Paul Phillips

Oy.

(Reply) (Thread)

There's enough information in that post that the folks at PokerStars should be able to verify the story and nail him and his buddy to the wall, if they have their act together.

(Reply) (Thread)

It doesn't give me any satisfaction to nail one small-time colluder who is naive enough to post about it. As long as people can play online without knowing the rules about colluding, the entire system is broken by design.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Hi all -
I just posted the following to Alan's blog...


Regards, Lee
-----------------------



Hi folks -


I heard about this and looked into it. There are two important points I want to make:


1. Our support person, Dan, [1] who handled this, is new. He wasn't aware of all the tricks that we have to track down something like this. Once I had the date range of the trouble, it took me about three minutes to find the tournament in question, and another three minutes to find the two people involved. I'm sure Dan will learn those tricks as he progresses.


2. We can argue whether what the two guys did was tactically "correct". But that's irrelevant; they were cheating. As I said, we have identified the two players involved and have frozen their accounts. We're going through our standard process of reviewing the rest of the their play and requesting explanations from them. Then we'll decide what actions to take.


I'm sorry, Alan, that we didn't get this right the first time. But both our technology and our will are plenty strong to counteract the problem. We will never completely rid ourselves of collusion. But I believe we can keep it at a level where it's in the noise as a component of your EV.


Best regards,


Lee Jones


PokerStars Poker Room Manager


[1] Not, by the way, Dan Goldman, our VP of Marketing

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Amen.

It wouldn't hurt if some of those who have received fame in the recent media fad (i.e. Mike Sexton, ESPN, etal.) were to say something about this (even if merely in a "poker corner" segment of a WPT broadcast). But I am too cynical to expect that to happen. No one wants to do anything to discourage the mass of newbies and kill the golden goose.

Instead, these people talk about various "crew"s, like having a "crew" is something admirable in the game. ESPN runs that show Tilt that glorifies cheating, pretty much. If I were a newbie who didn't know better, why would I wish to go play in a tournament WITHOUT a crew?

(Reply) (Thread)

I wouldn't really agree that Tilt glorifies cheating. Only the antagonists on the show cheat, and they're made out to be scumbags. Would you say that Silence of the Lambs glorifies skinning women's corpses?

/joe

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

not only will people openly chat about what the folded while a hand is still active, they get indignant when told what they did was wrong.

(Reply) (Thread)

This is crazy. I mean, sure, if you play chess by mail these days you might as well just set up two chess programs against each other, but if you're going to play poker, for money, you should have some sort of expectation of fair play, or the whole thing falls apart.

Why can't these asses just go back to farming EQ?

(Reply) (Thread)

It's fine to blame individual colluders, but ultimately, if collusion is so easy to do online, then sites need to find some way to correct them. People respond to incentives, and leaving a big gap like that out there is just begging to be exploited. Why can't a site randomize its seating? Or, randomize the names of opponents. Either one would seem to make collusion very difficult (the former moreso than the latter).

But I was thinking the other day -is it in a casino's best interest to plug up the holes? After all, they don't actually lose money from colluding, and it's very hard to prove colluding is taking place anyway. If they were to implement some kind of randomization to make colluding difficult to sustain, then they may only scare off customers who may not like the idea of being placed at a random table, and will simply go somewhere else where they can select with more freedom. And I can't imagine how a casino could actually electronically detect that two players were colluding, since you could use cellphones or AIM to coordinate actions, and neither require that you be sharing some common electronic characteristic that a casino could track.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I don't play online poker, mainly because I don't see how you can have confidence that collusion isn't occuring. Just curious how anyone playing in the higher stakes is able to feel comfortable, ever, in online poker. Except for tourneys, collusion appears extremely simple.

(Reply) (Thread)

Realize that the players that collude do so because they suck in the first place.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

If you were in charge of a poker site, how would you go about educating the users about poker ethics? I've been thinking about this for a while, and I can't see any way to make people actually pay attention to a subject that (in their misguided opinion) just doesn't apply to them. That said, presently there's nothing being done on that front altogether, which is a shame.

(Reply) (Thread)

I don't think the problem is a lack of ethics, but rather, a low probabilty of detection combined with a high reward and a low cost to colluding. You put those three factors together and of course you're going to get a lot of enterpreneurs who open their AIM accounts and take advantage of people. If people in live games managed to figure out how to mechanically engineer cards through sleights of hand, then imagine how much more cheating you get when you make the probability of being caught 0. Trying to rely on self-policing among players is futile. All that is going to happen, then, is that honest players get screwed by the bad guys.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Here's another more recent post from this Neuro-surgeon level intellect:

"I got really drunk last night and drew all over my face with a sharpie." ronnybojangles

(Reply) (Thread)

He drew all over his OWN face? Come on, that's what your FRIENDS do to you if you get too drunk (and you're in a fraternity or similar organization).

