Because a regulated market has to protect the accused as well as the accuser. And yes, I'm well versed in poker (15 years and 5 as a professional) and collusion. What you're calling obvious might not be obvious; what if you were wrong and the accounts were closed for a week? You'd probably be pissed if that happened to you.Why would a regulated market give players less protection than a non-regulated market? That doesn't make much sense.
Steve, I'm not sure if you play online poker, have ever dealt with colluders, or understand the dire circumstances of not addressing colluders quickly, but taking 4 days to freeze the accounts of obvious colluders is absolutely unacceptable in any market. It wouldn't even be acceptable if the site was run by a bunch of tortoises.
In my case, of the 20+ colluders I've identified at Stars and other sites, these were the most obvious. Imagine how long it would have taken WSOP.com to freeze their accounts if they were less blatant.
By stating that the investigation/response time for a regulated market is and should be much slower than the non-regulated market, you're implying that the Gaming Control Board is directly involved in the investigation. It would be counter-productive if the regulators somehow impeded the progress of the investigation, or set policies that would slow the investigation down. I could be mistaken but I doubt the Gaming Control Boards are involved in or affect the investigation in any capacity.
When I would inform PokerStars of potential colluders, they would freeze their accounts within hours. Why? Because the evidence I had gathered in addition to their own quick preliminary investigation would give PokerStars enough suspicion to deem that collusion was very possible. They would then conduct a thorough investigation which included contacting the accused individuals with some questions. If they concluded they hadn't cheated, they're accounts would be unfrozen, and if they were deemed cheaters (they always were), they would be banned.
If I suspected colluders on PokerStars, it would usually take me minutes to confirm or disprove my suspicions. Minutes. How? I used SharkScope which would provide the game #s of the last 10 or so games for each player. It certainly wasn't the only factor, but if they often played together on a high traffic site like Stars, that would be cause for alarm. PokerStars would obviously have much more information to work with for their preliminary investigation, and their procedure allowed them to quickly address cases of suspected cheating.
As far as your litigation comment, in the unlikely scenario that a lawyer would take the case or a judge would hear the case, there is no way the plaintiff would ever win. I think you're just mistakenly equating the freezing of an account with banishment. In no way, should a site be held accountable if they suspected one of cheating, froze their account, discovered they weren't cheating and then unfroze their account.
I'm not asking that the site perform a quick and shoddy investigation. They should perform a quick preliminary investigation and promptly freeze the accounts if they suspect cheating. PokerStars would inform me the same day that there was enough suspicion to freeze the accused accounts. I wouldn't hear back from them for at least 2 weeks with their decision and there was nothing wrong with that.
I don't know the process WSOP.com/888 uses to address cheating allegations, but if it hasn't been changed for the better already, it needs to be changed. Perhaps they don't perform a preliminary investigation or maybe their Operations Department doesn't really know how to identify cheaters efficiently. There is a major flaw and we players should be protected as well as, if not better than, the top non-regulated site.
A perfect example of this is when Druff's account at some site (can't remember which one) was shutdown over false pretenses, this is far less likely to happen in a regulated market because of procedures and the fact that players now have a regulatory body to take complaints to if the site treats them unfairly.
I don't know how blatant it was, or even if it was 4 days in between, I'm just pointing out that regulated markets use due process --not every murderer is taken off the streets the moment a witness turns up at the police station
So it takes a week to preliminary investigate cases of collusion?
Does Bill Rini personally look at the hand histories during "work hours" only?
I used to like Steve-o's writing but this Baghdad Bob approach is starting to wear thin.
As to the rest, whats the point of having regulations if you haven't bothered reading them.