https://twitter.com/WPN_CEO/status/1303793376228245505
https://twitter.com/JonathanLittle/status/1303799435827326978
https://twitter.com/max_vv_/status/1303809098576732160
https://twitter.com/WPN_CEO/status/1303835170383056899
https://twitter.com/WPN_CEO/status/1303853173808017409
https://twitter.com/WPN_CEO/status/1303816037067116544
https://twitter.com/WPN_CEO/status/1303851324556091392
My thoughts:
This one is actually more complicated than the matter of GGPoker, where they are banning so-called "bumhunters" out of pure greed.
This one is simply the case of an emotional site owner banning someone he dislikes. He decided that he's sick of Little publicly bashing ACR on his well-viewed stream, and booted him (while not confiscating any money).
On one hand, Phi Nagy does have the right to refuse service to anyone. However, at the same time, it's very bad form to ban someone simply for criticizing your site -- even if the criticism is wrong or unfair. I don't believe that Nagy feels Little is doing the criticism in order to promote the competition, or anything like that. He's just pissed off that Little bashes them constantly.
This is the first known instance of a ban from a poker site like this, however. It does set a bothersome precedent, especially in the US market, where players have limited choices for online poker, especially in states which don't have a legalized option (which is most of them).
Phil Nagy is in the wrong here, though I can understand his frustration to some degree. If you watch the video posted of Little's stream, you can hear Little making an unfounded accusation that he "always misses against the shill players".
Little is now taking some heat again for his antics in 2008, where he shared his 100% rakeback "red pro" account with others on Full Tilt:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...ed-ftp-146213/
Full Tilt caught this and fired him, which caused a lot of backlash against him, for both exploiting his rakeback benefit and multiaccounting.
ACR will last as long as their equipment does. Costa Rica has all old equipment that’s been passed around for years. It is also very hard to get good IT workers to go and work for an unregulated site in another country. One day it’s not going to take a band aid to fix whatever problem occurs. At that point, rather than buy all new stuff, my best guess is they take the money and run. I don’t see them around in 3 years. Nagy doing something like this only grows my suspicions that will be the case.
lol they work hard for their money
Here's Little's statement on 2+2:
Source: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...7&postcount=29Long story short, about two years ago an ACR shill (a pro who is paid by ACR to promote them) said your money is safer in ACR than in a US bank.
I then made a youtube video (I make lots of them) outlining the risks of keeping substantial money in an unlicensed/unregulated/illegal gambling site.
Phil Nagy started randomly trolling/being malicious to me on twitter, so I blocked him, as I do with all trolls.
Another ACR shill then made a youtube video that contained many blatant lies about me in an attempt to discredit me. They brought up the 14-year old incident where I shared my Full Tilt account with a friend to take advantage of my 100% rakeback account. I was banned for this, Full Tilt took the $250k from my account, I apologized, Full Tilt later unbanned me, I had the largest online cash of my life ($320k), I cashed it out, and it arrived in my bank account two days before Black Friday. In my content, I often use this incident as an example of what not to do, because it was obviously a horrible mistake by young idiot JL. The video made to discredit me claimed I multi-accounted (which was not true), among other things.
After COVOD, I started streaming my Sunday sessions on ACR. When people asked why I would play on an unlicensed/unregulated/illegal site, I made it clear they have lots of tournament volume and they have a great marketing department (aka the site is super soft). I also made it clear when people asked that they should not keep substantial money in any unlicensed/unregulated/illegal gambling site. I did this, keeping one day's worth of tournament buy-ins in my account at all times. I told people that if they could play on a legal site, they should play on it over the illegal ones.
I streamed roughly 12 weeks, answering these same questions many times, and eventually wrote something like "Do not keep money in unlicensed sites that you care about" because I was tired of answering the same question over and over again. I had a video of Maggie Simpson sucking that I would put up when I got outdrawn saying "Nagy'ed again!". It was clearly a joke. Whenever anyone said or mentioned the site is/may be rigged, I always said that I do not think it is rigged or that I am being cheated in any way (to be fair, I was winning at a high win rate).
Once when I made a bitcoin cash out, I made a poll on social media asking how much money would arrive in my btc account (because there was a few day waiting period between when I cashed out and when it arrives, and you will get a different amount than you asked for due to the currency fluctuations). It turns out they did not cheat me in any way, besides it taking a few days longer than they said it would, and I made it clear they did everything correctly.
So, as far as I can tell, ACR banned me for speaking poorly about their site more often than not. While I certainly do not feel entitled to play on any site, it seems quite aggressive to ban someone for saying they do not like you. Of course, I imagine they have in their terms that they can ban people for any reason.
I was told by their support that I would be cashed out in full. The first $10k transfer is currently processing. If it does not all arrive in a timely manner, I will let you all know.
Mason, Pertaining to your post, I was not recruiting anyone from his site (although my screen name was my training site's name). I have been told by many people who saw me stream that they started playing on ACR because they realized it was the best of the unregulated options (as I often stated), which I thought was true before today. Hopefully this does not set a precedent that it is fine to ban people because of their social media content.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote