The Swedish poker site, Svenskaspelare posted some very interesting second-hand information on the Blom90 scandal, namely that Viktor 'Isildur1' Blom lost his whole bankroll due to a multi-account collusion.
"Peter 'Zupp' Jensen allowed the Swedish high stakes player Gulkines to play using his nickname 'pokerzp3'. Viktor spoke of two long sessions against pokerzp3, where he lost considerable amounts and he could not understand why. Blom was also irritated by the fact that Zupp went on in newspapers and on poker forums to spread rumors about Viktor being a major fish. Luke Schwartz, later known as _FullFlush_, had acquaintance with both Viktor and Gulkines online. He was aware of what was happening and informed Viktor about the cheating that took place against him. Viktor contacted Bet365 where he was playing at the time and reported it, assisting the room with information they required as evidence. He later found out that he actually won $250,000 when Zupp played against him from 'pokerzp3' while he lost about $800,000 when Gulkines controlled his account." -told an anonymous source close to Viktor Blom to Svenskaspelare.
Svenskaspelare contacted Jepsen, who commented on the case on 8 April.
Peter 'Zupp' Jepsen
Zupp's version of the story:
"I have always previously refused to acknowledge to any media that I gave my account to Gulkines, but now it is time for me to tell the truth. Yes, I let Gulkines borrow my account. And yes, we won about $800,000 from Blom," says Zupp.
"Gulkines had played Blom on iPoker previously and lost his entire iPoker roll to Viktor. Gulkines believed that he could beat Viktor, but wasn't able to deposit enough money into his own account to be adequately bankrolled to face him. He contacted me to ask if I had any money on iPoker. I had about $150,000 on there at the time, and because I was very confident in Gulkines' abilities as a player, I gave him my account without a second thought. I had a percentage of Gulkines' action, so I inherited some of the risk of the agreement."
To the question whether he lost $250,000 and Gulkines won $800,000 off of Isildur1, Jepsen replied the following:
"I never played against Blom. It was only ever Gulkines. The match was back and forth, but eventually he ended up winning about $800,000 and Viktor was broke. So then there was $950,000 in my account, and we were both obviously every excited," says Zupp.
Zupp also replied to why he called Blom a fish:
"It was a very prominent win - many people noticed it, and wanted to talk to me about it. I could not just say that it wasn't me, so I went along with it, idiot that I am. However, I remember that when I got up the next day and read the news on the internet, my jaw dropped. I had been very misinterpreted, and everything was smeared on thickly, because that's how headlines sell. I remember that I called reporters to ask them to limit the sensationalism."
Soon, Bet365 also contacted Jepsen about the case:
"I was contacted by Bet365. They came to me and said that they had evidence that it was not me playing on my account against Blom. I admitted it, and explained to them that my Swedish friend had lost his own bankroll and was desparate to continue playing. What happened next, I believe has never happened before or since. Bet365 returned to me with a decision. They decided that I had to pay Blom back all $800,000. Gulkines had meanwhile continued playing on the account and lost $300,000. This meant that there was now only $650,000 in the account instead of $950,000 as had been the case right after the match vs Blom. Bet365 insisted that I deposit $150,000 so that they could transfer the full $800,000 to Blom. If I did not agree, then they said they would drag me to court and make sure that I never played online poker again... anywhere!
The truth is that Blom got EVERY penny back. It must have been crazy to wake up one morning and find out that all the money you'd lost had come straight back. It's something you dream about happening after a big loss. It must have been like winning the lottery! After all, he was on a freeroll while Gulkines and I ended up losing $300,000. It's a little ****ed up. Listen, Blom played against everyone - EVERYONE! He multitabled against 2, 3, sometimes 4 different people at the same time. Anyone, any time, multiple tables. He knew nothing about who I was or how I played. We had never played before. He lost the match vs Gulkines, and I would describe it as "fair and square". It was nothing to do with hand histories and a past dynamic versus me - no way. I am completely convinced that Viktor knew that he could be playing against anyone, and was completely and utterly indifferent to the fact. There was no intent to cheat in the action of my lending my account to Gulkines - it was only a matter of getting money on the site quickly. It was commonplace at the time that you could ask in chat who you were playing against and receive an answer. Borrowed accounts were that common."
