I'm going to a buddy's house later, and I was wondering if it's possible for us to both connect to stars under our usernames, as long as we don't sit on the same table.
Any help would be grand.
Full Version: multiple stars clients playing under one lan
I do it all the time at a friends house. I don't think they can find out when you're at the same table on one connection as long as you aren't blatantly colluding.
They can find out, they definately use IP tracking and what-not.
For instance, even powerplayer doesn't let you sit on one table with someone from the same IP.
NOTE: I was running powerplayer with firefox and my buddy was using IE from the same computer.
For instance, even powerplayer doesn't let you sit on one table with someone from the same IP.
NOTE: I was running powerplayer with firefox and my buddy was using IE from the same computer.
As long as you are not at the same table, it should be no problem.
QUOTE (PT0077)
As long as you are not at the same table, it should be no problem.
It won't be a problem, I have friends who play online together from the same apartment (same internet connection) and the only time they get blocked is if they try to play the same table.
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
The only time i ever tried it, we werent allowed to do it. One of my buddies called his friend on their cell phones, were trying to get on the same table, and a message popped up saying that they were talking to each other and wouldnt let them on the table, it was really strange, i dont know how it happened.
QUOTE (kapsig08)
The only time i ever tried it, we werent allowed to do it. One of my buddies called his friend on their cell phones, were trying to get on the same table, and a message popped up saying that they were talking to each other and wouldnt let them on the table, it was really strange, i dont know how it happened.
Huh?
Maybe I missed something, but do these sites have agents assigned to each player or what?!
You were calling eachother on cell phones, and they knew?
Message 'popped' up?
You must be joking.
QUOTE (ajs510)
It won't be a problem, I have friends who play online together from the same apartment (same internet connection) and the only time they get blocked is if they try to play the same table.
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
i guarantee he's not clearing $3000 a day sitting 5 deep in a 50$ SNG. first of all, hes got to play 1 at a time, otherwise it would get way to complicated to track all the dead cards. secondly, he's putting $25 of rake into each event, plus $250 in entry fees. 1st is 250, 2nd is 150 and 3rd is 100, so he needs 2 of the top 3 just to break even. he'll need to sweep the top 3 to show a $125 profit which is only a marginal return, and due to the nature of SNG tournaments is highly unlikely on any sort of consistent basis. lets be extremely generous and assume he is sweeping the top 3 every time, he still isnt clearing $3k/day playing 1 at a time (assume 1 hour per tourney) for 24 hours straight.
QUOTE (justblaze)
QUOTE (ajs510)
It won't be a problem, I have friends who play online together from the same apartment (same internet connection) and the only time they get blocked is if they try to play the same table.
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
i guarantee he's not clearing $3000 a day sitting 5 deep in a 50$ SNG. first of all, hes got to play 1 at a time, otherwise it would get way to complicated to track all the dead cards. secondly, he's putting $25 of rake into each event, plus $250 in entry fees. 1st is 250, 2nd is 150 and 3rd is 100, so he needs 2 of the top 3 just to break even. he'll need to sweep the top 3 to show a $125 profit which is only a marginal return, and due to the nature of SNG tournaments is highly unlikely on any sort of consistent basis. lets be extremely generous and assume he is sweeping the top 3 every time, he still isnt clearing $3k/day playing 1 at a time (assume 1 hour per tourney) for 24 hours straight.
Pfffff, quit trying to use logic.
QUOTE (Rageur)
QUOTE (kapsig08)
The only time i ever tried it, we werent allowed to do it. One of my buddies called his friend on their cell phones, were trying to get on the same table, and a message popped up saying that they were talking to each other and wouldnt let them on the table, it was really strange, i dont know how it happened.
Huh?
Maybe I missed something, but do these sites have agents assigned to each player or what?!
You were calling eachother on cell phones, and they knew?
Message 'popped' up?
You must be joking.
I promise man, my roomate at school was talking to one of our buddies that lives down the street. they were trying to enter the same tourney on prtyp, and our friend sat down first and when my roomate tried to sit down the message said that he was conversing on a cellular device with another player at the table, and he couldnt enter the tournament. i saw it with my own eyes, we couldnt believe it happened, and still dont know how it did
QUOTE (dms26)
QUOTE (justblaze)
QUOTE (ajs510)
It won't be a problem, I have friends who play online together from the same apartment (same internet connection) and the only time they get blocked is if they try to play the same table.
