201 replies to this topic

[Spademan]

Ok, this has been hashed over before, but let's explain it a tiny bit again.If you have six accounts in tournies, no matter how large, your chances of getting to the same table with yourself increase with each account.This opens up all kinds of doors. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.If you have six accounts in a tourney, you are going to knock up to 6 times more people out than everyone else who follow the rules, probability and skill level willing. Each one of those people you knock out with 1 of your 5, cheating ass extra accounts may have won the whole damn thing, if not for your cheating *** account and that one single hand. That potentially cheats them of more than 100k. Also, you thin the field with your 5 extra accounts. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.If you have six accounts in a tourney, you can choose to play some of them in different ways. Some tight, some loose, some maniac. Your maniac may make plays and double and triple and quadruple and whatever the hell the thing for "5 times up" is, as maniacs sometimes do, and suddenly be chip leader. This would have never happened if you were not cheating like a fucktard nutbag with your 6 fucking accounts. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.Let us reduce it to absurdity. Since some of you may thing "the fields are *so* large, I mean, 5000 or 6000 people, wow... so big, doesn't matter man, for reals, stop being hating haters you hatians." Ok, so let's say, just for the sake of argument, that this cheating knob-gobbler manages to keep every single one of his cheating accounts in the tournament. "Impossible", you may scream, your mullet swaying in the wind from your fury, you pants, already resting on your thighs in that psuedo gangster way, falling down around your ankles. "Improbable", I reply, correcting your terrible grasp of probability. So he has 6 accounts at the final table... sure, that works out OK. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.I could go on and on, add points, flesh out points, give possibilities, make metaphor, use alliteration for effect, drink a cup of coffee, translate statements into formal logic or eat babies. Too much work though, to cast pearls as they say.Bringing up others who have done wrong in their lives is not a rebuttal, it is a fallacy. It does not absolve your subject, it merely points out the character flaws in your "you too" - like examples.If one is tired of Zeejustin jokes, that's understandable.If one rationalizes or downplays his cheating, one becomes suspect themselves.

[irishguy]

Spademan, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

Bringing up others who have done wrong in their lives is not a rebuttal, it is a fallacy. It does not absolve your subject, it merely points out the character flaws in your "you too" - like examples.If one is tired of Zeejustin jokes, that's understandable.If one rationalizes or downplays his cheating, one becomes suspect themselves.

I for one have never defended Justin's actions. While I believe he has been judged harshly and singled out for an offence that other big names had readily participated in that does not take away from his misdeeds. What he did was wrong plain and simple and for people to deny that is dumb. I bring up people who have done wrong in their lives not as a rebuttal but to point out the hypocricy.

[ratwastard]

Royal_Tour, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 2:29 PM, said:

dude, i seriously think ur a jopke account, but since ur still going, i'l continue.what would happen if Zjustin had 2 of his accounts at the same table?who cares if there is 100 tables in a MTT, it can happen.what if both accounts go deep. and he's got 2 at the same table when its down to 3 tables??? huh?

the main problem i have is that he is being treated the same way as a guy who colludes, uses some device to peek at his opponents cards, or dumps chips to a friend.playing multiple accounts can actually be counterproductive in that it makes it that much harder to analyze the play of your opponents.

[Jam-Fly]

ratwastard, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

the main problem i have is that he is being treated the same way as a guy who colludes, uses some device to peek at his opponents cards, or dumps chips to a friend.playing multiple accounts can actually be counterproductive in that it makes it that much harder to analyze the play of your opponents.

lol, not a very valid point.I think your all right in saying what he did was wrong, I don't think anyone can deny that. What am I saying is that the treatment he received is not fair IMO. John Johnson evaded taxes. Tom Thompson killed a bus full of orphans. Should both be treated the same? Of course not. I think what Zee Justin did was obv wrong, but I don't see how it is so terrible that people will never let it go. I'm pretty sure Wandigo or someone played on Grinder's a/c after Grinder got disconnected. IMO, there is nothing wrong with this, but it is technically 'cheating'. But now, anytime Grinder or Wandigo make a FT, there's isn't 6 different posters saying "What a cheat, I hope he dies".

