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.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Failing to deal with multi-accounting...

1235

Comments

  • edited May 2010
    I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it.

    It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim? 

    So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith.   

     
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Still more high profiled then scotty tho, hahahaha ;-)
    Posted by 5toneFace

    That's every one though. :-p
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it. It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim?  So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith.     
    Posted by BrownnDog

    +1 PERFECT!

  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it. It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim?  So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith.     
    Posted by BrownnDog

    +1

    Very well put BD.  TBH this thread is making me despair a little.  I almost think that some people are pushing for a Matthew Wright/John Leslie moment.

    In a matter this serious any intelligently run business will be completely thorough and investigate fully.  I would humbly suggest that Scotty can stay in constant contact if he so wishes with Customer Services over the progress of his complaint and that everyone else should just let this thread die.

  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Still more high profiled then scotty tho, hahahaha ;-)
    Posted by 5toneFace

    +1

  • edited May 2010

    Browndogg has either thought it through, or deciphered the clues.
  • edited May 2010
    I agree with Browndog, I also believe multi-accounting happens so much on all poker sites. I have multiple accounts on other sites (all of which is against the rules). One site I have 4 accounts. Thanks for the sign up bonuses ;-)
    Several people using the same account happens alot aswell. Not sure if its against the rules? But how can you stop it? And its not different. 
  • edited May 2010

    Every "hot" thread on every poker forum does this, it's amazing.

    OP says something, peeps wanna believe it, bandwagon arrives, world & his wife jump on it, the accused is clearly guilty, & about to be strung up from the nearest lamp-post, to hell with his rights.

    Then "balance" arrives, & the thread veers the other way. And then we arrive at a point when it becomes useful, & constructive.

    We ought to be able to skip the MainCourse, just have the Starter, & pudding.

    Anyway, Sky_Rich will be back tomorrow, so I'll leave him to reply as he sees fit, I only got involved today because I knew he was absent today.

     
  • edited May 2010
    About time to leave it the suits to sort out it's what they get paid for
  • edited May 2010



    ..... and breathe....




  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    About time to leave it the suits to sort out it's what they get paid for
    Posted by Adastra
    They don't lack advice. ;)  
  • edited May 2010
    Action Dan check your pm's
  • edited May 2010
    no need to suspend him,anyone who knows who the accused is wont play with him now anyway.
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it. It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim?  So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith.     
    Posted by BrownnDog
    thank you BD. yet another sensible person with a genuine idea of the problems faced.

    if anyone has any doubts of the difficulties with this situation, then they should read this post again!!
  • edited May 2010
    Errrrrrrr  its not me is it ? Coz i can barely afford to play when theres one of me let alone two, just a thought
  • edited May 2010
    Is this really such a big deal?

    If the player under suspicion really does use two accounts, but only ever uses one of those accounts at a time, and all the regulars at that level have worked out the same person is owner of both accounts, then surely he's not really gaining any advantage?

    Sky are investigating, lets all calm down and let them resolve it.

    If the allegation is that he's sitting at the same table at the same time with both aliases then it's a much worse situation, that would be serious cheating and I would agree that the accounts need to suspended until it's sorted out.
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    I agree with Browndog, I also believe multi-accounting happens so much on all poker sites. I have multiple accounts on other sites (all of which is against the rules). One site I have 4 accounts. Thanks for the sign up bonuses ;-) Several people using the same account happens alot aswell. Not sure if its against the rules? But how can you stop it? And its not different. 
    Posted by 5toneFace

    one player to a hand is an actual rule but also very hard to uphold online.  Because you think it happens elsewhere that makes it ok,  I could have sworn it's against the terms and conditions. If not i'd love to take use of the 1k sign up bonus again and again....

    How many sky acc's do you have?

  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    Is this really such a big deal? If the player under suspicion really does use two accounts, but only ever uses one of those accounts at a time, and all the regulars at that level have worked out the same person is owner of both accounts, then surely he's not really gaining any advantage? Sky are investigating, lets all calm down and let them resolve it. If the allegation is that he's sitting at the same table at the same time with both aliases then it's a much worse situation, that would be serious cheating and I would agree that the accounts need to suspended until it's sorted out.
    Posted by GaryQQQ

    You're completely missing the point, it's not about people playing at the same table but playing under different aliases/accounts against the same people without them knowing and by doing so gaining some form of advantage.
    edit the idea that because people 'think' they are aware of who it is, doesn't make it ok, it makes it even more ridiculous.
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : one player to a hand is an actual rule but also very hard to uphold online.  Because you think it happens elsewhere that makes it ok,  I could have sworn it's against the terms and conditions. If not i'd love to take use of the 1k sign up bonus again and again.... How many sky acc's do you have?
    Posted by beaneh
    At no point did I say that it was ok, maybe you should read the post properly. I was just stating some facts.  When your a student your do anything (nearly) for a bit of free cash. That normally turns into not so much free money.


