Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Petition for Pokerstars and Full Tilt to end player to player transfers *edit* or set reasonable limits

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 51 2 3
  1. undertheradar undertheradar is offline

    Goddard, KS
    United States

    Posts: 2,471
    Joined: May 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:46pm)

    If poker sites really want to clean up poker, they need to get rid ofp2p transfers. That would limit MOST of these shenanigans. IfPokerstars and Full Tilt, by far the 2 largest sites, do this, lesscollusion and multiaccounting can happen. Of course this wouldeliminate it all, because you could cash out and give the money at thenext live tourney you are at together, but it would constrict it. Also,it would only take one time of someone welching on a payoff to stopsomeone from taking that route again. If these guys are cheaters, howlikely are they to "trust" a fellow cheater to give them the money theyowe them. And best yet, it isn't like they could out them on a publicforum.

    I realize plenty of people, inlcuding myself, use this option to help out friends get money online, especially with it becoming more difficult to deposit, but the benefits WAY exceed the downfalls of eliminating this option. Its to the greater good of the online poker community to disable this option then to continue with business as usual and have issues like what are currently going on to continue.

    Under
  2. sketchy1 sketchy1 is offline Dangerzone

    Posts: 9,597
    Joined: Apr 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:48pm) in reply to undertheradar

    LOL

    no no and no
      

    sketchy1 is an instructor at PocketFives Training . To get more of his advice and to watch his training videos, click here.

  3. jalman1 jalman1 is offline

    Posts: 6,451
    Joined: Jun 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:48pm) in reply to undertheradar

    sadly i agree that this would be the best idea. I think it would be asmall sacrifice to pay for a lot of the cheating and scamming

    Edit: I forgot about people being backed oops
    107 3
  4. Damage1 Damage1 is offline

    Pittsburgh, PA
    United States

    Posts: 2,954
    Joined: Apr 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:48pm) in reply to jalman1

    ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    NO
  5. undertheradar undertheradar is offline

    Goddard, KS
    United States

    Posts: 2,471
    Joined: May 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:49pm) in reply to jalman1

    Care to elaborate sketchy?
    Thread Starter
  6. SICKTIGHT311 SICKTIGHT311 is offline

    Long Beach, CA
    United States

    Posts: 24,818
    Joined: Jul 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:50pm) in reply to undertheradar

    I just won some money on Bodog last night that I would love to swap with somebody for stars money. Unfortunately I can't do this since Bodog doesn't have P2P transfers. Now I have to withdrawl from Bodog by check and then eCheck deposit it onto Stars. That is one reason I like P2P transfers. That and for things like LL contests. I do agree though that it might cut down on some of the shenanigans.

    *EDIT* I would not sign a petition however
  7. charder charder is offline

    Annapolis, MD
    United States

    Posts: 2,511
    Joined: May 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:51pm) in reply to undertheradar

    many reasons

    1) people are backed, need to get money from backers
    2) trading money from diff. sites
    3) transfering money to people for cash (helps people not have to deposit, almost instant)
    4) lots of other reasons that i cant think of........
     
  8. JernejZorec JernejZorec is offline

    Slovenia

    Posts: 256
    Joined: Aug 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:52pm) in reply to undertheradar

    coz it wouldnt make a difference for cheaters and it would hurt many casual players
  9. sketchy1 sketchy1 is offline Dangerzone

    Posts: 9,597
    Joined: Apr 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:54pm) in reply to undertheradar

    charder already did.
      
  10. N 82 50 24 N 82 50 24 is offline herp derp derp

    Philadelphia, PA
    United States

    Posts: 8,601
    Joined: Jun 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 6:57pm) in reply to undertheradar

    I think it's a better idea to set limits.

    Like 1k/day, 3k/week, 10k/month. Something like the neteller limits. That wouldn't impact 99% of the players and it would takes a longass time to transfer over a few hundred K from a big win.

    And the huge players who really need money can withdraw offline and wire money in. If they're high stakes players, they'll go through the trouble. Also, the health of high stakes games isn't really that big a deal for the overall health of online poker.
     
  11. undertheradar undertheradar is offline

    Goddard, KS
    United States

    Posts: 2,471
    Joined: May 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:01pm) in reply to undertheradar

    I figured I would get several replies saying GFY. And I'm cool with that opinion if thats what you feel. But please did not be one of those posters complaining about the ethics of online poker if you don't agree with me on this subject.

    Again, isn't my favorite idea in the world as I have stated, but for the betterment of online poker it only makes sense. Or how about limits on p2p transfers. Max 250 per week for example. Only a few tourneys cost more than that online, and f your playing it, more than likely you have that in your account already or you sattied in.

    Not trying to piss anyone off, just looking for feasible and sensible solutions to multiaccounting and cheating. Flame on!

    Under
    Thread Starter
  12. 3kingme3 3kingme3 is offline

    NY
    United States

    Posts: 3,848
    Joined: Sep 07

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:03pm) in reply to undertheradar

    terrible idea...for us to win at poker there needs to be fish playing...and most fish get money on through P2P transfers...that would end online poker economy and GG to everyone...but if theres no more online poker than there would be no more collussion so I guess you win
  13. undertheradar undertheradar is offline

    Goddard, KS
    United States

    Posts: 2,471
    Joined: May 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:04pm) in reply to N 82 50 24

    Nat, those limits seem quite high. I agree limits could be a better option then ending them, but limits like that wouldn't change too much
    Thread Starter
  14. pzane pzane is offline

    Washington, DC
    United States

    Posts: 287
    Joined: Sep 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:06pm) in reply to undertheradar

    this is not the solution to the problem.

    two factor authentication would go a long ways to eliminating the scamming/hacking.

    eliminating the cheating is much harder, but removing p2p transfers wouldn't even make a dent
  15. sketchy1 sketchy1 is offline Dangerzone

    Posts: 9,597
    Joined: Apr 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:08pm) in reply to undertheradar

    the limits seem fine. if you play online full time, you spend about $10k a week in buyins roughly if you're a high volume player.
      
