![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Oooo, new forum, let me be the first. ;-)
I'm concerned that as internet poker becomes more popular, the "casinos" will be tempted to cheat. They could do this by having robot players at a table and fix it so that these robots win more than their share of hands. How's one to know if a player really exists? One or two robot players at a table could make quite a bundle for the casino over time, and cost us players a lot. It's probably not hard to right the software to do it.
I do think someone will try something like this eventually. Anywhere where there's money to be made is sure to attract the worst element. And with these casinos off-shore, we would have no redress even if we could prove it, which would be impossible to do if done right.
So what does everyone else think about this?
I cannot think of any reason why anyone would play poker for real money over the web. There is absolutely no control over collusion between players. Players can use proxy servers to disguise their locations so checking their location is meaningless. There are no controls on the sponsoring internet poker company.
If you play, you do so at your own risk. When you consider some of the stupid things people do, playing internet poker isn't so bad. So, go ahead, it's your money!
I will not play over the web. There will be a time when one person will have 8 computers set up in one room, playing eight of the hands. Just think how easy to see one seat with the nuts, using the other seats to keep raising to string a sucker along. Or, the situation you state where the house is taking a good share. Or, why couldn't the computer that does the dealing be set up to be random most of the time but deal winners to seat #1 one day, seat # 3 another day. Of course the house will be in those seats.
Having said that, I have talked with dealers and players that use the system set up in 2+2, (I can't recall the name) and they are reporting consistant wins, and are geeting paid off. So I guess it is just a risk if you want to take it.
Yes of course there are going to be online casinos that cheat in this or similar fashion. Maybe already are. Just as offline, the amount of house cheating is a function of regulation, and there does not seem to be much now.
Still there is the Golden Goose factor. Experienced players keeping careful records are going to notice house cheating. So any online card room, which intends to stay, would be unlikely to do this. Just stick to the well regarded ones like Paradise Poker and Planet Poker and keep your ears open.
How do you know that "the amount of house cheating is a function of regulation?"
I'm ignorant of these things, but I'm unaware of any anti-cardsharp regulatory system. Do officials really watch the tapes, or play in the games, or do much of anything other than enforce a few rules about rotating dealers and burning cards (if indeed they do that)? Of course there are state laws (and I guess federal ones for the Indian casinos) against cheating and fraud, but I haven't heard of them being enforced with much frequency.
Isn't it more accurate that systematic cheating in public cardrooms is quite rare because the players and the casinos have a direct financial stake in preventing it and therefore do a reasonably good job of checking the problem? And when they do not, the players gravitate toward the cardrooms that do?
(BTW, I thought you had an excellent idea regarding all-in cheating that you might want to reiterate here sometime.)
Internet poker rooms are based primarily in Costa Rica. "Officials" in this sense are like fuedal lords that rule in their own demains. The way to do business in that part of the world is openly referred to as La Mordida. It means the bite. It has to do with the passage of currency in unnoticeable containers......
Here's something I wrote here or rgp a couple years ago (my archives aren't as organized as I'd like):
Altho there are digital signature protocols that allow you to be certain that the game is dealt square, as Gary points out there is no protocol to ensure that the other bastards aren't cheating you. If there was an online casino I trusted enough not to be cheating (there are none - tho I haven't researched it for precisely the reason I detail below), this would be the second thing I'd do. The first thing I'd do would be to eliminate the three friends part. It would only be a moderate programming challenge to write your own colluding bots and have them log in via different client machines.
The only even reasonable countermeasure to this that I've heard was Jeffrey Siegal's suggestion that if you had an online casino with a million tables, it would be effectively impossible to stage all your players in the same game. The problem is how do you create one? One thought is for the casino parent to provide a lot of prop bots, but I would venture that most players would find this scenario even more disconcerting. Depending on how the case with those New York guys go, I have half a mind to start my own casino with many, many prop bots. The only remaining interesting implementation question is what ratio to seat prop bots at a table. If I'm playing against Abdulbot, then I probably limit the exposure of my horses and throw the other sharpies to the same table, just counting on the drop from there. If I have lots of fishies, I put a couple per bot table and go for the parlay. And all this can be done just with a slightly intelligent brushbot, that is WITHOUT COLLUDING. Imagine the possibilities if I were a dishonest entrepreneur... If this isn't enough to convince one to save their money for something other than online pokering, drop me a line, and I'll see if we can arrange a heads up game. At least then you're exposure is limited to collusion between me and my dealer program...
Regards,
JG
I never would think the house would cheat. But then I read Casino and a few other good historical books concerning Vegas. Casinos used to employ mechanics to bust out winning players. Probably don't any more, but what about these unregulated offshore companies?
I never thought someone could cheat at a black jack table, (except with dealer collusion). But then I watched a good show on Vegas cheats, and a guy inserted a 100.00 chip into his bet when he got B.J. and no-one could tell, not even right in front of the camera in slow motion.
My point is you can't know what you don't know yet. Some day 20 years down the road there will be shows telling how on-line players were cheated, and I don't want to be saying I didn't know they could do that to me.
Jim:
I'm glad to see you posting here because you had some of the more articulate observations about online play back when it was still theoretical (way back in '98, as I recall).
You write: It would only be a moderate programming challenge to write your own colluding bots and have them log in via different client machines.
It would be more than a moderate challenge for me because I have no idea what you're talking about and was wondering if you might elaborate.
First, what's a bot?
Second, to play online anywhere you have to open an account via credit card and give them an address and social security number, and of course to get a credit card you have to have a social security number. In addition to the programming, to avoid ready detection wouldn't you also need to create an entirely fictional person, complete with credit history and different address? How easy is it to do this?
Third, let's say one could obtain such multiple identities. If one were a crook, it seems to me that there's a fair amount of money to be made doing business with banks and other lenders, such as by having one of your alter egos borrow a lot of money and jump off a cliff. In other words, would colluding in a 5-10 online game be an efficient use of this ability?
Fourth, if I had a record of every hand played in every game, the results of each game, the running totals of every player and, or course, a record of which players have ever played against each other, how hard would it be to spot collusion? In fact, wouldn't it be pretty easy not only to prove collusion once suspected, but to randomly sample winning players to see if they're colluding? Couldn't I then be able to say, empirically, whether colluding is a problem and if so how big a problem? (If this ability is real, of course that's not the end of the inquiry, but it puts to rest the idea that intolerable levels of collusion are inevitable).
Fifth, regardless of whether the online casino is honest or dishonest, wouldn't they have a strong incentive to prevent collusion? Under either type of ownership, wouldn't the colluders, in effect, be stealing from the house either directly or by driving away business?
Sixth, how would a dishonest online casino maintain a competitive advantage over honest providers? Let's say, for example, that a crooked provider cheats the players to the extent equal to doubling the rake. How long would it take for comparative shoppers to notice? Wouldn't the critical mass of players then gravitate to the better casino, leaving the crooked one to whither? (Perhaps more likely, the players at the crooked casino would bust out faster and harder, while the more honest one would be able to retain a healthy stable of regulars). To help facilitate this process, wouldn't it make sense for the honest providers to send their own players into the games of other casinos, computerize the results to determine if they're getting cheated, and then trumpet the results if they are?
Obviously I'm not asking for an answer to every single question, but if you could adress some of these points I'd appreciate it?
this is good free market capitalism analysis...perhaps one should analyze from the perspective of fascist societies, or fuedalistic models.
If a person suspected a computer player, couldn't he run his own Turing test using the chat fuction. (Anyone who consistently refused to answer would come under intense suspicion.)
Okay, I'll admit it - now you've got me thinking like a cheater. Wouldn't it be easy for a bot to be programmed to respond with "I don't speak English very well" about 20 different ways so that anybody trying to communicate would give up? After all, that's happened to me with live human beings at the Commerce Casino.
there is no reason to chat,....and many players do not chat at all.
I´m writing to you as a regular at Internet-cardrooms since a couple of months and I never had the feeling getting cheated. As I am from Austria, I want to tell you something regarding your chatting theory. There are indeed a lot of people who are not good in english (one of them is a good friend of mine) and the only thing they can answer you is in fact: "sorry, no english". But I believe that if a casino really wants to cheat you via computerised players, they´ll be able to give you a reasonable feedback to your chat.
Especially if someone is monitoring the play of the robot player and answering for him!
Doesn't that annoying bot on IRC already qualify? Seriously, poker chat is a pretty fine subset of language at large.
JG
I frequently don't even keep the chat on when I play, preferring to see what the dealer is announcing. So I wouldn't see a question directed at me even if asked (I kill the chat sounds too). So failing to respond, even over a long period of time, really proves nothing.
During the COP in Vegas this year I played in a 15-30 Holdem game at Bellagio's. Seated next to me was a young Vegasite. I have a big mouth at a poker table and usually engage anyone willing in converstion about almost anything. That doesn't mean I know a lot about a lot of things. It means I have a big mouth and talk a lot of times about things I know nothing about. Anyway someway or another our discussion turned to internet poker. This young fellow whose name escapses me explained that he and his friend were constant winners. (This is a true story by the way). I queried him about his play with his friend and he expalined that he had two computers in his home and two telephone lines. He and his friend often played in the same game. Why we even looked at each others hand sometimes he went on. I said "That's cheating" He said (I swear) "No it's not. Why it's not even that big an advantage". I had no answer. I wished him well and went on playing Holdem.
Vince.
C'mon, George, you've played 3-6, why on earth would the robots need to cheat?
Of course online casinos can plug in either cheating or simply good-playing robots and keep the money won by the robots [so that's what a "bot" is] in addition to the rake. But the robots will inevitably drive away players (even live ones gravitate toward other live ones), and the houses with the better games will thrive, run more tables, generate bigger drops and so forth. Given the potential downside, it isn't clear that your scenario makes any long-run economic sense at all, regardless of how desirous the online casino operator is of making a dishonest buck.
And with these casinos off-shore, we would have no redress even if we could prove it...
I presume you're not forgetting that the concepts of redress and law do in fact extend beyond our shore, as to the long arms of the credit card banks, on whom the online providers depend in order to exist. Also, I understand that some of the online providers are domestic IPO plays, and "underregulated" is not a word I often see associated with the securities markets of this country.
...which would be impossible to do if done right.
Why impossible? All poker collusion requires at least three actors (two of whom are cheaters) acting in predictable ways. Why can't I randomly "walk into" an online game, record the action, and compare what I see to a model of what I should expect to see in multiway play and results. I could then run the probability of any discrepancies noticed, and "prove" with much greater accuracy than what holds up in court whether colluding exists. It seems to me that I should be able to prove even minor collusion with near certainty. After all, a player that bets and raises, especially one that raises more than once, avoids showing down his hand only so often.
And of course photographic quality proof one way or the other would be the record of hands held by the "dummy" colluder putting in phony bets and raises or simply overplaying his hand at critical times. If the cheating casino refused to exonerate itself by producing these records (they all have them, BTW), I would think the case would be airtight.
Sure, you say, but who has the time and resources to do that?
I'd have them if I were running an honest online casino I'd do it in a heartbeat in order to expose them and grab their business. Why not?
All you guys that are concerned with online cheating are being unimaginative. If an online casino wanted to cheat, it wouldn't collude or cheat in any traditional sense, it would cheat by stacking the deck so that the live ones could win a bit more often. They'd be swamped with customers and rakes. But it would only be a matter of time before this too were detected. On the other hand, given the fairly high skill component to sturctured limit hold 'em, I'm not sure it would be such a terrible thing, sort of like playing hold 'em with an ante.
In any event, it seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to spend as much time warning people of the threat of "live one subsidies" as we do complaining about the prospect of old-fashioned cheating, at least until these potential problems manifest themselves into some real-world phenomena instead of the high-volume paranoid raving that characterizes so much discussion (not George's) about online play.
I anticipate that if cheating were done successfully by online casinos it would be done at the lower levels where the players wouldn't likely catch on. Also, it wouldn't be done continuously, but rather something like a couple of times an hour spread over a number of tables.
Yes, stacking the deak would be one way. But possibly something as simple as dealing a rigged player AA 1/180 times instead of 1/221, and other situations like this, could be used too. This would be hard to detect if the casino used different names for it's players every time.
I agree that doing such things don't make long-term good economic sence, but those so inclined probably don't care. They'll be looking to turn a quick buck. One method might be to offer a lower rake than the competition, and then make up for the difference, and more, by cheating.
How much can be made by this? Well, stealing $20 from a 3/6 game twice an hour over 24 hours and 365 days a year comes out to about $350,000 per year. Now that's a lot of temptation. If a casino had 1000 players, it would amount to less than $1 per day per player, an amount that could easily go unnoticed.
Also, the owners of a casino might be honest, but its programmers and/or administrators could be the crooks.
If online poker catches on in a big way, someone will try something like this sooner or later. It wouldn't surprise me if it's already happening at some offshore casinos in games like blackjack and roulette.
To crystallize your argument, you contend that internet poker cheating by the "house" is inevitable even though it kills the goose that lays the golden egg because some dishonest operator will eventually come along and try to make a few dollars faster.
Isn't it just as inevitable that some cardroom owner will hire (or has hired) colluders and mechanics to cheat the patrons in order to do the same thing, particularly in places where regulation is lax? Have you ever heard of this happening? If so, do you think that it's a good argument against playing poker in cardrooms generally or discouraging others from doing so?
I sure that some cardrooms have tried to cheat their customers, most likely in areas where they are illegal, but I have no personal knowledge. The best way to avoid this possibility is to play where it's legal and regulated. That would reduce the likelihood of being cheated by the house.
