Graham

If you haven't heard about what has been going on at these sites, I suggest you take a second look.

Here is some of the latest news:
Ultimate Bet Scandal Continues

Also, Nat Arem has been threatened:
Two Plus Two Poker Forum - View Single Post - The UB Scandal Continues

And PokerNews.com have removed UB/AP from their site completely:
PokerNews Official Statement | Poker News

So, before you go back to playing at these sites, take these things into consideration, as it could be your money that is stolen next!

Monteroy

The only issue I have with the doom and gloom theory that anybody's money can be stolen next is that realistically most players would not merit the effort or attention to even steal the money, and a lot of the paranoid beliefs that this creates will impact online poker as a whole.

Again, I am not supporting UB/AP at all, have balances of $0 at both, and and I do not even play there (except for a PSO thing on AB once in a while), and I think pretty much any player can find better options. The reality is that regular players are not likely to have any issues and being honest about that while also making the valid case about these past problems is an approach that in my opinion would be even more convincing.

As is, the doom and gloom fear the unknown said to people with $50 balances seems a bit out of place, and it is probably the type of reason why I still see people in the Stars $3 rebuy convinced the software is programmed to cheat them in a small stakes tourney while Stars collects over 200k from just from running that past weeks Sunday 200+15 million tourney.

In other words, bank robbers don't yell at tellers to hand over all the spare change.

Graham

Doom and gloom theory? You can't be serious. These are all facts. Do I think this is bad for online poker as a whole, yes and no. Sure it could have some short term impacts, but I think the long term benefits outweigh these. By letting sites get away with this and continue to profit players are telling them that this is an okay practice and that they should not be held accountable for their own security.

Security is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of any online poker site, and if they can't control this properly and let things like this go on, they should not exist.

You even said "players are not likely to have any issues", which still leaves an opening for the possibility that something might happen. That risk should not be taken in my opinion.

Monteroy

Let me try it this way.

If a report came out tomorrow that robbery crimes were up by 100% over last year in downtown Toronto, would that be a reason to convince your 4 year old nephew Timmy not to keep pennies in a jar.

No, not really as they odds of Timmy getting his pennies targeted and stolen via a robbery are essentially zero before and after this decrease in security and increase in crime because he just is not a practical target for crime.

Now, would it be valid to express concerns for a new family to live in a city with a soaring general crime rate? Absolutely, which is why I have no problems with an arguement being made that UB/AP had very poor internal security measures compared to other sites (well, maybe - perhaps other sites have just not been caught or been lucky we don't really know).

Nobody's $50 roll on UB is in real danger of being stolen though, and I think being honest about that while making the point that why would anyone play at a site that had these problems is more effective then the doom and gloom your money will be taken approach which is both overly dramatic and distorted and definitely can create more paranoia then a rational, logical approach to the issue.


It is not likely that an elephant will trample over you tomorrow when you leave your house. Whether you take that risk is of course your choice

Graham

All I said was take these things into consideration before going back to play there. It could be someones $50 roll next is possible, though like you say, unlikely. I would rather stick with sites like pokerstars that have not had major security issues like this and actually puts in effort to prevent them from happening. Continuing to play on these sites only tells them that they can get away with it.

How can you defend their actions and say people should stay playing there?

actyper

If you bank at CIBC and then start to notice that the bank manager makes withdrawals from your account, isn't it better to close your account and bank at the TD next door?

That is what the latest reports are about, not a "doom/gloom" picture.

STR82ACE

I'm sure those who still play on AP and UB with small bankrolls aren't too afraid of having the exec's of the company dipping into their small accounts.

However, it would impact their ability to regain a new customer base, and that's something no organization can risk to lose, regardless of how big or powerful they are.

The actions by the certain individuals in the heirarchy are unethical and illegal, at least in the majority of the world, and they should be held responsible. What the HELL is the delay here? Why are they still involved? Innocent until proven guilty? Fair enough, but why aren't the shareholders forcing them to get out of Dodge? Anyone who would deposit without considering the facts is risking too much imo.

__________________
The only difference between a 'rut' and a 'grave' is the depth.

800OVER

Monteroy.... as you've used an analogy....

There have been a rash of internal thefts at your bank. It amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars from many different accounts. The bank said it had no knowledge of the thefts at all and refused to do anything about it and basically said screw you to the people who lost money......you gonna have your cousin Timmy deposit money at that bank? You gonna have Timmy leave his money there?

If they treat the higher level players with this much contempt then how much satisfaction are you gonna get when you have a problem at a $5 sit and go? Your suggestion that it's ok to screw the higher ups and long as it doesn't affect me is kinda shortsided......

I don't care about bad health care ...cause I'm healthy.
I don't care about the environment....I'm 85 and I'll be dead soon.

You should care...if at least because it'll scare away some of the fish.


Edit: all credit to actyper's bank analogy above that I didn't see until I submitted this...

__________________
We can all use some extra redundancy.

BBC Z

oh god STOP THE ANALOGY MADNESS!!!

__________________
13Cards is the worst thing to happen to Canadian Poker ever.

_obv_

I wouldn't be worried about having money on these sites and I wouldn't be worried about getting cheated at this point either. The issue with playing on these sites is that they have cheated customers and lied/covered things up and that these were discovered by the players on the site and not the sites themselves. By playing on these sites you are saying... go ahead and cheat us but if we catch you cheating just pay us back and everything will be fine.

If the new UB management would have come out right away and released all the cheating accounts and refunded all the money I would have less of a problem with people playing on UB.

Supporting these sites is bad for online poker.

Monteroy

If I am the type of customer that would be targeted by what is basically an internal fraud situation (ie: a high stakes player) then a big DUH in terms of whether it is smart to keep your money in there.

My point is that the tiny stakes players that are probably the majority of their player base will never be targeted by super users, so if they play at UB with their 40 bucks because they like a promo there or like the software there or whatever that is fine. Telling them that their bankroll is in danger is pointless since it really is not.

Again, I am not supporting UB at all. Clearly they had a major internal security violation/embezzlement scheme that hit many big stakes players hard, and I agree that any big stakes player would be nuts to risk playing there in future.

I also think these are legitimate issues to make public and bring to the attention of potential players to try to show them why the alternatives are better even under the assumption that a small bankroll is not really at risk.

Want another banking analogy? A bunch closed in the US recently and the news will show pictures of a nice little old lady standing outside a bank in a state of panic getting extra worked up by the camera crew when in the end her $1000 is perfectly safe.


On another note, I do think that well known poker pros should be given a harsh treatment for continuing to be involved with a site like UB.

HP_John

Since it's been the bigger games that fell prey, maybe in the future they would've screwed the smaller limits as it's less suspicious. I would not play at a site that has been exposed for having prominent cheating by insiders.

Monteroy

This is the type of paranoia I am talking about. They will target small time players next because no one would think they would target them next because it is not logical that they would target them next.

A belief that something will happen because it is not expected to happen, with a "why not, it COULD happen" as the backbone. The next step is assuming it is happening whether it is or not and not having any need to prove it.

Most people here think all of the forms of rigged beliefs are silly and emotional, but this is just a variation of the same thinking process. Why muddle a very logical and correct point (ie: UB/AP are worse choices because of their high stakes fraud scandals) with OMG RIGGEDZORS based thinking.