Sorel Mizzi And Chris Vaughn...

[cardcore 0]

I'm sure I'll get flamed to high heaven for this, but I just wrote an article about my thoughts on the whole account selling scandal. It might be tl;dr for some of you, but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you give it a read.http://www.texasholdem.com/news.php?id=368-Seth

[Bizzle 0]

Seth-I apologize in advance here for being fairly contrarian. There are some points of yours that I agree with, but there are several that I disagree with. Don't take it personally.

Redistribute the first place prize, minus what 20th place would have earned, give Vaughn a 6 month suspension, and call it even.

The problem with this plan of action is that it requires Tilt to make a judgment and do a series of research in order to determine when the account was sold. You make the steroid argument later in the article, so what I would compare it to would be taking away Bonds' records for the past 5 years for doing steroids, but leaving the years before untouched. The player clearly made a mistake that should result in the forfeiture of his tournament, not "getting what he has won so far".

He’s ponying up 100 times more than every other player put up. Does that make it fair? Maybe, maybe not. He’s certainly paying enough for the chance, though.

If you agree that buying an account is unfair, and that multi-accounting is unfair, then this is definitely unfair. Imperium already played in the tournament and busted. This transaction is clearly against the rules of FTP. It is completely unfair to the rest of the field in the tourney for someone to be able to obtain a second chance at winning after busting their first chance. How much money was paid is irregardless of the fairness of such a transaction.

If Sorel and Vaughn lived together, nobody would have known this happened. This isn’t going to stop, simply because it’s unenforceable.

Well, duh, this is much harder to enforce. So because certain types of offenses are tougher to enforce, we are supposed to not enforce other similar offenses? This would be akin to "well, shoplifting is difficult to prevent, so we'll not pursue the guys that robbed that bank."

For a momentary lapse in judgment – a lapse in judgment that I’m sure many of his peers have had on a regular basis – he loses the ability to play on one of the world’s most popular poker rooms.

So because this type of thing has occurred before (both when it was legal and when it wasn't) we're supposed to forgive it this time? If anything, I think that the argument that other players have performed the same thing and not been punished is a good argument for a harsher punishment this time. Using an extensive punishment to curtail this behavior might be in the best interest of Full Tilt Poker.

Whether or not that’s unethical is up to you. You’re just taking advantage of what the software lets you do.

I hate arguing against this point this way because it sounds ridiculous, but guns let me kill people, does that mean I should be allowed to kill people? There are rules against these actions occurring, just because it is possible doesn't mean that it shouldn't be punished.

Ask yourself this. If this happened between AverageJoe1 and AverageJoe2, would the response have been the same as it happening to a guy that works for Bluff Magazine and one of the world’s top players?

Well, can't we pose the same question to you? If this had happened between AverageJoe1 and AverageJoe2 and (this is just a guess) you didn't have a personal relationship with these two players, would you be writing an article on it?

[zimmer4141 0]

Yep, you will get flamed to high heaven for this, at least by me.Both of these guys knew what they were doing, this wasn't a "lapse in judgement". People have been caught doing this before, they knew what they were doing was illegal.When Sorel takes over, sure, he pays $20k for the opportunity. However, by taking over, he greatly increases the EV of the BluffMagCV Account. Where does that EV come from? It gets taken away from all the people who played honestly up to this point, and continue to play honestly after Sorel takes over. They are CHEATING everybody else out of value in that tournament. Cheating is a bannable offense from any cardroom be it online or live.Here's to wishing Chris and Sorel continue to get what they deserve as the scum of the poker world.One more funny thing: After my loan post on 2p2, Chris wanted me to do what I could to help him "clear his name and image". I added a post to forgive him so that he might have a chance to make a good reputation for himself. That sure lasted long.

[bigstack1980 0]

I read over your article and can understand why you are taking up for someone that has done this multible times... Even if he swapped off for a few mins. that is still not right, unless of course complete D/C. From what I read Sorel has done this type of buy outs for some time now and even if they do get a life ban all they would have to do is get a new IP address, this is not tough. As far as his rep, some could look at him as a cheat but no one will take away from the fact that He is a great player. I dont feel sorry for people that make a living by cheating, wheither at home with a friend taking over or buying/selling accounts.I think the ban for life is what is needed to send a message to those people who are dumb enough not to know all you need is a new IP address but still want to cheat. But thank you for writing this and others may take your side....

