The Real Reason DP Abuse isn't being addressed

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 10:00 by Dunbar

This thread probably wont end well....

Dear Support - THESE ARE NOT PERSONAL DETAILS - HAS THE GUY CHEATED? - HAS THE GUY HAD HIS DP REMOVED SO THAT WE KNOW WHETHER THE CHEATING SCUMBAG IS LIKELY TO DO IT AGAIN?

This is not the solution. PKR should confiscate the fraudelous winnings and reimburse the player cheated. Currently they are not doing that (I never heard of anyone getting his/her money back) which is very bad for the integrity of the games imo.

What they apparantly are doing is removing the AIP protection from said players. Wow, big deal, when PKR introduces non-AIP tables, the AIP tables will be dead anyway.

Currently the AIP feature is just like a free showdown button and a goldmine until PKR introduces the non-AIP tables.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 10:12 by Dunbar

I'll post this one here as well. Jabba/Danski, teach us how to beat players who are not afraid to use this button?

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 13:08 by Modge

My theory - They can't do anything about it. There is no functionality to remove someone's all-in disconnection protection.

Simple way to test that - ask for yours to be removed...


M.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 14:34 by Rozzie

Looking at it from their point of view, I imagine it was introduced because of the increased payload on the users connection making it more likely that they would disconnect (honestly) from PKR than say FTP or PS etc, which have much 'lighter' traffic going down the connection.

In a nutshell then, PKR are thinking we'll lose business if we don't do something to protect honest players who genuinely disconnect.

OK, I think that must be a fair summary of their point of view.

So the way they monitor that it is being used honestly is by, a) limiting the amount of discon protection b) banning offenders c) other players reports.

Is this really enough?

As Dunbar said, there is a strong case that can be made that theft has occurred and nothing is actually being done to recompense the victims.

From a business point of view I imagine they need to weigh up the business loss through people leaving the site. I'm just trying to understand it because it mystifies me how it hasn't been discarded by PKR 'as a mistake that seemed like a good idea at the time'.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 14:52 by ScottyStarburst

its such a tricky subject because its kind hard to check if its genuine disconnections or not.
I can honestly say ive never used it, because its retarded, and if you cant call off a buyin then your playing too high anyways.

but 3 times I think ive been accused of it, where my student internet has d/ced at showdown facing a bet, and although in my opinion I lost money, as I was going to make the correct call anyways my opponent will see otherwise.
I probably played over 100k hands at PKR, and disconnect maybe between 3 and ten times a night, varying a lot, its not just my internet too sometimes pkr stops responding because my computer is overworked or w/e, so its very likely that once in a while i'll disconnect at showdown, instead of a random time when im not in the hand or preflop or w/e.
But should i be punished for this? well I hope not, and if they remove it? then im going to start losing a lot of pots where i temporarily lose connection, and will probably move site to one with less graphics.
Therefore pkr lose one of their highest rakers, so whatever they do about this, theyll "lose" business or piss people off.
The only obvious soloution is to monitor each report, and mark down when it looks like an obvious attempted cheat, and if their only every d/cing at showdown once a night in a big pot then yeah ban them or something, but don't make the innocent lose out imo

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 15:12 by PKR_Danski

As Dunbar said, there is a strong case that can be made that theft has occurred and nothing is actually being done to recompense the victims.

Rozzie, 29/10/2009

In court, theft must be proven. With the case of a customer whose connection to PKR is severed, you will find yourself in an infinitely worse mess if you start removing money from peoples' accounts (hours or possibly days after it has happened) without 100% (or overwhelming) proof, as the only true proof is the person's intent.

Making educated guesses/estimates of the person's intent using what info we have, is nowhere near enough proof (if we use legal standards) to start taking money back from players' accounts. It is however enough to remove their AIP permanently, and one more player who may wish to abuse it is taken out of circulation, so to speak.

In the grand scheme, I would'nt play on a site whose policy was to abritrarily deduct funds from your account if they decided that you had deliberately DC'd, based only on tactical poker decisions and some other factors.

If like Scotty, you get DC'd a fair bit, you'll at some point be unlucky enough to get DC'd in a spot which could be construed as a suitable spot to abuse it, and you could get money taken off you - a crazy situation.

Ironically, it's not even possible for suspected abusers to show us proof that aquits them, if we offered them the chance, before removing funds.