By the way, I agree that many are overconcerned with collusion. I do think it happens, but not to the extent that many fear. I started this thread specifically to address possible cheating by the casinos, not the players, because I haven't seen it addressed before.
Cheating by casinos may kill the goose that lays the golden egg, but not their golden egg, and possibly not in their minds.
I see you've mentioned the SEC in a few of your posts. I pose this question. Why is the SEC necessary?
I didn't mention the SEC by name, but raised the idea of securities regulation generally to suggest that online operators, at least the ones that go public in the United States (Poker.com, I believe, for one), are not immune from domestic law.
I wasn't so much thinking about the SEC as the plaintiffs' securities fraud bar, which is incredibly savvy and well-organized, and, I would suppose, already poised to swarm like fire ants over the dot coms when their valuations collapse. I can imagine the fun they'll have with an online cardroom that trumpets the integrity of their games in a prospectus while allowing cheating to occur, if they do. (Any representation of an honest game would be arguably fraudulent, and would entitle a shareholder to damages caused by a fall in share price, if the operator recklessly failed to disclose that collusion was driving away players and income, or so the allegation would go).
Also, federal securities laws require only minimum contacts with the United States as opposed to any particular state in order to confer jurisdiction. But this may be a minor point as the online operators don't have to go public.
all the local players that i've spoken started their first week at Planet Poker they were up $500.00 or more, only to have horrendous beats the following week which took that money and more.
Chris Alger wrote: "Also, I understand that some of the online providers are domestic IPO plays, and "underregulated" is not a word I often see associated with the securities markets of this country."
The regulations imposed by the SEC on IPOs have little or nothing to do with the operation of the business per se. The SEC is certainly not investigating the business for cheating (or when it's a non-gambling business, other illegalities) before approving an IPO.
"Why can't I randomly "walk into" an online game, record the action, and compare what I see to a model of what I should expect to see in multiway play and results. I could then run the probability of any discrepancies noticed, and "prove" with much greater accuracy than what holds up in court whether colluding exists."
It takes thousands of hours at the table to even know, with certainty, if you're a winning or losing player, due to the large luck factor in poker. In a period of a few hours, just about all you see are discrepancies, and there is probably no statistical model that will prove anything. Even if you did collect the hundreds or thousands of hours of data necessary to statistically "prove" that someone was cheating by collusion, I doubt that a U.S. court would convict them on that basis. BTW, I am a lawyer, so this last statement of my opinion does have some greater likelihood of being correct than if made by someone untrained in the law.
"It seems to me that I should be able to prove even minor collusion with near certainty. After all, a player that bets and raises, especially one that raises more than once, avoids showing down his hand only so often.
And of course photographic quality proof one way or the other would be the record of hands held by the "dummy" colluder putting in phony bets and raises or simply overplaying his hand at critical times. If the cheating casino refused to exonerate itself by producing these records (they all have them, BTW), I would think the case would be airtight."
I really doubt this also. I have seen live players in real world games overplay hands in the most ridiculous ways. Based on my personal knowledge of the player, as well as my knowledge of the player who ended up winning the hand, there was no doubt in my mind that no collusion occurred. I have seen players 3-bet preflop, cap the flop, and then fold the turn when some innocuous card hit. I have seen this happen when I was the winner of the pot. People do stupid things. All the time.
Given that this is true in the real world, I would think it might happen even more often online, given that the crazy player in the real casino will receive some odd looks or worse, there is some incentive not to play so crazy the next time. Online, you will never know what looks the opponents are giving their screen. They may type some comments in the chat field, but I doubt this will carry as much weight as hearing the comments.
Anyway, I would be surprised if anyone is ever able to "prove" that collusion occurred, based on recreation of the hands. The kind of proof I would want to see would be a pattern of play on the part of player A when player B is at the table, wherein this pattern of play seems to benefit player B. Then, I would want to see that player A plays with a very different pattern when player B is not present, and that this pattern does not favor some other specific player. This would make me think that A is playing for himself when B is not there, but playing in collusion with B when B is present.
In the real world, no one ever proves that 2 people are colluding. They merely gather evidence that makes them suspicious, and the cardroom or patrons make it clear to the people that they are no longer welcome.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
none of these companies are licensed in the United States. The SEC has no jurisdiction in Costa Rica.
1. Securities fraud. I know the SEC doesn't care about company operations, but if an online promoter states states or implies that he's running a clean game (and I'm sure they all do) and he's not, and the stock goes down if cheating is discovered, his statements are civilly and criminally actionable as securities fraud under sect. 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The issue isn't legality but effective jurisdiction, and I concede that this may be a problem. However, when George suggested in his original post that because the providers are off-shore that they're beyond the reaches of all law, he overstated it.
2. Proof of colluding. You're overstating your case, which I take it to be that no one can ever prove collusion in any game without "hundreds of thousands of hours of data." This suggeests that live games might be run rampant with colluders that no one can do anything about. You don't believe that, do you? Second, it doesn't take that much data because colluding amounts to taking money out of the game is a very specific way according to very specific patterns, as you suggest at the end of your post, and is different from determining long-run win rates. Third, I wasn't suggesting that collusion cases would actually be tried, only that if collusion existed it would be provable and therefore fairly well-known. (And I'm not "untrained in the law" but have been litigating these 10 years now).
3. Collusion patterns. You write: "I have seen live players in real world games overplay hands in the most ridiculous ways. Based on my personal knowledge of the player, as well as my knowledge of the player who ended up winning the hand, there was no doubt in my mind that no collusion occurred." I never suggested that a single hand could ever prove collusion; that would be silly. For collusion ever to be a problem the same players must do the same sorts of things again and again. The pattern you describe if repeated would indeed be evidence of collusion. Revealing the specific cards that the colluders played should prove it beyond doubt. Think about it: the same two players in two different games acting like colluders. If you could see their hands and one of them was betting/raising with nothing, you'd have better than a prima facie case for collusion. It's really just a question of how many samples. You might think 10 occurances, I would say 2 or 3.
We've got some semantic issues here Chris.
When I say "prove", I mean prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is almost impossible to do with statistical arguments, especially when you're dealing with something as nebulous as collusion. Sometimes, a colluder will want to raise to make you pay more, because he knows his partner has a winner. Other times, he will want to raise in order to drive you out, so he or his partner win. Sometimes, if his partner has a winner, but he feels that you'll fold to a raise, he will want to call, in order to induce your overcall (by ostensibly giving you better pot odds). Given the different actions that a "colluder" will take, or the same actions for different ends, it is very difficult, IMO, to prove that people are colluding.
Of course, there is a huge difference between proving it beyond a reaonable doubt, and proving it to yourself sufficiently to warrant your action. If I'm the owner of the cardroom, all I might need is a strong suspicion before I will quietly ask 2 players to leave and not return. If I'm a player, a mild suspicion may suffice for me to decide to bring it to the attention of the floorman or owner, so they can start monitoring the situation and decide for themselves.
Your standard of 2 or 3 instances of apparent collusive activity is much too low, IMO. I think that if you were to monitor every hand from behind the scenes at Planet Poker or the like, you would find a collusive pattern of 2-3 occurrences frequently. Most of the time, these would be coincidences. 10 is not enough, either, for proof.
Players do strange things. Most of the time, it's because they're fish. Occasionally, they're colluding. While you need to keep out the colluders, you don't do it at the cost of kicking out most of your fish.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"When I say "prove", I mean prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is almost impossible to do with statistical arguments...."
Really? Isn't all DNA proof essentially a "statistical argument" (and aren't people sentenced daily as a result)? I thought that statistical sampling routinely establishes levels of probablility of greater than 99%, which of course is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Statistics obviously satisfy significant proof problems in medicine and law.
But "reasonable doubt" isn't the fundamental issue, which is whether collusion can be detected, proven and stopped so that players aren't victimized.
Your point that certain types of collusion are harder to see than others is well taken. Some things, however, are always present. Collusion always requires two actors working in concert to bilk one or more others. To threaten anyone, collusion must be practiced repeatedly. It also requires one party with a valuable hand to be in the same pot with another that holds a marginal or worthless hand.
Detecting and proving such patterns on the internet must be simple for anyone with the data. This is where I think you are erring, because online operators have much more hard information that cardrooms don't.
The operator only needs to sample of 100 or so players with net winnings over some period of time and then review their history in multiway pots. If a second player (player B) has played a subpar hand in pots with one of the winners (player A) more often than randomness dictates, the operator would have "probable cause" to suspect collusion and investigate.
The operator could then examine exactly how each player plays when in and not in a hand with the other. Let's say that player A rarely plays a trash hand but when B has a premium hand A plays random or nearly random cards. The operator could then examine to see whether A played his hand according to the way B would have wanted him to play if they had been colluding. (You're right, it doesn't always involve jammed pots; the play could be aggressive or passive as the need arises). Since most collusion is bilateral, you could then reverse the process and examine the records where A played premium hands in multiway pots and see if B is in there with marginal hands. It seems to me that one coud establish probability benchmarks for each of these events.
If all these tests came back positive for collusion, how much room would there be for coincidence? A little perhaps? The investigator could then take it further by considering other data, such as whether the suspected colluders primarily play with each other, or whether they're from the same town or region, or have have the same remote host locator, telephone prefix or other common denominators. There's no reason why operators can't share collusion data with each other. I'm sure they could do more, such as communicate directly with the suspected colluders.
Certainly investigations could prove inconclusive at first, but over time only two things are possible: (1) the pattern I described above would emerge or (2) the players would stop colluding. The only question is how much damage the colluders can do before they stop or are caught, which is simply a function of how vigilent the online casino chooses to be.
I said collusion "requires one party with a valuable hand to be in the same pot with another that holds a marginal or worthless hand."
This is wrong. Colluders could also each hold marginal or worthless hands and raise on the turn or river to drive out a third player. It's expensive when it backfires, though. And it's also a detectable pattern.
I was at the table in 5-10 on Paradise Poker the other day when two players (J2o and J3o) raised each other back and forth through the river, when the third player finally folded. Everybody at the table complained and started calling the two players colluders and cheaters. I made a hand history and sent it to Paradise. They responded quickly and said they had checked how the two players had been playing for some time prior. They said this was the only instance of the two being at the same table and playing like this.
I've been up and down on Paradise, right now about $300 down, all within a range of +700, -700, all at 5-10. I always feel uncomfortable when I take a really unusual bad beat. But I've played about 100 hours, so though I still play, I'm very uncertain.
I will say that collusion is not my major concern, and if the casinos are honest, some protection will be available. As far as a team at the table, I record the names of all players, and keep track of their actions. I very seldom have any extended sessions with the same lineup, and usually have completely different lineups each day, though some of the players are repeats.
Bottom line - Caveat Emptor.
Hope it's legit, can't really endorse it.
This same hand was then discussed in another online games, one of which was overheard by a friend of mine who then emailed a portion of the discussion to me.
Online players are watching for potential collusion with a level of scrutiny unheard of in live low limit games and are getting active support for their efforts from the online providers who are also conducting their own cross-checking of playing patterns to detect collusion. While this won't completely deter committed cheats from slithering into games, they're going to have to clear a pretty low wire.
It is my unverified belief that using computerized analysis of hands to detect collusion will not work very well. However, I am NOT an expert, or even very knowledgeable, in the science that would be utilized to do this analysis. Therefore, I will defer to any other posters who may be such experts. If you (Chris Alger) are such, then I am probably wrong. If you are not, then let's wait and hear from those who are.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree, especially since I'm about as far from being an expert as you can get.
Its true cheating is quite possible, but if anything it would be from players colluding together, not the hosts. The companies would be risking alot to make some extra bucks by making it unfair, when they are making money anyways through the rakes and not having to pay nearly the amount of expenses a real cardroom does. One reason to play online is that it has a lower rake. One reason not to play is that there is no way to read a player through tells. A second reason to play is that you have fewer expenses playing online. (i.e. no drive to the casino, etc...) I started playing online and lost quite a bit, but that was also last year around the end of summer, when I was just playing heavily and studying poker theory. Since then I've won what I lost back, plus quite a bit more. Part of this is definately from more knowledge of the game, and I think I had a down fluctuation off the start. It happens. Just be warned, and watch yourself, and send an email to the management if you are in a hand where you have a suspicion, to make them aware players that might be colluding. Instead of wishing you luck, play well. D
The online casino I play at charges $3 maximum rake per hand. While this may be a reasonable rake to charge in a "brick and motar" casino, it's probably very high for an online casino.
Real card rooms have to pay large utility bills, labor costs and real estate expenses. Online casinos have comparitively little in the way of expenses.
As online poker gets more popular, and hence, more revenue is made by the casinos, I'd hope they'd reduce their rake. $2 or even $1 should be more than enough to make good money. Or at least give a good portion back in bad-beat jackpots or other promotions.
I have no problem with these guys making money, but let's not over do it.
What say 'yall?
I agree; $3 is huge for the actual cost to the online casino. But I would imagine that in the future, with more online gambling sites, the competition factor will serve to drive this down somewhat. At least we can hope so. It does irk that they rake that high - comparatively, when you consider what they actually provide for that rake. I see Paradise Poker is coming up towards 2 million hands, so they must be doing ok. But, we shouldn't complain too much right now, I believe. Personally I'm glad the opportunity is there to play. Otherwise I would be stuck with the local house game, which is small stakes and tends to be on the slow side. I'm withholding judgement right now; I don't blame them (yet..)for their rakes - remember, it's still low. How rakes are set in the future may be a function of the level of competition and/or unspoken agreement between online casinos
I'm still playing online tho', and they can carry on raking as long as I'm winning...!
