Cheating In Poker

[blair rodman 0]

I was on a panel yesterday at the World Game Protection Conference. The subject was Cheating in Poker. Anthony Curtis was the moderator and on the panel with me were Sal Piacente, who is an expert in all forms of cheating and who does some amazing card and memory tricks, and Richard Marcus, author of American Roulette and Dirty Poker. I spent some time the night before at the welcome reception talking to Marcus. He’s not my kind of guy—he’s an unrepentant cheater—but I was interested in what he knows. As I suspected from reading Dirty Poker, Marcus doesn’t know a lot about poker. His specialty was cheating casino games. (American Roulette is a good read). However, he’s tied into the cheating world and knows a lot of poker cheats. My first question was as to how much mechanical cheating is actually going on in card rooms. His answer, which was similar to Sal’s, was that it is pretty rare these days. That made me feel better. However, his contention is that collusion is a major problem, both in cash games and tournaments. This is as I suspected. Collusion is an insidious blight on the poker world. It’s very hard to prove, and there are no real penalties if caught. Marcus’ contention is that there are major collusion teams operating in tournaments, and that some of the biggest names were propelled to their big wins with the help of their teams. I think Marcus overestimates the presence of colluders. I also think most people are blind to the fact that it is a real problem. The main topic of discussion was; who is responsible for policing the games? My opinion is that when I play in a public card room side game or tournament, my energy and focus is on playing the game. Maintaining that focus is hard enough over a long session without having to spend extra energy looking for cheating. I expect that the money I pay in the form of rake should be sufficient to expect the card room to make a real effort to keep the games clean. The consensus among the audience, who were mostly from casino surveillance, was that poker is a low priority for surveillance, and that players are pretty much on their own. If there are cameras on the games, their use is generally reactive, not proactive. A major topic of discussion was the new electronic poker tables, which eliminate the need for cards, chips and dealers. My feeling on this is that they are the wave of the future. They would eradicate virtually all of the mechanical forms of cheating. The number of hands dealt goes up dramatically. They could greatly enhance tournament play. More hands per hour would give the option of either getting tournaments over quicker, or having the option to slow the structure and give more deep stack play. Also, the tournament clock could be kept right in the screen, a big plus. As far as collusion goes, mechanical tables wouldn’t eradicate the problem, but they would provide hand histories to investigate allegations of collusion. Like it or not, I think mechanical tables will be the standard because of the economic benefits for card rooms. As to the collusion issue, the bottom line is that card rooms are not going to take the lead in fighting it. Steve Forte is probably the world’s leading authority on cheating in gambling. He just put out an excellent new book called Poker Protection. The topics he covered were similar to what Marcus wrote about, although from a different perspective and with less sensationalism. His conclusion is that collusion is a big problem that will probably increase as technology helps stamp out other forms of cheating. Both he and Marcus feel that the education of players is the key. I have to agree. If all poker players would read either or both of these books, they’d have a good idea of what to look for, and collectively, with the help of card room managers following up on legitimate complaints and administering real penalties on perpetrators, could help keep the collusion problem in check. If players stay in the dark on this issue, colluders will continue to extract significant money from the poker economy, and many honest players who might otherwise have succeeded will go broke and disappear from the game.

[The Czar 0]

Good read. Don't you think top pros will strongly oppose these machines, though? It takes away some of the "tell" elements to the game and the elimination of chips also cuts down on the large pile intimidation factor. This essentially becomes online gaming, doesn't it?

[MyPlayIsRAB 0]

your conclusions are very good blair. while cheating is obviously prevalent even today (especially online), its very hard to fight it, and casinos arent necessarily motivated to spend time and money on it as it doesnt affect the amount of income they generate from the poker tables. if it was blackjack or any other casino game collusion, theyd be all over itpatrick

[blakheart 3]

My guess is that online collusion is an even bigger problem then live. at least live, there needs to be a concerted effor to hide the cheating. Online, people can IM and do other things to openly communicate their hands. I am interested in the outcome of your meetings.