What we have is the best system we can implement and maintain given the status quo, until we make a major change which, as with a lot of things, may take time but is (IMO) inevitable.

By the way, I don't really think the theory in the OP needs addressing, but as Modge says, there's an easy way to find out.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 15:36 by SevenSeas

I lost my definition post in the edit mode, replying to your Guilty mind question, which i have answered above your post Dan.

Theft Act 1968 Sect 1 (1)

A Person Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it, and Thief and steal shall be constued accordingly.

The 'Mens Rea', or guilty mind element of the offence is too hard to prove, so theft is a very harsh word to use, as it cannot be proven.

An offence does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 15:37 by PKR_Danski

And how is the dishonest element determined?

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 16:08 by Dunbar

It is a grey area. I can understand foul play is almost impossible to prove, altho I think there is a way to determine for PKR to see if the disconnect occurred at the players pc or at their ISP.

Solutions like confiscating monies (never gonna happen) or removing AIP (joke imo) are obvious not the best solutions. The best solution is to offer non AIP tables. This is a serious matter, and I think PKR should take this little bit more seriously then they do now.

If the next PKR update brings casinogames but no additional (basic) pokerfeatures like autorebuys, auto top-up and non-AIP tables I would be really disappointed.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 16:11 by Vondur

In court, theft must be proven.

PKR_Danski, 29/10/2009

This isn't in court, and we're not talking about a death sentence. I see no reason for PKR to need absolute proof to reset the action in one hand. The only thing that happens is that the money pays out like if villain didn't have AIP in the first place.

And the sickest thing of all, like in the hand I posted. If villain bets 50$, I bluffraise to 200$ and he plugs, i only get 150$ back and essentially call his 50$ bet with J high!?

Danski, do you have enough pokerknowledge to understand how absurd that last part is?

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 16:19 by PKR_Danski

I'm sure there are parts of my post which can be taken apart, but the general sentiment is that on the subject of recompense for being a possible victim of AIP abuse, there are tons of problematic issues - it just isn't plausible.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 16:26 by Vondur

I'm sure there are parts of my post which can be taken apart, but the general sentiment is that on the subject of recompense for being a possible victim of AIP abuse, there are tons of problematic issues - it just isn't plausible.

PKR_Danski, 29/10/2009

I understand that and I simplified it a bit. I still dont agree completely on the general sentiment. I think that you guys could be more unforgiving if it was in your interest.

I would also like that you adress the last part of my post.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 16:35 by PKR_Danski

Resetting the action when it happens is a different solution to the one discussed - investigating then removing funds after the fact. I have no problem with the principal of resetting, and it's something we are looking at.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 16:40 by Dunbar

Any news about non-AIP tables, or any other PKR updates in general?

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 16:44 by fatshaft

By the way, I don't really think the theory in the OP needs addressing, but as Modge says, there's an easy way to find out.

PKR_Danski, 29/10/2009

No need to address it Dan, simply state which part of the Data Protection act prevents PKR from relaying back to a reporting player what action has been taken? I have asked in two previous (now removed) threads, and multiple times in an email thread that is ongoing.

Show me that you are correct, and I will drop it.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 17:25 by Rozzie

Not sure on the data protection thing...

However, I can see what Danksi's saying on the proof of theft thing and how it would be imposible to prove. Take Vondur's example which LOOKS like a case of deliberate discon and I doubt many of us wouldn't put money on that and win. However, there is a small chance that the player did discon non-deliberately and it just happened to coincide with them having their air-raise shoved over the top of which was totally uncallable in any sane game of poker. I'm just pointing out that there is a small chance

So I see that getting the monies back from these thieving devils is unworkable.

Which leaves other solutions such as non AIP tables. So to take up Dunbar's point here and play a bit of devils advocate again, what if we had these tables? Scotty sounds like he likes AIP and uses it honestly, but would he feel uncomfortable sitting at an AIP table? And would anyone join him?

How would it work and how would we get around problems like this?

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 29-Oct-2009 23:43 by wulfy

...If villain bets 50$, I bluffraise to 200$ and he plugs, i only get 150$ back and essentially call his 50$ bet with J high!?

Danski, do you have enough pokerknowledge to understand how absurd that last part is?