[BigDMcGee]

Spademan, on Friday, June 8th, 2007, 8:53 PM, said:

"Haters" is a stupid word.I hate you for using it.Turning down 6th street when you meant to turn down 7th is a mistake.Cheating is deliberate.Admitted guilt like a man?Please.Pretty easy to admit guilt when you are caught red handed, that is fucking lame to even bring up as some sort of rebuttal.Bringing up Slanksy or Grinder does not absolve this douchebag, it only indicts them -- your reasoning and rhetoric lack weight.Maybe all of you reason out your own lack of integrity and shitbaggery by telling yourselves it's just a "mistake" when you're screwing over whoever you screw over, who knows. As more me, I don't cheat anyone, ever.Except for bad guys of course, but that's all in a days work.

I don't think what he did was a "mistake " I think it was willful and deliberate cheating.. I just think it is drop in an ocean of shady poker cheating, and don't see why people vilify this guy, while they praise and build the legends of other poker pros I have 0 doubt have cheated in a much more direct way, for much more money... If I were to rate cheating like I do a hot woman, I would rate the cheating that Justin did a 2, and the cheating some of the poker "legends" have done to be a 10. Oh, I know, though.. those were the wild days.. everyone cheated back then right... these days, all the mobsters got cleaned out of vegas, and everyone was happy to play clean games for much higher stakes. That sounds likely. Collusion, both online and live, is where the real cheating occurs, and is a real threat to honest players, not having 6 entries in a field of 2000 with the dream that you'll get to collude at some point. Not to mention all the various other forms of cheating, like marked decks and dirty dealers. But, that could never happen today, right? Today's pro poker players are honest as the day is long... Honest about things like, say.. their golf handicaps?

[Jam-Fly]

BigDMcGee, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

I don't think what he did was a "mistake " I think it was willful and deliberate cheating.. I just think it is drop in an ocean of shady poker cheating, and don't see why people vilify this guy, while they praise and build the legends of other poker pros I have 0 doubt have cheated in a much more direct way, for much more money... If I were to rate cheating like I do a hot woman, I would rate the cheating that Justin did a 2, and the cheating some of the poker "legends" have done to be a 10. Oh, I know, though.. those were the wild days.. everyone cheated back then right... these days, all the mobsters got cleaned out of vegas, and everyone was happy to play clean games for much higher stakes. That sounds likely. Collusion, both online and live, is where the real cheating occurs, and is a real threat to honest players, not having 6 entries in a field of 2000 with the dream that you'll get to collude at some point. Not to mention all the various other forms of cheating, like marked decks and dirty dealers. But, that could never happen today, right? Today's pro poker players are honest as the day is long... Honest about things like, say.. their golf handicaps?

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying.QFT

[ratwastard]

BigDMcGee, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 4:09 PM, said:

I just think it is drop in an ocean of shady poker cheating, and don't see why people vilify this guy, while they praise and build the legends of other poker pros I have 0 doubt have cheated in a much more direct way, for much more money... If I were to rate cheating like I do a hot woman, I would rate the cheating that Justin did a 2, and the cheating some of the poker "legends" have done to be a 10. Oh, I know, though.. those were the wild days.. everyone cheated back then right... these days, all the mobsters got cleaned out of vegas, and everyone was happy to play clean games for much higher stakes. That sounds likely. Collusion, both online and live, is where the real cheating occurs, and is a real threat to honest players, not having 6 entries in a field of 2000 with the dream that you'll get to collude at some point. Not to mention all the various other forms of cheating, like marked decks and dirty dealers. But, that could never happen today, right? Today's pro poker players are honest as the day is long... Honest about things like, say.. their golf handicaps?

fairly accurate

[rogerwilco]

Jam-Fly, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 8:33 PM, said:

However, if he was doing it playing 1 table SNGs, do you not think his 'crime' would not be about 600x more serious.

