Player Sues Poker Stars for 1.2 Million

BIG-SLICK-POKER

http://www.thehendonmob.com/forum/vie...17943&start=0

Player sues PokerStars over tournament win

By Sarah Polson

"The Isle of Man Today is reporting that Natalie Teltscher has filed a lawsuit against PokerStars over a tournament she claims to have won on the poker site in September 2007.


Teltscher, who plays online as the VOid, won the 2007 World Championship of Online Poker main event on PokerStars for a top prize of more than $1.2 million. However, PokerStars claims Teltscher isn't entitled to the winnings because she was disqualified for breaching tournament rules.

The poker site claims that Teltscher didn't play the game herself, but instead had an agent play on her behalf.

Teltscher said she had agreed with a third party that they should play the entire tournament on her behalf. After 22 hours of play, her account the VOid was one of two left in play in the tournament, and the players decided to split the remainder of the prize pool, giving the VOid a $1.228 million payday.




PokerStars told the High Court in Douglas that Teltscher claims she never entered or played in the tournament and the poker site was entitled to disqualify both her and the person who is supposed to have played under her user name because they breached tournament rules.

According to Isle of Man Today, Deemster David Doyle adjourned the case. He ruled that the contractual issue had to be determined before any other issues could be addressed.

They would first need to determine if the player is contractually entitled to the money won by her account, and whether or not the poker site was entitled to disqualify the player."

Ste05

Oooh nice, this will be interesting.

jhegarty

If stars win the case won't the person who split on the final table come looking for whatever the non-split 1st prise was...

5starpool

Can of worms right there.

Bandara

Free Ham and Cheese Pizza for the first person to guess which obnoxious git is Natalies brother.

Hint, his first name is Mark.

5starpool

Hammertime wrote: »

Free Ham and Cheese Pizza for the first person to guess which obnoxious git is Natalies brother.

Hint, his first name is Mark.

John Juanda? Best guess I can make at this time, but he isn't very obnoxious. Can''t think who else it might be though........

Mellor

jhegarty wrote: »

If stars win the case won't the person who split on the final table come looking for whatever the non-split 1st prise was...

No, they are not entitled to it, afaik, its split between everyone.

Grafter

Afaik Stars moved everyone else up a place a week or so afterwards and paid them accordingly

NickyOD

This was inevitable really. I'm surprised it took so long. I guess Mark has been spending a lot of time trying to help his sister get her story straight.

CHD

this is the a/c that mark teltscher won on which is under the name of his sister?!?!? and shes suing!?!?!

LOL

Ste05

CHD wrote: »

this is the a/c that mark teltscher won on which is under the name of his sister?!?!? and shes suing!?!?!

LOL

She's the only one that could sue, it's her account and the contract is between herself and Pokerstars. The question seems to be can she appoint someone to play on the account on her behalf. i.e. Mark.

Should be interesting...

CHD

Ste05 wrote: »

She's the only one that could sue, it's her account and the contract is between herself and Pokerstars. The question seems to be can she appoint someone to play on the account on her behalf. i.e. Mark.

Should be interesting...

But she broke the rules of the contract surely!

Should be interesting though

RasTa

Why didn't he just play on his own account?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

super_furry

How did it come to light that she didn't play it? Surely they could have just kept their mouths shut?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

RasTa

^

Yeah that's what I thought, so she is claiming the 3rd party isn't him? I'm presuming they have the IP's linked. Hasn't got a chance

Goodluck2me

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

His sister just happened to open that account for the first time a couple of weeks before the biggest donkament in the history of online poker. Then that sister, who had never played online poker before, just happened to crush the toughest tournament (both in terms of the difficulty of the field and the brutal endurance test of the structure) in the history of online poker.

Her brother (a horrible **** fwiw) also played the tournament using his regular account. Pokerstars put 2 and 2 together, got 4, and were brave enough to simply disqualify an obvious incidence of multi - accounting.