[vbnautilus 48]

Chris claims that he sold his account to Sorel when there were slightly more than 20 players remaining, and he had a slightly below average stack. At that point, Chris would have earned a few thousand dollars if he had busted right then and there. There’s no way to know whether or not he would have made the same plays Mizzi made or if he would have taken down the tournament on his own. Whatever he was paid by Mizzi was certainly more than he would have made with a 20th place finish, but probably not as much as 4th or 5th place. It’s hard to say. Personally, I think he should at least be credited with the cash that he would have made at the point he sold the account, if nothing else.And why do I think this? Well, Chris played the tournament on his own up until he sold the account to Sorel, he should be compensated for it. He made a mistake, sure, but he earned what he earned until he gave up control. Redistribute the first place prize, minus what 20th place would have earned, give Vaughn a 6 month suspension, and call it even. Don’t ban him forever for a lapse in judgment. Hell, he was probably offered five figures to give away his password for two hours. I don’t care who you are, that’s tough to turn down, especially on a journalist’s salary.

He cheated. You can call it a "lapse in judgement" but basically any offense can be framed that way. Offering the money he would have had at the point he sold the account is kind of absurd. It would send the message that you if you get caught cheating you don't really stand to lose anything. Doesn't that making account selling +EV?

Sorel has a more interesting case. He earns his living playing poker, and Full Tilt Poker is arguably the best place for pros to play. He’s had incredible success both live and online, and he could certainly afford to pay Vaughn a few thousand bucks at a chance to win a few hundred thousand. Say he gave Vaughn $20,000. He is, in essence, playing a 3 table, $20,000 sit and go, rather than playing a $215, 4,000 player tournament. If you get over the fact that account selling might be unethical, think about it from his standpoint. He’s ponying up 100 times more than every other player put up. Does that make it fair? Maybe, maybe not. He’s certainly paying enough for the chance, though.

No one is denying there was financial incentive for Sorel to break the rules. I don't see how this is relevant.

That said, chew on this. A lot of poker players live with each other. Say I was a pro player, and I had a brother who was also a pro. My brother was bigtime, and I’m just starting to get the hang of it, but I haven’t had my breakthrough. Put us in Chris and Sorel’s shoes. My brother offers me $20k to take over my account late in the tournament, but instead of having him log-in from his bedroom or a remote location, he just comes and sits at my computer instead. If Sorel and Vaughn lived together, nobody would have known this happened. This isn’t going to stop, simply because it’s unenforceable.

Defeatism just doesn't help here. It will happen anyway so we might as well let it happen or not punish those who we catch?

THAT said, what of Sorel Mizzi now? He’s banned from playing on Full Tilt Poker; that’s like a baseball player being told he can’t play with a glove anymore. For a momentary lapse in judgment – a lapse in judgment that I’m sure many of his peers have had on a regular basis – he loses the ability to play on one of the world’s most popular poker rooms. For another comparison; it’s like a live pro being told that he can’t play in any World Series of Poker events, only the World Poker Tour events. Is it fair?

Maybe the fact that he had a lot to lose should have given him more respect for the integrity of the system he is living off of.

Personally, I think Sorel should be handed a suspension. Maybe 6 months, maybe a year, but not forever. If you violate the drug policy in the NFL, you might get suspended for a year. Is your career over? No way. In my opinion, Full Tilt is taking it a little bit too far with their punishment. This is his lifeblood, after all. Everyone makes mistakes; you live and you learn.

Again the fact that it is his lifeblood puts the onus on him to protect it. That many people make a living off of online poker is exactly why players need to know that the rules will be enforced and that everything possible is being done to deal with the problem.

Ask yourself this. If this happened between AverageJoe1 and AverageJoe2, would the response have been the same as it happening to a guy that works for Bluff Magazine and one of the world’s top players?

Should it be? Being one of the top players means he is in a position to influence the direction of things, to stand for something, to make a difference, to influence how poker is viewed. This is particularly important right now as legislation is in flux. The realization that this is what he did what that position is rightly very disappointing to many of us.

[bull62 0]

I think the only thing I agree with is that a 6 month ban would be appropriate.

[Bizzle 0]

stuff

Next time just quote me and say "qft" :-p

[vbnautilus 48]

Next time just quote me and say "qft" :-p

Yeah that would have been much easier. Next time post faster so I don't waste my time.

