Grandma is skint...

Shortstack

http://www.pocketfives.com/69F0D82A-3AE4-4239-900B-A8DE591AFD95.aspx

ionapaul

I'm not sure how Party, a company with stockholders (some who post on this board, I am sure) and a reputation to uphold, could've done anything else but confiscate 'Granny's' winnings. It never seemed likely he could get away with it, it would do too much damage to Party (doubt they particularly care about the trifiling sum of €140k in this instance, but the damage to their name and brand probably has run into the millions at this stage).

I also know Party is not based in the US, so if JJ Prodigy chooses to sue he will most likely be unable to go through a US court...wouldn't fancy taking on a major employer that Party must be in some small Central American / Caribbean court.

Nalced_irl

thats quite funny, all the people telling him to sue. Yea...thats gonna work. In fact, im gonna rob a bank, and then sue if i get caught. Fair play to him for admitting it but he deserves to have his money taken. PP is in Gibralter i think btw.

Running Bing

I thought it was a bit harsh taking all the cash(and quite frightening to tbh). I fully agree with the 140k been taken back though, he cheated he got caught he paid the price, seems fair to me. How old is the guy btw?

ianmc38

And i just got a refund wahoo.

Nalced_irl

No idea how old he is. Im sure alot of the other money was earned by cheating also. Id say PP did their homework and checked IPs used ect before taking the lot. If they didnt act on it, they would be supporting cheating in my view so im glad they did. I do also agree with a comment in the link above that all sites should have a 1 account maximum policy, its the only way to stamp this out.

Drakar

Some interesting information in there:
- He played using the same computer for both accounts
- He logged in using the same internet connection (ip address)
- He played with both accounts logged in at the same time on the same computer
- He played with both accounts in 9 tournaments with buyins of over $100
- He transferred money from one account to the other.

Ok, I've a question. How come he wasn't found out until he foolishly told people about it?

Daithio

I think this is a joke. The rules state you can't have two accounts, but he didn't. His granny had one and he had one. It didn't say anything about not playing on someone else's account either. If Party don't make their rules clear enough they should be liable for the repurcussions, not the players. They should have updated their rules, given him a warning, and left him with the cash.

ianmc38

The rules state that he must adhere to casino poker rules and etiquette. therefore, your argument is null and void as coaching/taking over from someone in a tourney is clearly prohibited in Live play.

See: "You must play the Games pursuant to the generally accepted casino and poker rules set out in the Game Rules section"

ionapaul

If he hadn't gone and blabbed about it, no doubt Party wouldn't have a problem! The real problem, for them, is all the negative publicity - they had no choice but to crack down on him because of this - the $140k is immaterial compared to the millions in damage due to negative rep and brand damage they have sustained.

Drakar

The point I raised is that on 9 separate occasions he had both accounts logged in on the same computer, playing the same large buy-in tournaments and even transferred money between them and none of Party's systems detected this? I find that astounding.

ianmc38

Drakar wrote:

The point I raised is that on 9 separate occasions he had both accounts logged in on the same computer, playing the same large buy-in tournaments and even transferred money between them and none of Party's systems detected this? I find that astounding.

Yeah, its pretty incredible alright.

handsfree

i think it is a bit rough on him. it should be up to party to prevent this from happening (playing with 2 accounts off the same computer or ip address).
i know that on prima i cant open boylesports and all in at the same time so why can u do it on party. people will always take advantage of loopholes in the system, that is just human nature and the loophole should be shut but i think he should be left with the money

ionapaul

handsfree wrote:

i think it is a bit rough on him. it should be up to party to prevent this from happening (playing with 2 accounts off the same computer or ip address).
i know that on prima i cant open boylesports and all in at the same time so why can u do it on party. people will always take advantage of loopholes in the system, that is just human nature and the loophole should be shut but i think he should be left with the money

Can't say I agree with your logic at all - if I shoplift, should I blame the shop for not having the security in place to prevent me? If (and we can continue to argue it) he broke Party's rules, it is his fault, not theirs.

He would have definitely gotten away with it, if he and his mates stayed quiet about it! However, once it came out, they had no choice but to refund the other runners and freeze his accounts. People will probably continue to get away with doing this, breaking the rules, but as long as they stay quiet, Party won't crack down on them!