Zupp also called the media's attention to the fact that Blom never accused them with cheating, nor did he go to talk about this in the media:
"I don't know if he's embarassed about it - no, that's not the right word - but I can guarantee that he almost couldn't believe his eyes when he read that the money would be repaid," says Zupp, who almost couldn't bear to read about the scandal again.
"It pisses me off that I should read this f***ing bull**** that he was cheated and had to rebuild his bankroll again. He got every penny back, which he probably shouldn't have. It's pretty sick. I was on tilt about this for four years, and I'm still a little tilted over it. It's a slap in the face. Gulkines, who was a world class player, suffered mentally and financially because of this issue, and he was also tilted for four years about it," says Zupp, who has one last point:
"Today I wouldn't lend my account, not only because of this event, but also because today online poker is completely different. At the time, most - if not all - high stakes players multi-accounted. The swings were huge, and pretty much no one had enough money on one site to withstand the variance. Also, it was often very difficult to move the large sums of money due to ridiculously low deposit limits and problems with eWallets. The Americans had it a little easier because FTP and Stars allowed very large transfers between accounts, but us Europeans didn't have a lot of choice on iPoker, Party etc. because here the transfers were more regulated."
"It was generally known that several prominent high stakes players shared accounts or even had shared bankrolls. I never considered it cheating, and I know that many pros agreed, but it's just not something you went around talking about. The problem is that there's a thin line between right and wrong, and it's very difficult to distinguish between the two, especially when talking to the media. People hear about "multi-accounting" and they automatically think of people playing multiple accounts at the same cash game table or two people sharing information over Skype or MSN. There have also been many examples of people using multiple VPN connections to play the same tournament with 10 different accounts. There are people who have shared hand history databases which allows them to have much better statistical analyses of specific opponents. I think this is a much bigger problem. There's a huge difference between what Gulkines and I did, versus the case of four professional players, who shared several million hands in a common database and took turns playing against the same man, being able to analytically decipher everything he did. It's very difficult to distinguish between all these different examples if you just simply call it all 'multi-accounting'."
"I can without a doubt in my mind say that Gulkines in no way got an unfair advantage by playing on my account. If anything, he was probably at a marginal disadvantage against Blom, who later became the world's best NLHE player. And for those who think it was cheating, I can say that I certainly paid the price for my actions", says Zupp.
"Peter 'Zupp' Jensen allowed the Swedish high stakes player Gulkines to play using his nickname 'pokerzp3'. Viktor spoke of two long sessions against pokerzp3, where he lost considerable amounts and he could not understand why. Blom was also irritated by the fact that Zupp went on in newspapers and on poker forums to spread rumors about Viktor being a major fish. Luke Schwartz, later known as _FullFlush_, had acquaintance with both Viktor and Gulkines online. He was aware of what was happening and informed Viktor about the cheating that took place against him. Viktor contacted Bet365 where he was playing at the time and reported it, assisting the room with information they required as evidence. He later found out that he actually won $250,000 when Zupp played against him from 'pokerzp3' while he lost about $800,000 when Gulkines controlled his account." -told an anonymous source close to Viktor Blom to Svenskaspelare.
Svenskaspelare contacted Jepsen, who commented on the case on 8 April.
Peter 'Zupp' Jepsen
Zupp's version of the story:
"I have always previously refused to acknowledge to any media that I gave my account to Gulkines, but now it is time for me to tell the truth. Yes, I let Gulkines borrow my account. And yes, we won about $800,000 from Blom," says Zupp.
"Gulkines had played Blom on iPoker previously and lost his entire iPoker roll to Viktor. Gulkines believed that he could beat Viktor, but wasn't able to deposit enough money into his own account to be adequately bankrolled to face him. He contacted me to ask if I had any money on iPoker. I had about $150,000 on there at the time, and because I was very confident in Gulkines' abilities as a player, I gave him my account without a second thought. I had a percentage of Gulkines' action, so I inherited some of the risk of the agreement."
To the question whether he lost $250,000 and Gulkines won $800,000 off of Isildur1, Jepsen replied the following:
"I never played against Blom. It was only ever Gulkines. The match was back and forth, but eventually he ended up winning about $800,000 and Viktor was broke. So then there was $950,000 in my account, and we were both obviously every excited," says Zupp.