[cardcore 0]

Bizzle - I don't take it personally at all, I'm playing devil's advocate here.A couple of you guys touched on the fact that the punishment handed down has to be the punishment in order to enforce the rule, otherwise people won't really give a shit. When Zeejustin was doing the multi-accounting, among other players, it was still a gray area that the poker rooms hadn't really touched on. Since he was the first one that was caught, really, I don't think the punishment given should have been applied to him. I think he should have been suspended, but that was it. The poker rooms couldn't really know that this was going on until someone actually binked a huge tournament and was investigated. In a weird way, he was solving a problem that the poker rooms were running into because of the nature of online poker. If anyone did that after the ZJ issue was brought to light, I think they should have received the punishment that he received. YES it was unethical, but the measures should have been in place on the poker room to prevent it in the first place. What I'm saying is that if the poker room makes it possible for the player to do this, they shouldn't punish someone when the inevitable happens.I think Sorel and Chris kind of did the same thing here; obviously I'm sure they didn't want to get caught, but now they've brought the issue to light and I'll be damned if this ever happens again. Nobody had ever been caught doing this before, it's not really collusion either since only one person is playing the account at a time. There was no cut-and-dry rule about whether or not you could hand off the account to someone else. I'm sure they knew that what they were doing was suspect, but they weren't actually colluding or anything. Chris Vaughn doesn't really gain any kind of edge since he's done with the tournament after Sorel pays him. Sorel is, in essence, starting an entirely new tournament. He doesn't know Chris' table image, how anyone else plays, etc.There are cash game players who share accounts. I remember hearing that someone else was playing on Jamie Gold's account on FTP to get action at the higher limits. What happens to those guys? Are they allowed to share, but tournament players aren't? What if I paid Jamie Gold $100,000 to use his account for a month, just so people would give me action at 300/600nl, thinking I was him? Is that okay?

[cardcore 0]

From what I read Sorel has done this type of buy outs for some time now

According to Sorel, this was a one time, isolated incident, and that's how I'm viewing it since I have no idea whether or not he's done if before.

[zimmer4141 0]

Bizzle - I don't take it personally at all, I'm playing devil's advocate here.A couple of you guys touched on the fact that the punishment handed down has to be the punishment in order to enforce the rule, otherwise people won't really give a shit. When Zeejustin was doing the multi-accounting, among other players, it was still a gray area that the poker rooms hadn't really touched on. Since he was the first one that was caught, really, I don't think the punishment given should have been applied to him. I think he should have been suspended, but that was it. The poker rooms couldn't really know that this was going on until someone actually binked a huge tournament and was investigated. In a weird way, he was solving a problem that the poker rooms were running into because of the nature of online poker. If anyone did that after the ZJ issue was brought to light, I think they should have received the punishment that he received. YES it was unethical, but the measures should have been in place on the poker room to prevent it in the first place. What I'm saying is that if the poker room makes it possible for the player to do this, they shouldn't punish someone when the inevitable happens.I think Sorel and Chris kind of did the same thing here; obviously I'm sure they didn't want to get caught, but now they've brought the issue to light and I'll be damned if this ever happens again. Nobody had ever been caught doing this before, it's not really collusion either since only one person is playing the account at a time. There was no cut-and-dry rule about whether or not you could hand off the account to someone else. I'm sure they knew that what they were doing was suspect, but they weren't actually colluding or anything. Chris Vaughn doesn't really gain any kind of edge since he's done with the tournament after Sorel pays him. Sorel is, in essence, starting an entirely new tournament. He doesn't know Chris' table image, how anyone else plays, etc.There are cash game players who share accounts. I remember hearing that someone else was playing on Jamie Gold's account on FTP to get action at the higher limits. What happens to those guys? Are they allowed to share, but tournament players aren't? What if I paid Jamie Gold $100,000 to use his account for a month, just so people would give me action at 300/600nl, thinking I was him? Is that okay?

Seth, I believe that there was a cut-and-dry rule in place before this tournament took place.I will put this in all caps here because for whatever reason people don't get it and it's really easy to get.CHRIS VAUGHN DOES NOT GAIN AN EDGE, HE REDUCES HIS VARIANCE BY TAKING A BUYOUT. SOREL MIZZI GAINS AN EDGE BECAUSE THE VALUE OF WHAT HE PAYS FOR THE ACCOUNT IS LESS THAN HIS EQUITY IN THE REST OF THE TOURNAMENT. THAT INCREASE IN EQUITY FOR THE ACCOUNT TAKES EQUITY AWAY FROM ALL OTHER PLAYERS AND CHEATS THEM OUT OF MONEY. AS MUCH AS YOU TRY TO DEFEND IT AS A "LAPSE IN JUDGEMENT" OR "A NEW TOURNAMENT", PEOPLE ARE BEING CHEATED OUT OF MONEY AND THIS IS WHY SELLING ACCOUNTS IS ILLEGAL.