Drakar

Also to be clear, it's not that he's tricking Party out of money, he's essentially stealing it from the other players who followed the rules.

cardshark202

Daithio wrote:

I think this is a joke. The rules state you can't have two accounts, but he didn't. His granny had one and he had one. It didn't say anything about not playing on someone else's account either. If Party don't make their rules clear enough they should be liable for the repurcussions, not the players. They should have updated their rules, given him a warning, and left him with the cash.

I can't agree with this statement at all. If you read the confession post on 2+2 or pocket 5's they both show how Party were within their rights to take their money back. In fact if online poker didn't exist in a legal loophole he could easily be looking at a jail sentence. I also find that people supporting JJ are usually those who hold two accounts themselves*. In my opinion people who do this sort of thing are cheats plain and simple. I hope many others are caught and punished.




*72hearts;)

ullu

Someone earlier in the thread asked how old he was. A friend who has been reading his 2+2 posts for a while says he's only 16.

Running Bing

I had heard that alright and was wondering how much truth there was in it:eek: . When I was sixteen I was still selling lemonade at a corner stand.

Imposter

Drakar wrote:

The point I raised is that on 9 separate occasions he had both accounts logged in on the same computer, playing the same large buy-in tournaments and even transferred money between them and none of Party's systems detected this? I find that astounding.

That would be the super secret collusion detection software that is super secret because it doesn't work effectively and not because the sites don't want the colluders to get the upper hand like they say.

Dathio, his 'granny', in giving him 'her' password broke the rules and 'both' of them should have known that. The penalty is that the money gets confiscated (or pretty much anything that Party decides to do).

I've no sympathy for him or other cheats but this incident makes it pretty obvious that there is no way Party (and probably all the other sites) can detect this if a person has 2 different computers and 2 different IP addresses in the same location.

Samba

I can't understand how he could be so idiotic, god forbid I hope he never has ambitions to be a crime lord.....

Cash the cheque, then come on a brag about if you feel it necessary, he could have gotten away with this so easily and assured the money was safe, what an idiot.

On that basis alone he doesn't deserve the cash.

5starpool

Babybing wrote:

I had heard that alright and was wondering how much truth there was in it:eek: . When I was sixteen I was still selling lemonade at a corner stand.

That is bound to be untrue. Surely this in itself would be a violation of PP (or any poker sites) terms and conditions.

ullu

That is bound to be untrue. Surely this in itself would be a violation of PP (or any poker sites) terms and conditions.

While there's nothing to prove it, I play plenty of decent underage players on Tribeca. There's a guy called tymuppet who is open about the fact that he is 14 and his dad (-sealey-) gave him a $4k bankroll in his profile. Then there's a few others I've played at 1/2 and 2/4 who have been talking to each other about "going to the Wezz later" on Saturday afternoons. Most people in Dublin know that this place is frequented by 15 and 16 year olds. So it's not impossible for JJ to be 16.

Corben Dallas

"I can't understand how he could be so idiotic, god forbid I hope he never has ambitions to be a crime lord.....

Cash the cheque, then come on a brag about if you feel it necessary, he could have gotten away with this so easily and assured the money was safe, what an idiot."
<Samba
LOL

Poker genius? Yes,
Criminal Mastermind? Eh.....No

Scotty #

What I want to know is why did Party Poker allow this to continue when they already knew about this player, and it would seem many many other players, multi-accounting in the same tournament??

It ooks to me like they are quiet willing to accept the reg fee and will only intervene when they receive thousands of complaints!! Had this guy not bragged to the remaining players in the tourney that he'd been knocked out already on a different account, and started this whole saga, would party have bothered to do anything about it???

I think NOT.

Daithio

cardshark202 wrote:

I can't agree with this statement at all. If you read the confession post on 2+2 or pocket 5's they both show how Party were within their rights to take their money back. In fact if online poker didn't exist in a legal loophole he could easily be looking at a jail sentence. I also find that people supporting JJ are usually those who hold two accounts themselves*. In my opinion people who do this sort of thing are cheats plain and simple. I hope many others are caught and punished.




*72hearts;)

I opened up a new account on pokerstars so that my progress could be tracked by www.badbeat.com, but my old one has been shut down now. Never did I play from both accounts in the same tournament, and nor would I.