[PokerFan 0]

Blair,Thanks for the brief. I have to disagree with you on Collusion being less of a problem than stated at the conference...I'm skeptical of all these groups or teams of players that are out there...Look at the tournments and see who is at the final tables...then look at each one and decide who is part of a group of players and who is a lone ranger at the table...How else do you explain at one of the last WPT events the tourny directors put in a rule about a penalty if you check the nuts after the river......it is because of collusion

[Viper_13 0]

Electronic tables are not the main point or this thread, but I will never play in a casino with these. It completely defeats the purpose of why I go to a casino. Thank you. Carry on.

[UncleHoot 0]

Blair,Thanks for the brief. I have to disagree with you on Collusion being less of a problem than stated at the conference...I'm skeptical of all these groups or teams of players that are out there...Look at the tournments and see who is at the final tables...then look at each one and decide who is part of a group of players and who is a lone ranger at the table...How else do you explain at one of the last WPT events the tourny directors put in a rule about a penalty if you check the nuts after the river......it is because of collusion

Whoah... If I'm first to act, and I have quad Aces on the river, I can't check to you, hoping that you'll bluff? If I bet, you'll almost certainly fold. That doesn't make sense.Having said that, I've occasionally witnessed really strange things online, that I've often attributed to people simply being new to the game. e.g. Pot 1000Board T T Q K 5Player 1 bets 120Player 2 calls 120 and shows KKYes, I just saw this happen this week, early in a $5 MTT. I guess maybe he was afraid of quad 10's, but I'd almost certainly be willing to go broke with that hand.

[GWCGWC 83]

I don't think it would be very easy for other players at my table to collude in a live ring game if I'm paying attention to the players and action. If you send me that book, I'll review it and get back to you.I hate cheaters.

[Haz 0]

Whoah... If I'm first to act, and I have quad Aces on the river, I can't check to you, hoping that you'll bluff? If I bet, you'll almost certainly fold. That doesn't make sense.Having said that, I've occasionally witnessed really strange things online, that I've often attributed to people simply being new to the game. e.g. Pot 1000Board T T Q K 5Player 1 bets 120Player 2 calls 120 and shows KKYes, I just saw this happen this week, early in a $5 MTT. I guess maybe he was afraid of quad 10's, but I'd almost certainly be willing to go broke with that hand.

He forgot to say that the rule was only if you're last to act and you check the nuts on the river.

[govikes 0]

Whoah... If I'm first to act, and I have quad Aces on the river, I can't check to you, hoping that you'll bluff? If I bet, you'll almost certainly fold. That doesn't make sense.Having said that, I've occasionally witnessed really strange things online, that I've often attributed to people simply being new to the game. e.g. Pot 1000Board T T Q K 5Player 1 bets 120Player 2 calls 120 and shows KKYes, I just saw this happen this week, early in a $5 MTT. I guess maybe he was afraid of quad 10's, but I'd almost certainly be willing to go broke with that hand.

I believe the rule was the player last to act can't check the nuts.

[The Czar 0]

I know the machines aren't the main point, but it seems these are being introduced as a way to combat cheating. I just don't think it's going to fly with the high rollers and old schoolers. It should be the casinos responsibility given the rake, that I agree with.

[BDPoolie 0]

I believe the rule was the player last to act can't check the nuts.

I've seen people that I don't even know check the nuts on the river to me. I'm assuming they either didn't know they had the nuts, or thought if they bet I would fold anyway.

[blair rodman 0]

I know the machines aren't the main point, but it seems these are being introduced as a way to combat cheating. I just don't think it's going to fly with the high rollers and old schoolers. It should be the casinos responsibility given the rake, that I agree with.

They are being introduced because of the economic and logistical benefits to the card rooms. The anti-cheating benefits are a fortunate by-product for honest players.

