three accounts.

6) PokerStars will compensate players who played against 'gr3atvlewbr0′.
Those players were at a disadvantage because their opponent ('gr3atvlewbr0′)
had access to a history of playing against them, without the natural balance
of information in return.

7) PokerStars will apply the balance seized from these accounts (including
converting the FPPs to money) to compensate the victims of this activity,
and further, add additional funds to the compensation pool as well. This
compensation has already been processed.

COLLUSION

PokerStars staff have reviewed the play of the three accounts listed above
with that of 'LittleZen'. We have reviewed tens of thousands of hands
individually, and further, we have analysed their play statistically. We
have read the comprehensive public analyses posted by other players on
TwoPlusTwo.com, and independently reproduced the public statistical analyses
using every hand played by the players.

A number of people in the online poker community have drawn various
conclusions from that public posted data. While, due to the nature of free
speech, they are able to hold such opinions, PokerStars is in a very
different position.

Any action that we take must be defensible in a court of law, and we are
unable to seize funds from players who we cannot *prove* beyond any
reasonable took part in activities against our rules. While we will hunt
down and take decisive action against those we suspect of breaking our
rules, we must also be fair and recognise their rights.

PokerStars is regulated and subject to the rule of law. We have chosen to be
based in a strong regulatory regime because we believe that regulated online
poker is in the players' interests, and because it is good for the industry.
A natural consequence of this is that accused players must be given a
presumption of innocence, and that we must consider their situation fairly
and reasonably.

Our review noted that the suspected players had a tendency to three-bet
preflop less often against each other, as compared to other players. We
certainly recognise that this behaviour was suspicious, and that collusion
was one *possible* explanation for this data. However, we do not believe
that this data proved collusion beyond all reasonable doubt.

If the standard of proof required PokerStars to make a decision "on the
balance of probabilities" then PokerStars may have come to a different
decision. However, it is not sufficient for PokerStars to *think* that
collusion was likely: PokerStars must find that collusion is proved beyond
reasonable doubt before pronouncing the players as colluders.

Given that we consider collusion to be "not proven", PokerStars will not be
applying any punitive action for collusion.

I trust that this rather lengthy email explains PokerStars' position on the
matter. We believe that this represents a fair outcome that adequately
enforces PokerStars' rules and protects the interests of all players.

Please let us know if there is anything else that we can do to assist you.

Best regards,

Stuart W
PokerStars Game Security Team