But I still don't think that party's rules make it clear at all that what JJ Prodigy was illegal. Their claim that a player must adhere to normal casino etiquette is an ambigous load of bollox, and it would never stand up in court. I think what JJ did should be against the rules, but from what I can see it wasn't against the rules at the time he did it, and therefore he should not be punished for it. If we give big corporations like party poker the power to just make up these rules as they go along then it creates a whole load of follow on problems that could be a right pain in the ass for us punters. It's like a state deciding that drinking is illegal, and punishing everybody who had a drink before this law came into place for drinking. It's a load of bull****.

Ste05

Imposter wrote:

Dathio, his 'granny', in giving him 'her' password broke the rules and 'both' of them should have known that. The penalty is that the money gets confiscated (or pretty much anything that Party decides to do).

I really didn't want to get into this again and I won't except to point out this wasn't a Party term, it's a Paddy Power term and all Party have in their Terms is a term limiting their liability if someone loses your money in your account.

And that I completely agree with Samba here, what a complete idiot!!

Samba wrote:

On that basis alone he doesn't deserve the cash.

Who just gives up $140k like this????

My conspiracy theory hat has been put on and I think Party might have come to an agreement with JJ after they heard from his Lawyers and they all agreed not to go to court if JJ made a public confession like this.... :rolleyes:

Everyone wins, JJ looks repentent, Party look like Hard bastrds not to be messed with, and the whole on-line world gets a kick up the jocksy and maybe this multi-accounting is reduced if not eliminated....

cardshark202

Daithio wrote:

I opened up a new account on pokerstars so that my progress could be tracked by www.badbeat.com, but my old one has been shut down now. Never did I play from both accounts in the same tournament, and nor would I.

But I still don't think that party's rules make it clear at all that what JJ Prodigy was illegal. Their claim that a player must adhere to normal casino etiquette is an ambigous load of bollox, and it would never stand up in court. I think what JJ did should be against the rules, but from what I can see it wasn't against the rules at the time he did it, and therefore he should not be punished for it. If we give big corporations like party poker the power to just make up these rules as they go along then it creates a whole load of follow on problems that could be a right pain in the ass for us punters. It's like a state deciding that drinking is illegal, and punishing everybody who had a drink before this law came into place for drinking. It's a load of bull****.

I wasn't suggesting you would use both accounts at the same time. I just noticed you playing under another account thats all.

In fairness everything party did was covered in their T & C's. Tbh I think its all down to interpretation really, just like the T & C's of any company, be it an online poker site or a phone company. And at the end of the day, Party's interpretation of their T & C's is what matters. Multi-accounters can argue all day about how its not clearly against the rules but they certainly know that its not coshure.

Daithio

Contracts shouldn't have and don't have anything to do with interpretation. It is the duty of the company/ person who's contract you are signing up to, to make the terms and conditions 100% clear and indisputable. If they fail to do this then it is up to them to compensate for any fallout arising out of a lack of clarity. IMO Party blatantly didn't make it clear that what JJ Prodigy did was wrong. The fact that you yourself think that the terms and conditions are open to interpretation is clear cut evidence of this. It should be party compensating all of the others who played in this tournament, and not JJ Prodigy.

cardshark202

Daithio wrote:

Contracts shouldn't have and don't have anything to do with interpretation. It is the duty of the company/ person who's contract you are signing up to, to make the terms and conditions 100% clear and indisputable. If they fail to do this then it is up to them to compensate for any fallout arising out of a lack of clarity. IMO Party blatantly didn't make it clear that what JJ Prodigy did was wrong. The fact that you yourself think that the terms and conditions are open to interpretation is clear cut evidence of this. It should be party compensating all of the others who played in this tournament, and not JJ Prodigy.

Have you never seen court cases where the legality of something is argued due to different interpretations of the law? To be honest I can't think of any solid examples but I'm sure I could if I was arsed.

Ste05

cardshark202 wrote:

IAnd at the end of the day, Party's interpretation of their T & C's is what matters.

Complete rubbish. I'd say all companies would love customers like you who just take what they say their Terms mean and go away, however in the real world this is not how it works. They are what they are, the only opinion that matters is the Courts not Party Poker's because they wrote the terms, actually what they think they mean actually means less than what the Customer says they mean (look up the phrase Contra proferentum).