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
i guarantee he's not clearing $3000 a day sitting 5 deep in a 50$ SNG. first of all, hes got to play 1 at a time, otherwise it would get way to complicated to track all the dead cards. secondly, he's putting $25 of rake into each event, plus $250 in entry fees. 1st is 250, 2nd is 150 and 3rd is 100, so he needs 2 of the top 3 just to break even. he'll need to sweep the top 3 to show a $125 profit which is only a marginal return, and due to the nature of SNG tournaments is highly unlikely on any sort of consistent basis. lets be extremely generous and assume he is sweeping the top 3 every time, he still isnt clearing $3k/day playing 1 at a time (assume 1 hour per tourney) for 24 hours straight.
Pfffff, quit trying to use logic.
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
QUOTE (ajs510)
QUOTE (dms26)
QUOTE (justblaze)
QUOTE (ajs510)
It won't be a problem, I have friends who play online together from the same apartment (same internet connection) and the only time they get blocked is if they try to play the same table.
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
i guarantee he's not clearing $3000 a day sitting 5 deep in a 50$ SNG. first of all, hes got to play 1 at a time, otherwise it would get way to complicated to track all the dead cards. secondly, he's putting $25 of rake into each event, plus $250 in entry fees. 1st is 250, 2nd is 150 and 3rd is 100, so he needs 2 of the top 3 just to break even. he'll need to sweep the top 3 to show a $125 profit which is only a marginal return, and due to the nature of SNG tournaments is highly unlikely on any sort of consistent basis. lets be extremely generous and assume he is sweeping the top 3 every time, he still isnt clearing $3k/day playing 1 at a time (assume 1 hour per tourney) for 24 hours straight.
Pfffff, quit trying to use logic.
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
Justblaze owned you and you calling him Literal Boy made you get even more owned
Whats worse than owned. . . thats right justblaze has officially SERVED you!
QUOTE (ajs510)
QUOTE (dms26)
QUOTE (justblaze)
QUOTE (ajs510)
It won't be a problem, I have friends who play online together from the same apartment (same internet connection) and the only time they get blocked is if they try to play the same table.
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
I just read an article about a guy who claims to be clearing $3000+ per day playing multiple accounts on the same table. Dude has something like 10 independent internet connections running into the same room in his house, each with it's own (whatever site it is) poker account. So he can basically play $50 sit-n-go's against himself and 2-3 other players and guarantee wins all day long.
Scary...
i guarantee he's not clearing $3000 a day sitting 5 deep in a 50$ SNG. first of all, hes got to play 1 at a time, otherwise it would get way to complicated to track all the dead cards. secondly, he's putting $25 of rake into each event, plus $250 in entry fees. 1st is 250, 2nd is 150 and 3rd is 100, so he needs 2 of the top 3 just to break even. he'll need to sweep the top 3 to show a $125 profit which is only a marginal return, and due to the nature of SNG tournaments is highly unlikely on any sort of consistent basis. lets be extremely generous and assume he is sweeping the top 3 every time, he still isnt clearing $3k/day playing 1 at a time (assume 1 hour per tourney) for 24 hours straight.
Pfffff, quit trying to use logic.
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
depends on how competent the colluder/s were. Against a skilled colluder, no one stands a chance. against your average idiot colluder, you could make a lot of money. good collusion is far different from (and far more complicated than) good play. At limits below 10-20, its distinctly unprofitable long-term due to the rake. At limits above this, a sharp player could pick up on it and exploit it. most colluders have no idea what theyre doing, and the ones that do tend to avoid good players because optimal collusion would be pretty obvious to a sharp player. All im saying is its easier said than done, and that if hes playing SNGs with 10 dedicated connections hes likely barely covering his costs.
I'm just repeating what I read, it isn't anything I know for a fact to be true.
Still, it's an interesting idea. In order for it to work, you would have to have 10 different Stars accounts fed by 10 different Neteller accounts fed by 10 different bank accounts under 10 different names. It would be easier to just form a team.
Still, it's an interesting idea. In order for it to work, you would have to have 10 different Stars accounts fed by 10 different Neteller accounts fed by 10 different bank accounts under 10 different names. It would be easier to just form a team.
QUOTE (PT0077)
As long as you are not at the same table, it should be no problem.
QUOTE (kapsig08)
QUOTE (Rageur)
QUOTE (kapsig08)
The only time i ever tried it, we werent allowed to do it. One of my buddies called his friend on their cell phones, were trying to get on the same table, and a message popped up saying that they were talking to each other and wouldnt let them on the table, it was really strange, i dont know how it happened.