  16. nuttedup nuttedup is offline

    Vacaville, CA
    United States

    Posts: 970
    Joined: Aug 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:10pm) in reply to undertheradar

    actually those limits aren't high enough. Some of the high stakes online MTT players easily do 2-3k a day in buy ins which would translate to about 21k in buy ins a week, less if they take some days off. While I agree that getting rid of P2P transfers will help in regards to cheating it will be very detrimental to the poker economy.
  17. kevin070 kevin070 is offline

    Gaylord, MI
    United States

    Posts: 1,260
    Joined: Aug 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:12pm) in reply to undertheradar

    No I don't agree with eliminating P2P transfers even though I hardly ever use it. I do like N82's idea that some limits should be placed on them. Limits shouls be on the amounts and the number of transfers. What the limits should be I don't know.

    K
  18. Thee_Master Thee_Master is offline

    Gaffney, SC
    United States

    Posts: 12
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:13pm) in reply to undertheradar

    punish the innocent ? why?

    the guilty will always cheat
  19. Trent55 Trent55 is offline can i have a title now

    Posts: 8,510
    Joined: Oct 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:13pm) in reply to pzane

    holy shit Op GTFO
    immed

    im just gonna say charder is dead on!!! To me that would kill online poker because its too difficult to get alot of money online these days!!

    NO NO NO
  20. Believer82 Believer82 is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 2,971
    Joined: Aug 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:15pm) in reply to undertheradar

    horrible Idea it cost about 3 to4 thousand a day to play all the tourny's and since most players that play all the tourny's are staked id say that's a stupidest idea ever.

    I play about 100k in buy in's a month and so do most the top online player's

    plus the sites would lose so many player's they would never do this plus its the worst idea ever obv.

    now gfto lol
     
  21. greggo430 greggo430 is offline

    Gaithersburg, MD
    United States

    Posts: 780
    Joined: Jul 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:15pm) in reply to undertheradar

    we dont need to punish everyone for cheating, we need to punish cheaters. the best way to end this stuff is to start banning people on a widespread basis (all sites/live) for cheating.
  22. iLLNuGWichee iLLNuGWichee is offline

    Avon, IN
    United States

    Posts: 3,910
    Joined: Feb 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:20pm) in reply to kevin070

    Setting limits like nat said is a VERY good idea imo. I think if you completely take them out, stars and FT woould turn into bodog, "sound the crickets"

    There are so many people that rely on their friends to send them a few buy ins b4 every session. I can't tell you guys how many times people have asked me for a xfer or even a spot. And vise versa.

    Set a Limit Please!! 15-20k max a month
     
  23. Trent55 Trent55 is offline can i have a title now

    Posts: 8,510
    Joined: Oct 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:22pm) in reply to greggo430

    playing live has nothing to do with online there greggo!
  24. Adam Adam is offline Emperor

    Atlanta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 12,629
    Joined: Dec 04

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:22pm) in reply to N 82 50 24

    I agree completely with Nat (probably because we just discussed this idea in person a month ago ;)). I'm discussing this with a number of people in the industry right now, and I think it's a great idea. There are still problems with it, but it definitely could gain traction.
     
  25. fusting4321 fusting4321 is offline

    Baltimore, MD
    United States

    Posts: 4
    Joined: Jul 07

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:24pm) in reply to Trent55

    lol so instead of being able to transfer on PS after you cheat somehow, you would then have to cashout to Epass and do a p2p there.

    Man, this idea is REALLY gonna stop the cheaters
  26. SharkInTheWater SharkInTheWater is offline Banned

    Orlando, FL
    United States

    Posts: 132
    Joined: Oct 07

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:26pm) in reply to undertheradar

    Do you have any idea how many players are backed... GTFO with this idea
  27. Believer82 Believer82 is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 2,971
    Joined: Aug 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:27pm) in reply to iLLNuGWichee

    I mean I think its a bad idea because its not fair to honest people that play and don't cheat and work very hard to win.. alot of them are staked plus its true the sites would turn into cricket's like bodog or worse. pls stop making these posts ,and plus it would do nothing to stop these very few random 1% or lower of the poker commmunity that do or have done these things
     
  28. SluggerWV SluggerWV is offline A picture is worth a thousand words.

    Posts: 45,410
    Joined: Nov 05

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:34pm) in reply to undertheradar

    I don't see any harm in setting a limit for transfers It would help and clean up some of the clutter on the rail
  29. mindtrip954 mindtrip954 is offline

    Madison, WI
    United States

    Posts: 1,688
    Joined: Jan 06

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:37pm) in reply to fusting4321

    i agree with most here.. cheaters will find away to cheat, all this will do is cause problems for regular players...

    me personally... my cousins parents arent really that cool with him playing, so he trnsfers the money to me, and I cash it out (my cousin is 21, but with the parents paying fro a good chunk of school he still needs to make them happy)

    then you got friends that want to play, that can give you $$$ on the spot for the xfer, or you wanna swap funds with someone that has $ on another site...

    I agree with Nat, that there should be limits,

    the p2p xfers are one of the reason i dont play on bodog...
  30. RAIL BARON RAIL BARON is offline

    Vienna, VA
    United States

    Posts: 649
    Joined: Jul 07

    Dec 5th, 2007 (12/5/2007 7:38pm) in reply to SluggerWV

    So then they just sit down at the highest NL game that they need and chip dump a couple hands.
Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 51 2 3