Anyway I'll leave it at that, but I agree with Diathio about this (EDIT: Except the bit about the Interpretation of Contracts). I'm glad Party are taking this line, but I just wish JJ wasn't such an idiot to say what he has said and has now set a very dangerous precedent.

cardshark202

Ste05 wrote:

Complete rubbish. I'd say all companies would love customers like you who just take what they say their Terms mean and go away, however in the real world this is not how it works. They are what they are, the only opinion that matters is the Courts not Party Poker's because they wrote the terms, actually what they think they mean actually means less than what the Customer says they mean (look up the phrase Contra proferentum).

Anyway I'll leave it at that, but I agree with Diathio about this. I'm glad Party are taking this line, but I just wish JJ wasn't such an idiot to say what he has said and has now set a very dangerous precedence.

Ok maybe I worded it badly but what I was getting at is anyone who argues for the multi-accounters is interpreting the T & C's differently to Party. Party set out their T & C's in a certain way so they can use their T & C's in whatever way they see fit.

Ste05

cardshark202 wrote:

Ok maybe I worded it badly but what I was getting at is anyone who argues for the multi-accounters is interpreting the T & C's differently to Party. Party set out their T & C's in a certain way so they can use their T & C's in whatever way they see fit.

I agree, and that is why I was saying that I don't understand why JJ would just give up this $140,000 so easily, now Party have a precedent that they can do this to someone else.

Imagine the situation that you are playing away and manage to win one of these huge tournaments. Now you only entered one account, everything above board. But the previous day your brother (who lives with you) had been playing on his own account in a similar tournament (same IP normally but never play the same tournament or table etc. etc.) and as it turns out he was actually playing in this same tournament at a mates house. Now imagine Party Poker accuse you of having two seperate accounts in the same tournament and refuse to pay you. What do you do. This example is a bit rushed and extreme, but the basics are there I think??

Imposter

Ste05 wrote:

I really didn't want to get into this again and I won't except to point out this wasn't a Party term, it's a Paddy Power term and all Party have in their Terms is a term limiting their liability if someone loses your money in your account.

Ok I just checked the 2+2 thread and here's the bit of the Party T&C's that are relevant.

5. True Identity and One Account.

The name on your Account must match your true and legal name and identity and the name on your PartyPoker.com Account registration must match the name on the credit card(s) or other payment accounts used to deposit or receive monies in your Account. You are prohibited from holding more than one Account at PartyPoker.com. If you have more than one (1) Account or Accounts in different names, then you must contact us immediately to have your Accounts managed so that you only have one (1). If you have lost your Account name or password, please contact us for a replacement.

5starpool

Ste05 wrote:

I agree, and that is why I was saying that I don't understand why JJ would just give up this $140,000 so easily, now Party have a precedent that they can do this to someone else.

Imagine the situation that you are playing away and manage to win one of these huge tournaments. Now you only entered one account, everything above board. But the previous day your brother (who lives with you) had been playing on his own account in a similar tournament (same IP normally but never play the same tournament or table etc. etc.) and as it turns out he was actually playing in this same tournament at a mates house. Now imagine Party Poker accuse you of having two seperate accounts in the same tournament and refuse to pay you. What do you do. This example is a bit rushed and extreme, but the basics are there I think??

In this instance though they were able to tell that he had logged on from the same machine as his 'grandma'. If it was done from different houses, then they could not accuse you of that.

cardshark202

Ste05 wrote:

I agree, and that is why I was saying that I don't understand why JJ would just give up this $140,000 so easily, now Party have a precedent that they can do this to someone else.

Imagine the situation that you are playing away and manage to win one of these huge tournaments. Now you only entered one account, everything above board. But the previous day your brother (who lives with you) had been playing on his own account in a similar tournament (same IP normally but never play the same tournament or table etc. etc.) and as it turns out he was actually playing in this same tournament at a mates house. Now imagine Party Poker accuse you of having two seperate accounts in the same tournament and refuse to pay you. What do you do. This example is a bit rushed and extreme, but the basics are there I think??

Its certainly a bit rushed alright.:p

Seriously though, when I read Party's T & C's I found them to be pretty clear. Multi-accounting bad. Playing over another person's account bad. Creating one account and using only that account okay.

Ste05

Imposter wrote:

Ok I just checked the 2+2 thread and here's the bit of the Party T&C's that are relevant.