[vbnautilus 48]

Not the first time this has happened, and the rules are in place. One incident that comes to mind is when Action Jeff bought someone out and won the Sunday Million. Afterthat PokerStars made their rules more explicit with regards to this issue. http://www.poker-king.com/poker-king-artic...php?article=113I can't find the Full Tilt rules about this, but I'm sure they are there. Remember, Sorel played in this tourney on his own account and busted out before he bought over Chris's account. He had two chances at the win. Not really a gray area at all.

[Bizzle 0]

Wow, um, okay.

Bizzle - I don't take it personally at all, I'm playing devil's advocate here.

Fair enough.

A couple of you guys touched on the fact that the punishment handed down has to be the punishment in order to enforce the rule, otherwise people won't really give a shit. When Zeejustin was doing the multi-accounting, among other players, it was still a gray area that the poker rooms hadn't really touched on. Since he was the first one that was caught, really, I don't think the punishment given should have been applied to him. I think he should have been suspended, but that was it. The poker rooms couldn't really know that this was going on until someone actually binked a huge tournament and was investigated. In a weird way, he was solving a problem that the poker rooms were running into because of the nature of online poker. If anyone did that after the ZJ issue was brought to light, I think they should have received the punishment that he received. YES it was unethical, but the measures should have been in place on the poker room to prevent it in the first place. What I'm saying is that if the poker room makes it possible for the player to do this, they shouldn't punish someone when the inevitable happens.

What you're essentially saying is that if someone breaks the rules for the first time, and they are the first person to do so, the punishment doled out shouldn't be so significant because they proved that the offense could be caught and brought to light. Playing on multiple accounts in tournaments has been illegal since the start of online tournament poker-just because he was the first significant person to get caught breaking the rule (ignoring redsoxsox, JJProdigy, and others) doesn't mean his punishment should be lessened.

I think Sorel and Chris kind of did the same thing here; obviously I'm sure they didn't want to get caught, but now they've brought the issue to light and I'll be damned if this ever happens again. Nobody had ever been caught doing this before,

This statement is totally false. It was known (in probably the most public fashion possible, since they were playing in the lobby at the PCA) that Timex and ActionJeff bought an account at the end of December 2006 to play the end of the 1050 Sunday Mil on Pokerstars. At the time, they contacted support and support facilitated the transaction. After this action occurred, Pokerstars reviewed the rule and created a new one that forbid this type of action occurring. Full Tilt Poker followed suit shortly thereafter. It is a rule, clear and simple.

it's not really collusion either since only one person is playing the account at a time. There was no cut-and-dry rule about whether or not you could hand off the account to someone else. I'm sure they knew that what they were doing was suspect, but they weren't actually colluding or anything. Chris Vaughn doesn't really gain any kind of edge since he's done with the tournament after Sorel pays him. Sorel is, in essence, starting an entirely new tournament. He doesn't know Chris' table image, how anyone else plays, etc.

Once again, there is a clear cut rule. Saying there isn't is wrong. And it isn't collusion-it's multi-accounting. If you can't see why multi-accounting is wrong (giving yourself multiple chances to win the same tournament takes away value from the other players in the game, regardless of the ability of the player), then don't bother trying to make this argument.

There are cash game players who share accounts. I remember hearing that someone else was playing on Jamie Gold's account on FTP to get action at the higher limits. What happens to those guys? Are they allowed to share, but tournament players aren't? What if I paid Jamie Gold $100,000 to use his account for a month, just so people would give me action at 300/600nl, thinking I was him? Is that okay?

Account sharing in cash games has been discussed many times across various forums. Some sites allow it, some don't. The ability to share accounts in cash games in this spot isn't relevant to the current argument-what Sorel and Chris did was against the rules of FTP, and they were punished as such. If you'd like to debate the merits of sharing an account in cash games, feel free to start a new thread and I'll gladly post in there (and/or link you to other threads that have discussed this topic). In this spot though, Sorel and Chris broke established rules and Sorel essentially multi-accounted. Why is the fact that such actions is possible justification for not having a severe punishment dealt out? Once again, I can kill people (I'd prolly start with Pat just because I am starting to hate every team he roots for) but that means that I shouldn't be punished severely when I do?

[DCJ001 0]

After thinking about this for a moment, I feel that the best reason for a lifetime ban is to deter others from doing the same thing. Anyone who plays "dumb" in the future, does the same thing, and gets caught, will have no excuse. And maybe this example will make other dishonest individuals think twice.If a six month ban is imposed, I'm sure that many would weigh the risk versus the potential reward and be tempted to cheat.

