You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : FYP. You've judged him guilty already, then?
Posted by Tikay10
As to their Policy stance on such matters, yes, I agree, more dislogue from them would do no harm.
But they take that view, & suffer from it in all sorts of ways. When some peeps get Banned a bit back, as several high-profile players did (yes, it does happen to "high-profile" players & Forum Posters) threads go up saying the guy was only guilty of a minor indiscretion & Sky Poker have been heavy-handed. Everyone with half a brain knows that is not true, but the threads go on, & Sky Poker do not defend themselves against the daft accusations.
So yes, when, as Radiohead might say, I'm King for the day, I would be a lot more open about these things. But I'm not expecting that to happen any day soon.
Most of the high volume regs will have known it was him pretty much instantly, and thus played him as they normally would if he were on his normal account. He is not gaining any edge of these people. It doesn't bother me if he changed his account on a month by month basis, he has such a special form of poker that its easily detectable and easy to adapt to.
However imagine if you are a casual player....you hvae played on the site for a couple of times/week for a year or so. You have reads on all of the regs at the levels you play and suddenly theres this new guy at the tables....you have no info on him but he has a years worth of info on you.
The casual players HAVE to be protected. There are a lot of reasons why online poker is still seen as 'dodgy' to the general public and multi-accounting is one of them.
And Tikay yes you dd take the matter very seriously and I knew that you would be posting here. But I still think that too long has gone on. While I do not know what methods Sky use to prove this, a week of him being able to play on versus everyone on the site is FAR FAR too long.
I am still glad I started this thread. There are a couple of fairly high volume players on this thread who seem to have become aware of it. Thats all I wanted to do because what this individual is doing is VERY VERY wrong.
but this is a high profile player. he is the type of player who when you are talking to randoms in card rooms and you say you play on sky poker, said random will say does player ABC still play on there.
because of this Sky should be taking this matter more seriously. they shouldn't be seen to be favouring anyone.
But the PM you sent to me, & I sent upstairs, had no proof in it whatever - it had your very strong circumstantial suspicions.
There is quite a difference, in Law, & in judging these matters.
And that is why - contrary to almost everyone else, I have said I don't belive the thread serves any good purpose. Note - because I know you will understand this, though many will not, that is just my personal view, & I have as much right to hold that view as others to hold the opposite view. I also explained my view, & gave the reasoning. Some of the Posts on this thread - not by you - are outrageous. Which is why I don't think it's helping, because now the conspiracty theorists are on the case, God help us all.
Clearly, with hindsight, I should not have commented, in my efforts to provide that dreadful thing called "balance". And facts......
It seems that you are not a big advocate of "innocent until proven guilty".
There is a huge amount of ill-informed speculation on this thread.
Why don't we all just let Sky Poker carry out their investigations which many of us, I think, have agreed are delicate and tricky (and likely to be time consuming).
On the subject of allegations though, I have it on good authority that the target of the NOTW this Sunday is our very own Rich Orford. Seemingly the "Fake Sheikh" has him on film admitting that he is a Luckbox....in exchange for a KFC Bargain Bucket.
Perhaps they did "take a quick look", & found no reasonable proof.......and so they are are continuing to investigate?
The level of jumping to assumptions is reaching epidemic proportions now, perhaps I ought not reply any more.
Do you have any hard (factual) evidence of wrongdoing in this matter? (Hearsay is invalid in any reasonable appraisal of the facts I'm relieved to say). If so, have you sent it to Sky Poker?
It's more than a little sad that not one person has been able to invert the problem to help understand the difficulty.
I hope they do not implement your system Mr Blackfish & then you fall out with someone. Because you know what will happen......
I'm not really clear why they would be confused as to why I am Posting.
What is "a happy medium" in this case? A happy medium to Scotty, to you, & to the guy who is being accused, would be three different things. And so not a "happy medium".
At least i know their a man...this narrows it down slightly lol.