I don't think its beyond the realms of possibility that she could have won it, it doesnt have to be the first time you ever play. Lots of people deposit for the first time for big tournaments.

Mr. Incognito

I don't think its beyond the realms of possibility that she could have won it, it doesnt have to be the first time you ever play. Lots of people deposit for the first time for big tournaments

The odds of a novice winning aren't even worth mentioning- especially in a gambling forum.

Even if she wins the case, he'll be disqualified for having multiple accounts. Waste of court time.

Goodluck2me

SetantaL wrote: »

The odds of a novice winning aren't even worth mentioning- especially in a gambling forum.

Even if she wins the case, he'll be disqualified for having multiple accounts. Waste of court time.

novice and someone new to "online" poker are very different.

NickyOD

goodluck2me wrote: »

I don't think its beyond the realms of possibility that she could have won it, it doesnt have to be the first time you ever play. Lots of people deposit for the first time for big tournaments.

Mark played on more than two accounts. I think it was between 4 and 7 all on the same IP in the same tournament. One was his own, one was his sisters, others were family members, friends or fakes.

MrPillowTalk

Im not massively familiar with the details of what went down however so long as the account holder hasnt admitted it wasnt them playing the tourney then I would have thought she has a very strong case for having the winnings reimbursed. We all know that it wasnt her who played the tourney, however I dont see how it could be proved that it wasnt her.

Similarly I dont see how it could be proved that Mark was multi accounting unless he admitted it, and even if he admitted it his sister could claim that Mark was talking bs and it was in fact her who won, you cant expect to be allowed to withold a million quid on someone on what is essentially heresay from a third party.

Also if they look to withold the funds on some technicality of two accounts playing off the same ip address then I would imagine this would be fairly easily challenged as well.

RasTa

Just reading through some of their T+C's....

Teltscher said she had agreed with a third party that they should play the entire tournament on her behalf. After 22 hours of play, her account the VOid was one of two left in play in the tournament, and the players decided to split the remainder of the prize pool, giving the VOid a $1.228 million payday.

5.2. PERSONAL USE. The Service is intended solely for the User's personal use. The User is only allowed to wager for his/her personal entertainment. Under no circumstances shall a User be permitted to use his/her "real money account" with PokerStars for any purpose other than for using the Service. The User must provide full and truthful information in respect of all details and information provided by the User to PokerStars and the User is obligated to update such details in the event of any change thereto. A User may only have one account with PokerStars and shall only use the Service using such single account. Furthermore a User shall not permit another person to use the Service via his account.

9.2. The User agrees that he/she is solely responsible for all use of the Service under his/her Login Credentials and that he/she shall not disclose the Login Credentials to any person whatsoever.

5.8. FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR. In the event that PokerStars deems that a User has engaged or attempted to engage in fraudulent, unlawful, dishonest or improper activity while using the Service, including without limitation, engaging in any of the activities set forth above or any other game manipulation, or the making of any fraudulent payment, including without limitation, use of a stolen credit card or fraudulent chargeback or money laundering, PokerStars shall be entitled to take such action as it sees fit, including immediately blocking access to the Service, terminating such User's account with PokerStars, seizing all monies held in the User's PokerStars account, disclosing such information (including the identity of the User) to financial institutions, relevant authorities and/or any person or entity that has the legal right to such information, and/or taking legal action against such User.

corkie123

wat i cant understand is how they play different accounts using the same ip address . i have different accounts with ipoker on different sites and when i play one i cant log in with any other at the same time . now how did they work this ? . as im not that much of a computer nit i dont see how this was done . and if so how can poker stars say this ?

bottom feeder

wrong thread

AdMMM

You can;t play on two iPoker clients on the same machine, but you can play one client from every machine on the same network connection. An example would be having two laptops sharing a wireless internet connection in a house; both could play on the same client if they so choose.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

eagle eye

I didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has already been mentioned, but she is not claiming to have played the tournament herself. Her claim is that she is entitled to hire someone to play the entire tournament for her. At least I think thats what shes claiming. But she is not saying she played it anyways.