Graham
Planet Poker runs a 2000 dollar bad beat jackpot every other month so far. They have also reduced their rake on shorthanded games. Heads up is only a buck max.
But no tokes and that saves a lot.
Heads up is only a buck max.
One dollar every hand heads up is still HUGE! Considering how fast you play heads up and how many hands can be dealt. One dollar every OTHER hand would be more reasonable.
I suppose this is true, although it's half of what Coloradans pay in public cardrooms.
The rake in Colorado is $1 out of every 10 up to $3, with an additional $1 jackpot rake if the pot exceeds $40. The conventional toke for a reasonably-sized pot is a another buck. That's $5 out of $41 in a $5 limit game. The rake is $2 for the same pot online. I understand that a 10% rake structure is not that uncommon for low limit games.
What's the current rake in the L. Vegas middle limit games?
What's the current rake in the L. Vegas middle limit games?
I believe most mid-limit games in Vegas employ a time charge, and the charge for 30-60 is $5 per half hour.
-Sean
The rake at $20-$40 is $3 per hand max.
nmsg
Jim:
If I understand the point of your original post, it is that the potential for collusion and other cheating renders online poker recreation for fools. (E.g., [i]f this isn't enough to convince one to save their money for something other than online pokering, drop me a line, and I'll see if we can arrange a heads up game.”). You now concede that “[m]any people probably” beat the games nonetheless, suggesting they’re worthwhile after all. I would take this further and argue that online poker reaches a community that live rooms never will, and invigorates the whole ecology of poker with attendant benefits for experts. You might disagree.
I suspect that the shift in your position was caused by the realization that there is an enormous gulf between the ability to hypothesize a means of cheating and the ability to put one into practice, which I’ll get to presently. First let’s consider the burden of proof. To persuasively argue that online poker is more susceptible to cheating and collusion than live poker, I think that one must explain how it’s easier to get away with, not merely hypothetically possible. Given the interests of the operators in preventing collusion, I think that you’ll agree that we can dispense with the myth that any two guys with a cell phone, or any one guy with a bunch of computers and phone lines, can rip these games off blind. They wouldn’t stand a chance against the most elementary surveillance.
You suggested that much more elaborate forms a cheating could thrive, such as teams of cheats scattered about the country using robotic computer programs, perhaps with fake ID’s, perhaps restraining their greed and stealing only a few bets more in order to avoid detection. Anticipating the obvious response that this all sound much harder than just walking into a cardroom and using signals, you suggested (1) live cheating more easily runs afoul of the law, and (2) the impersonality of cyberspace makes people more inclined to take such additional pains in order cheat at poker.
As for the illegality of cheating, it has two consequences, and perhaps you’re focusing only on the punitive one. The other is that if you get caught cheating, they won’t let you cheat anymore, at least not in the same cardroom. Even without a penalty, the risk of detection presents its own obstacle to dishonest play. I suggest that this has to be the greater rule-based disincentive because there is virtually no way that a live cardroom can prove collusion. I personally have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this. Assuming that an online casino has at least as much ability to detect collusion as a live cardroom, they have the same ability to punish and deter simply by refusing access. Greater, perhaps, given that there are fewer online casinos and they have more of an incentive to try to detect collusion and share information amongst themselves.
Second, I don’t know where people get the idea that online cheating cannot be prosecuted just because online gambling is arguably illegal. Prosecutors hardly care at all about online poker players but are probably more than willing to go after outright fraud, including (perhaps especially) internet fraud. The presence of the operators in Costa Rica makes no difference: if A in Chicago cheats B in Chicago via an internet connection through a foreign country, I can hardly imagine that the Cook County authorities would think the crime beyond their jurisdiction. And I am sure that cheating at cards, paper or electronic, is a crime everywhere in the United States.
The force of law, however, cannot sufficiently explain why we don’t see more collusion in the cardrooms than we do. As you say, “what is the real-life enforcement policy for colluding in a legal cardroom? There is none.” There are two better explanations, both of which should also tend to protect internet games: (1) the cardrooms watch out for it, act on player complaints and won’t tolerate it, and (2) the strong social taboo against cheating renders it distasteful to all but a small minority. This last point tends to refute your suggestion that the anonymity of cyberspace should make people more inclined to rip off their fellows. I think the stronger barrier to cheating by the average person is the realization that cheating is wrong, not the risk that someone will see them do it.
I think the debate really comes down to whether online operators can really detect collusion at least as well as cardrooms. You suggested that they can’t detect more sophisticated forms, that a program designed to detect colluding bots would likely fail, but for the life of me I can’t see why. Collusion requires repeated affirmative acts by one player for the benefit of his partner to the disadvantage of himself (if he were acting independently) and at least one innocent third party. I would think that someone with programming skills and a record of each hand could spot this kind of activity without much difficulty at all (I go into this in more detail in my response to Greg Raymer below). Isolated, subdued instances could escape detection at first, but it should be only a matter of time before the evidence of “reverse” poker playing emerges.
BTW, the online operators I’ve looked at say they employ such computerized surveillance. This presents potential colluders with the additional difficulty of deciding how much short-term earn they need to forgo in order to escape detection, and of course agreeing on this level amongst themselves, all the while hoping that a serious disagreement doesn’t lead one of them to blow the whistle on the others at some point.
A minor point on the ease with which people can become invisible online, which you contend is a solved problem. You suggested the one could escape detection by using a wife’s maiden name. I doubt this:
Online operator: I seems to us like you’re colluding with Jane Doe. Care to comment?
Cheater: Never heard of her.
Online operator: Really? We ran her social security number and she lives with you. You’re barred, asshole.
Seems like an awfully easy way for a lot of work – colluding bots and all – to go down the tubes.
Chris,
it's difficult and expensive to track from where people access the internet. Usually , the government intervenes with US isp's by warrants. Why would the FBI investigate activity in Costa Rica (I know only of cases in which they were persuing US fugitives..such as Robert Vesco, Carlos Shidlowski)? Chicago historically was run by Tony Accardo, and I doubt the government did much to stop poker cheating there when they had bigger fish to fry. I believe that Tony Spilotro was known for busting out poker players in Vegas. Cheating takes place in both venues. The best defense a player has to address cheating is to not frequent the establishment that he feels permitted the infractions to take place. I'm surprised that you expect free market capitalism to protect gamblers' interests. After all,black-jack card counting is illegal in almost all gaming establishments for the simple fact that the skilled player obtains a modest edge.
There are all sorts of ways of figuring out who people really are, rayfish, and I don't have to think that capitalism protects anybody from anything to note a happy coincidence between the interests of online providers and players in preventing collusion. As for the FBI, I dn't think they'll ever have anything to do with online poker at all.
Then why talk about securities fraud and prosecution?You have no defense against the online provider from ripping you blind. They can have their own shills, and there is nothing that you can legally do about it. Does it surprise you that someone believes that the house may cheat? I don't believe that you are that naive. Who is rayfish?
I know of no jurisdiction that makes card counting illegal, and New Jersey makes it illegal for casinos to bar card counters.
just try it in several casinos carl, see how long you last.
It's not illegal. Casinos can bar or backoff, but they can't prosecute. In New Jersey, it's illegal for them to do that.
.. the answer is, you won't find any, because no one has been CHARGED WITH CARD COUNTING, because it is NOT ILLEGAL! It is no more illegal than starving yourself for 3 days before attacking a steak-and-lobster all-you-can-eat buffet. However, in the buffet, and the casino, the operator maintains the right to limit access to the deal to protect it's interests.
The stigma against card counting is largely brought on because casinos bar counters and stupid f$^&*%#ng movies like Rainmain convince the world it is illegal. It's no more illegal than playing tight, aggressive, by the book, winning poker.
M.
have fun tiltman..A friend of mine worked as a dealer for 10 years in Vegas...the house brought him in frequently to bust counters..because he knew exactly what the count was.......counters have been known to health problems.
I have been playing at Paradise quite a lot over the last months and have noticed that I am developing some bad real-life habits.
At the computer I am constantly saying things outloud like "Come on heart!! heart heart heart!! F!@#!!!". Rooting for cards, screaming obscenities when they don't hit, etc.
For the first time in a long time, I went to a real game last night and found myself almost doing the same thing.
Has anyone else experienced this? Any thoughts? I realize the answer is discipline in both cases (especially behind the computer) but if you haven't tried it, it's harder than you think. Maybe as a conditioned response to watching action on a TV? Imagine watching a football game and not saying a word during the entire game. It's a little like that (I think).
Since I have recently begun dabbling in online poker, I thought I would give you a few pointers to help you fit in online when you decide to try it.
1. This is the most important point, so naturally I list it first. Never ever ever, no matter what it costs to call, or what your hole cards are, never give up your blind. Those guys that are raising you don’t have anything anyway. You just need to catch a flop. Then teach them a lesson.
2. Don’t get hung up on starting hand requirements. Really. Any two will do. Especially if they are suited. Don’t ever fold suited cards. You’re never that far behind in Holdem, so get in there and play.
3. If you manage to catch a pair on the flop, even if it is bottom pair, you must go to the river. Maybe even throw in a raise or two. Those other guys probably just have AK. Don’t let them run over you.
These are just a few pointers that come to mind. I’ll let you know if I think of more.
Brett
Excellent advice, I hope everyone else takes good note of it.
:{)}
From what I can see, 90% of them have.
You forgot to mention any Ace in any position.
Also, if you have a mediocre hand that you don't want to fold but also don't want to pay for, just sit there when you are prompted and pretend your computer is locked up. The game will treat you as all-in at that point. The other players won't mind.
For example, if you flop a straight but then you get raised on the turn when a third flush card hits, you should stop putting in money because you may be beat.
Oh, and type your home address in the chat room after you do this.
`
walleye -- what do you mean?
also, sorry for my lack of savvy, but what does N/T mean?
Scott,
It was in reply to 3 Bet Brett's Thread on his sarcastic tips for other online poker players. I was saying that there are a lot of bad players that are playing poker online for real money.
N/T stands for No Thread, meaning There is no message.
I have played about 10 hours on Paradise Poker and have noticed that some players have a tendency to sit out when they are in the blinds and re-enter the game with a post after they button is passed them, thus they don't have to play out of the blinds--the worst position post-flop. Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon? Is it explicity against the rules of PP? Seems like a player who was slightly dishonest and looking for an angle would do this every round if he was not at risk of losing the right to play there.
KJS
If I remember correctly, if someone does this they have to post both blinds in the cutoff seat, thus robbing them of play on the button. A sign of a weak player if you ask me.
You might send an e-mail to paradise poker support asking if this is forbidden.
L0Q,
You are right. In a 3-6 game its $4 in the cutoff seat--$3 live and $1 dead.
Still, ask yourself if you would pay $1 to see the flop for free once in late position (assuming no raises) or pay $1 for the chance to pay $2 to see a flop in the worst position and then maybe see it for free in 2nd worst position. The player who chooses to skip is exploiting their ability to manipulate position--that is not weak poker in my opinion. Position is one of the most important aspects of HE.
Doing so makes them "weak" in the personal sense though, IMHO.
KJS
The way I see it is you are paying $1 more per round and getting 3 less hands. I would rather have those hands.
Brett
Whether it is advantageous to post late probably depends upon the game conditions. In most games, you are probably better off NOT skipping the blinds and posting behind the button.
In a full game, you get 9 hands per orbit, and you are paying $4 for those hands. That works out to about $0.44/hand. If you skip the blinds, you post behind, and get only 6 hands per orbit, for the same $4. This is about $0.67/hand, or 50% more per hand to play. Plus, $1 of your blind money is dead. Overall, I think that these disadvantages are great enough to make this a bad play, despite the benefit of your $3 blind being done in the second best position.
If the game were ultra-tight, with a typical hand being a few folds, a raise, then all fold, you might be better off posting behind the button. This would discourage stealers, since you have position on them, make it easier for you to steal (since you're already half-way in for a raise), and let you have position on a raiser when your hand is good enough to defend. A better strategy for this game might be to quit.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
KJS Wrote
"The player who chooses to skip is exploiting their ability to manipulate position--that is not weak poker in my opinion. Position is one of the most important aspects of HE."
It is VERY weak poker... They are getting 30% less hands for the same amount of money... and are forced to put dead money on the table each round.
Additionally the blind skipper loses the Button... I can't see giving up the best seat in the game as the act of someone who is exploiting their ability to be anything but stupid!
In the course of a typical 8 hour session what % of hands are won by the button or one of the blinds? More then 30% that's for sure!
Sean
I suspect that a lot of blind skipping has to do with the Paradise interface and is inadvertent.
After sitting out the blinds, you either have to post a dead small or have to wait for the big blind. If you wait and decline the option to post both blinds, the software will automatically indicate your intention of sitting out the next hand. You have to manually change it for later hands. When you don't, you can miss your chance of posting the big. When this happens players often choose not to wait another whole round.
You can also miss you chance of posting the big blind after sitting out when the small blind sits out or leaves, which puts you in the small blind position where you can't post.
There was (is?) a bug at Poker.com that allowed you to stone dodge the blinds. Some would do it every 4th orbit or so, just enough so it was not too obvious. Probably fixed by now, eh?
