Printable View
Just to clarify, 888 handles WSOP.com support not Caesars. Bill Rini has little to no control over support issues... which seems just another indication of the lack of transparency as to who is doing what and who is responsible for what, which I'd say is the more pressing issue.
I wrote this over the weekend on this topic
http://nevadapokerreviews.com/249/ws...rt-criticized/
Interesting article. I was unaware that 888 handles their support. Palansky did not mention that to me on the phone. In fact, now I wonder what he meant when he said that support people are in Vegas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
However, I think you are letting them off a bit too easily in a few areas.
Even if it's true that 888 handles their support, that doesn't excuse Rini's hostile attitude in the forums and evasive (or nonexistent) answers to questions.
Furthermore, a company cannot hide behind the substandard service provided by a third party acting in their name. At the end of the day, the support reps identify themselves as WSOP.com representatives, and they ultimately represent the WSOP brand. The actual company behind providing that support is immaterial. As you pointed out in your article, WSOP.com has the option to provide their own support instead. If 888 is doing a poor job, it is up to WSOP.com to either crack the whip on them or drop their support services. They cannot hide behind, "It's 888.com's fault, so blame them."
To be fair, WSOP.com is NOT hiding behind 888. That's why few seem to know that 888 is actually providing the support (myself included, up until I read your article). However, WSOP.com (as well as Rini) deserves all of the grief they're getting in regards to the situation.
Reminds me of a situation I had years ago with DirecTV. They hire third-party companies to do their installations. An installation job was bungled badly at my house, and required another visit to correct it. Unbelievably, DirecTV wanted to charge me for the second visit, claiming that it was a third-party company making the mistake (even though they sent them over, and I had no control as to who was hired), and that it was between me and that company. I argued that this company was working as DirecTV when the mistake occurred, and thus DirecTV had to take responsibility for the cost of fixing their mistake. It took a few calls to finally get someone high enough to understand this concept, but they ultimately agreed and came down to fix it for free.
Same thing with WSOP.com here. They own every mistake made by their WSOP.com-branded support, regardless of which company is actually providing it.
Steve-O, thank you for the article, but there are some major points that need to be edited.
You stated:
They didn't handle the situation promptly. After I first reported the colluders, they were allowed to play at least an additional 4 days. Imagine my frustration when I had registered for a SNG to only later see them seated when the table popped up. PokerStars would have taken hours to freeze their accounts so they could investigate further. Despite my many pleas with additional evidence, it took 4 or 5 days for WSOP.com to finally take action (I assume). I have no idea how or if they were punished.Quote:
First off, let’s not lose sight of the fact that WSOP.com did investigate the situation promptly; caught and punished the colluders; and refunded the affected player. So a job well done on that front.
Also, I was not refunded anything, nor, as far as I'm aware, has any other player come forward to say they've been refunded because of banned cheaters on WSOP.com.
So, you don't think somebody who accuses one of cheating doesn't deserve to know if they were correct or not? How are we to ever know that the matter was even investigated if the site doesn't provide a brief summary of the investigation? What if the accuser sees the accused a week later at their table? Don't you believe this would create a great amount of unease for the accuser? In my opinion, there isn't a plausible reason to deprive the accuser of a summary of the investigation. The results should not be relayed to the poker community, but it should be provided to the non-cheater who was kind enough to report the cheater(s).Quote:
This has always been a major point of contention between online poker rooms and online poker players, as the poker community thinks they are owed certain information, especially after the many scandals in the industries past. But this is simply not the case.
How collusion is dealt with is not something WSOP.com has to relay to the community, it’s something they have to relay to regulators.
A question they (support and Bill Rini) continuously evaded was whether or not players would be reimbursed if they were negatively affected by banned cheaters. If the answer was "yes," they would have simply answered it. If they did reimburse only the accuser, then the accuser would know that the players were banned and that would "violate their 3rd party policy" somehow.
Also, just because 888 may handle the customer support doesn't mean Caesars is not in charge of it or that they are unable to oversee it. CIE is the primary company and 888 takes their orders from them. They should both share the blame for these problems.
Thanks again for the article and please make the corrections when you get a chance.
Good points and analogy Todd. It's all too common these days for a company to place blame on a 3rd party which they are responsible for hiring. With a little goading to the proper person in the company, they will realize their error and make things right. I'm still waiting for that to happen, and it is going to happen.