Goodluck2me

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Sure, novices play bad and run like the sun to win big online tournaments all the time. However, "theV0id" played an exceptional tournament game for 22 hours+ and destroyed a bunch of competent or better players at the business end. Not unlike a top player like Mark might be expected to do while running well. You dig?

I'm not saying that it wasn't him, indeed, far from it, more that it will be hard to prove that to a jury in court who don;t understand poker. (or likely if they do think that its all luck anyway).

Hosef

goodluck2me wrote: »

I'm not saying that it wasn't him, indeed, far from it, more that it will be hard to prove that to a jury in court who don;t understand poker. (or likely, if they do because they don't, think that its all luck anyway).

FYP

MrPillowTalk

RasTa wrote: »

Just reading through some of their T+C's....



5.2. PERSONAL USE. The Service is intended solely for the User's personal use. The User is only allowed to wager for his/her personal entertainment. Under no circumstances shall a User be permitted to use his/her "real money account" with PokerStars for any purpose other than for using the Service. The User must provide full and truthful information in respect of all details and information provided by the User to PokerStars and the User is obligated to update such details in the event of any change thereto. A User may only have one account with PokerStars and shall only use the Service using such single account. Furthermore a User shall not permit another person to use the Service via his account.

9.2. The User agrees that he/she is solely responsible for all use of the Service under his/her Login Credentials and that he/she shall not disclose the Login Credentials to any person whatsoever.

5.8. FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR. In the event that PokerStars deems that a User has engaged or attempted to engage in fraudulent, unlawful, dishonest or improper activity while using the Service, including without limitation, engaging in any of the activities set forth above or any other game manipulation, or the making of any fraudulent payment, including without limitation, use of a stolen credit card or fraudulent chargeback or money laundering, PokerStars shall be entitled to take such action as it sees fit, including immediately blocking access to the Service, terminating such User's account with PokerStars, seizing all monies held in the User's PokerStars account, disclosing such information (including the identity of the User) to financial institutions, relevant authorities and/or any person or entity that has the legal right to such information, and/or taking legal action against such User.

Thats all well and good but she could still claim it was her playing the account and that her brother was talking sh1te when he claimed it was him, it would be difficult to disprove that claim. I would have thought that was a better case than trying to argue you are entitled to hire out your account if thats what shes doing.

Either way I imagine their case has a reasonable chance of success, an argument can be made to the validity of a contract that isnt signed and rather just a box ticked online, I dont know if thats been tested in court yet or not perhaps someone in the legal profession would know better.

DeVore

Typically they are considered non-legally binding though it varies from country to country. If you think back there was the big publicity thing about Clinton and Bertie signing the first binding contract through encryption over the internet back a few years.

DeV.

Fatboydim

You can play on the same client from the same IP addy but usually not in the same tournament. Hence Mrs Dim could not play in the same tournaments as me. This is true on Stars and Ipoker. However there may well be a workaround by fiddling with router settings I suppose. I doubt for example that MT was simply logging off as one player and logging on as another.

However:

I would say it's actually quite easy to detect if it was a particular player and I would imagine Pstars did not make the decision without being 100% certain of their facts.

A players betting patterns, card selection, positional play, chat, time taken with regard to decision making etc etc - would present a fingerprint of sorts. Especially in a big game [Ruling out the drunken 2.00am - sure I'm a poker genius - mistakes.] So whats the chances of MT and his sister having exactly the same style. Especially as - If I remember correctly - She stated she had never played before and the account was a new account. That probably aroused suspicion in the first place.