Huh?
Maybe I missed something, but do these sites have agents assigned to each player or what?!
You were calling eachother on cell phones, and they knew?
Message 'popped' up?
You must be joking.
I promise man, my roomate at school was talking to one of our buddies that lives down the street. they were trying to enter the same tourney on prtyp, and our friend sat down first and when my roomate tried to sit down the message said that he was conversing on a cellular device with another player at the table, and he couldnt enter the tournament. i saw it with my own eyes, we couldnt believe it happened, and still dont know how it did
You couldn't believe it happened, and you were there.
I really don't believe it happened.
Anyone else have a comment on this? The Patriot act meets partyPoker?
There's no way a poker site could have plucked two cellular signals out of thin air, linked the two calls together, and made a determination that the two players should not be allowed to sit at the same table in the span of a couple of minutes. I doubt even the NSA could pull off that move. If they actually did manage to do that, then the FCC needs to be notified, cause it's illegal as hell.
The only way I can kinda see this being possible is if they were using their cell phones to log in to the site remotely, and talking on them to each other at the same time.
Either that, or one of the two made some comment in one of the chatrooms that was noticed.
Or it's a made up story.
*Edit* Of course...online poker itself is illegal as hell, so I guess the FCC would be the least of their worries...
The only way I can kinda see this being possible is if they were using their cell phones to log in to the site remotely, and talking on them to each other at the same time.
Either that, or one of the two made some comment in one of the chatrooms that was noticed.
Or it's a made up story.
*Edit* Of course...online poker itself is illegal as hell, so I guess the FCC would be the least of their worries...
QUOTE (ajs510)
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
Wouldn't the Site catch on to the fact of the same 5 IP addresses are playing at the same 6 max table all of the time?
Please tell me they would.
QUOTE (T0xic)
QUOTE (ajs510)
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
Wouldn't the Site catch on to the fact of the same 5 IP addresses are playing at the same 6 max table all of the time?
Please tell me they would.
You would hope....but there would need to be some filter to pick that kinda thing up......they should have some filter to see that these addresses always play together, but that's no different than 5 friends that wanna play at a table on a daily basis-much like the Big Game.
QUOTE (T0xic)
QUOTE (ajs510)
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
Wouldn't the Site catch on to the fact of the same 5 IP addresses are playing at the same 6 max table all of the time?
Please tell me they would.
It would if they were using the same IP address, but in the example I cited, the cheat was using 10 independent internet connections which would have their own IP's. Read this month's Maxim, it's in the article "Cheaters Always Win".
*Edit* Sorry, I misread the question. I imagine they would notice that the same 5 players are on the same table a lot, but then again, jdags21 and neverwin and Dan Druff and Money800 play together all the time, and no one questions or puts a stop to it. As long as there is the appearance that all 5 accounts are registered to different people, there is nothing in the terms of service that says they can't play at the same table as often as they like.
If it was me, I'd only play each site one day a week. Stars on Monday, Party on Tuesday, Pacific on Wednesday, etc...
Even if you got caught at a site, there's 300 others waiting for your business. It's not like Vegas where each Casino shares information, online is Dog-eat-Dog.
QUOTE (ajs510)
QUOTE (T0xic)
QUOTE (ajs510)
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
Wouldn't the Site catch on to the fact of the same 5 IP addresses are playing at the same 6 max table all of the time?
Please tell me they would.
It would if they were using the same IP address, but in the example I cited, the cheat was using 10 independent internet connections which would have their own IP's. Read this month's Maxim, it's in the article "Cheaters Always Win".
I think he meant that even with different addresses, they are all 5 at the same table ALL the time.
Thus my response......
QUOTE (Rageur)
QUOTE (ajs510)
QUOTE (T0xic)
QUOTE (ajs510)
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
Wouldn't the Site catch on to the fact of the same 5 IP addresses are playing at the same 6 max table all of the time?
Please tell me they would.
It would if they were using the same IP address, but in the example I cited, the cheat was using 10 independent internet connections which would have their own IP's. Read this month's Maxim, it's in the article "Cheaters Always Win".
I think he meant that even with different addresses, they are all 5 at the same table ALL the time.
Thus my response......
Thanks, I went back and edited after I re-read the question.
