Is it really Multi-accounting?

I remember reading a post that Hoy wrote a while back about these so called multi-account cheaters. In one sense it was interesting to read how he was "withholding" information from the community and not really outting any of the people who he knew had more than one account on any given site. I'm not sure of his reasoning, but he seemed to rationalize it and defend it. On the other hand I found it to be rather annoying that he didn't just let everyone know who these cheaters were. After all, it is assumed that we play with these people on a regular basis and they would clearly have an advantage. If you can't figure out how then that's your problem.

This one screen name has really been bugging me lately.

Does anyone know who "MeCrushBloggers" is?

I think calling them cheaters is wrong. However, I am not here to defend them. Just shed a different perspective on the whole subject. It's almost common knowledge that homeboy RecessRampage does not get rakeback. He admits that he hates money, and supports this by the fact the he has refused to place a couple of ads on his blog with little effort... and get paid. He must hate money...

I'm not going to go into the details of his predicament. I don't play 1/50th as much a he does and I can't begin to list the pros and cons of changing a screen name and starting over. All I know is if I was giving up two or three hundred a month in rakeback... I would do something about it.

I think the pokergump has said it best so far. If you are not reading this blog on a regular basis you need to start now. He's got tons of content on a variety of subjects and his writing style is very enjoyable:

"3) In case it wasn't clear from my first post, I do not think it is inherently unethical to own more than one account on a given online poker site. It's a step onto a slippery slope, to be sure, but I assume that the vast majority of people manage not to slide down further, and don't do anything problematic. Most, probably, do what I would do--just set up a new one in order to get some scratch back from the site for which they otherwise wouldn't be eligible, and that's the end of it. I haven't taken that plunge yet, but I haven't completely ruled it out, either. If I thought it was wrong in any moral sense, I would easily just dismiss it out of hand. But in my mind it's definitely in the "malum prohibitum" category rather than "malum in se." I'll admit that I'm still on the fence about it, and if the amount of my online play would result in more than a few bucks a month of rakeback, I'd probably already have done it by now. My paucity of play on sites where it could bring me some money has made it easy not to bother, but if I were passing up more money than I am, committing what I consider a minor rule infraction would probably seem worthwhile. (Go ahead and jump on me for this if you want; I'm just telling it like it is.)

Because of the foregoing conclusion, I don't think it's unethical or dishonest for companies to encourage and assist customers of FTP (and other sites) to set up second accounts so as to become eligible for rakeback. Moreover, I suspect that sooner or later FTP will conclude that it's fighting a losing battle by denying the players who have been with it the longest the ability to share in the rewards offered to new players, and will change their policy accordingly."