    Have you turned into the poker account police??
  • edited May 2010
    The sarcastic meter just went off the scale.
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    The sarcastic meter just went off the scale.
    Posted by Cowgomoo

    My head fri_gging asploded!
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Oh well as long as you know it's wrong and you keep doing it anyway no harm in that. So there's nothing to say that such a good moral staunch person as yourself would ever cheat on sky, ah excellent. Glad to have such a respectable member posting aswell, thanks.
    Posted by beaneh
    Oh dear, "keep doing it". I play on sky nearly everyday, I dont have time to "keep doing it"
  • edited May 2010
    A lot of people have decided that there is something happening here rather than letting those with the back office software and information look into it deeply. With calls for accounts to be suspended while investigated, information to be given on the progress of the investigation, etc etc it seems theres no place in the poker community for innocent until proven guilty ???

    earlier in the thread people were coming up with ways to try and "Castch the multi accounter out" ideas such as call and ask them to log in, ask to speak to both of them, bring both into sky pokers offices and so on. What people fail to understand here is if this IS multi accounting.... but set up in a real persons name through a real persons bank account, who lives with this player.... Then how can you call for suspensions and account freezes on no evidence

    Lets say your all right and this is the same person playing under 2 accounts, one of which is his girlfriends, her bank card is registered to it, her address is the same as his, her name is on the poker account details.. how do you PROVE she isn't playing ???? (remember you have to prove she isn't playing, not her prove she is)

    Now flip that and lets say the same situation applies, bank account in her name, her address (which happens to be same as his), her name on the poker account... and she IS playing it.... but your calls for this to be dealt with end in HER MONEY being frozen in an account...as this is higher stakes lets say it's £10k... would you be happy with £10k frozen without a rock solid case having been made against you????

    Like i said eralier i'm not saying this isn't happening but you have to protect us ALL so we do not fall victim to someone accusing us of something and Sky jumping in and freezing our accounts

    Blackfish suggests suspending the account while investigating??? come on blackfish your a legal student.... how about i claim your working in partnership with X Y & Z player. All i do is bring up live chat and report you. Would you expect sky to shut your account down on my say so first and investigate it later??? I certainly wouldn't and would leave if they did

    If it's possible to prove then it will be dealt with but if it's not...... it's not... you can't ban or take money from people that you can not 100% prove have breached a rule, and having 2 accounts to the same address in different names to different banks does not break the rules.. In fact there are hundreds or even thousands of couples, brothers, fathers & sons that do have 2 accounts to the same address

    I've heard it said that poker is a game of patience (could do with some myself really lol), this is one of those occasions that requires some. We all want things like this dealt with but I for one would rather 10 people got away with it rather than 2 people suffer false accusation, bans and frozen monies having done nothing wrong
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Dont think this will work as your allowed to play from the same computer if you live in the same house.
    Posted by DeuceAK-47
    i believe this is correct,i have played the open in the dining room and my wife has played the same tourny in the living room(she has only played about a dozen times) im not sure if this is wrong? but if so surely there should be some software to prevent this?
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : i believe this is correct,i have played the open in the dining room and my wife has played the same tourny in the living room(she has only played about a dozen times) im not sure if this is wrong? but if so surely there should be some software to prevent this?
    Posted by DAVEYZZ
    theres nothing wrong with that davey - you just can't sit at the same sit n go or cash table (or at least you shouldn't, not sure if the system will allow it)
  • edited May 2010
    What happens in Davey's case then if u get drawn at the same table in an mtt on Sky? Different sites do different things - some log one player out whilst Ive played on 1 where me and the mrs were both still playing!!  Slightly off the topic of this thread but would like to know the answer.
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : theres nothing wrong with that davey - you just can't sit at the same sit n go or cash table (or at least you shouldn't, not sure if the system will allow it)
    Posted by ACESOVER8s
    phew,thats ok then didnt want to get into trouble......so whats to stop me playing on my wifes account a couple of nights a week?

    on one could prove its me just because we "have the same playing style)
    i.e. c rap.........
    dave
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    What happens in Davey's case then if u get drawn at the same table in an mtt on Sky? Different sites do different things - some log one player out whilst Ive played on 1 where me and the mrs were both still playing!!  Slightly off the topic of this thread but would like to know the answer.
    Posted by phil12uk
    as you can not fix landing on the same table (therefore your not setting out to collude, simply to play then it just lets you continue on sky
  • edited May 2010
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
    In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : phew,thats ok then didnt want to get into trouble......so whats to stop me playing on my wifes account a couple of nights a week? on one could prove its me just because we "have the same playing style) i.e. c rap......... dave
    Posted by DAVEYZZ
    in truth, probably nothing, unless of course you announce it on here lol

    this is kind of my point with the other posts though, what if sky came in tomorrow and froze yours 7 the wifes account, took your money, and banned you..... All on the say so of me because i decided your play and your wifes was far too similar for it to be 2 people so i reported you !

    Now it's true to say that it's possible you are playing both accounts, maybe you get paid monthly and have a second account in her name as when you run out of money you put money on from her account (not suggesting that you do this nor am i suggesting that you go busto every month lol) -

    But in your case it's not true, i think it's safe to say you would have a word or 2 to shout if this happened to you so it's not as cut and dried as people are asuming it is on here
  • edited May 2010



    phil23uk... davyzz...


    what is the name of your wife's account?


    that would be a good thing to publish



Sign In or Register to comment.