I recently started playing poker on the internet. I decided to play at Paradisepoker.com. I know there is a risk with anything that is associated with the internet. I decided to start by just dabbing in the shallow waters. I bought in for the minimum, $50.00 and found myself practicing in the free-play rooms. As like any other free online poker 70% of the people would see the flop, and raise with bad cards. All the fishy players were there. After feeling comfortable with the interface and commands, I jumped into a 2-4 game. This game was LIVE. A lot of people seeing the flop, lots of raises pre-flop and players generally playing real bad. After about 1.5 hours I was up 75 bucks.
I decide to see if the 3-6 game was as good. I started playing and on my second hand I get wired aces. After I raised, It was re-raised and capped by the time it got to me! I couldn't contain myself. The flop had my 3rd ace with two rags, after I bet it was again raised and I ended it with another cap. I filled up on the river and raised and was called. I won a huge hand.
I look at it this way, it's a lot easier to loose money that you don't physically see. I found myself tempted to make some calls that I normally would not make. This is bad...But for the unskilled players...this is good for me. I have played in about 5-6 sessions in the 3-6/5-10 range and just cashed out $500.00 It takes 10-14 days to get a check from PP. I got my credit card statement and I was credited back my original $50.00. So far I am out no money. Now I have to wait and see when I get my check.
I like Internet poker, although I have had a couple of loosing sessions, It did not differ from any one week at a regular casino. One thing that I like to point out, That In "My Opinion" I believe that not being able to see these people face to face dose not make much difference. Bad players will still be bad...and you can see that by watching their play and not their faces. Another thing I like about Internet Poker is that I can take notes on players without someone getting pissed off because you have a notepad at the table. The information that you get is great, and can be used in the same session.
I really like Internet Poker, especially Because I don't have to drive 20 minutes to and hour to get to a casino, also Im not in a smoke infested room. And I also like the fact that If I am at home I don't miss phone calls. It's really nice to be able to take your shoes off, pop a big bag of popcorn and listen to the radio. The 3-dollar rake is worth all of these comforts. When I'm done for the night I sign off, and I'm home. If it's real late, I don't get sleepy on the long drive home.
I kind of rambled on here, but I would like to say that this is my opinion and I'd like to hear your opinions. Until I start loosing (and not due to my play) Or feel that I'm getting cheated by someone, I will continue to play in the comforts of my own home.
Please post your opinions, I'm interested in what everybody else thinks?
Jayman
Jayman, I have to agree with you, after playing for 5 hours this weekend I was up $160. I to will be waiting for that check. I found that the other people played badly, but I never saw any multiway pots at the end, always heads up. I have enjoyed my first experience, for me the $3 drop is the same as my LA casinos and I do not have to tip the dealers. Good Luck.
I would advise against pulling out too much money from your account. I made that mistake, and came close to having to dig out my VISA again.
CV
Chris,
Good point! I did the same thing. Keep some in there.
Jayman
This is a common story I hear about on-line. I too went up immediately 500.00 in the 3-6 games, in about 4 hours of play.
I took my original 100.00 back via credit card, and requested a 200.00 check which is on the way.
I now had 300.00. I lost 200.00 in the 3-6 games. (See my post above on Some Stats) Really terrible players and I still could not win. I hear this story from many on-line players.
I feel I must report the same thing. My first foray into Paradise Poker, I started with $100 and wound up with $417 after about 3-4 hours at the $3-$6 1 on 1 games. This surprised me, because I consider myself somewhat of a mediocre player. The next three sessions spanning for about 10 hours, I sank back down to my original $100. I felt I was playing smartly, and with the same attitude and gameplan as before, but the hands I received and the bad beats I had were beyond belief. I played one guy 1 on 1 and lost VERY quickly in about 10 hands ($100), the guy had AKs or AA 5 out of those 10 hands. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but that is definitely weird.
Peter Stayne
Mike Caro had some interesting things to say about this phenomenon. There are two types of players that lose: those that started losing right from the start and those that won to start with and ended up losing.
As you said yourself, you consider yourself a mediocre player. If you had started losing right from the start, I take it you wouldn't be suspicious? As it was, you got lucky at the start and won, but eventually your playing style caught up with you and you lost.
I'm sure I am not quoting Mr. Caro exactly, but that was the general idea of it. Those destined to lose will lose eventually, but will think something is strange if they started winning in the first place.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS ANSWER
This pattern isn't the slightest bit "weird." After experiencing unsustainable results in a brief period, the pendulum often swings back abruptly. This pattern is common in poker and I suppose every other activity with variable results. Statisticians probably have a term for it, like "reversion to mean" or something.
Chris Alger...self appointed sheriff of internet poker...always defends the house, makes sweeping statements about why they are honest, complains about collusion or blind skipping. Given your unconditional support of the proprietors without evidence, are you sure you don't work for the Denver Police Department?
I played for the first time on the Internet this weekend, 3-6 Hold'em. I found that the games are very loose preflop, but my top pair constantly was winning at the end because the showdown was always heads up. Is this common? Also, should I cash out mt account or is it safe there?( Paradise Poker) I would like to here any comments about the Paradise site, are there better ones? Thanks.
I've noticed that the low-limit Internet hold 'em games tend to tighten up on the flop.
No guarantees, but both Paradise Poker and Planet Poker seem honest and safe to me.
Planet Poker is better than Paradise Poker for low-limit stud because the ante at Paradise Poker is too high. The hold 'em interface at Paradise is superior. The stud interfaces are equal.
You might want to try searching the Hold 'em and Other Topics archives. There was a lot of discussion on Internet poker before the new forum was created.
Planet Poker is better than Paradise Poker for low-limit stud because the ante at Paradise Poker is too high. The hold 'em interface at Paradise is superior. The stud interfaces are equal.
FYI
Paradise Poker recently changed thier 2-4 stud ante to $0.25. I was wondering what might have triggered the change and now it seems clear it was to compete with Planet Poker's game.
L0Q
When did they change? I had complained to them (Paradise) that their game's antes and bring-ins were too high when compaired to Vegas games. That was about a month ago though. I'll have to go check the 8/16 Stud to see if it has also changed.
CV
Yup,
The ante was cut from $2 to $1 in the 8/16 Stud game. This changes things quite a bit. I also noticed that there were a lot more games being spread. Interesting.
CV
There is a phenomenon that has been experienced by most Planet Poker patrons. When you cash out some of your winnings you lose pretty consistently for the next few sessions. We call it the curse.
So thats what you call it!!! I oftened wondered the last time I cashed out it was for $1800...I started with $200 but couldn't win after that......hmmmm?
Could it be that players cash out too much at one time, and start playing with "scared money"?
CV
That's one possibility. Another is that early winners, after cashing out, think they've discovered the golden goose and loosen up considerably.
SammyB -- just a shot in the dark: are you "Chicago"? He always talks about that....
I need some comments on the following stats from play at Paradise Poker.
518 Hands total.
284 had two suited on flop. 234 not.
167 hit the third of suit. 117 did not.
Thats 55% of all hands dealt had a chance to suit up after flop.
Of those hands, 59% made it. I thought it would be only 33%.
Now,, Of the times I went with 4 suited cards after flop, I am 00 for 22 . Should expect to hit about 7 1/3 times according to theory, or 13 times according to these real stats.
Of all the times I am pressing and raising a good high pair or two pair, the flush card comes every time, and I lose to the flush. (This last is an exageration, but it is close.)
Can this be explained as bad luck? I have heard from several sources that after early wins on line, the losses are steady. I am bailing out with a $100.00 net profit, and .75 left in my account. Good Luck to All.
Interesting stats. The real question is how unlikely are these numbers? I mean, while 59% is a lot bigger than 33%, what I would like to know is how many standard deviations this represents. Personally, I do not know (or at least recall) how to calculate this.
Anybody?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the smaller limit games there is obvious house incentive to maximize the rake. Would this be done through juicing the deck or the board cards? Hard to say. The stakes are really big. Internet poker has the potential to make these industry leaders very rich without any cheating, at least until competetion lowers the rake. It could also make them 20% richer while they juice the cards to stimulate action. Also more players will enjoy the action if they seem to get more playable hands even if they still lose.
On the flip side, there seems to be no end to the dishonesty coupled with greed I encounter in this life. It is everywhere. I'd be very surprised if internet poker avoids this trap completely.
The easiest way to "juice the deck" would result in fewer flush draws and suited boards: randomly omit low cards and let the players battle it out amid a greater convergence of high cards and pairs. I don't see how stacking the deck so that some suits are favored and others punished would tend to stimulate action or accomplish much of anything.
My comments address the idea of adding higher occurances of high cards as you suggest. 3-flushing or 4-flushing the board cards would add more action as well, I think.
Three and four flushing the board kills action it certainly does not increase it!
Sean
55% of flops are two suited. 40% of these flops should hit a third of that suit. 40% of 284 is 114. The standard deviation is a bit more than 8. Your results are 53 more than 114 which is more than six standard deviations from the expected, well over a billion to one. If your figures are accurate (which I frankly tend to doubt) there is probably something wrong. I think Planet Poker has a record of every hand. I think it would behoove them to check this out with you.
How many hours did it take you to draw to and miss 22 consecutive 4-flushes? Did this all take place in the same 518 hands?
mick,
This really is an interesting post. I thought I'd weigh in with the stats that *i* have and see what others think.
I have recorded 2118 boards, of those 1766 had turns, and of those 1459 had rivers.
Of the 2118 flops that I have recorded 56.2% are two suited. Of those 1191 flops which were two suited, 379 of the boards reflected *at least* a 3 flush by the turn or river. That's 31.8% of the flush draws making it.
Seems pretty consistent with the probability to me. My guess is that you didn't tabulate your statistics properly.
My guess is that you somehow counted the flushes wrong. For example you might have counted all rivers with any possible flush instead of only those that had two flushes on the flop (I get 478 or 40.1% when I do this). Or you might have counted flush boards on the river which were in different suits than the original draw (I get 400 or 33.5% when I do this).
I'd be interested in knowing how you compiled the statistics. Did you count all 578 by hand? This might indicate some kind of arithmetic error somewhere. Did you write code to do this? If so, would you care to post it?
- Andrew
Well, looking over the responses, I can only conclude I made mistakes in my tabulations. All of the mistakes you listed, Andrew, plus I think I may have had times when I was distracted, looked up and said, Oh, theres another one, when on the other hand if I looked up and didn't see one I wouldn't have noticed it as a result to be counted.
Anyway, I started over. Didn't count total boards or those that flopped two flush, as my count before was right on the teoretical probability. Only marked two flushes that became three flush on board, in the suit of the original two flush.
68 no. 58 yes. 46% Too small a sample? Also, I was one out of 5 myself. (Lost to a full house).
I apologize for the previous post.
Is online poker strategy different at all from live games? I heard one suggestion of checking the flop if making trips.
I realize there are a lot of bad HE players on PP. I really enjoy playing 1 on 1 a lot. What's the best way to really lay the smack down in these games?
Thanks!
GC
Be an expert player and get on-line. Thats all there is to it.
CV
I have been doing pretty good gambling on the internet lately and have a couple three thousand dollars spread out on different poker and sports books sites. I like to keep the money in the accounts rather than cash out so I don't have to go into my pocket to play.
My question, for you lawyer types is, whats happens if I die or otherwise become incapacitated? How do my benificiaries get this money? (I'm at the age where I have to think of these things.)
Your estate's executor should be able to get to the funds if you leave enough information (account numbers, passwords, etc.) to let him know where to look.
I was just wondering how many people we have here playing on PP?
I have played about 20 hours on PP now and have done quite well. Has anyone recived a cashout check from PP? I cashed out about 10 days ago, and havent seen my check? How long did it take to get yours?
Play good cards Walleye
I've played just over 265 hours on Paradise and have received 4 checks. In each case they took about a week and arrived via DHL. I don't know how long it took the bank to negotiate them.
I've had a check take a two weeks.
D
Chris Alger obviously plays at Paradise Poker and has direct contact with their management if his posts are to be believed. Checks take much longer than a week for the majority. 3 weeks is advertised by PP as normal. I guess that if you pitch how honest these guys are in poker forums then you get preferential treatment.
that doesn't seem very fair.....it has taken over 3 weeks for me to get my checks also....Alger must be a wheel of some kind....
I got my first check in 3 days, second one took 4, still waiting on the third and fourth (+5 days).
Note: I don't work for Paradise Poker.
I don't believe you. checks do not come that quickly from Costa Rica. It's that simple...
It was sent DHL. I've got no reason to lie.
ok..did you have to pay extra for that service? They do NOT advertise it. They clearly state that posts to and from credit cards take 3-5 days, and that checks take up to 15 business days(=3 weeks) to arrive. This is information currently published on their website. I don't understand why they don't allow wiring like Planet Poker does.
Believe me, I was as suprised as you are. I didn't pay anything extra and got the first check in 3 days via DHL. I fully expected to wait about three weeks to see it.
I notice that Paradise and Planet get mentioned here a lot but I am wondering about Poker.com. I have played Delta some but they have very few games. Poker.com is the other site that doesn't charge a transaction fee for buy-ins. Paradise and Planet are both 6% which is a pretty hefty cut in my mind.
How are the games at poker.com? Do they have much selection?
BTW, I also have to add that it is really tough to play in a game where you can't see your opponents. It takes away a big part of the game for me.
The 6% fee is waived if you mail in a money order. It only takes about a week. On paradise they let you work off the fee by playing in a lot of raked hands. I never played on poker.com.