OK and where does it say anything about confiscating money??

Sounds to me like they just want you contact them so you can "have your Accounts managed so that you only have one"

loosecannon

I personally think that the really interesting thing to come out of all of this (without getting into the whether it was wrong or not argument) is that if he hadn't told anyone at first, cashed out all the money from both accounts, and then gone and told all his mates exactly what he had done, where would PP stand then?

It's all well and good them taking the money away from him now for the publicity of it but I find it almost unbelievable that realistically PP could have done absolutely nothing if he owned up after all the money was out of his account.

What would PP's hard line have been then? They can't sue the guy and if he's off in the bahamas with the money what the *** can they do about it!


+

Would they still have given refunds to the players who played in this tournament?

these are the questions that should be getting more consideration then all this oh i can't believe he cheated crap (which no-one would care about if both accounts didn't cash or this never came out!)

Hectorjelly

ullu wrote:

There's a guy called tymuppet who is open about the fact that he is 14 and his dad (-sealey-) gave him a $4k bankroll in his profile.

he is absolutely crazy

RoundTower

ullu wrote:

While there's nothing to prove it, I play plenty of decent underage players on Tribeca. There's a guy called tymuppet who is open about the fact that he is 14 and his dad (-sealey-) gave him a $4k bankroll in his profile.

I'm putting this in my profile now as well.

I do know one guy who is 13 playing online, and plenty of other underage kids. I don't have much of a problem with it.

Daithio

RoundTower wrote:

I'm putting this in my profile now as well.

I do know one guy who is 13 playing online, and plenty of other underage kids. I don't have much of a problem with it.

I don't know about this. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of taking cash off people that aren't old enough to get a proper job. No doubt some of them are losing players and someone else is footing the bill.

Imposter

Ste05 wrote:

OK and where does it say anything about confiscating money??

Do you seriously think that if you break the rules there would be no penalty?

They've changes the T&C's on the site now too!

DubTony

The JJProdigy situation and others like it could be the nail in the coffin for online poker in the States. The fact that there are kids gambling" online (with or without parents permission) is the main factor that will see the next anti-online-gambling bill pushed through the congress and senate in Washington. American legislators have an attitude to gambling and alcohol that is contradictory to what America is supposed to stand for, i.e. Freedom of speech etc.

Because none of the big poker / gambling sites are actually based in america (supposedly) it has been hard to legislate for. But when stuff like this emerges there's a whole can of worms being ripped open for conservative yanks to get their teeth into. Poker sites are using the fact that only over 18's in the USA can hold a credit card as "proof" that all players are adults. Watch out for a big push by government that will soon prevent ISPs from allowing access to poker / gambling sites. Whether this eventually happens will depend on how much backing ISPs can get from Poker sites to fight it in the courts.

The fuzzy legal situation will never go away unless legislated for. And as more and more kids win major tournaments, more and more opposition to online gaming will grow in middle America. And therefore more support for a complete ban.

Most people in the land of the free probably couldn't care less about illegal gambling, but if they feel their kids are "targeted", the sh*t hitting the fan will have repercussions that'll make JJprodigy's 180K look like peanuts.

RoundTower

Daithio wrote:

I don't know about this. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of taking cash off people that aren't old enough to get a proper job. No doubt some of them are losing players and someone else is footing the bill.

I'm in two minds about it really, but if you are an adult with a job who gambles you may be losing more money than you can afford. As a kid you can't lose more than you can afford -- if you have the money it is usually yours to spend.

Ste05

Dammit I really didn't want to get into this again, and so I'll leave now, it's hard to argue because I think Party had no option then to try and rely on their T&C's, it's that Muppet JJ that I have a problem with now, just taking this $180k loss without even a bat of an eyelid. (Back to my conspiracy theory though).

I don't know enough about IP's etc. to try and make another example of how this could affect the rest of us, so my example wasn't great. But I just feel strongly that these companies need to protect their players, but this is done by having the correct T&C's, collusion detection, security, etc. etc. and I'm just worried that this kind of thing could affect an innocent party in the furute. OK that's it I'll leave now. I think I said everything I had to say on the original thread.

