As
“The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. In September, I discussed Joe Sebok’s decision to join Team Ultimate Bet. In November, I examined a $50,000 $W swap gone wrong (or right, depending on which party you ask). This month, I consider the multiple accounts of Nick “Stoxtrader” Grudzien. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll state up front that I work for Poker Savvy Plus, a video training site that competes with Grudzien’s Stoxpoker. I also believe that I have played against several of Grudzien’s accounts without knowing that they were the same person. While I don’t believe either of these facts colors my view of the situation, I’ll leave the reader to be the final authority on that.
The latest scandal to rock the online poker world is Nick “Stoxtrader” Grudzien’s admission that he has played under multiple screennames on both Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker. According to his post in the 2+2 thread on the subject:
In the last few days various allegations have been made that I have played on multiple accounts on FTP and Stars and that by doing so I have violated the terms and conditions of the sites and also cheated in ways including colluding. The relevant facts are:
(1) At no point have I ever colluded. This is a categorical denial without exceptions.
(2) I played on a single account on FTP and a single account on PokerStars for the previous four year period through January 2010. The only exception to this was when I made instructional videos.
(3) In January 2010 I created one new account on FTP and one new account on Stars. I played on these accounts for roughly one month and have not used them since. During that time these were the only accounts on which I played at these sites. I have not played poker since March 7th, and will not play again until I receive communication from a pokersite that I am able to do so.Since I have admitted to breaking the TOS of stars and ftp I don’t plan on playing any poker until I receive communication from the pokersites that it is ok to do so, and at that time I can share the details of any information I recieve from them. FTP and pokerstars are aware of the allegations and I have encouraged them to do a full and thorough investigation to confirm that what I say is completely accurate. I would like to have the opportunity to continue to be a contributing member of both stoxpoker and 2+2, I ask for your patience while these matters are sorted out over the next few days.
As Grudzien’s post suggests, there are at least three issues here, which I’ll address separately.
I have little to say about the allegations of collusion. Smarter people than I agree that the evidence looks pretty damning, and should they prove true, I don’t think there’s any question that this would be unethical.
Is it ethical to maintain a separate account for the purpose of making instructional videos, either to avoid providing potential opponents with information that can be used against you or to ensure that people do not play differently against you because they know you are recording the session? I would argue no on both counts.
Both Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker forbid players to play on more than one account. Lee Jones, the former poker room manager at Poker Stars, once suggested that online poker would be better off if everyone played under a new screenname every session, insuring anonymity for everyone. Regardless of what you think of the one-account-per-player policy, though, it is currently the rule and must be followed. To do otherwise is to gain an unfair informational advantage over opponents who play by the rules. In the current online poker environment, players have a right to know who they’re playing against.
Loss of anonymity is to some extent the price you pay for the opportunity to earn money as a coach or instructor Grudzien could have simply obscured his screenname in post-production, as I used to do in my videos. While this doesn’t provide total anonymity, it solves the worst of the problem without harm to one’s actual opponents in the video. Moreover, Full Tilt Poker provides special “educational” tables where its affiliated Cardrunners pros are allowed to make videos pseudonymously, and all players there understand in advance that this is a possibility. Given Stoxpoker’s relationship with Cardrunners, this ought to have been an option available to Grudzien as well.
Even obscuring one’s screenname in an instructional video is not entirely beyond reproach, though, which is part of why I stopped doing it. Grudzien’s customers and students deserve full information about the person they are paying. I don’t consider the practice downright unethical, because ultimately students can choose not to hire Grudzien if he refuses to disclose his screenname and results, but even this requires that they at least be aware that plays under another account than the one they know from his videos.
In Grudzien’s case, the problem is particularly acute since it seems his primary account was actually a well-known ratholer (ie, a player who buys in for the minimum, plays almost exclusively pre-flop poker, and quits if he doubles up). Regardless of what you think about ratholing, students paying for poker instruction have a right to know that the person they are hiring engages in the practice, as this potentially limits his experience and authority regarding post-flop play.
Thus far, Grudzien has been cryptic about why he changed screennames in January:
There are online poker players who have used 2nd screenames for the purpose of deceiving others into giving them action, evading taxes, collusion, entering multiple times into the same tournament, ghosting, to obscure previous results and stats, to clear extra bonuses, to circumvent affiliate CPA or rakeback rules, to bypass the pokersites shortstack buy-in time limitation, to teamplay, to share action with others at the same table, to chip dump or otherwise engage in underhanded actions I do not know about. I have never done any of these things. Beyond that I cannot and will not comment on the screename issue, nor can I say why I cannot elaborate further other than to say that my reasons for that are serious and personal.
Contrary to the demands of the bloodthirsty mob, Grudzien does have a right to privacy and does not have to out his “serious and personal” situation to anyone. Even without knowing the situation, however, I feel comfortable stating unequivocally that changing screennames is not an ethical response.
Regardless of Grudzien’s intentions, playing under a new account provides him with an unfair advantage over his opponents. He knows who we are and have data on their play, but we do not know who he is. I say “we” because, if Nick really is 40putts/bulltf0rdtuff on FTP and Knockstiff/gr3atvlewbr0 on Stars, as is widely believed, then I myself had a good deal of experience with all of these accounts. In fact, there’s some unintentional in “Dominating Short Stacks”, the most recent video I’ve published on Poker Savvy Plus, in which I play against a table full of short stackers on Poker Stars. One of the players was gr3atvlewbr0, who at the time was unknown to me.