I must say that I am not much for conspiracies, nor am I implying there is one is this case but I just saw something in a 5-10 game at Paradise that seemed waaaaaaaaay beyond mathematical expectation. I have played about 20 hours there and it is starting to make me wonder. Seems like those who have written that the boards are more coordinated than one would assume using probability might have something. How about this the game I just left. If anyone wants the transcripts I'll supply them. It was too much! I think Paradise should be made to release stats on all their hands and they should be compared to computer simulation. This sample is miniscule but it makes me think twice.
6 consecutive hands: 4 full houses and one quads!! Including boat over boat twice in a row and boat over nut flush once. The board paired in every instance, two paired once and tripled up once. Almost every case included pretty descent to excellent starting hands. Hmmmmmmm.
Here are the hands are in order played:
1) 8s 4h Ah Jc 8h
8c 4c over 7d Ad FULL HOUSE over top 2 pair
2) 6d 6s 9d 8h As
6h 6c over Qd Qc QUADS over 2 pair
3) 6h 2s Ah 2h 2c
Ad 7d over Kh 5h FULL HOUSE over nut flush
4) Folded to winner after flop
5) 6s 6h 3h 2h 3c
Qc 6c over Kd 3d FULL HOUSE over FULL HOUSE
6) Jh 8s Js Qd Kc
Kd Kh over Ks Jc FULL HOUSE over FULL HOUSE
Comments?
KJS
You should know by now that all those on-line Poker rooms are rigged, and all the other players at the table are all conspiring against you. No one wins at Paradise Poker.com (except me) ;^)
CV
what is yout expected earn..what is yout SD...do you play 10-20....or lower...what hands do you play that vary from regular reccomended starters...why do you post elsewhere on the forum that your upset with your job and income if you are a consistant winner. Are you just another bs artist?:)
I have yet to see a run quite like that.
The most unusual thing I've run into is getting delt AKo Four times in a row (of course none of which held up).
One odd thing I have noticed as that good hands seam to follow one another in groups of two or more
At the Taj playing 5-10 a couple of weeks ago we had two flops in a row 8,8,8 (I had 8-4 in the unraised big blind the first hand). Both hands turned a 10 and rivered a 2!
The next three hands each had at two 8’s on the flop (and believe me the whole table was making sure the cards got a good wash between hands! That’s twelve 8’s in 5 flops!
The next hand after this was won by a woman who check raised the flop with bottom pair (3's) and caught runner runner 3's for quads.
Three of these hands were won by quads and three by boats (with a couple of boat over boats).
Monday night in the home game I play we had 4 hands in a row that flopped three cards of the same suit (three different suits) and all four someone had two suited cards on the flop in fact the last one had 4 spade flushes and a set on the flop... It's a spread limit game and it came to me and it was capped (bet and three raises) by the time it got to me sitting on the button holding the nuts!
Strange things happen all the time they just get more scrutiny when it involves the computer!
Believe me I have as much reason to be paranoid as anyone I actually WAS cheated by someone who cracked the random generator at Planet Poker... But as someone with significant development exposure I can tell you that if Paradise is generating their random number as they say they are it is solid and probably WAY more random then a shuffle!
I've been critical of Planet Poker..I believe with reason. Paradise Poker I've found much better.There are 2 major reasons. The first is that they are harder to hack, as they have satellite transmission to Costa Rica. Secondly, the patterns of flops do not have the horrible patterns that Planet Poker displays (best example is 4 flush cards on the board 4 times an hour regardless of the table you sit at.)
rayfish wrote:
". The first is that they are harder to hack, as they have satellite transmission to Costa Rica."
Not true actually Paradise has a dedicated fiber connection between Florida and Costa Rica.
Personally I like Paradise better because I get the credit card fee back eventually, and the software is SO much better.
That said when someone comes up with software that works as well and as easily as IRC Poker and can be played for money it will be great!
Sean
I was told they have this satellite connection by their tech support. I work for Qwest, and specifically requested to know the manner of transmission. Maybe you are correct and their technicains don't know anything. Perhaps they don't have technicians. It could still be a fly by night outfit.
as they have satellite transmission to Costa Rica
I believe they just changed to a fiber optic cable. Thats why the response time has improved as of the 1/1/00
MJ
Yes, I did get counterfeited on two of the hands above and posted soon after. I'll admit to some sour grapes. Still, these kinds of runs make me a bit suspicious. Even when I hit a good hand I feel nervous. Time to find a new game for a bit.
KJS
I once had 5 sets of pocket aces in a three hour session and they held up every time, even floped an A three times. Sometimes these things happen.... :)
f
Read KJS's post. I have been writing here about the unbelievable boards and number of beats on the river I have experienced on Paradise Poker. (Not just me getting the beat.) Stimulating bets would not be much of a motive, however, think about their customers. Most of them are going to be poor players. We've all seen how horrible. They'll have to win their share to remain customers. If they keep losing to good players they'll drop out. I've already seen this at our local casino where the room has been open for 5 months. Go in now and you see the same faces over and over. The poor local players are back in the pits. Now, I have had rotten luck, etc. but in Paradise I just cannot believe the help on the river. Each poor player calling it down with 3rd pair gets their card. I think these posts from various players should continue. Any good players that are winning consistantly??
You may have something here. I have been up and down on PP, but never stay ahead very long. I've played about 300 hours, and am about $500 down, playing mostly 5-10. I finally dropped down to 3-6, and got the same results. The hands that don't hold up are sometime amazing. The last hand I played (hopefully the last hand I'll ever play on PP), I had 88 near the button, and UTG had T4 offsuit, flopped a gut shot, bet it on the flop and hit it on the turn. Just one of hundreds like it.
By way of contrast, I'm a small but consistent winner in the casinos, and I win on IRC poker (20-40) after about 200 hours at $140 per hour.
I firmly believe there is some kind of manipulation going on on PP and I believe 2+2 ought to reconsider accepting advertising from them and other online cardrooms, unless and until some reliable regulation is set in place.
Yes, I used to win at Yahoo. And then I moved to IRC and won there too. I even won at paradse play money games. But then I swtiched to real money and started losing.
I just don't get it. My style of play hasn't changed at all. It must be fixed!!!!
LOL!!!
The only thing I firmly believe is that people aren't willing to look at the most obvious reason that they are losing which is that they're not as good as they think they are.
I would love, just LOVE to see the statistics where someone would ask a bunch of poker players where they would rank themselves in relation to others. That would be a very top-heavy list!!
HALF the people asked would belong in the bottom 50%. In fact, half the people reading this are likely among the worse half of poker players in the world. Maybe you're one of them? Yes, maybe I'm one of them too.
Why do people always insist that if someone loses, the only possible reason can be bad play? If you invest in a stock that is highly recommended by all the experts, and then it crashes because of fraud on the part of the company owners, and you have made money in stocks on a continuous basis except for this one stock, does that mean you know nothing about the stock market?
You haven't answered the central thesis of my post, which is I win EVERYWHERE except online pay casinos - I don't win a lot, except on Turbo Texas(big deal), and IRC (not a large enough sample), but I also win at 3/6, 4/8, 10/20 and 20/40 holdem in REAL casinos, but I DO NOT WIN online.
Does anybody detect a pattern here? I mean, other than my obvious inablility to play?
I understand your concern. The problem appears that known entities in the field such as Mr Caro have an economic stake in the game as it exists now. The "other gambling games forum" frequently discusses corruption or syndicates in gaming, and Costa Rica as a known source of it. Yet, if anyone insinuates that the same could happen with online poker rooms, we have the defenders attack the playing skills of others. I propose that many posts here defending online poker are either false statements by people who are have an interest in the companies involved, or by individuals that do not know squat about computer technology. I recomend that these defenders of online poker publish their records from paradise poker for buy ins and payouts when they make statements about how good they are. If they are willing to publish these easily obtainable facts (they are available to every player there)that can be cross checked by Paradise Poker management, then we have a reason to listen to them.
Why would a winning player go to the trouble of trying to comfort losing players with there stats from online poker? If you win regularly at real poker tables and lose at online ones, stop playing online. Stop wasting your time complaining about it, and let those who play figiure it out for ourselves, if there is anything to worry about.
because people lie....no you are correct "whatever" ..a poker player never lies... no poker player ever lied.....ever..ever...ever...
We should believe that "Whatever" is a winning player?..I think not....I think he is a fish..prove it otherwise....
Hey, Id just like to say that Ive never had one bad beat on Paradise Poker that made me question the integrity of the game. Ive never been called down with 22 on a board with A Q 9 6 or something only to have the duece fall on the river and lose a giant pot. Almost all of the bad beats I have had have been of a normal fashion and they havent happened that often. Ive had many many more horrifying bad beats in actual casinos. I dont know about Planet Poker as Ive never played there, but I havent seen anything on ParadisePoker that would raise my suspicions at all.
I agree with you curtains. I believe that they run a straight game at Paradise Poker.
If I am a fish, at least I am not going to whine about it here. Like I said, if you dont like it, dont play.
I guess you are a fish......good advice though.
ok
I still haven't heard a great reason on why they would fix the games? They (supposedly) make their money from the rake, so unless they are actually promoting shill players that turn profit back to the online card room, there is little obvious motivation to fix games. I'd just like to hear a detailed hypothesis of why they would cheat. I've had bad beats for sure, but nothing to make me think I've been cheated.
As far as winning at the free games, which I do as well, I am wondering if that is not a good indication of your actual success. The problem with free play, as I see it, is that the "best of it" is so much better than the "best of it" at a pay game. The average pot at free play is often two to three times the real games. I think this inordinately skews your results when you are a marginaly player, and I include myself in that category. 60%+ see the flop so even being somewhat discriminating in hand selections may lead to skewed results when playing in that kind of furball game. I'm not a math guy so I don't know if that could be the case, but it seems logical enough.
STOP already! I can't take all these supposed strange flop and horrible bad beat stories on line. I've been playing on line, both planet poker and paradise, for over a year an have experienced similar results to the live casino games i play in. Sure I've had bad beats, but in over 1200 hours on line, nothing has lead me to believe that anything strange is going on. Here's a novel idea, maybe all the cry babies keep losing because there game is weak? Maybe instead of crying about the game not being square, they shoud re-examine there playing style.
Yeah -- your results are similar: you get pummelled in the casino and you get pummelled on line.
But you are right -- the games look square to me also.
The IRS are interested in your records.
I win at poker and online poker has not been the exception (though I do not have the hours logged that you say you do). However, I have my concerns that the deal may not be random. We just don't know for sure yet.
I will say that online poker is probably tougher for small winners and small losers. This is because the games aren't excessively loose and are generally more aggressive preflop. In a typical loose and often passive live casino game, an occasional huge pot will be taken down. This salvages many players results. Online you will very rarely drag a huge pot and the big pots almost always involve several bets preflop. So I agree that many may be inclined to blame losses on an unfair deal when in fact their results suffer from the reasons mentioned.
Randy,
You tell me; would you stick with these hands, betting and raising all way?
You have Kh 5h
6h 2s Ah 2h River: 2c
You have Ks Jc
Jh 8s Js Qd River: Kc
Both lost on river card. I admitted to some sour grapes, but I don't think that these beats were due to bad poker or a "weak playing style" do you?
KJS
of course i'd be in there with those hands, and there was nothing u could do get off of those hands. I can give you 5 examples of 1 outers that people put on me! Its poker...it happens. The same thing happens in live games also though. Even a 2 outer will hit 1 out of 23 times!
Randy,
You wrote Here's a novel idea, maybe all the cry babies keep losing because there game is weak? Maybe instead of crying about the game not being square, they shoud re-examine there playing style.
and
of course i'd be in there with those hands, and there was nothing u could do get off of those hands.
Looks like we play the same. You weak too? Or maybe I'm not the player you think I am?
Cry baby, in this instance, yes. Weak player, not as far as you know!
KJS
KJS, come on....i can't determine your playing style from 2 HANDS!!! Hand like you mentioned basicly play themselves. Its to bad that you got sucked out on, but it happens. Everytime I get sucked out on, i try to remember the last time i put a two or three outer on someone. Player seem to remember when they get bad beat, but never seem to remember when they do it to someone else. IT"S POKER, strange things HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. I've had countless bad beats in live games to. If you're not winning on line, there's a flaw in your game PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
plain and simple..you don't know what your talking about. The flaw in KJS's play is he doesn't know what the cards are going to be....or he hasn't adjusted to "great" strategies like playing A-off suit rag for the 4 flush boards, calling with no pot odds for ridiculous gut shot straights.... sticking to the river with a pair of dueces or threes...Other players can, and do, know what the cards are going to be.Let us see your ev.sd.and buyin cahout histories Mr.Pisane. Give us all your handle too so that we can lurk and see how its done....I'd lay 11-1 that you won't do it, plain and simple.
Actually KJS...I would never play k-5 suited from any position other than the Big Blind. If u played it from any other position, you made a mistake that will cost u in the long run.
not neccesarily..read HPFAP....Sklanksy and Malmuth disagree
well...i thought I'd give paradise one more sit...as I didn't find the flops as outrageous as planet poker.and thought maybe you guys are telling the truth ..what happens? in 3 hours....I play maybe 6 hands...get this.. 1st. I raise in late position with JJ with 3 callers...flop 7-J-7......I slow play....but get reraised on the riveer by 7-7..... 2nd. On the BIg blind 8s-8d----four callers (not raised) flop 6s-8h- qh... everybody stays...I raise... no-one leaves turn 3h no one leaves.. I raise again thinking I have the boat to hit if someone has the hearts.. river 2h(of cousre) everbody calls but me(i fold) nobody has 2 hearts.(nor overpairs)...just kh-5c wins 3.big blind again...7-8s suited..its raised..but five people call before me..I call flop 3s-8h-10s early..player bets....winner...raises... i call(not wanting to be weak tight turn... 7d... it goes check..bet...I raise river... 9c bet, I call... winner turns over j-6 offsuit 4. A-Ks..I raise early...only 1 caller!..(appeared solid before, was winning with decent cards) flop K-66... I bet...he calls... turn-Q I bet ...
he raises..I call River I check... and call..6-7 off suit off course it goes on...I won't elaborate any further.. Boy I sure played those hands 6 hands weakly....I'm just a fish per you honest guys.You guys got me....I'm through with Paradise Poker too..