I would also say that the pattern of play probably changed throughout the tournament if he was multi-accounting - in a way which it wouldn't if it were one person playing one account. Ie: Early on mid-pairs being folded without a raise in front. Factor that in to the possibility that a hand might have been "Let go" at exactly the same time as on another table one of the other accounts was involved in a big pot.

So I would say in short MT does not have a leg to stand on and they are hoping that Pstars will settle out of court for an undisclosed amount in order to avoid going to trial. I'd say they have a snowball in hells chance.

Perhaps BCB can enlighten us on how fraud detection works in these cases?

dK1NG

DeVore wrote: »

Typically they are considered non-legally binding though it varies from country to country.

Dev, could you point me in the direction for where this comes from. Cheers.

MrPillowTalk

Fatboydim wrote: »

You can play on the same client from the same IP addy but usually not in the same tournament. Hence Mrs Dim could not play in the same tournaments as me. This is true on Stars and Ipoker. However there may well be a workaround by fiddling with router settings I suppose. I doubt for example that MT was simply logging off as one player and logging on as another.

However:

I would say it's actually quite easy to detect if it was a particular player and I would imagine Pstars did not make the decision without being 100% certain of their facts.

A players betting patterns, card selection, positional play, chat, time taken with regard to decision making etc etc - would present a fingerprint of sorts. Especially in a big game [Ruling out the drunken 2.00am - sure I'm a poker genius - mistakes.] So whats the chances of MT and his sister having exactly the same style. Especially as - If I remember correctly - She stated she had never played before and the account was a new account. That probably aroused suspicion in the first place.

I would also say that the pattern of play probably changed throughout the tournament if he was multi-accounting - in a way which it wouldn't if it were one person playing one account. Ie: Early on mid-pairs being folded without a raise in front. Factor that in to the possibility that a hand might have been "Let go" at exactly the same time as on another table one of the other accounts was involved in a big pot.

So I would say in short MT does not have a leg to stand on and they are hoping that Pstars will settle out of court for an undisclosed amount in order to avoid going to trial. I'd say they have a snowball in hells chance.

Perhaps BCB can enlighten us on how fraud detection works in these cases?

Its obvious that it was Mark however I cant see how its proveable beyond a reasonable doubt that his sister wasnt playing the tournament. I would be very sceptical about the techniques you describe being admissable as evidence, and if they were it would be purely circumstantial tbh.

turf

as far as im concerned, the site is jumping on an oppurtunity to not pay.. unless they completely restructure the winnings. i dont see why they are bothered if thats the case.. no profit to be made


if they dont restructure, they're stealing 1.2 million from the prize pool?

MrPillowTalk

turf wrote: »

as far as im concerned, the site is jumping on an oppurtunity to not pay.. unless they completely restructure the winnings. i dont see why they are bothered if thats the case.. no profit to be made


if they dont restructure, they're stealing 1.2 million from the prize pool?

Everyone moved up a paygrade ie no difference in prize money

Hitman Actual

MrPillowTalk wrote: »

Its obvious that it was Mark however I cant see how its proveable beyond a reasonable doubt that his sister wasnt playing the tournament. I would be very sceptical about the techniques you describe being admissable as evidence, and if they were it would be purely circumstantial tbh.

But in the OP is the line:

Original Post wrote:

Teltscher said she had agreed with a third party that they should play the entire tournament on her behalf.

I really can't see how he/she will win this. Interesting indeed.

antomadness

Absolutely, very hard to prove. she could just say he stood behind her and told her what to do, but she did all the clicking

Hitman Actual

Are some people missing the point here, or am I missing something? She's not denying that someone else played (and won the tournament) on her account, right?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Are some people missing the point here, or am I missing something? She's not denying that someone else played (and won the tournament) on her account, right?

thats what i am picking up and if that is the case she has broken the t&cs of stars and therefore has no chance of getting the $$$

Headspace

The acc won the tourney, we all know who played the acc, but 1.2 mil was won so I think this woman has a very strong case. I dont know about ip addresses but just because her brother is a top poker player dose not mean a court of law is going is going to say 'oh it was obv him playing'.