Did he used to give himself swirlies too?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

To clarify, I don't actually consider myself a "strategist" because of it. The whole incident was more of a one-time thing because I've been a victim of open collusion so many times. This was the first and only time it's happened and I can't see myself doing it again.

Adding the fact that I just made $54 because of it was more of a joke. Sorry if it disgusted you, but try not to think of it as a reflection of the future. For me at least, it was an isolated incident.

(Reply) (Thread)

Oh, so you did know you were cheating. I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that front.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Wow. That really sucks.

I've managed to catch (report) collusion once so far in my online play. It was investigated, but they could only prove that one guy was dumping hands to the other, and I think only one of them got a warning.

I got a little extra cash, but I still will sometimes wonder if everyone sitting around me is on the up and up. And how many 'good' colluders are out there that go unnoticed (at least by me; the guys I caught were idiots.)

(Reply) (Thread)

I've managed to catch (report) collusion once so far in my online play. It was investigated, but they could only prove that one guy was dumping hands to the other, and I think only one of them got a warning.

This is an enormous problem. Even when cheating is blatant/obvious, the sites do nothing because they don't want to lose a customer.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

OK, this is so thinly tied to the original post I'll understand if you just delete it

I play a 6-handed S&G on Stars and get thinking a couple players are colluding. I bust out. Jump on another and the same two guys are there as well......same thing.

I ask PS support to look into it. They do. They agree they were colluding; freeze their accounts and kick them off the site.

Here's what I love. Neither player was able to ITM in either game. I know the variance of that makes that fact not all that amazing, but it's still pretty funny. 2 out of 6 guys cheating and they still can't score.

Granted, I fear talented players cheating, but I think we may still have the advantage over the boneheads that cheat.

(Reply) (Thread)

A guy sent me an IM out of the blue to "hustle" with him on pokerroom some time ago. I declined. I'll admit, I've done it before and I don't want to do it again. I want to be a good legit poker player, and telling people what hands I have during ring game play isn't part of that and isn't worth it. If I'm playing against someone I know I have no problem hardplaying him.

This is the log from that guy's conversation.

[23:06] Shunny14: what do you mean by hustle?
[23:06] Uknown124: =D
[23:06] Uknown124: well
[23:06] Uknown124: simply join the same table
[23:06] Uknown124: with 2 or 3 other people
[23:06] Uknown124: tell each other our hands
[23:06] Uknown124: gives us both a huge advantage
[23:06] Uknown124: over the other players
[23:06] Uknown124: of course
[23:06] Shunny14: you do realize that's against the rules of conduct at poker sites?
[23:07] Uknown124: oh of course
[23:07] Uknown124: you do realize i could care less?
[23:07] Uknown124: i take it
[23:07] Uknown124: you are an old geezer
[23:07] Uknown124: 40+
[23:07] Uknown124: but i am young
[23:07] Shunny14: so you don't mind if your account gets locked and you lose all your money?
[23:07] Uknown124: and young people break all the rules
[23:07] Uknown124: well
[23:07] Uknown124: the trick is
[23:07] Uknown124: not to get caught
[23:07] Uknown124: =)
[23:07] Shunny14: true
[23:07] Uknown124: and if i can make
[23:07] Uknown124: a quick 100 bucks
[23:07] Uknown124: then so be it
[23:07] Uknown124: =D
[23:08] Shunny14: if you knew how to play well you wouldn't have that problem
[23:08] Shunny14: if you need to hustle to win more money then you have a problem
[23:08] Uknown124: true
[23:08] Uknown124: i know how to play well
[23:08] Uknown124: but online poker
[23:08] Uknown124: is too shady to me
[23:08] Uknown124: so i find you have to be shady as well
[23:08] Uknown124: to win

I should of reported this guy to pokerroom just for his pompous attitude.

(Reply) (Thread)

I should of reported this guy to pokerroom just for his pompous attitude.

You mean you didn't report him?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I also understand that this doesn't exempt me from any criticism, but the tone of what I wrote, when read in context (maybe one of those you-have-to-know-me types) is entirely facetious.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I quoted ronnybojangles' post in an email to PokerStars Support.
"Dan" replied, saying not just that they couldn't identify the perp's account from the information provided, but:

You should note that what the players did was actually very stupid. Not
only was it against our rules, but it was also strategically a dumb play.
If the players had enough chips to be able to limp into the prizes when
they combined stacks, they had enough chips to try and both make the
prizes.

The term chip dumping is reserved for players who share chips in order for
both players to last longer in a tournament. It does not apply to players
trying to knock each other out and halve their total possible payout. [emphasis added]

How many things are wrong with this analysis? Let me count the ways....