I think Im quitting cards...and going back to computer school to become a systems adminstrator...ALL you online fanatics can cheer!The rayfish is dead.....(until he perfects the random distributor...but by then ..I'll change my handle...and post here... always claiming that online poker is honest.) Mr.Alger will be very pleased. goodbye 2+2
hey michsst,
maybe these guys are on to something....when more than a few guys who normally win in a casino complain about the card distribution setting them up consitantly for bad beats....2+2 is a good forum....online poker may not be.
it sounds like a case of implicit collusion...nevertheless...many posters here and at rgp have complained about the nature of the beats...It is possible that the computer programs a set number of wins per seat to give the illusion of fairness.The consesus I'm getting is that online poker is dangerous. Those who defend it who refuse to publish their ev,sd, and cash in,,cashout history.. are suspect. Sad to see people quit poker over online hijinx. Stick to the casinos rayfish...take your own advice
I'm not going to argue with you about the implied crooked deals that may be happening online - either you trust it or you don't - not much can be done here to help you either way. However I think being able to discuss it is certainly a purpose this particular forum exists.
I will take you to task on the bad beat stories however. Having posted one myself I will admit to some level of sour grapes, and I will admit to being a beginner and having holes in my game. However, that is exactly why I think this is the place to post those types of experiences. Internet poker is the only type of poker many beginners have to competitive poker, so when we get clobbered and feel we played correctly, then this is exactly the place I expect people to come to to gauge their experience. We certainly can't ask others on PP while were playing. And often times it is the validation of more experienced players that keep new people in the game and working to get better.
I ranted and prefaced that it was nothing more than that. However, some great folks took the time to reply, share similiar experiences, and offer encouragement. That I think is what 2+2 is all about.
So if you want to be elitist and cast disparging comments towards beginners, feel free. But I for one hope this forum keeps up its tradition of helping new folks become better players.
i don't see how KJS or rayfish misplayed their hands. I've been lurking at paradise poker...and the hands frequently seem to set up a player for bad beats. In particular...gut shot straights seem to hit much more than once out of eleven times.. .I'm not playing online
Hry Michst, I don't see how any comment was critical of the forum.Maybe when you get your training wheels off and play some live action poker you'll understand what taking a suspicious beating feels like.
I was just commenting about the fact that I don't think people should be critical of people discussing bad beats or even suspicious online stuff (though I am less interested in those discussions for a variety of reasons). I admit I'm new, and maybe I will learn something different as I play more real poker, but for now I am not convinced of the conspiracy theories.
put your money where your mind is,son.Read the 2+2 books..go play online for live cash..and come back and tell us about it......play money is a game for children...I'd advise you play for real in a casino, however.
I've been reading and have played both live and online, though both in small amounts. Broke even in live play in Vegas and finished down online, though not really to mysterious play, just bad play on my part in most cases. Playing for free for a while just to get some of the basic skills down (pre-flop strategy, odds calculation, etc.).
I admit I still have a lot to learn, but I think the jury is still out on online conspiracy theories. I agree that it can be done and would be extremely easy to do as well (I'm in the software business as well), but I still haven't heard a compelling reason for online cheating.
there doesn't have to be conspiracies....it can be just bad programming....then again....if the code can be cracked...why not make free money....Fossil man inicates that implied collusion can be at work...thats true...gut shots make sense in pots with proper odds..they do not with no odds....at a casino the deal is seen....whatever happens..happens....these online prgrams..however,provide the defenders with plausible deniability the game can be completely corrupt and the perpetrators can blame poor play for it and hear cheering by people like Mr.Caro that have an economic interest in the business ......Legislation is in the works to make internet gambling illegal in most states here...and the first federal prosecution for internet betting is under way... I believe that in a couple of years the..point will be moot.....I don't believe under the current structure (and software packages) that these games will survive being marketed in the States.
matt wrote: >i don't see how KJS or rayfish misplayed their hands. >I've been lurking at paradise poker...and the hands >frequently seem to set up a player for bad beats. In >particular...gut shot straights seem to hit much more >than once out of eleven times.. .I'm not playing >online
I've read many complaints here and on rgp about online poker games. I've never played online poker for money, so I have no personal experience. However, most of the complaints are like the one above, i.e., gut shot straights hit more often than 1 in 11.
I'm not trying to pick on matt here, but judging by his choice of words, he hasn't kept close track of the results, he says it just "seems" to happen too often. The problem here is human perception. Once you pick up the idea that maybe something is amiss, you start to notice all the longshot events, and forget all the more mundane ones. Plus, even if matt had kept track, he'll never know for sure which gutshots missed, because those folks will likely fold on the river and he won't know they were drawing for that 4-outer. Thus, it may always appear that he is getting beat by longshots more often than random chance dictates.
Here's an example. You raise with AK preflop, and are facing 5 callers. Flop is AhTd8c. Checked to you, bet, and 3 call. Turn is 2d. Same betting occurs. River is 7s. Check, check, bet, you call, rest fold. You lose to 9h6h who rivered a gutshot straight.
You mark this down in your books as losing when you were a 10:1 favorite on the river. But, unknown to you, the other players held KdQd and Th9s. Thus, as a group, they had not only 4 outs against you on the river, but 19. What you marked down as a loss to a 10:1 longshot was really only a loss to a 21:19 shot. Thus, you should lose here almost half the time, yet it appears to you that you took a horrendous bad beat.
This same phenomenon is also well known in live poker games, especially loose low-limit games. It is what puts some otherwise capable players on tilt, and causes them to sometimes play less than their best. All of us feel more unlucky than we really are at the poker table (at least I do), and this is very possibly one good reason for that feeling.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
FossilMan has posted before that one of the biggest dangers of online card rooms is that people can know what the cards are. It's interesting that last month Mr. Andrew Prock and Chris Alger were ridiculing the fact that the FBI would pursue domestic computer hackers. Given the denial of service pursuit into American universities this month, I doubt that Mr.Prock is laughing now(he has an .edu suffix).Mr.Alger may be happy the FBI has this capability. Coupling this with recent federal prosecutions involving online gambling, he might not like it if it results in the games being shown to be fraudulent and are shut down.
"It's interesting that last month Mr. Andrew Prock and Chris Alger were ridiculing the fact that the FBI would pursue domestic computer hackers."
I never ridiculed or even questioned any such thing. (Nor, I suspect, did Andrew, but I'm not purporting to speak on his behalf).
You can post all the "anonymous" flames you want, rayfish, but do try to get at least some of the facts straight.
my name is Doc Colburn.I 'm from Virginia. I work as an accountant. I don't understand your reference sir. Perhaps your paranoid. I lurk here most everyday as I play Omaha and Holdem at a 1-5 level. I'll go through the archives and post your messages. From what I can see, rayfish was the most vocal(if a bit tilted) individual on the subject. You have been, and continue to be, the most vocal proponent of online gaming in this forum.
Mr.Alger,the notes about your indicating the games are subject to government regulation mentions the SEC, not the FBI. I started to feel that I stood corrected. But then I went further back in the archives and found in previous posts, (and your posts on the subject are to extensive to include in this note)you indicated that you feel hacking would be done by hackers at other locations than online poker, when the referred to "rayfish" suggested that domestic hacking would be investigated by the FBI both you and Mr.Proctor answered in ridiculing remarks about paranoia and just a little chicken posts by Proctor, that internet gaming did not warrant attention by the criminals(not the authorities), that the gaming owners are co-operating with policing the games with collusion, that the games are good and that people that lose are just poor players, As a matter of fact you posted so many times in defending these games that Fossilman asked you to stop posting.
Doc,
Thanks for clarifying everything. As you say, I ridiculed the paranoid poster. I never ridculed the FBI.
Distinct difference.
- Andrew
no you are wrong....Mr.Prock..it is in print...If I were you..I'd wouldn't ridicule the FBI.
its interesting that Mr.ALger doesn't believe in Internet Companies cheating...but he believes in the rayfish conspiracy.....
thats right..rayfish is everywhere.....everyone here is rayfish
Chris ALger thinks everyone is rayfish?I'm not surprised......at least he doesn't believe that he's Napoleon Bonaparte (or does he?)
Not everyone, but perhaps nearly most: "Charles Ibbotts," "wally," "doc," "matt," "la mordida," "subnet masks, routing" {??], "Al Bupp-software engineer" (my favorite), you two guys and god knows how many others.
A conspiracy requires a meeting of at least two minds. There aren't two minds at work here, just one guy who desperately wants to convince people that, in the words of "chaarles ibbots" (forgetting here how to spell his name) "more than a few guys who normally win in a casino" have reported inexplicable bad beats online; or as "wally" says, so "many" posters have reported similar problems, there is now a "consensus" that online poker is dangerous.
There's certainly a consensus that online poker is dangerous, but it existed before the first online hand was dealt. It should exist and probably will exist forever. The debate is over the degree of danger and whether it can be mitigated, something to which you, with your silly bad beat stories and ludicrous claims to naked-eye observation of non-random cards, have contributed absolutely nothing.
Time to pack up the one-man band and go home.
take your medication Mr.Alger.....
not everyone types well Mr.ALger...your rayfish conspiracy sounds like paranoid schizophrenia to me.At the risk of inciting you to violence...I must clearly state..that I am not rayfish.Your archive postings are there for everyone to see.I'm sorry that I ever bantered with you online. I didn't realize that you were that far gone. I apologize if I ever offended you.
I came by this evening to see if there were any remarks to my somewhat tilted post....and lo and behold Mr.Alger now believes that the whole world is me..Well..its not true. He probably believes that Fossilman is rayfish, too...As the posts between Greg and Doc talk about Alger's internet postings. I'm not a software engineer either, Mr.Alger. I work in networking, though I do have some c+ bakground. Networking and programming are two distinct fields in computer science. I'll acknowledge that I posted under subnet masks/routing....but the other people I do not know. I have never posted on rgp at all. Anyway..I'm not playing online anymore. Its nice to see that not everybody here thought my views were paranoid. The government doesn't think so either, or there would not be pending litigation in federal court on internet gaming (as talked about on Ken's poker page). I believe that its paranoid to believe that every poster is rayfish.
m
I posted here as before as matt..my name is Matt Holcomb. I've been involved with computer networking for 15 years. I am not rayfish.I'm offended to be called such.Mr.Alger doesn't even know what a subnet mask,or routing is in internet trafficking. Routing is the basic method of sending data packets across the net. Subnet masks are method of splitting one network into many smaller ones. Mr. Alger has clearly no knowledge in this field. His reasoning appears to be just plain libel, and name calling. If his is the voice of reason, then the voice of reason needs to take his prozac.
i think that jcc..onlinepoker....jj, Randy Pisane..et al...are Chris Alger. I'm not going to post on the internet forum anymore.
the aforementioned posts are in the holdem archives...under the title "Why Playing Online Poker Stinks".....Doc...is correct...both Mr.Alger and Mr.Prock make statemnts which would indicate exactly what Doc is talking about. The date I believe is 1-10-2000. Both Mr.Alger and Mr.Prock made light of "rayfish" stating that the FBI would investigate domestic hacking. Their comments were quite offensive, though it appeared that Mr.Prock was more out of line than Mr. Alger.
and no Mr.Alger... I am not rayfish.
n/t
thr references Doc makes are made in a running thread from 1-10-2000 to 1-12-2000 in the Holdem forum. Mr.Alger is clearly wrong here.
I plead guilty to mocking the baseless paranoia of a losing poker player.
- Andrew
sounds to me Mr.Prock as if your trying to avoid bragging about your hacking ability in the posts. I'm glad I'm not you.
doc,
What are you talking about. If you have something to say, then say it.
Sounds like you are trying to avoid bragging about your bookkeeping skills.
Or, if you like, continue to be bizarre and perplexing.
- Andrew
don't let me perplex you...or Mr.Alger..who thinks the whole world has turned into rayfish. At the very least, you are arrogant, and impolite. I meant that I wouldn't want to be working at an educational institution in computer science..and making fun of the FBI in today's climate. Nothing more.
I'll never know why you hate me so much. I think it was becasu I beat you out of a pot on Planet Poker from the big blind when you held Aces.....I had something like 7-9s and called your preflop raise. The flop had a seven in it so I checked and called..the river and turn were both 7's and you paid the maximum to see my quads.
Nevertheless, I am not paranoid. I am not a losing poker player anywhere but online(stuck about $400.00 now with the loss of $275.00 from the last sit I'll make) and I don't understand your rather tilted responses. Good Luck Andrew. signed, (To Mr.Alger's chagrin) The one and only Rayfish
rayfish,
I think we already went over this. I don't hate you. I also don't know where you got this fantasy about playing me on Planet Poker.