Vondur, 29/10/2009

be honest... you considered calling with J-high before deciding to bluff-raise here

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 07:55 by SevenSeas

PKR, Like any court (Poor choice of word, but the analogy is similar) under the DPA could tell you the outcome if it was simply dealing with a 'Public interest' issue here, like a announcing a 'Guilty finding' or sentence. However, the information held on us all is not in the Public interest, therefore any information held on that person remains covered and protected by the DPA (Luckily). PKR could say to you the matter has been investigated and dealt with, but not tell you what the outcome was.

You have to remember here, that what information they have to investigate matters like these is not unlike the information we all hold, if involved in a game (The Hand History).

How can u make a judgement on a person, from a complaint of another not involved in the game (Merely a railer), without any facts in this instance. Because a person is disconnected during a large pot, does not always make it an instant or obvious AIP issue. If however, you can show many instances that this has happened, over a period of time, it would show system, and give PKR something more to look into.

Like many have said here, if there were no AIP tables, for those that chose to play them, then the seed of doubt would not be planted in the minds of the sceptics.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 09:52 by callmebabe

As many of you know I spend my fair share of time on the cash tables and for me it’s not a big a problem as you all make it out to be. It has happened to me on many occasions but not enough to justify this kind of response. I actually think by making this thread people might target you more so as to tilt you, annoy you?
Anyway there’s nothing worse than when a player does this, so I will make a note of this player and the next time they sit in to a table I’m on I always let players at the table know that this player is inclined to use DC. This I find does work as the player is then in an awkward spot if he does try to disconnect as the table knew of his history from the off.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 10:21 by Dunbar

When a player uses the AIP to get to a free showdown, it is cheating. It doesnt matter how much and how often it happens; cheating is cheating and PKR should work really hard to find a solution for this problem. Offering non-AIP tables is a must. Name me one other site with 100% AIP tables.
The entire discussion of ' it doesnt happen often enough (wtf)' or the 'our hands are tied, we cant take action' posts by Danski are just BS.
Even if only one paying customer gets cheated in the game, PKR should be all over it. Frequency or money involved should not matter, it is the basic priniciple that counts.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 10:37 by satfat

i thought when agrreing to PKR rules upon signup there was a clause tht basically says PKR can sieze ur funds at any time for virtually any reason....every other site can and does..

erm and surely whats the arguement about fnding out whos cheating. it shud be VERY obvious as u only get 2 AIP a day the cheats will always use them when facing tough calls. do u store data? can u check the spots where someone goes discon? i mean if some guy has got AIP twice a day everytime he plays everytime when facing a tough call this is ample evidence no? i know u are worried of a lawsuit if enforced but omfg make a couple of examples of pple who are baltantly cheating according to above criteria plse. no1s saying punish everyone everytime but if theres a clear consistant history of ONLY using aip fitting with the abopve criteria whats there to worry about? i GUARANTEE if u get this sorted ur higher stakes traffic will grow

as for removing it entirely i think thts a bad idea as ar no AIP tables or removing someones AIP cos they r a suspect of AIP cheating. PKR for me is pretty unstable(not my connection) and i dont think i shud have to play at tables where i can lose larger pots simply cos PKR freezes or crashes on me

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 12:03 by fatshaft

PKR, Like any court (Poor choice of word, but the analogy is similar) under the DPA could tell you the outcome if it was simply dealing with a 'Public interest' issue here, like a announcing a 'Guilty finding' or sentence. However, the information held on us all is not in the Public interest, therefore any information held on that person remains covered and protected by the DPA (Luckily). PKR could say to you the matter has been investigated and dealt with, but not tell you what the outcome was.

SevenSeas, 30/10/2009

No one is expecting personal details to be disclosed, we are in fact, expecting just what you said here, an outcome to be fed back. Wa she guilty and sentenced accordingly, or was he not?

So you've put a very effective case for why PKRs continued bluster in the face of requests for outcomes to be disclosed is in fact totally wrong.


As for how to deal with them on the tables, I 100% operate exactly as callmebabe does, I make a note, and call them out whenever they sit at my table.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 12:05 by goldpanda

"Naked man fears no pick pocket."

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 13:08 by SevenSeas

My point FS, was that they could only tell you they had investigated it, but NOT give the outcome here, as this is not a public arena we are dealing with, in regards to the DPA.

Reply | Report abuse

Posted: 30-Oct-2009 13:41 by Dunbar

If you read Danski's post, you will read that PKR cant find anyone guilty because they dont have the means to do it! This entire discussion about disclosing it or not is moot, because there is no guilty/not guilty verdict!