QUOTE (Rageur)
QUOTE (ajs510)
QUOTE (T0xic)
QUOTE (ajs510)
The $50 tourney's were just an example Literal Boy...
How's this for a better one, you're playing 100-200 at a 6 handed table against 5 accounts being played by the same player. How badly do you think the best player in the world would get schooled under those conditions?
Wouldn't the Site catch on to the fact of the same 5 IP addresses are playing at the same 6 max table all of the time?
Please tell me they would.
It would if they were using the same IP address, but in the example I cited, the cheat was using 10 independent internet connections which would have their own IP's. Read this month's Maxim, it's in the article "Cheaters Always Win".
I think he meant that even with different addresses, they are all 5 at the same table ALL the time.
Thus my response......
its ludicrously easy to change your IP every time you log in...
ok i really made up a story and posted it on a poker website??? get a life. i was there, it happened, end of story
QUOTE (kapsig08)
ok i really made up a story and posted it on a poker website??? get a life. i was there, it happened, end of story
Relax.
It's not the end of the story.
Nobody believes that PartyPoker can do what you have alleged.
And yes, people make up stories and post them ESPECIALLY on poker sites.
More details maybe?
basically what happened is this. i was upstairs and my roomate calls me down and wants me to help him play this $50 buy in, so i say whatever. he calls our buddy and they are trying to get on the same table, as they are talking on their CELL PHONES the guy sits down at the table first. when my roomate went to take his seat, a box popped up notifying him that he will not be able to join the table due to party poker having evidence that he and another player at the same table are communicating over a cellular device. i have no reason to make this up, i saw it happen, we as well couldnt figure out why or how it happened, its the truth, i dont care enough to make up a story about something as dumb as this.
QUOTE (Rageur)
QUOTE (kapsig08)
ok i really made up a story and posted it on a poker website??? get a life. i was there, it happened, end of story
Relax.
It's not the end of the story.
Nobody believes that PartyPoker can do what you have alleged.
And yes, people make up stories and post them ESPECIALLY on poker sites.
More details maybe?
i never said noone ever makes up stories, i said i dont. if you dont believe it, think about it this way, why in the hell would i make up a story about something so petty, if there was a story to be made up it would be im sure about a won hand, or a bad beat.
You obviously don't know when to lay down the hand and give up on the bluff. You are obviously lying. It is completely impossible for Party to have any knowledge that you are communicating on a phone, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that the software developers did not program in an error message telling you that you are.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
QUOTE (insano)
You obviously don't know when to lay down the hand and give up on the bluff. You are obviously lying. It is completely impossible for Party to have any knowledge that you are communicating on a phone, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that the software developers did not program in an error message telling you that you are.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
ok insano i care as much about lying on a poker site as i do about all the shit you just typed. it happened, i saw it, i was there, end of story, if you dont believe it, who cares, its true. thanks for all of the information though, are you that much of a nerd?? get a life man. i love the game of poker, but its losers like you that have to ruin it with all of your bullshit babble.
QUOTE (insano)
You obviously don't know when to lay down the hand and give up on the bluff. You are obviously lying. It is completely impossible for Party to have any knowledge that you are communicating on a phone, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that the software developers did not program in an error message telling you that you are.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Kinda what I was gettin' at.
The software isn't THAT sophisticated.
Let alone, the cell phone part.....
Our Department of Homeland Security isn't even that good! LOL.
QUOTE (kapsig08)
QUOTE (insano)
You obviously don't know when to lay down the hand and give up on the bluff. You are obviously lying. It is completely impossible for Party to have any knowledge that you are communicating on a phone, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that the software developers did not program in an error message telling you that you are.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
ok insano i care as much about lying on a poker site as i do about all the censored you just typed. it happened, i saw it, i was there, end of story, if you dont believe it, who cares, its true. thanks for all of the information though, are you that much of a nerd?? get a life man. i love the game of poker, but its losers like you that have to ruin it with all of your censored babble.
They're comin' to get ya!
THEY KNOW.
RUN.
i just talked to my roomate to ask him one more time. just like i said , a pop up clearly stated that there was evidence that he and another player at the same table were communicating via telephone. i asked him how he thought it happened, he said he had no clue, maybe while registering with party poker initially he gave his cell # and somehow they knew the two were talking. either way it happened. and how in the hell do you know anything about what our homeland security can do??? please inform me of your source of knowledge.