I forgot to mention that Bill Rini was involved and aware of the support team's response to me as evident in his post on my thread on 2+2 when he stated "So you know: 2. What your financial resolution is" (post #25). At the time, I had not made a reference to that email yet, and he made it appear in the forum that I had been reimbursed. I hadn't which one can deduce from this statement from that email: "From our investigation and pulling the data from all tournaments you played with the different accounts you reported, you have profited from playing with these accounts and all these accounts suffered losses." (post #36).
Part of my reply to that email was: "I only knew of 3 tournaments I had played with them, and I didn't cash in any of them. It's possible I played in some before I spotted the collusion, so if you would please provide the game #s, game type, buy-in, date and my placement in all of the games, I would appreciate it."
It's been 14 days since I sent that email (and 5 days since I sent a follow-up email) requesting the data, and I haven't received a response...not even the standard "please be assured that your correspondence has been forwarded to the relevant department, and someone will reply to you within the next 72 hours" email. The support team or 888 wouldn't make the decision on their own to not reply to a patron...it had to have been ordered by a WSOP.com supervisor (Bill).
Based on the time that has elapsed since my data request, I'm not confident about the validity of their "you have profited from playing with these accounts" statement. Technically, they could make that statement even if I had won a 1000 player tournament which only one of the cheaters had played. It's irrelevant if I profited as a whole against them since I was defrauded from at least the 3 separate SNGs I was aware of, and I, the accuser, should be reimbursed for them. I'm just curious to see what else I may have played against them, as I know I would have identified their unusual play, obvious collusion, and that they were 4 non-regulars in a 6 person SNG if I had played with them prior to me first suspecting them.
We know that WSOP.com is directly aware of how the support team handles certain matters. We also can assume that the support team was encouraged or perhaps coerced by WSOP.com supervisors (Bill) to give a (perhaps) false and irrelevant statement so as not to reimburse one (me) who had been cheated. WSOP.com is directly involved and WSOP.com and Bill Rini should be held accountable.
The difference now is that they can't simply freeze accounts. They have to investigate first and then take their findings to regulators (as far as I understand it) so the process has become a bit more laborious.Quote:
They didn't handle the situation promptly. After I first reported the colluders, they were allowed to play at least an additional 4 days. Imagine my frustration when I had registered for a SNG to only later see them seated when the table popped up. PokerStars would have taken hours to freeze their accounts so they could investigate further. Despite my many pleas with additional evidence, it took 4 or 5 days for WSOP.com to finally take action (I assume). I have no idea how or if they were punished.
I don't think they have to tell you anything other than the matter is resolved, and which way the decision went. II agree that they could provide a summary of their findings, but I don't think this is required.Quote:
So, you don't think somebody who accuses one of cheating doesn't deserve to know if they were correct or not? How are we to ever know that the matter was even investigated if the site doesn't provide a brief summary of the investigation? What if the accuser sees the accused a week later at their table? Don't you believe this would create a great amount of unease for the accuser? In my opinion, there isn't a plausible reason to deprive the accuser of a summary of the investigation. The results should not be relayed to the poker community, but it should be provided to the non-cheater who was kind enough to report the cheater(s).
To me this comes down to transparency. there is a minimum (which seems to be where WSOP.com is operating) and then there is what would be best for business (where they should be).
My guess is this is because it's 888 policy. It's silly not to answer but remember how for the longest time Stars and FTP wouldn't tell you how many FPP's you had to clear after a transfer before you could cashout? It was like some bug secret, but it made zero sense to keep it a secret.Quote:
A question they (support and Bill Rini) continuously evaded was whether or not players would be reimbursed if they were negatively affected by banned cheaters. If the answer was "yes," they would have simply answered it. If they did reimburse only the accuser, then the accuser would know that the players were banned and that would "violate their 3rd party policy" somehow.
I don't really know how much control Caesars has over 888 or vice versa so I won't speculate on that, but I did mention in the article that WSOP.com is still accountable. The reason I wrote it was it seemed that a lot of people were pointing the finger at WSOP.com while 888 is snickering in the corner and getting away scott-free.Quote:
Also, just because 888 may handle the customer support doesn't mean Caesars is not in charge of it or that they are unable to oversee it. CIE is the primary company and 888 takes their orders from them. They should both share the blame for these problems.