As for the rest of you wackos I have no desire to engange in a mindless debate about your reading comprehension, and lack of analytical skill. Call me arrogant and impolite if you will, but I really have better things to do than defend myself from the likes of your irreverent barbs.
This will be the last you hear of me regarding this topic on this forum.
- Andrew
Really? I don't recall saying that, at least not exactly as typed in your post, Doc. Could you refer me to something in the archives? It's quite possible I wrote something and forgot about it, wrote something poorly that did not reflect what I meant, wrote something that you misinterpreted, or any other of a variety of possibilities.
I think the biggest danger of online poker is collusion by players who are communicating with each other while controlling multiple players at the same table. As many others have said, there is nothing to stop you and I from playing at the same table while talking to each other on our second phone lines. Thus, we could collude as perfectly as our abilities allowed.
I may have made some comment related to the "hacking" that was done a while back where 1 or more of the online poker rooms was using a RNG that was predictable. That issue made the regular news services, but has supposedly been fixed. At that time, someone could crack the pattern of the RNG and know what cards everyone else had. I don't know of anything you could easily do today to get that same information.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman, I recall a response from you in November or December in which you mentioned various problems with online play. You mentioned collusion , and knowing what the cards would be.Perhaps your response already addressed it. It's good to have people address me as myself, rather than Alger who seems obsessed with rayfish. I always like your posts Fossilman, thats why I made the reference because your responses are some of the more informative.
the post in which you mention that ALger posts too much(perhaps my interpretation) is from 2-4-2000 further below on this forum.
doc,
While I appreciate the nice things you said about me, I think you are misreading my earlier posts. I reviewed a post I made here on 2/4/00, and in it I made no mention of people knowing cards on the internet, nor did I say anything about Alger posting too much. Maybe I said those things in some other post(s), but I don't recall doing so at this time.
If you wish to make a point by citing someone else, the best thing to do is to find that post and quote from it exactly, or at least add some words to the effect of "I think FossilMan said that ...". That way people won't attribute something to me incorrectly.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
greg here is your post;on 2-4...I'll find the one in the archives about knowing what the cards are later...I interpreted this post to mean that Mr.Alger either did not know what he was talking about..or posted to much..here are your words "It is my unverified belief that using computerized analysis of hands to detect collusion will not work very well. However, I am NOT an expert, or even very knowledgeable, in the science that would be utilized to do this analysis. Therefore, I will defer to any other posters who may be such experts. If you (Chris Alger) are such, then I am probably wrong. If you are not, then let's wait and hear from those who are. "
doc,
In what way can that quote be interpreted as me saying that Chris posts too much? I just don't see that at all, and it certainly is not what I meant for those words.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
well..it says that you do not believe that he is an expert...He agreed ....and that you'd rather hear from the experts instead of him. I interpret that as a polite way to say shutup. If thats not what you meant..then ok, thats the way it sounds.what did you mean?
I am a reporter with the Asbury Park (N.J.) Press, the state's second-largest newspaper.
I am looking to interview online gamblers from New Jersey for a story about the online gambling industry. I would like to know about your experiences with online gaming, and why you would gamble online instead of, or in addition to, brick and mortar casinos.
Please respond by email, jwr@app.com, or call 732-922-6000x4317.
James W. Prado Roberts Projects Reporter Asbury Park (N.J.) Press
Email: jwr@app.com Tel: 732-922-6000x4317
Does anyone have a Stud HiLo-8 site they would care to recommend?
Thx
Considering my age and my personal lack of a car, I've been starting to seriously consider this online poker business...
I haven't taken the plunge yet, but all this whining paranoia on this forum has me a little wary...
Still, my question is: What possible advantage can the online casinos gain from setting you up for bad beats? Perhaps they have props at their tables - do you seem to be losing to a particular player? It seems to me that the costs are already so small and the rakes so large that they should have no trouble making a profit and all this talk of non-randomness doesn't make any capitalistic sense.
Just my two cents, ~DjTj
The "conspiracy" would work something like this:
1) Give new players a winning edge to ensure their return.
2) Win/loss limits -- swings -- predetermined to keep the seed of hope alive.
3) Lots of playable hands given to keep the game "fun," specifically for the looser type players
4) Hands manufactured to generate action both for purposes of making the games "fun" and to increase the rake.
The ultimate goal of the "conspiracy" would be twofold: a) manufacture action to increase the rake and b) do everything possible to ensure repeat business. Any manipulation would be subtle and therefore difficult to detect and likely to create controversy with the nay sayers branded paranoid. What's the economic imperative to do this? It won't be long before online gambling is made illegal. The online poker operators know this. Now is the time for them to get what they can. Also online poker is likely to be swarmed with tight players looking for an easy buck. If the games were fair, they would quickly die with the loose players systematically hammered and the tight players ultimately moving on to easier action. By the way, why would a major car company produce a defective vehicle where many people will die as a result? Because it's cheaper to take the public relations hit and pay the legal bill than to fix the problem.
To get to the answer, we shouldn't question whether or not "unusual" things occur in online poker or players run bad online. Of course both will be true! The question is whether or not "unusual" things occur with a greater frequency online compared to live play. The "Al Bupp --software engineers" of the world make the question of fairness seem more paranoid than it is. And many are prone to blame their losses on anything but their play. However, until we compare online results with what we know will occur randomly, we can't be absolutely sure either way. A prudent person wouldn't play poker online. Someone shooting from the hip should at least be aware of the risks.
Interesting...well, lets look at your points:
1) Give new players a winning edge to ensure their return. Preprogrammed beginner's luck? Well, I suppose that could only help me if I go in now...
2) Win/loss limits -- swings -- predetermined to keep the seed of hope alive. I think this is an aspect of all gambling - its what keeps everybody going back to the craps table anyways.
3) Lots of playable hands given to keep the game "fun," specifically for the looser type players This shouldn't be too hard to catch if someone just kept track of their hands over a long period - However, in the short time I've been just observing hands at Planet Poker, it looks to be tighter than typical casino play.
4) Hands manufactured to generate action both for purposes of making the games "fun" and to increase the rake. Manufactured hands just doesn't seem like a smart play on the casino's part. These kinds of hands are the ones that would stick out in peoples' minds and maybe would be posted here on this forum. When I see two identical hands posted then I would consider this as a possibility - otherwise, this seems a bit farfetched...
It really seems to me that the more bad beats an online casino lays on its players, the longer the hands will take, and thus the less rake/time they will be able to collect. They want simple bet/call..bet/call hands that will get them their max rake quickly.
Anyhow, I'm sure anything the casino is doing is very subtle and I'll bet the money lost is comparable to the dealer tokes or the travel costs to live casinos - which any good player can beat already.
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS POSTED BY ONLINE POKER I MYSELF MANAGED TO WIN OVER 1600 IN THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF PLAYING 10-20 HOLDEM, SEEMED STRANGE TO ME TO BE GETTING PAID OFF ALL THE TIME. BUT THEN THE SWINGING WENT THE OTHER WAY, I HAD SO MANY HANDS BEATED AT THE RIVER. LOTS OF STRANGE INCIDENTS THAT I COULD NEVER PUT MY FINGER ON IT. AND YES MY HAND SELECTION WAS VERY GOOD, BUT YET I ALWAYS SEEMED TO MANAGE TO GET RAISED OUT OF A POT JUST TO SEE AK TAKE IT DOWN JUST TOO MANY STRANGE SITUATIONS SO AS OF LAST NIGHT I GOT BACK MY 300 I STARTED WITH BY REQUESTING A CASH OUT. ALTHOUGH I NEVER DID GET THE CASH OUT, PERHAPS TILT FACTOR 101 BUT BY BREAKING EVEN I HAVE GAINED TWENTYFOLD AND NOW I KNOW
i've stated elsewhere that the flaws online do not have to be a conspiracy..just bad programming. Andy Ward acknowledged this, too..in the HE forum. Other than that..I simply asked for true stats from some of the supporters.No one has come forth. Science is based on empirical evidence. Hussles are based opinion, and superstition.
al,
I have over 2000 hands recorded from paradise poker. If you want to look at them, or ask me for various statistics, I'd be happy to oblige.
- Andrew
I have found my online experience to be very good. I do not work for the online poker industry as some people will suggest. The Low Limit games I have played have been profitable for me. The games tend to be tighter, and as long as you stick to the book you should do well over the long run. You can actually steal the blinds with a raise, which I could never do in a L.A. casino. I think you should give it a try, just stop if you lose a specific amount of money, I started with $200 and have built that up to $500 over about 50 hours. Good luck.
I'll dispute the beginner's luck theory since my initial experience for the first ~50 hours was very negative (for a variety of reasons, so no "you suck" posts please - I've got holes alright!!!! ;-) Since then I have pretty much held my own.
I would also dispute the "gambling will be illegal" theory. The jurisdiction of the operators certainly won't make it illegal and making illegal in the States will hardly put them out of business. My non-scientific survey shows 25-30% of PP clientel to be from outside the US. Plenty of profit to go around.
Solving this problem for Paradise Poker is really easy. I have set up a hotmail account - ppstudy@hotmail.com. Using the PP client, you can request a hand history for the last x number of hands. Send your hand histories to this email account. I'm in the process of writing an app to parse out the hands and see what we get. It will take a while since its a spare time gig, but at least we will get an answer. As far as I know, Poker Planet does not have a similar feature so we will have to just focus on PP.
MichSt, when I request a hand history from Paradise how many hands will they go back, 100?
You can ask for as many as you want, though I think they only keep you hand history around for so long (not sure of the exact time interval - it may only be 24 hours or something like that). I typically get 100 hands at a pop and ask for them at the end of a session.
This is a great idea, but I think you have to be careful of a few things, especially that the data you get is "clean". One person sending you tampered data could screw the whole thing up. This can happen unintentionally, as someone could send you 100 hands, play 50 and then send 100 again. That would overlap 50 hands and bias the data.
Also someone could maliciously tamper with the hand history, like cutting and pasting 10 consecutive flushes or manually changing individual hands and results.
There are probably other ways someone could intentionally mess it up.
We can handle the dup data (honest mistakes) since each PP game has a unique game id. As far as malicious tampering, I'll do what I can, but obviously a danger.
Planet Poker also has hand history.
Have fun with your project. IMO, the games are straight at both sites. Variance is quite high because the games tend to be loose-to-wild. My results look like a classic sine curve, with not much to show for it. But it's been a lot of fun.
JCC
Most players I've heard from went up about 500.00 before the dirge. Me too. I defy anyone to beat the 2-4, 3-6, or 5-10 H.E. going in with good starting hands, playing tight agressive, etc. The cards hitting the end are incredible. I was going to quit from disgust, but felt I was being a bit paranoid. Tried another 200.00 and in the 2-4 game hit a couple of winners only on the way out. All hands were premium starters and played only with good flops. I am not talking about winning overall play, I am talking about winning even a pot.
I do not know about intentional tampering. It may just be the program itself. But how many times can a two outer hit perfect on the river? Aren't you supposed to be able to beat these guys who pull for these?
Please post back after more play and let us know your results. Did you continue to win or did the 500.00 start going back?
All the best.
mick:
Somthing you'll notice online, perhaps particularly at Paradise, is that many players "buy-in" for what is apparently the full amount in their player accounts (they just ckick "full amount" in at the buy-in screen), and in the $5-10 games this means that you typically see players with anywhere from a few hundred to nearly $2,000. Last week I saw someone playing 5-10 with $3,600 "in front" of him. In the 10-20 games it is not uncommon to see someone with more than $1500.
As you know, the minimum buy-ins for the games are pretty low. I suppose it's possible that some players prefer to place several thousand dollars in their player accounts instead of just a few hundred, but given that you infrequently see a live action player in a 5-10 game buy in for more than a rack or two at a time, I would tend to doubt that.
In other words, when I see players with many times the normal (not minmimum) buy-in in front of him, I suspect that he's won a fair share of that. This means that you constantly see players that have grossed many hundred to several thousand dollars at Paradise Poker. This doesn't mean or suggest that they're ahead of the game or are winning (any more than have a big stack in a live games suggest that someone's winning), only that at some point they've been able to go many hundreds and even thousands of dollars in the preferred direction. I have personally experienced and seen many other players win between $200 and $800 in single sessions playing 3-6 and 5-10. Your suggestion that these games can't be beaten even in the short run "because the cards on the end are just incredible" is, in my opinion, incorrect, or at least doesn't conform to my experience.
Of course, you can also keep track of how other players at Paradise perform without actually playing yourself. You might want to see how some of the seemingly better players fare over time (but you won't find many of these below 10-20, and will probably not find any playing and staying at 2-4).
mick,
After talking online with several players at the 5-10 level. Most indicated that it is a question of bankroll. If you don't have it, don't play. If you do, then the swings should even out. I'd be careful of advice on this forum. The Holdem forum has more experienced pro's. For instance, certain players here recommend the following: "Hands that can more easily become monsters, like 76s, K2s and 33, are another matter entirely and can be played way out of position in a very loose/passive game." I'd take their advice with a grain of salt.
Can someone tell me the legal issues with online poker in California?, and is there plans to make it illegal? Thanks.
It has come to my attention that many posts apparently originating from different individuals are coming from the exact same IP address. (I have verified this claim.) If these are, in fact, from the same individual, it is a serious abuse of posting privileges. If it keeps up we may have to consider authenticated posting and/or block posting by some IP addresses.
Chuck
I am guilty of this, and I apoligize, it will not happen again. However, is it OK if someone uses my computer to posts messeges with thier own name?