I'm wondering if doing that would even be +ev (regardless of ethical/legal concerns), sure you have twice the chance of cashing, but at the cost of an additional buy-in, which is huge ROI-wise. In a MTT with hundreds or thousands of players that matters much less.Bonomo played with multiple accounts specifically because it improved his chances of making a big cash. I don't believe for a second that he didn't do any chip dumping from one account to another, that he took advantage of knowing 2 dead cards at some tables, etc. He cheated, and he knew it, he'll have to deal with the consequences. Whatever, he's young, rich and has impressive poker-skills, he'll survive being branded as a cheater.

[uncooper]

Jam-Fly, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 3:19 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure Wandigo or someone played on Grinder's a/c after Grinder got disconnected. IMO, there is nothing wrong with this, but it is technically 'cheating'. But now, anytime Grinder or Wandigo make a FT, there's isn't 6 different posters saying "What a cheat, I hope he dies".

This is within the rules, at least at stars. It is not cheating by any definition.

[Jam-Fly]

uncooper, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 1:43 PM, said:

This is within the rules, at least at stars. It is not cheating by any definition.

You are right, I was not aware of this

Quote

With trivial exceptions, a player may play on only one account during a tournament and may not "hand off" his seat in mid-event to a different player. Violation of this rule may result in penalties ranging from a warning, to disqualification from the tournament (with partial or full forfeiture of winnings), to barring from PokerStars. Examples: You get a phone call during a PokerStars tournament. You ask your husband, who has already busted out of that tournament, to play your hands for you. You are on the phone for ten minutes and then resume play. This is permitted. You and a friend, who is a tournament pro, are playing in the same tournament. You agree that if he busts out before you do, he will take over playing your account. This is prohibited. You are playing in a tournament and lose power in your home due to a failure of your power station. You call a friend and he takes over until your power is returned. This is permitted. Your husband is out of town for the weekend, but gives you his password. You log into both his account and yours and play both accounts in the same tournament. This is prohibited.

[sacopoo]

I will admit that I am very jealous of ZeeJustin. I am very jealous of his lack of integrity and selling of his soul to make some nice cash. If I had his cash my life would be a hell of a lot easier. Its the whole conscience thing that has kept me from doing what he did.Damn it must be nice to not to have a conscience and cheat your fellow employess, who play by the rules, and make a couple hundred G's why you are at it. He is playing in numerous WSOP events right now and I am not. That makes me jealous Seriously, I will consider getting rid of my conscience so I can drive a nice car and play a lot of wsop events like he is.It really sounds nice, not to have any integrity or to be able to blame your lack of integrity on being young, while you keep most of the money you made through cheating.

[ObeyTheDog]

I don't care if I win 1/100th of what Bonomo earns in his career.I don't care if I have 1/100th his skill.I would NEVER even consider the things he decided to do. I'm a honest person. I have integrity. And that is much richer than anything he will ever have. He paid his price in terms of dollars and villification. His debt is paid. But there is a lifelong debt that he will pay and continue to pay and that is the name Justin Bonomo = Cheat 1st, Cardplayer 2nd, for life. When you cheat, you are tagged a cheat for life even if you repent and never cheat again. That's the "price" you pay to cheat.He deserves that tag. I'm sure he's a great guy and I'm sure he's really, really sorry, but that will never shake the tag.