Also, it has come to my attention that WSOP.com does have some CS, but they are managers of 888 managers who manage the CS reps, so the chances of anything getting up the food chain that high are pretty slim.
Druff, your convo with Palansky reads like a PR statement for WSOP.com. Looks like a bunch of bullshit to me.
Either these guys can clean up their support and be open/honest with players, or we are not going to trust them or want to play there. I admit that I am not exactly dying to play on that site when I visit AC based upon what Ive seen here and on 2p2. The fact that Palansky thinks Bill Rini is doing a bang up job just shows how out of touch they are. Or maybe those two are good friends, wouldnt surprise me with all the nepotism in this fucking industry.
If this is true, it needs to be reworked. It's not a big deal to freeze one's account when cheating is suspected since it could be simply unfrozen if the player is exonerated. The regulators shouldn't be involved until the cheating is confirmed. Cheaters shouldn't be allowed to play for an extra 4 or 5 days after they've been accused. After receiving the initial email from the accuser, a preliminary investigation should immediately be performed based on the evidence of the accuser and data that could be gathered quickly by support. If there is any reason to be suspicious, the account(s) should be frozen immediately and then a more thorough investigation should begin. The preliminary investigation should take about an hour or less to perform and if cheating is possible, the account should be frozen within 12 hours of being informed by the accuser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
I agree. The accuser doesn't need to receive any more information except a breakdown of their compensation. I probably should have been more specific instead of saying a "brief summary of their findings" when I meant we should just be informed of the decision.Quote:
I don't think they have to tell you anything other than the matter is resolved, and which way the decision went.
888 provides the software and possibly some of the customer support. I would assume that Caesars sets the policies and 888 just listens and does as they are told. I agree 888 should be held accountable since they fooled Caesars into using their software when their software was riddled with bugs and basic flaws that they've been unable to fix after 7 or 8 months.Quote:
My guess is this is because it's 888 policy. It's silly not to answer but remember how for the longest time Stars and FTP wouldn't tell you how many FPP's you had to clear after a transfer before you could cashout? It was like some bug secret, but it made zero sense to keep it a secret.
Anyway, if you can, would you please amend the article to reflect that WSOP.com did not perform the investigation promptly, that the extent of their punishment is unconfirmed (Bill only let it slip in his post on my 2+2 thread that "the colluders were caught"), and that the affected player (me) was never refunded, nor anybody else who had been cheated by them?
Without these important edits (especially the 1st and 3rd points), the article is misleading and inaccurate. Besides that one paragraph, it's very informative and well written. If an edit isn't possible, would you please provide an addendum with the updated corrections? It would be much appreciated. Thanks!
You can always count on Steve-O to go to bat for the industry and bend over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt and portray them in as positve a light as possible.
He's done the same for Jen Larson, Gerry Polt, PrimoAA, etc., so no surprise he thinks there's nothing to see here.
Notice Steve-O didn't even respond to the part about his article being factually incorrect, and that you were in fact not refunded. Nor has his article been edited to correct that error.
Par for the course.
Anyway, what a huge letdown to see this coming from a legal US site. This looks like a play straight out of the Lock Poker playbook. Disappointing to say the least.
Good luck Sir, I hope you get this matter resolved accordingly.
Honestly, the disappointing thing for me regarding the Palansky conversation was the general implication that they were doing most things right, and that players like me were just too used to the customer service of unregulated sites like Pokerstars. Palansky felt that Rini was doing a great job, and the only point he conceded was that the customer service has been poor thus far, but he claimed it has vastly improved.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon
I tried to insist that every serious online poker player thinks that WSOP.com support and management has been terrible -- and that it's not just me being a nitpicker -- and he didn't agree. He insisted that this was a combination of both unfair comparisons to Stars (that Stars has no regulation and 11 years experience) and the difficulties in operating in a tightly regulated environment. I kept repeatedly insisting that most of these problems could easily go away with some quick fixes and a different attitude toward customer service. I also pointed out that Ultimate Poker has done customer service mostly correctly, and while they have (different) issues of their own, they have proven that customer service/relations can still be done correctly in the regulated market.
