Multi-accounting is not a pardonable offense

One of the sidebar debates during the current Girah scandal that is taking place across the online poker forums has to do with Multi-accounting. The debate is raging on several different fronts; whether it is an ethical or legal breach; what type of edge is gained by multi-accounting; and what kind of punishment should players face when caught multi-accounting.

Perhaps the most troubling school of thought is that multi-accounting is an unenforceable rule, is not “real” cheating, and it’s almost a necessity or you will lose too much EV to the players who multi-account you! While not expressly stated in this way on the poker forums, a little reading between the lines of some posts demonstrates this is precisely how some players feel. This line of thought was usually followed with one of two defenses for players who are caught multi-accounting -which kind of blows a hole in the unenforceable rule part:

#1 - Nobody has ever been seriously punished for a single violation of multi-accounting

#2 - they could compensate the victim via some equity calculation

While I agree that multi-accounting is a crime with a low apprehension rate, that doesn’t mean you simply turn a blind eye to it, “because so many people get away with it, why should so-and-so be punished?”

In my opinion, the price for getting caught multi-accounting should be very severe, and I’ll give two different analogies to explain why multi-accounters should be punished severely.

Example #1: Most people realize that Olympic track and field athletes are not entirely “natural”, but at the most only one or two of these athletes are caught doping at each Olympics -which usually results in a multi-year or lifetime ban from the sport. So pretty much everyone realizes 90% of their competitors are using PED’s, BUT if YOU get caught you realize you are going to be punished severely; for what is essentially a common practice in your sport.

The athletes must then weigh the price of getting caught vs. the price of winning and making money. It may look like this policy has failed, but in reality it hasn’t. The chance of a lifetime ban has kept MOST Olympic athletes from going nuts with PED’s, and even with the advancements in the field, Ben Johnson’s 9.79 at the 1988 Olympics is still the 7^th fastest time ever (eliminate Usain Bolt from the equation and Johnson’s time in 1988 is only hundreds of a second off the record of 9.74 by Asafa Powell), and was the fastest time ever until 2002! An unbelievably long time for a track record to stand.

Could you even begin to imagine what track and field athletes would look like if the rule was, “Don’t use steroids, but if you do we’ll either look the other way because everyone is doing it, or we’ll ban you from the next track meet.” Basically, for a transgression with a low apprehension rate the punishment must be overly severe to have any hope of curtailing the activity.

Example #2: This has to do with people who think an equity makeup is fair punishment for a low level offense like multi-accounting. Imagine you go to a restaurant and decide to leave without paying the $50 bill; not the worst crime in the world for sure. But if you’re caught do they say, “Since it’s not really a big deal just pay the restaurant’s cost of your meal, and we won’t call the police.” Because this is basically what people are suggesting when they say a person caught multi-accounting should pay their victim based on the difference in equity. In real life you not only have to pay the entire bill, you’ll also likely face criminal charges which could result in a fine or even jail time.

Even though your crime is costing the restaurant 25% of your actual bill this does not mean that is the only amount you are on the hook for! If this is what people think a fair punishment for violating an online poker site’s rules is, then you may as well invite every cheater, scammer, and scumbag to come sit at your poker table.