Zupp also replied to why he called Blom a fish:
"It was a very prominent win - many people noticed it, and wanted to talk to me about it. I could not just say that it wasn't me, so I went along with it, idiot that I am. However, I remember that when I got up the next day and read the news on the internet, my jaw dropped. I had been very misinterpreted, and everything was smeared on thickly, because that's how headlines sell. I remember that I called reporters to ask them to limit the sensationalism."
Soon, Bet365 also contacted Jepsen about the case:
"I was contacted by Bet365. They came to me and said that they had evidence that it was not me playing on my account against Blom. I admitted it, and explained to them that my Swedish friend had lost his own bankroll and was desparate to continue playing. What happened next, I believe has never happened before or since. Bet365 returned to me with a decision. They decided that I had to pay Blom back all $800,000. Gulkines had meanwhile continued playing on the account and lost $300,000. This meant that there was now only $650,000 in the account instead of $950,000 as had been the case right after the match vs Blom. Bet365 insisted that I deposit $150,000 so that they could transfer the full $800,000 to Blom. If I did not agree, then they said they would drag me to court and make sure that I never played online poker again... anywhere!
The truth is that Blom got EVERY penny back. It must have been crazy to wake up one morning and find out that all the money you'd lost had come straight back. It's something you dream about happening after a big loss. It must have been like winning the lottery! After all, he was on a freeroll while Gulkines and I ended up losing $300,000. It's a little ****ed up. Listen, Blom played against everyone - EVERYONE! He multitabled against 2, 3, sometimes 4 different people at the same time. Anyone, any time, multiple tables. He knew nothing about who I was or how I played. We had never played before. He lost the match vs Gulkines, and I would describe it as "fair and square". It was nothing to do with hand histories and a past dynamic versus me - no way. I am completely convinced that Viktor knew that he could be playing against anyone, and was completely and utterly indifferent to the fact. There was no intent to cheat in the action of my lending my account to Gulkines - it was only a matter of getting money on the site quickly. It was commonplace at the time that you could ask in chat who you were playing against and receive an answer. Borrowed accounts were that common."
Zupp also called the media's attention to the fact that Blom never accused them with cheating, nor did he go to talk about this in the media:
"I don't know if he's embarassed about it - no, that's not the right word - but I can guarantee that he almost couldn't believe his eyes when he read that the money would be repaid," says Zupp, who almost couldn't bear to read about the scandal again.
"It pisses me off that I should read this f***ing bull**** that he was cheated and had to rebuild his bankroll again. He got every penny back, which he probably shouldn't have. It's pretty sick. I was on tilt about this for four years, and I'm still a little tilted over it. It's a slap in the face. Gulkines, who was a world class player, suffered mentally and financially because of this issue, and he was also tilted for four years about it," says Zupp, who has one last point:
"Today I wouldn't lend my account, not only because of this event, but also because today online poker is completely different. At the time, most - if not all - high stakes players multi-accounted. The swings were huge, and pretty much no one had enough money on one site to withstand the variance. Also, it was often very difficult to move the large sums of money due to ridiculously low deposit limits and problems with eWallets. The Americans had it a little easier because FTP and Stars allowed very large transfers between accounts, but us Europeans didn't have a lot of choice on iPoker, Party etc. because here the transfers were more regulated."
"It was generally known that several prominent high stakes players shared accounts or even had shared bankrolls. I never considered it cheating, and I know that many pros agreed, but it's just not something you went around talking about. The problem is that there's a thin line between right and wrong, and it's very difficult to distinguish between the two, especially when talking to the media. People hear about "multi-accounting" and they automatically think of people playing multiple accounts at the same cash game table or two people sharing information over Skype or MSN. There have also been many examples of people using multiple VPN connections to play the same tournament with 10 different accounts. There are people who have shared hand history databases which allows them to have much better statistical analyses of specific opponents. I think this is a much bigger problem. There's a huge difference between what Gulkines and I did, versus the case of four professional players, who shared several million hands in a common database and took turns playing against the same man, being able to analytically decipher everything he did. It's very difficult to distinguish between all these different examples if you just simply call it all 'multi-accounting'."
"I can without a doubt in my mind say that Gulkines in no way got an unfair advantage by playing on my account. If anything, he was probably at a marginal disadvantage against Blom, who later became the world's best NLHE player. And for those who think it was cheating, I can say that I certainly paid the price for my actions", says Zupp.
0 comments