I still plan to speak to Mitch Garber. Hopefully he will be a bit more open-minded to change.
Is "tightly regulated" secret code for affirmative action hirings in the support department?
Curse those evil unregulated sites that hire people with common sense and reasoning abilities.
This is I think the part most people don't understand about the new industry, these partnerships are closer to 50/50, or even tilted in he direction of the software provider, maybe not in terms of the revenue split but definitely in terms of control. WSOP.com is certainly not calling the shots.Quote:
888 provides the software and possibly some of the customer support. I would assume that Caesars sets the policies and 888 just listens and does as they are told. I agree 888 should be held accountable since they fooled Caesars into using their software when their software was riddled with bugs and basic flaws that they've been unable to fix after 7 or 8 months.
I've been following up on this since yesterday, give me a bit more time to sort it out as I have contradicting information on this front and need a couple follow-up questions answered. I believe you 100% I just need to discover why.Quote:
Anyway, if you can, would you please amend the article to reflect that WSOP.com did not perform the investigation promptly, that the extent of their punishment is unconfirmed (Bill only let it slip in his post on my 2+2 thread that "the colluders were caught"), and that the affected player (me) was never refunded, nor anybody else who had been cheated by them?
Without these important edits (especially the 1st and 3rd points), the article is misleading and inaccurate. Besides that one paragraph, it's very informative and well written. If an edit isn't possible, would you please provide an addendum with the updated corrections? It would be much appreciated. Thanks
I've made an amendment to the article:
*After digging a bit deeper the players in question “seemed” to be colluding and had their accounts shut down. No restitution was made to psasjc. It’s unclear if the alleged colluders had the money from their accounts confiscated.
I'm curious as to where you'd be receiving information to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Thanks! Although, I don't mean to nitpick, but to the casual reader, the edits might not appear very clear. You could still keep the original text and just put a strike through it so the reader won't get confused. Also, you could make note that the colluders were allowed to play (at least) an additional 4 days longer than they should have been allowed which is not prompt or acceptable to any poker player.Quote:
I've made an amendment to the article:
*After digging a bit deeper the players in question “seemed” to be colluding and had their accounts shut down. No restitution was made to psasjc. It’s unclear if the alleged colluders had the money from their accounts confiscated.
I can imagine how tricky it would be to write an article about this...especially since WSOP.com has been so secretive of their policies that shouldn't be hidden from the players. I appreciate your willingness to gather facts before rushing to make changes.
I tried it a few different ways (including strikethrough) but it didn't read right to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by psasjc
As to the 4 days, we should expect this from the regulated market unless the cheating is so blatant as to not even need an investigation, otherwise the sites open them up to lawsuits and complaints from the accused through the NGCB. I understand it kind of sucks, but that's what regulation brings too... my 2 cents anyway
Why would a regulated market give players less protection than a non-regulated market? That doesn't make much sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
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.
I doubt regulation has anything to do with it.
Casinos routinely throw people out of their casinos, ban them, refuse to deal to them, etc., if they suspect any hint of cheating.
Did legalized online poker come with some sort of Poker Player's Bill of Rights that legally guarantees all cheaters with some sort of due process?
I seriously doubt it.
This is incompetence, shitty management, poor customer service, poor marketing, etc. It's nothing but bad business.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by psasjcWhy would a regulated market give players less protection than a non-regulated market? That doesn't make much sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
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
There's no due process for someone suspected of counting cards in blackjack, and that's not even cheating. They simply refuse to let you play anymore. Why is there a whole new paradigm in effect now that online poker is legal? I find it hard to believe that these casinos aren't allowed to deal with cheaters as they always have.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon
I haven't read all the regulations, but I would be shocked if the casinos didn't retain their right to refuse service to anyone for any time and any reason.
Confiscating money is a different story, but they should have the right to suspend play of suspected cheating accounts, pending an investigation.
Money confiscation is a completely different matter, and there the player can have recourse if the funds were unjustly confiscated.
So I can understand a delay in returning "cheating money" to the victims, but I can't understand why reasonable preliminary evidence of collusion isn't enough to temporarily freeze accounts.
If there isn't a mechanism to do this in the current regulations, it desperately needs to be. Otherwise, this allows cheaters to run rampant for several days after being detected and reported, which is terrible for the honest players.