QUOTE (Rageur)
QUOTE (insano)
You obviously don't know when to lay down the hand and give up on the bluff. You are obviously lying. It is completely impossible for Party to have any knowledge that you are communicating on a phone, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that the software developers did not program in an error message telling you that you are.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Kinda what I was gettin' at.
The software isn't THAT sophisticated.
Let alone, the cell phone part.....
Our Department of Homeland Security isn't even that good! LOL.
Hey Rageur, i would like to know how you know the sophistication level of the software?? and once again, how do you know how good our homeland security is??? indulge us, u seem to think your brilliant, and by the way that was a real clever "look out, run, their coming to get ya" comment, real original
QUOTE (kapsig08)
QUOTE (Rageur)
QUOTE (insano)
You obviously don't know when to lay down the hand and give up on the bluff. You are obviously lying. It is completely impossible for Party to have any knowledge that you are communicating on a phone, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that the software developers did not program in an error message telling you that you are.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Kinda what I was gettin' at.
The software isn't THAT sophisticated.
Let alone, the cell phone part.....
Our Department of Homeland Security isn't even that good! LOL.
Hey Rageur, i would like to know how you know the sophistication level of the software?? and once again, how do you know how good our homeland security is??? indulge us, u seem to think your brilliant, and by the way that was a real clever "look out, run, their coming to get ya" comment, real original
I'm sorry. You are right. They own us all. Goodbye.
It's laughable, you know----- Find some proof, or other similiar stories.....
Until then,
NO ONE BELIEVES YOU.
kapsig08, there are SO many different variables involved in the story that you have explained that is isnt even close to being remotely true. Give up.
Me and my friends try to collude at different tables all the time, but for some reason we just can't ever make any money! :wall:
QUOTE (kapsig08)
QUOTE (insano)
You obviously don't know when to lay down the hand and give up on the bluff. You are obviously lying. It is completely impossible for Party to have any knowledge that you are communicating on a phone, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that the software developers did not program in an error message telling you that you are.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
Also, it would be easy to run a filter for static IP's and check if they are at the same table. Especially if they are all through the same provider. X.X.X.Y, with Y being the only variance between them.
It is an entirely different story for non-static IP's such as common dialup IP's. You would have to do some serious storage and IP comparisons to detect Collusion like that, and would just be a waste of processes for the most part. So I doubt it will ever be done.
The only way anyone is going to notice you are colluding is if someone reports it to them, or the same static IP's sit with each other a lot, but even then how can you prove they are cheating? You can't. End of story.
ok insano i care as much about lying on a poker site as i do about all the censored you just typed. it happened, i saw it, i was there, end of story, if you dont believe it, who cares, its true. thanks for all of the information though, are you that much of a nerd?? get a life man. i love the game of poker, but its losers like you that have to ruin it with all of your censored babble.
Well since you don't like words grouped together into sentences, I'll put it in easier terms for you. You are lying, it's impossible, it didn't happen. How's that?
P.S. - Even minimal common sense tells you that it's impossible. Just give it up.
Oh, and all that "babble" was in response to the O.P. and had nothing to do with you. Let the grown ups talk now.
QUOTE (KingAustin)
kapsig08, there are SO many different variables involved in the story that you have explained that is isnt even close to being remotely true. Give up.
well lets hear them king, its true i have never lied on this damn site and why would i lie about something as petty as this. it didnt even happen to me, it was my roomate, i saw it happen, we couldnt believe it either, but it happened. so lets hear your genius comments on the subject dick
QUOTE (ajs510)
There's no way a poker site could have plucked two cellular signals out of thin air, linked the two calls together, and made a determination that the two players should not be allowed to sit at the same table in the span of a couple of minutes. I doubt even the NSA could pull off that move. If they actually did manage to do that, then the FCC needs to be notified, cause it's illegal as hell.
The only way I can kinda see this being possible is if they were using their cell phones to log in to the site remotely, and talking on them to each other at the same time.
Either that, or one of the two made some comment in one of the chatrooms that was noticed.
Or it's a made up story.
*Edit* Of course...online poker itself is illegal as hell, so I guess the FCC would be the least of their worries...
The only way I can kinda see this being possible is if they were using their cell phones to log in to the site remotely, and talking on them to each other at the same time.
Either that, or one of the two made some comment in one of the chatrooms that was noticed.
Or it's a made up story.
*Edit* Of course...online poker itself is illegal as hell, so I guess the FCC would be the least of their worries...
This is the post.
You guys were either stupid enough to chat on their site about calling eachother, or it's B.S.