P.S. Imposter, there should be penalties for breach of contract, but those penalties should be prescribed in the T&C's, or as set out in Law, as far as I can see the only penalty prescribed is it says they'll merge the accounts or some such thing so you can only have one account?? But apparently they've changed their T&C's now (haven't checked them) so hopefully this situation shouldn't arise again.

speedytom

You got to feel sorry for him. And them taking 40k in the other account too.

ntlbell

Ste05 wrote:

I don't know enough about IP's etc. to try and make another example of how this could affect the rest of us, so my example wasn't great. But I just feel strongly that these companies need to protect their players, but this is done by having the correct T&C's, collusion detection, security, etc. etc. and I'm just worried that this kind of thing could affect an innocent party in the furute. OK that's it I'll leave now. I think I said everything I had to say on the original thread.

P.S. Imposter, there should be penalties for breach of contract, but those penalties should be prescribed in the T&C's, or as set out in Law, as far as I can see the only penalty prescribed is it says they'll merge the accounts or some such thing so you can only have one account?? But apparently they've changed their T&C's now (haven't checked them) so hopefully this situation shouldn't arise again.

If the guy hadn't admitted it to it he would have serious grounds to get this descicion over turned,

Alot of there evidence seems to be based on the IP address used which just isn't enough, e.g. if I lived with you ste we sign up to an irish ISP, we're assigned an IP we'll consntantly be both playing from the same IP address, what if we both play on the same network? what if we both decided to play a tournament and i've no cash? I ask you for a lend of $200 to buy in, you oblige transfer the money into the account and off we go, I get knocked out half way through you go on to win.

Now your hired to look into this from a technical point of view and come across the above, it looks very suspect but in fact we did nothing wrong.

the whole thing is a JOPKE

ntlbell

5starpool wrote:

In this instance though they were able to tell that he had logged on from the same machine as his 'grandma'. If it was done from different houses, then they could not accuse you of that.

Not the same machine, the same IP address, which is a completley different kettle of fish.

5starpool

ntlbell wrote:

Not the same machine, the same IP address, which is a completley different kettle of fish.

From the email PP sent to JJProdigy.....

When investigating the location of where an account is played from, there are two identifying factors that are taken into account.
A specific computer is traced by a unique computer identification number.
An Internet Protocol (IP) address is the address that an internet service provider uses to identify and trace the location of a computer.

From December 31st, 2005 until February 11th, both accounts only used the IP address xxxxxxx, which traces to xxxxxx, CA. Both accounts only used a computer with the same identifier. These are referred to as the xxxxxx IP and computer.
.
.
The tournament in question took placed on February 12th. At 13:54 ET account JJProdigy logged into a different computer, but from the Home IP, and registered for the $500k Guaranteed Tournament. That account then logged out and back in on the Home computer at 15:18. $215 was transferred to account ABlackCar at 15:27. At 15:32 account ABlackCar logged onto the Home IP and computer and registered for the same $500k Tournament.

From this, they can tell the difference between different computers at the same IP address.

In the example I was responding to earlier it was two players who normally play at the same place, but one was playing in a friends house that time. They would have different IP addresses too, which is what I was stating.

ntlbell

5starpool wrote:

From the email PP sent to JJProdigy.....



From this, they can tell the difference between different computers at the same IP address.

In the example I was responding to earlier it was two players who normally play at the same place, but one was playing in a friends house that time. They would have different IP addresses too, which is what I was stating.

From that it doesn't look like they can tell the difference between computers at the same IP address.

It just looks like someone very non technical wrote a badly worded email.

"a unique computer identification number."

It sounds like he's talking through his bottom.

The majority of logs can not be put forward as admissable evidence so they would find it very hard to prove that this was the case.

I'm not saying they were wrong or right, they're just very brave and I'm suprised JJ didn't look into his options.

Drakar

Ste05 wrote:

...there should be penalties for breach of contract, but those penalties should be prescribed in the T&C's, or as set out in Law, as far as I can see the only penalty prescribed is it says they'll merge the accounts or some such thing so you can only have one account?? But apparently they've changed their T&C's now (haven't checked them) so hopefully this situation shouldn't arise again.

The T&Cs already stated that they can close your account and can confiscate any money contained within if you are in breach of the conditions.

Ste05

Drakar wrote:

The T&Cs already stated that they can close your account and can confiscate any money contained within if you are in breach of the conditions.

I can't believe I'm still responding but where do they say this?