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

The thing is, with their trend, they expected to bubble out. Just coasting would take them to the bubble.

A good poker player would be able to play well enough to extend that a couple places. That the reaction was to count chips with a friend and try to combine the chips is a bad, bad sign. I am not sure that someone doing that is looking at what it takes to win in any competitive sense.

You're right about the analyis from the poker site. Dumping chips to one player, then splitting the proceeds is chip dumping. Chip stack matters and the prizes are all-or-nothing, so putting one person in a position to coast into a prize and splitting the proceeds is as good an example as you can imagine.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

eh...what can you do -

My friend Felicia went on a big hullaboo about cheating that went on at the WPAA tourney at the Orleans a few months ago - (basically, two friends at the same table and one INSISTING that he couldn't be forced to play against his friend)

I read her account and posted it in RGP where basically everyone commended on these dudes being full of shit, etc, etc, and I think she got a couple threats for her trouble.... -

but el dickheads are probably still working together...

that was over at This RGP post

pax
RB

(Reply) (Thread)

This is one of the reasons I don't play hold'em ring games online, and stick to multi-table tournaments 90% of the time.

Colluders and bot using maggots, it's pretty ugly, but until it's more legitimized, this is likely going to get far worse before it gets better.

One thing though, some sites have the FAST tables where u have very little time to decide before your hand is folded, perhaps that should become the norm?

-Bri

(Reply) (Thread)

LOL, take the thinking out of poker?
Hell no, that would be ridiculous.
That's pretty much the worst idea ever.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Let me preface this by saying that I don't think cheating should be tolerated even if it is of no consequence.

Having said that, how much do you really need to weep for the future by this particular behavior? My first weakly held thought was that if chip strength is linear, than it shouldn't much matter, but that is pretty clearly wrong, if for no other reason than because people who are about to be blinded off are constrained in ways people with lots of chips aren't.

So my second thought is that this was a marginal utility of money sort of situation, where the more chips you have, the less the next chip is actually worth to you. But in this model, the chip dumping is actually bad for the pair, as the value of the chip being gained by the leader is going to be worth less to him than the loss of the chip to the dumper. If this is the only desiderata, the behavior might hurt some people in the tournament, but it would help the rest of the field more. Not great, but survivable.

But though that's on-point, it isn't everything, since there's also the prize structure to consider. But so long as the number of people entering is directly proportional to the size of the prize pool, I'm wondering if you could make the ITM structure such to make this sort of dumping negative E.V.?

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

your payout = ((contestants - place you finish)/ (1+2+...(contestants-1))) * prize pool

Last place gets nothing, second last a little bit, third last a little more, etc. Now if you dump your chips to your leader buddy, you're losing the possible additional payout for surviving longer, and the folks who you're buddy has just leapfrogged will at least be less upset, since you put a bit of cash in their pockets.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This fits the definition of collusion to a T, doesn't it?

(Reply) (Thread)

I try to turn a blind-eye to the possiblities of cheating happening while playing online poker. But I can see how easy it would be to do so.

I hope that poster will realize what he did was wrong and not go down the Russ G. road of cheats.

(Reply) (Thread)

Some things to consider from the online poker room's perspective.

1. They know that game integrity, and hence their livelihood, is threatened by collusion.

2. They have access to every hand played and can analyse play programmatically and visually with all cards exposed right down to the time it took to act.

3. They have a history of every financial transaction related to every account.

4. They likely maintain a history of every log in/out for every account.

5. The successful ones have virtually unlimited resources from all the rake that we pay.

6. Surely they know that for every type of collusion there are certain actions which, in aggregate, must be taken to benefit from the illicit information available or the illicit strategy employed.

If you ran an online poker site, knowing all of the above, would you sit back and do nothing about collusion? Posters who suggest that the sites have no incentive to do anything about the problem are way off the mark.

Those colluders bright enough to win over the long haul without getting caught are probably bright enough to know most if not all of this. Hence I suspect that most realize they are much better off polishing up their signaling technique and heading to a brick and mortar card room.

I'm not suggesting that online poker is free of collusion. I will suggest that much of what's there is falls into the "ronny bojangles" category. If this was in fact a "one time" thing, and if he had not bragged about it in his journal, it would have almost certainly gone undetected. However if he and his friend magically devised a way to do this on a regular basis, it would soon be detectable. It would, however, require some powerful magic to arrange to regularly be at the same table at the critical point in a flat pay out multi table satellite with stack sizes such that such a dump would even make sense.

There will always be some percentage of players who don't understand, or don't care, that soft play, chip dumping and other forms of collusion are wrong. For the most part I suspect that such players are detectable and are already being detected on well run, successful sites.

The future of online poker may not be so bleak after all.

(Reply) (Thread)