I don't care- but you got me curious.
Think long and hard about the reality of PArty POker having cellphone tracking software, or capabilities. Can you share the bong?
If they got the message once then they should get it again if they try again. Get screen shots next time. I'l bet the message says that they detect a "relationship" between the accounts, not cell phone communication.
since i dont like words grouped into sentences??? what in the hell are you talking about man??? how old are you by the way, "let the grown ups talk" i really dont care anymore if you ****s believe it or not, it happened, i saw it , two other guys know it happened, im not blind, i dont lie on poker forums to impress geeks like yourself, go to hell.
none of the cheaters mentioned proxies yet
QUOTE (jill_idle)
none of the cheaters mentioned proxies yet
Even if you are on a proxy, its just going to provide multiple users with the same external IP, so the client will easily catch that.
QUOTE (kapsigo8)
since i dont like words grouped into sentences??? what in the hell are you talking about man??? how old are you by the way, "let the grown ups talk" i really dont care anymore if you censored believe it or not, it happened, i saw it , two other guys know it happened, im not blind, i dont lie on poker forums to impress geeks like yourself, go to hell.
Wow this is quickly turning into a good thread.
Look, its pretty clear that you are a young kid trying to impress someone with your story of "the man" bringing you down. Just stop claiming something happened that is obviously a lie. Your "I don't care what you think" defense just makes it look even worse. Oh and I'm 21 by the way, just graduated with a degree in Computer Science. Call me a nerd if you wish, I enjoy working with computers.
I would love the opportunity for you to call me a nerd to my face however, I will provide a time and location if you would be willing to travel.
Edit: Not because the word "nerd" bothers me, but because you sound like you need some sense pounded into you.
QUOTE (insano)
QUOTE (jill_idle)
none of the cheaters mentioned proxies yet
Even if you are on a proxy, its just going to provide multiple users with the same external IP, so the client will easily catch that.
QUOTE (kapsigo8)
since i dont like words grouped into sentences??? what in the hell are you talking about man??? how old are you by the way, "let the grown ups talk" i really dont care anymore if you censored believe it or not, it happened, i saw it , two other guys know it happened, im not blind, i dont lie on poker forums to impress geeks like yourself, go to hell.
Wow this is quickly turning into a good thread.
Look, its pretty clear that you are a young kid trying to impress someone with your story of "the man" bringing you down. Just stop claiming something happened that is obviously a lie. Your "I don't care what you think" defense just makes it look even worse. Oh and I'm 21 by the way, just graduated with a degree in Computer Science. Call me a nerd if you wish, I enjoy working with computers.
I would love the opportunity for you to call me a nerd to my face however, I will provide a time and location if you would be willing to travel.
well, your 21, im 22. you have a degree in comp. science and just graduated, i just graduated with a degree in criminal justice. its not a lie by the way, and it actually really doesnt matter to me if you beleive it or not, once again i wouldnt lie about something so petty, its a waste of time. believe me man, i would love the opportunity to call you a nerd to your face, i will be there any time, any place, that would make my summer
Edit: Not because the word "nerd" bothers me, but because you sound like you need some sense pounded into you.
Your 22 years old, with a college degree, and you still think something like this would even be possible? Or that others would even believe you? What college did you go to?
Poker applications, atleast party and empire, don't bother with IP's as much as you think. As mentioned above - it's very easy to change that. Instead they check MAC addresses of the modems in play. Think of it like your modems social security number. They ban that - you can't even attempt to log in.
QUOTE (insano)
Your 22 years old, with a college degree, and you still think something like this would even be possible? Or that others would even believe you? What college did you go to?
i dont think it is possible, i know it happened. I WAS THERE YOU MORON, its not made up. i guess the other two guys are complete and total idiots too , it was a huge freak accident that just accidentally found his computer?? are you really judging degrees based on this conversation?
QUOTE (kapsig08)
QUOTE (insano)
Your 22 years old, with a college degree, and you still think something like this would even be possible? Or that others would even believe you? What college did you go to?
i dont think it is possible, i know it happened. I WAS THERE YOU MORON, its not made up. i guess the other two guys are complete and total idiots too , it was a huge freak accident that just accidentally found his computer?? are you really judging degrees based on this conversation?
I was giving you credit for having a degree, I said nothing about judging degrees? But this is a never ending battle since you don't even read my posts correctly anyway. I'm done. Good luck with your telephone situation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.