[Pot Odds RAC]

Spademan, on Saturday, June 9th, 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

Ok, this has been hashed over before, but let's explain it a tiny bit again.If you have six accounts in tournies, no matter how large, your chances of getting to the same table with yourself increase with each account.This opens up all kinds of doors. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.If you have six accounts in a tourney, you are going to knock up to 6 times more people out than everyone else who follow the rules, probability and skill level willing. Each one of those people you knock out with 1 of your 5, cheating ass extra accounts may have won the whole damn thing, if not for your cheating *** account and that one single hand. That potentially cheats them of more than 100k. Also, you thin the field with your 5 extra accounts. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.If you have six accounts in a tourney, you can choose to play some of them in different ways. Some tight, some loose, some maniac. Your maniac may make plays and double and triple and quadruple and whatever the hell the thing for "5 times up" is, as maniacs sometimes do, and suddenly be chip leader. This would have never happened if you were not cheating like a fucktard nutbag with your 6 fucking accounts. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.Let us reduce it to absurdity. Since some of you may thing "the fields are *so* large, I mean, 5000 or 6000 people, wow... so big, doesn't matter man, for reals, stop being hating haters you hatians." Ok, so let's say, just for the sake of argument, that this cheating knob-gobbler manages to keep every single one of his cheating accounts in the tournament. "Impossible", you may scream, your mullet swaying in the wind from your fury, you pants, already resting on your thighs in that psuedo gangster way, falling down around your ankles. "Improbable", I reply, correcting your terrible grasp of probability. So he has 6 accounts at the final table... sure, that works out OK. If one does not understand this, they are stupid.I could go on and on, add points, flesh out points, give possibilities, make metaphor, use alliteration for effect, drink a cup of coffee, translate statements into formal logic or eat babies. Too much work though, to cast pearls as they say.Bringing up others who have done wrong in their lives is not a rebuttal, it is a fallacy. It does not absolve your subject, it merely points out the character flaws in your "you too" - like examples.If one is tired of Zeejustin jokes, that's understandable.If one rationalizes or downplays his cheating, one becomes suspect themselves.

This is one of the best Non-Balloon Guy post I have ever read on this site.

[SuperJon]

ObeyTheDog, on Sunday, June 10th, 2007, 3:30 AM, said:

I don't care if I win 1/100th of what Bonomo earns in his career.I don't care if I have 1/100th his skill.I would NEVER even consider the things he decided to do. I'm a honest person. I have integrity. And that is much richer than anything he will ever have. He paid his price in terms of dollars and villification. His debt is paid. But there is a lifelong debt that he will pay and continue to pay and that is the name Justin Bonomo = Cheat 1st, Cardplayer 2nd, for life. When you cheat, you are tagged a cheat for life even if you repent and never cheat again. That's the "price" you pay to cheat.He deserves that tag. I'm sure he's a great guy and I'm sure he's really, really sorry, but that will never shake the tag.

I know it's been brought up a million times, but if what you're saying is true. Then why do people only bash him, yet praise many other big name pros who were known to do the exact same thing or other forms of cheating?Why is it that when Doyle Bronson makes a FT at the WSOP, no one ever brings up his cheating past? Oh that's right, everyone did it back then, so it makes it okay. Right? Wrong. It's like the age old question parents used to ask their children, "If all your friends jumped off the bridge, would you follow?" So I'll ask one more time, and I hope that I get an answer, since it seems this question has been avoided since page 1. Why are other big name pros who cheated praised for their accomplishments?

[Pot Odds RAC]

SuperJon, on Sunday, June 10th, 2007, 6:35 AM, said:

I know it's been brought up a million times, but if what you're saying is true. Then why do people only bash him, yet praise many other big name pros who were known to do the exact same thing or other forms of cheating?Why is it that when Doyle Bronson makes a FT at the WSOP, no one ever brings up his cheating past? Oh that's right, everyone did it back then, so it makes it okay. Right? Wrong. It's like the age old question parents used to ask their children, "If all your friends jumped off the bridge, would you follow?" So I'll ask one more time, and I hope that I get an answer, since it seems this question has been avoided since page 1. Why are other big name pros who cheated praised for their accomplishments?

Some people become defined by the things that make them notorious. That is often the price of notoriety. Especially in today's multi media invasive society. The guy cheated in On-Line Poker and became famous for that at the same time that he became famous for his other accomplishments. Those two events were simultaneous and are therefore linked.