At one point, I say, “bballjim and greatview, to the best of my knowledge, are not professional short stackers…. [T]hey very well might be recreational players”. I go on to contrast them with Littlezen and hibachi41, who are professional short stackers, and explain what I expect to be the differences between them. I specifically talk about adjusting my open raise sizing to gr3atvlewbr0 in a way that I wouldn’t against a professional short stacker because I don’t expect him to be able to exploit it as well. I talk through a hand where I lead the flop instead of going for a check-raise because I don’t expect a recreational player to continuation bet a missed flop as often as a professional would.
All of this indicates the kind of informational disadvantage I was at against this new account, while Grudzien had access to all the data and experience he had on my foucault82 account, the only screenname I’ve ever used on Poker Stars. No matter how serious the mysterious problem facing Grudzien may have been, he has no right to a solution that comes at the expense of myself and everyone else who played regularly with his old accounts.
10 thoughts on “The Poker Ethicist: Stoxtrader”
“I have little to say about the allegations of collusion. Smarter people than I agree that the evidence looks pretty damning, and should they prove true, I don’t think there’s any question that this would be unethical.”
Including this sentence in your otherwise excellent piece seems somewhat unethical in itself. You have “little to say.” And you don’t know if the allegations are true. And you don’t present the alleged evidence. – JDW
I see what you’re saying, but in my defense, I think it would be hard to talk about ethics and Stoxtrader without at least mentioning the allegations of collusion, which are by far the most serious of the allegations against him. Not to mention that he brings it up himself in his statement, which I was addressing point by point. Since I didn’t have anything to add to the discussion, I tried to get it out of the way very quickly, but I didn’t feel like I could ignore it entirely. I feel like presenting all of the evidence would only belabor the point. The evidence that’s been marshalled so far is all in the 2+2 thread that I linked.
multi-accounting because you can’t get action at HNSL is unethical but at least I understand the reasoning.
multi-accounting to rathole is just pathetic.
Multiaccounting because you can’t win under your known one is pathetic also.
There are any number of players who have well-known screen names who are crushing the games they play. I’d argue that in many cases – Dwan, for example – their notoriety actually makes the fish come to them.
In any case, if you can’t beat the stakes, move down or get better.
Excellent article.
Errr, people multi-account get action because they crush their current stakes, not because they can’t.
If you were a loser at your current limit, you wouldn’t have issues getting action 🙂
Also, durrrr doesn’t get any more ‘fish’ playing him than anyone else. But durrrr will get less HU action than anyone else from regs because, well, who wants to play durrrr
I think we’re saying the same thing.
If you’re crushing your current stakes, you don’t need to go underground.
If you’re not crushing your current stakes, you still don’t need to go underground, because people will give you action.
That kind of leaves, “I’m not crushing the current stakes because people are so awestruck by the awesomeness of my awesomely obvious talent – despite the awesome lack of evidence thereof in my actual results – that they won’t give me action.”
There might be someone to whom this applies, and maybe being feared does cost you a little – although I think mostly it costs you action from regulars who are exercising smart game selection and over whom you have only a small edge anyway, rather than scaring off the cash dispensers.
I can easily imagine, however, that a great many poker players who aren’t as good as they think they are believe that they would do better if they could play anonymously.
“If you’re crushing your current stakes, you don’t need to go underground.”
What i’m saying is this is the main reason people do multi-account, because they don’t get action on their ‘main’ account.
If you play 25/50 HU and see ‘durrrr’ is the lobby, you probably aren’t going to sit at that table, however if you see ‘jimbob123’, and have never seen him before, you’ll very likely play him.
It would be very unethical to later find out ‘jimbob123’ = durrrr
“I can easily imagine, however, that a great many poker players who aren’t as good as they think they are believe that they would do better if they could play anonymously.”
I certainly agree with that 😉
Thanks, grey.
My guess is that Stox was actually multiaccounting fundamentally out of shame. It would be hard to understand just how hated 40putts/Knockstiff among high-stakes players. Ratholers are viewed as pathetic, parasitic bottom feeders. No one wants such a reputation, least of all a guy who was one of the best LHE players in the world at one time and who owns one of the largest training sites on the internet.
Andrew,
I enjoy these types of pieces.
Did you ever consider writing a piece like this on the islidur – Hastings hand sharing controversy?
I considered it, but there were a few reasons I didn’t. For one thing, the facts aren’t entirely clear, at least not to me. I feel like anything I wrote would be a lot of, “If it went down like this, then that was OK, but if it went down like that, then….” Also, a lot of it hinges on like common practice/community standards in the nosebleed community, and I don’t know terribly much about that.
Most importantly, I was kind of busy at the time that it broke and didn’t follow it that closely. By the time I got around to writing anything, it wouldn’t have been a hot topic anymore.
They’re a lot of work relative to other posts, so it’s good to know there are people out there who enjoy them.
Comments are closed.