[BDPoolie 0]

I know the machines aren't the main point, but it seems these are being introduced as a way to combat cheating. I just don't think it's going to fly with the high rollers and old schoolers. It should be the casinos responsibility given the rake, that I agree with.

I think the high rollers will always be able to play "real" poker, even if the casino does go to mostly electronic tables. I am not a high roller, so my opinion doesn't really count for much, but I will not play on electronic tables. I can do that at home.I think chip stacks, real cards, and the way people handle both of them are huge factors of play.

[nutzbuster 7]

Thanks Blair. Very interesting. But I can't imagine the Rio with 200 machines out in that room for the WSOP at 100K a pop though. Never gonna happen.Edit: I have played on the machines though, and they are pretty cool. I still prefer fumbling real chips however.

[FourFlusher 0]

I read Dirty Poker. It was interesting, and disgusting at the same time.But, Marcus made an interesting point...he said there is probably only about 5% difference in skill levels between the top players. While I don't know, I would be willing to believe that. He then asks, how is it possible for the same names to appear time after time at the final tables if the top 100 professionals are within 5% of each other in terms of skills?His contention is that there are many top professionals involved in collusion.

[11 to 1 0]

Good read. Don't you think top pros will strongly oppose these machines, though? It takes away some of the "tell" elements to the game and the elimination of chips also cuts down on the large pile intimidation factor. This essentially becomes online gaming, doesn't it?

But your opponent is still across the table from you, so the tells and table talk, the things that maker casino different from online will still be there. I'd prefer it just because it would eliminate the dealer errors. I thought I saw some pros on TV a while back who'd used the new system and liked it. Wish my memory was better, maybe someone around here saw it, too.

[mjd 0]

Whoah... If I'm first to act, and I have quad Aces on the river, I can't check to you, hoping that you'll bluff? If I bet, you'll almost certainly fold. That doesn't make sense.Having said that, I've occasionally witnessed really strange things online, that I've often attributed to people simply being new to the game. e.g. Pot 1000Board T T Q K 5Player 1 bets 120Player 2 calls 120 and shows KKYes, I just saw this happen this week, early in a $5 MTT. I guess maybe he was afraid of quad 10's, but I'd almost certainly be willing to go broke with that hand.

People make mistakes. Though you should certainly keep an eye on weird play, I'm not suprised by this.I mean, someone at the WSOP last year, only called my river bet when he was closing the action with the nuts.

[Balloon guy 158]

The poker tables will be good though as more and more internet players turn 21 and can finally go to casinos, and they will be very comfortable with electronic tables. PokerTek makes them and I have been watching the stock for a few months now to see if they start hitting it big.No misdealsNo tipping dealerNo delay in split gamesNo misreading players handsComing soon to a casino near you

[blair rodman 0]

Thanks Blair. Very interesting. But I can't imagine the Rio with 200 machines out in that room for the WSOP at 100K a pop though. Never gonna happen.Edit: I have played on the machines though, and they are pretty cool. I still prefer fumbling real chips however.

Actually, you can't buy them, from what I understand. They rent for about 6k a month. For the WSOP, that's feasible.

[FourFlusher 0]

Yeah, all they gotta do is bump the vig up another hundred per player...

[Jdr999 0]

Actually, you can't buy them, from what I understand. They rent for about 6k a month. For the WSOP, that's feasible.

What companies make these tables? 6K a month to rent is crazy.

[FourFlusher 0]

At six grand a month I'm never gonna see them in Garden City Casino.But, like Blair said, dirty dealing isn't the real problem anymore, it's collusion.Somebody once said that in the old days they could see marked cards from two tables over. That doesn't happen much anymore.

[Spence 0]

www.pokertek.comPTEKI'm already invested at a 30% loss.Get in now (I'll probably be putting more money in)

[Jdr999 0]

Also, with these electronic tables, how would they break tables and assign people to other tables?Seems much eaiser for a cash game/1 table SNG than a Tournament.