Much has been written about a single player competing in the same online tournament under multiple accounts, and this post is intended to approach the topic from a somewhat different perspective without repeating the same tired arguments.<SPAN> </SPAN>Suppose we start with the question �what prevents a player from doing this?�<SPAN> </SPAN>I�ll imperfectly summarize three common responses below:

1. <LI class=MsoNormal>A person�s ethical compass or notions of fairness, independent of any stated rules; <LI class=MsoNormal>The tournament administrator�s stated rules, and a person�s willingness to follow them and/or the administrator�s willingness to enforce them; and <LI class=MsoNormal>A person�s finite financial resources.</LI>

<SPAN>On the flipside, Nat Arem recently explained the economic reason why players do this by pointing out some variance reduction and some increased expectation (higher profits), subject to limits on a player�s mental ability that are inherent in making multiple decisions in a short time span.<SPAN> </SPAN>Below, I�ll attempt to describe why the economic argument for entering multiple accounts in the same tournament is significantly flawed in the long run.

The Problem of Multiple Ganks



The Problem of Multiple Ganks is a problem of unintended consequences, probably best understood with an example.<SPAN> </SPAN>For the sake of discussion, let's assume that Player A is an above-average, profitable tournament player.<SPAN> </SPAN>I, however, am an untalented mope that aspires to succeed at tournaments.<SPAN> </SPAN>I sleep peacefully with the knowledge that tomorrow just might be my day, provided that the stars are properly aligned, and my bankroll is not depleted.<SPAN> </SPAN>

To the extent I believe that Player A is playing one account only, I continue to believe (foolishly?) that I have a chance to win.<SPAN> </SPAN>But if I know that Player A is playing multiple accounts, I am forced to make a decision: either I should abstain or increase the number of accounts that I will play under to keep pace with Player A.<SPAN> </SPAN>Of course, maintaining the status quo of one account per tournament is suboptimal for me if I know that Player A is playing multiple accounts.<SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN>

We could say that Player A is merely acting in his own economic self-interest here without making any other judgments about it.<SPAN> </SPAN>However, my knowledge of Player A�s actions will either drive me away from competition or compel me to enter into a Cold War-style arms race so that I can keep up with, or even surpass, Player A.<SPAN> </SPAN>We can deduce that Player A encourages a form of adverse selection: potentially smaller fields due to the abstentions, with each remaining competitor trying to estimate how many additional entries are required to provide a reasonable chance of winning under the new dynamics.

Let�s now add one more fact to the example: although I am an untalented mope, I�ve got money to burn.<SPAN> </SPAN>Increasing the number of accounts I play under, and therefore the amount in entry fees I�m willing to pay, is of no consequence to me.<SPAN> </SPAN>I maintained financial parity by playing one account for as long as I believe Player A only competes with one account.<SPAN> </SPAN>When I learn that Player A is competing with multiple accounts in the same tournament, I realize that Player A is seeking an additional advantage over me that can only persist as long as I allow it.<SPAN> </SPAN>That particular advantage is nullified if I increase my entry rate lock step with his.<SPAN> </SPAN>In fact, I might come to believe that tournament poker is actually a contest of financial resources, and it would be prudent of me to surpass the number of Player A�s entries so that my lack of talent is more than compensated by my extra chances to win.

In turn, Player A would only want to compete under multiple accounts if he was confident that he could match my deep financial commitment or, alternatively, if he could determine the exact number of additional entries (combined with his superior skill) necessary to prevail over a field including me and other players similarly situated.<SPAN> </SPAN>Any imprecision in these calculations could be financially disastrous for Player A over time.<SPAN> </SPAN>

While Player A must be careful not to engage in a dramatically lopsided war pitting his financial resources against mine plus the rest of the like-minded competitors in the field,<SPAN> </SPAN>that�s exactly the problem he is inviting by merely acting in his self-interest and competing with multiple accounts in the same event.

But wait�if I�m a rich fish, doesn�t that simply mean there is more dead money in the prize pool?<SPAN> </SPAN>Maybe, but the more important question to ask is whether the aggregate additional entries is increasing the volatility of Player A�s results.<SPAN> </SPAN>In other words, is Player A reducing his variance by using multiple accounts in the same event, or is he actually increasing his variance when other competitors are compelled to meet the threat with their own extra opportunities?

In short, Player A thinks that what he is doing is advantageous to his economic self-interest (and it might be for a brief period), but it is easy to see how multiple accounts lead to an financial death-spiral when other players must choose a response to Player A�s actions.<SPAN> </SPAN>The unintended consequences of Player A�s actions diminish his perceived benefit, and ultimately, leads to negative expectation wagering.<SPAN> </SPAN>So when Gank rhetorically asks who wants to compete against him multiple times in the same tournament, many people would properly avoid this disadvantageous scenario by not playing at all or by boosting the number of their own entries in an attempt to eliminate this particular advantage.<SPAN> The latter option could be selected by players with significant skills, wealth, or both. </SPAN>Thus a Problem of Multiple Ganks: there is no long-term advantage to playing multiple accounts in the same tournament�only the parity of one account per tournament preserves Player A�s edge.<SPAN> </SPAN>

</SPAN>

ugh yea, Gank owns

Gank Gank Gank OWNS OWNS OWNS

Wareagle: thank you

MKGB: that's sort of what I meant by adverse selection; among the only people who remain to compete are those with sufficient financial resources to adapt to the new environment.

Fishlanier:Gank owns asking the right question, even if rhetorically.

Nice essay.

B+