Hitman Actual

Headspace wrote: »

The acc won the tourney, we all know who played the acc, but 1.2 mil was won so I think this woman has a very strong case. I dont know about ip addresses but just because her brother is a top poker player dose not mean a court of law is going is going to say 'oh it was obv him playing'.

Yes, but most T&C's state, in one way or another, that only the owner of the account can play on the account. According to the OP, she already said that somebody else won the tournament playing for her, on her account. If she did something to deserve to be disqualified, then technically the 'account' didn't win anything,

MrPillowTalk

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Yes, but most T&C's state, in one way or another, that only the owner of the account can play on the account. According to the OP, she already said that somebody else won the tournament playing for her, on her account. If she did something to deserve to be disqualified, then technically the 'account' didn't win anything,

I know that in the original post it said that she admitted to not playing the tourney which I would have thought was a little silly, I still think they have an argument to make as to the validity of the contract though.

H8GHOTI

antomadness wrote: »

Absolutely, very hard to prove. she could just say he stood behind her and told her what to do, but she did all the clicking

That's against the rules as well

ArmaniJeanss

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Yes, but most T&C's state, in one way or another, that only the owner of the account can play on the account. According to the OP, she already said that somebody else won the tournament playing for her, on her account. If she did something to deserve to be disqualified, then technically the 'account' didn't win anything,

Dont get too hung up on 'the t&c says blah blah, therefore she has broken the rules'.
It'll be up to the court to decide if the t&cs are fair, valid, legal, properly worded. Just cause she has 'signed' these t&cs may not mean anything either.

Hitman Actual

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Dont get too hung up on 'the t&c says blah blah, therefore she has broken the rules'.
It'll be up to the court to decide if the t&cs are fair, valid, legal, properly worded. Just cause she has 'signed' these t&cs may not mean anything either.

I agree that this is where the case is, but some people seemed to think she was trying to prove that she actually played the game herself. I assume this is the first time the T&Cs-contract issue is being dealt with, so it will be very interesting to see where it goes.

Would anyone like to speculate on the implications of the court ruling in her favor? All poker sites would be left open to challenges to their T&C's, I assume?

YULETIRED

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I agree that this is where the case is, but some people seemed to think she was trying to prove that she actually played the game herself. I assume this is the first time the T&Cs-contract issue is being dealt with, so it will be very interesting to see where it goes.

Would anyone like to speculate on the implications of the court ruling in her favor? All poker sites would be left open to challenges to their T&C's, I assume?

If anything T&Cs will have to be more clearly defined after this even if she loses the case. I wonder if a certain MCamorous player who lost his package is watching this case closely...........THis is very interesting as it doesn't only effect poker , for example If I'm playing blackjack on a poker
site and my friend *blackjack expert* wins me a fortune, am I entitled to the money..........Is there much difference here?

I think you should be able to let who you like to play your account for you. I really don't see the problem, if that player was playing on his own account he'd win anyway...If he's playing on yours instead what is the difference, apart from people becoming confused at your improved standard of play. It would serve the grinders right for installing the spy software etc to deem who the fish are.........hope she wins.

ArmaniJeanss

YULETIRED wrote: »

I think you should be able to let who you like to play your account for you. I really don't see the problem, if that player was playing on his own account he'd win anyway

Do you actually read the threads or just dive in regardless?
He did play on his own account, and lost.

YULETIRED

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Do you actually read the threads or just dive in regardless?
He did play on his own account, and lost.

Natalie Teltscher ? (a she) or Mcamourous?

I'm confused!

seem like your post is laced with irony.

5starpool

YULETIRED wrote: »

Natalie Teltscher ? (a she) or Mcamourous?

I'm confused!

seem like your post is laced with irony.

Allegedly he played on several accounts, one of which was his own, and one of which was his sisters newly set up one.