[Ouch-8s 4]

what happened is so clearly wrong and so clearly against the rules, i am surprised by this article. it is plain, clear-cut, and undeniably cheating. i wonder how much imp would have had to pay to chris (20k?) and then pay each of the 20 other players still in to have THEIR blessing too?also, is DCJ001 confirmed to be Dane? because I (oh god!) agree with him too.

[zengame 0]

I feel for Chris, he caved and took the easy money, 6 months. Sorel knew what he was doing, 12 months no Fulltilt!

[Jordan 1]

good lordy, srsly?- Jordan

[zimmer4141 0]

I feel for Chris, he caved and took the easy money, 6 months. Sorel knew what he was doing, 12 months no Fulltilt!

I agree, I just feel awful for Chris. He in no way deserves any punishment for what he's done. He did what anyone else in that situation would do. Oh wait, there are people in that situation every week. Do they all cheat? NO!

[mase_gotsem 0]

6 mnths and 12 months ?? orly ..more like 2 years and 5 years wld be resonable do you have any idea how much these guys can make in a year ?? gotta make an example this isnt the youth judical system here

[checkymcfold 0]

there would be nothing wrong with both players receiving lifetime bans, imho. deterrent for future cheaters, make them really pay for knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules, etc.other than that, i pretty much agree with everything bizzle and vbnautilus said.as for cash game account sharing, that's cheating, too, in my book. not grey area shit, either. your screenname is your face online--if players i play against regularly are playing out of their normal playing style, i use that as an indication that they're probably on tilt or distracted, not as an indication of an identity crisis. if these big, famous players aren't good enough to create action on their own (which is part of poker, especially at the higher levels), they don't deserve it, plain and simple. to allow them to both get that action undeservedly, AND to retain their reads while inhibiting their opponents ability to do the same, is profoundly unfair. if these sites don't allow microlimit players multiple accounts, they shouldn't allow them to nosebleed players. period.edit: seth, just because i can do something doesn't mean it should be unpunishable. isn't that the point of punishment, to deter people from doing shit that they can but shouldn't do? i could easily set up 8 computers with 8 ip addresses and bust one poor guy an hour for 8 hours a day. should i be able to do that unpunished?

[mk 11]

[Bizzle 0]

irlyh8u

[bobr99 0]

I think people are forgetting that, this is a cash game. Not a computer game. Where do you think this money is coming from? It's not "house" money it's your money and my money. If someone did something like this in blackjack or craps I wouldn't really care. I wouldn't agree with it and if caught you should pay the price. But that is house money. When you sit at a poker table your not trying to gain an edge against the house your trying to gain an edge against me. If you do that by being a better play than good for you, but if you bend or break the rules to gain that edge against me I'm going to be pissed!!! Would you try these things at a live table? No I don't think so. Everyone or at least most of the players will not stand for it. And at the least might get the shit kicked out of you. Hell in Doyles day you would be shot or at least have a gun pulled on you and they would take all your cash from you. And you better not try and show your face there again.Bluff me all you want, slow play all night long, or just out play me till I'm broke but don't cheat me then ask me to forgive you. Mind you I don't play at the level these guys play at so they didn't cheat me in this case.As for me I'm sure I will never get to the level of these guys. But if I ever do I don't want them sitting at my table not because of them being better players but I wouldn't take my eyes off of them to make sure they weren't cheating again. I know everyone should get a second chance, but you have to earn my respect once you've lost it. And that is going to take years not days!!!Bob

[SCYUKON 0]

Indeed I agree the clearest way to look at is the EV taken from the other players. Basically stealing. Simple as that.Never going to stop the team play that happens when a bunch of folks live in the same place. Probably happens more than we even realize.Oh well, as I said in another post, this is another serious tap on the glass to scare off us remaining fishies...

[Jimbo29 0]

A friend of mine works at Fulltilt and told me a few things:1st and most important is Sorel was day's away from signing a deal to play for Team Full Tilt. Think about that!!!!He was willing to make a decision to buy someone's account when he was day's away from a deal with FT. In my opinion Sorel has something wrong with him and needs to seek help. This is either greed or an addiction to the high of playing late in a tourney he's chasing. I really don't think anyone in his/her right mind would make this choice when your day's away from signing a large deal with the company your about to cheat on their site....Any thoughts on this?Because this is 100% true he was day's away from a deal.