[profxavier9]

On pokerwire lat night they were saying that Zeej has been playing pretty bad in the series. Constantly getting it in bad but managing to come out ahead.

[Totalbluff]

Before people get their knickers in a twist by this post, I want to state I do not condone cheating of any kind.One of my friends was caught ZeeJustin style multiaccounting a few years ago (no, I had no idea at the time). I was pissed and we had a lot of arguements about it. He's a great player and I couldn't understand why he would do this. Basically what it came down to in his mind was his way of negating variance. (i.e. his KK running into AA etc.) He did it with no intention of trying to "cheat" someone out of their tournament chances. He wasn't doing it with the hopes of finding himself on the same table and chip dumping to himself. He was young and naive to an extent and for a long time still didn't understand why I was so mad about it. He really didn't think he was doing anything wrong.I think this is how a lot of multiaccounting players were thinking though. Do you guys honestly think someone like the Grinder needed to "cheat" to win a tournament?I don't really have the problem with it that I used to. Is it wrong? Of course. Were these guys young and stupid? Absolutely. Should they all burn in poker hell and never be allowed to put this behind them? No.This isn't something like the S and L scandal (Jesus, I think I just dated myself). Those people were theives. These kids were just trying to win a tournament. They went about it the wrong way, but that doesn't make them the scumbags they are being portrayed as. It makes them stupid kids.As I am short and prone to nosebleeds, I'll leave the high horses to better people than me. You can now return to snacking on your hater tots and I'll go find another thread to post in.

[FourFlusher]

"Why is it that when Doyle Bronson makes a FT at the WSOP, no one ever brings up his cheating past?"Excuse me? What cheating past would this be?

[Pot Odds RAC]

Totalbluff, on Sunday, June 10th, 2007, 10:23 AM, said:

Before people get their knickers in a twist by this post, I want to state I do not condone cheating of any kind.One of my friends was caught ZeeJustin style multiaccounting a few years ago (no, I had no idea at the time). I was pissed and we had a lot of arguements about it. He's a great player and I couldn't understand why he would do this. Basically what it came down to in his mind was his way of negating variance. (i.e. his KK running into AA etc.) He did it with no intention of trying to "cheat" someone out of their tournament chances. He wasn't doing it with the hopes of finding himself on the same table and chip dumping to himself. He was young and naive to an extent and for a long time still didn't understand why I was so mad about it. He really didn't think he was doing anything wrong.I think this is how a lot of multiaccounting players were thinking though. Do you guys honestly think someone like the Grinder needed to "cheat" to win a tournament?I don't really have the problem with it that I used to. Is it wrong? Of course. Were these guys young and stupid? Absolutely. Should they all burn in poker hell and never be allowed to put this behind them? No.This isn't something like the S and L scandal (Jesus, I think I just dated myself). Those people were theives. These kids were just trying to win a tournament. They went about it the wrong way, but that doesn't make them the scumbags they are being portrayed as. It makes them stupid kids.As I am short and prone to nosebleeds, I'll leave the high horses to better people than me. You can now return to snacking on your hater tots and I'll go find another thread to post in.

Very mature. You start by making the assertion that you don't condone cheating - and then go right into a rant that condones cheating as being a minor infraction of kids being kids. Give me a break. Yeah, these "kids" were just trying to win a Tournament - by cheating while everyone else played by the rules! Are you kidding me?!? Yes, they "went by it the wrong way"... THEY CHEATED!!!Each of you defending this action scares me a little, because you sound like you have either done it yourselves, or may do it in the future to gain an advantage.I also like how you try and paint folks who don't cheat as somehow arrogant and pompous but then see nothing wrong with your own patronizing condescending closing remark.

[aedread]

People make way to big a deal about this. As it has been said alot of people did what he did and alot of legends of the game have cheated in the past.Get over it.It is not that big a deal what the kid did.Get over it.