Obviously we have no way of restricting this (and I am not sure we would want to). Just try to be reasonable in your usage.
Thanks,
Chuck
is this problem specific to the internet forum or is it found in all the formus?
all the posts from the duplicate posters typically serious and poker based or are they more personal and argumentative?
do they ever congratulate themselves?
or even better argue with themselves?
scott
The specific examples called to my attention were on this forum and were arguementative in nature.
I am sure that there have been instances on other forums as well.
Chuck
In the past I posted as Sam from Seattle, Sally Chen and Daniel Patton. I never thought of this as abusing the forum, rather as creative use of the forum. Each personality had a distinctive use. It was interesting to be responded to rudely as Daniel Patton, yet politely as Sally Chen by the same person. Mason Malmuth did not seem to care for Daniel Patton yet seemed to like Sam from Seattle.
My plan to have Sam and Sally become lovers only to have Daniel win Sally away from Sam in a ten-twenty game at the Hideaway poker room in Seattle was going too far, I admit.
its andrew...
lol
good one.
- Andrew
This is something that I posted to rgp. I wanted to post it here as well to get your feedback.
Online collusion is definitely possible and almost certainly occurs on all sites. Posters here often caution that online players should be aware of possible collusion and either quit games in which they suspect collusion or play so as to take advantage of the colluders.
I would like to see a discussion of what possible tactics might be used to collude online, how one might detect them and how one might defend against them or take advantage of them. I realize that this might have the adverse effect of cluing more people in on the ways to cheat but I think that the benefits of increasing player awareness and detection of cheating would outweigh the detriments.
To start the ball rolling, I will make a list of the ways to collude that I can think of. This is not likely to be a good list as I am not a very experienced player and I would love it if knowledgeable players would correct my errors and point out new ways that I might have missed.
OK, so here is what I can come up with, (note that these are from a Hold'em player's perspective. I have no stud experience):
1) Sharing information about hole cards: Several players could just tell each other what their hole cards are and use this information in making borderline decisions. For example, if I'm holding QJo in late position and my compatriots tell me that they have folded 2 queens and a Jack, I may decide to pass rather than play since I know that I have fewer outs to make top pair. In addition I may decide to fold a hand if I know that I am dominated by one of my compatriots. That way if we both lose, we lose less money. We also may avoid losing a buck or 2 due to the drop.
This probably does not give the colluders much of an edge. It will be of most help in marginal situations when a colluder has a call that is about break-even based on the information normally available to them. They may be able to make the right call based on this extra information. This would actually take a lot of expertise and I could see people messing this up enough so that they gain no advantage or actually make mistakes based on this information. For example. if you are colluding with 3 other players at a 10 handed table and you have 9sTs. If one of your compatriots tells you that they have a low spade you might decide that this makes your hand less desirable to play. In fact 1 spade out of 6 known cards makes your hand more desirable to play. This is a simple mistake that not many people would make, but more complex examples are possible, I'm sure.
Note that this type of cheating will almost surely be used when other methods of cheating are used.
How to detect: Nearly impossible. How to combat: Nearly impossible.
2) You have a very good hand and slow play it by letting a compatriot bet it for you then the compatriot drops in a later round and you start betting.
This offers the benefit of slow-playing without the risk of giving free cards.
The problem is, the compatriot who is betting your hand for you is representing your hand. When you raise on the end, you are representing that you can beat the player who has been playing strong all along. Sometimes when I fold on later streets I will mutter to myself. I know that I can beat the bettor, but there's no way that I can beat someone who can call that bet. When I make a rare laydown on the turn or the river it is because a new bettor has been heard from. So I think that this method risks twice as much money (both of you playing in the same pot) for little reward. However if the compatriot has a good draw that they would stay in with anyway then having them bet your hand for you would probably work really well.
How to detect: This would be tough as it will look like an ordinary slow play. Look for people who play draws (or nothing) aggressively and then drop inexplicably.
How to combat: Be wary of people who slow play a lot (you do this anyway right?). Don't give these people a chance to check raise you on the river.
3) You have a very good hand and use a compatriot to trap players for as many bets as possible. You bet and your compatriot raises leaving the option open for you to reraise and so on until the pot is capped.
This happens naturally in poker, especially in loose aggressive games. One player flops a set and another flops the nut flush draw. If they can manage to trap 2 other players look for the pot to be capped on the flop. If one of the compatriots does not have a good draw then again, you are risking twice the money so you have to be sure that you have a very good hand and others are drawing thin or dead.
How to detect: Look for loose aggressive players building big pots. I know that these are the types of games that some people recommend as providing the best EV, but they are also the most dangerous. I don't know how you would distinguish a bunch of maniacs from a bunch of colluders who use this method.
How to combat: Get in there and raise it up when you have good draws or the nuts. Patience would seem to be the key
4) Neither you nor your compatriots have a very good hand but you raise and reraise in hopes of pushing everyone else out of the pot.
This would seem to be the most profitable and also the most dangerous. It is best applied in conjunction with 3 so that you show down the nuts enough times to make others timid enough to fold, otherwise this strategy would backfire once people caught on.
How to detect: On the surface these people would look like maniacs. If they are a little bit smart they won't do it every time but only occasionally. Again look for very big pots and lots of loose aggressive play. I don't know how you would distinguish a bunch of maniacs from a bunch of colluders who use this method.
How to combat: If the colluders are not too bright this one offers the most opportunity to turn the tables on them. Not very bright colluders will slow play the nuts and try to push everyone out when they have nothing. Passive play will combat both of these. Wait until you have a very good hand and let them build the pot for you. Wait until the turn or the river to bet. You may not even be able to bet then. If they are going to cap it on every round then you can make a ton of cash off of them if you are patient. If they are the smart variety and when they pump up the pot they are equally likely to have crap as they are to have the nuts then you are better off finding a new table.
One key to all of this is to be very aware of everything that is going on at the table. Look for people who seem to play together a lot or seem to happily raise and reraise with unreasonable hands. Request to see all hands at showdown (paradise and planet both have a hand history function). Look for anything unusual and take notes.
Good colluders will wait for rare opportunities when they have a big advantage to get all of their money in. They may not pull a move very often. So you will need to track peoples' play over a long period of play to identify the most dangerous cheaters.
That's all that I can think of right now. Please add to the list, expound with examples and correct my mistakes. I think that we will all benefit from a frank discussion of this topic and sharing our knowledge.
I doubt that ordinary players have much ability to spot sophisticated online colluders but have some ability to spot crude ones along the lines you mentioned above. But players should remain hypervigilent because I think the games are subject to being abused by short-sighted cheaters that don't care much about being caught. (I should say that, after playering more than 300 hours online, I've never seen anything that resembles collusion, although I might be particularly thick).
It seems to me that computer surveillance by the house, however, would be difficult for colluders to overcome. I've posted about this before, and I'm no expert, but it seems to me that colluding, if it works, must produce two things: (1) positive results for the colluders, and (2) higher average values in the hands when the colluders play with each other than when they don't.
Hypothesizing a bit, I seems to me that the online casino could generate a report of the hourly results of every player. Another simple report could track how often players play with other particular players (or perhaps "clusters" of other players to capture the possibility of multiple id's).
If it appears that a certain player is both winning and playing with some frequency with one or several other particular players, his results when he plays against "strangers" could be compared to when he plays pots with his potential partner(s). Of course, some players play so poorly that they will end up on the potential "partner" lists of quite a few winning players, but you could weed these players out with little difficulty. I think what you'd end up with is a universe that would include all players whose winnings could be at least partly attributable to the presence of other specific players in the hand. This would include all the colluders that have racked up any kind of successful record. All of this could be done cheaply as a matter of routine surveillance without ever looking at how a specific hand was played.
Approaching the problem form the opposite direction, the online provider could also keep track of all the pots with 3 or more players in which someone played a "junk" hand -- say an unpaired, unsuited hand with a 2, 3 or 4 in it -- and develop some test to whether the junk hand played to the benefit of the winner and the detriment of the losers as well as himself. For example, isolating all the hands where the "junk" hand bet when playing on the ultimate winner's immediate left (herding the victims), or raised when playing on the winner's immediate right (milking the victims). One interesting effect of this approach is that it could spot collusion before the cheaters experience any considerable success.
Of course, if this kind of reporting revealed a potential team or teams of colluders, the house could then look at records of specfic hands to see if one player ever played in a manner that tended to help his partner more than he helped himself. Over time, the house could identify all such hands and even isolate how much money the colluders have made through cheating. (This would be rough, however, as there's no telling exactly how hands would have played out if the colluders had acted differently).
The house could then review the account information provided by the suspected colluders, such as their addresses and social security numbers (which by themselves generate all sorts of information), and see what other patterns develop. Taking it further, they could even "interrogate" them by asking them questions -- even in the middle of a game -- that only colluders would get wrong. (E.g., "we're stopping you from player until you tell us whether you know player X and how often you play here with him").
If convinced, the online provider could simply stop the colluders from playing. It could also freeze accounts and refuse to repatriate ill-gotten gains (acutally, they could probably even use honestly won earnings to compensate victims), coordinate their information with other online cardrooms (which could generate additional evidence of collusion) and even release it to whatever credit card companies, law enforcement groups, tax authorities or even brick-and-mortar casinos that might be interested. One can only guess how this information could surface to haunt someone in the future by appearing in someone's data base of hackers and internet abusers or even in an indictment.
Of course, the pains an operator is willing to take depends on how much they value their image of fighting collusion. My guess is that the number of online players is growing so fast that "market share" isn't that important, but as the industry matures anti-collusion surveillance will become more of a marketing tool. For example, when choosing between 2 perfectly acceptable online cardrooms, many players would prefer the one with the best security pitch. I've noticed that on at least one online website highlights their surveillance efforts in a manner designed to get a leg up on the competition.
no chance...ip routing indicates that data comes frequently from a gateway..or a fiber optic line router. Tracing it means simply in the majority of cases that traffic was routed through one of the major networks. DHCP, used by most online services , gives a different ip everytime. So, what this indicates is that w/o an investigative agency co-operating, internet traffic cannot be determined to be correctly coming from one source. Trojan horse viruses steal usernames and passwords (these have been common on AOL and other major providers.) Don't ever give your handle to a hacker. They can use random pw generators (millions of pw tried until successful hit) to discover a pw and then gamble with your account. Other than this, players that suspiciously bet can just claim bad play. There is plenty of it.
Clearly, the operator is in a much better position to detect cheating than the user. However its not too difficult (for an experienced programmer) to create an application that parses the report files and puts the information in an SQL database, then suitable queries could be made on the database to look for patterns that indicate colluding.. This is something I am working on now. Assuming that both you and the operator has such a database here are some ideas about spotting collusion.
Clearly for collusion, cheaters will have to be playing in the same game. The first act would seem to restrict the search to pairs of players, which play together a lot. (What a lot means will need further thought.)
The first method of cheating will tend to result in players playing in fewer pots with their partners, while the other ones will have the cheaters playing in more pots with their partners. In both cases, I would expect the cheaters to be in fewer showdowns than expected. This would suggest that the next step is to look at the proportion of the time each player reaches each stage in relation to the proportion of the time the player reaches that stage. This is information that is available to everybody. If say player A reaches the flop 100a% of the time, and player B 100b% of the time, this would suggest that A and B should see the flop together 100ab% of the time. I am not sure what the standard deviation is likely to be, however this could be estimated numerically. A big enough deviation from the expected value would need further investigation here.
Of course there might be more innocent reasons for this effect. Player A might be intimidated by Player B and try to keep out of pots that player B is in. Alternatively player A might consider player B to be easy pickings and consistently try and get heads up with him. However, the results should give a manageable collection of pairs of possible colluders.
The last three methods of cheating in Doug's post can be further pinned down by looking at betting patterns, not too difficult to construct suitable queries. Of course once you have confirmed that the pair are using one or more of these methods you probably don't won't to stop them, as their own methods can be used against them.
The first method of cheating is an entirely different thing. Only good players can be expected to use it. In effect, you are using your improved knowledge of the position of the cards to make minor adjustments to you pre flop play and pot odds calculations. Since most players are not able to follow a standard winning pre flop strategy and have only a hazy notion of pot odds, this method of cheating will be beyond them. It is an interesting theoretical question as to what edge knowing an extra two cards gives you (hardly anything? one small bet an hour? …).
Confirming that Doug's first method of cheating is going on probably needs server side cooperation. Although if a ring of players tend to play together and play in consistently less pots with each other than with other players, then you can be fairly certain collusion is taking place. However, the operators should be able to confirm this by looking at the cards actually played. One case of ditching AQ when partner has AK, or both folding 77 when it is clear to call, should be enough to convince, more probably needed to convict. In fact if the operators were suitably sneaky they might arrange for … but no I am sure they have coded it so that that is impossible to do such a naughty thing.
Piers
Would anyone care to post how many hands per hour they are getting in hold-em games on Planet Poker and Paradise poker? Specifically 10-20. Thanx.
I've been looking into this recently and it seems to me that sometime in the near future, there will be a U.S. Federal Ban on Internet Gambling.
I was wondering how this could legally affect the internet cardrooms like Planet and Paradise Poker. The wording of the current Congressional Bill seems to outlaw providing gambling services to U.S. Citizens - but as the cardrooms are outside the country, it doesn't seem like the United States could really do anything...
Is there anybody a little more knowledgeable on this that could enlighten me as to what the ramifications of this are going to be?
Thanks, ~DjTj
I'm not a legal expert, but here is my take...
You are correct that US laws could not be applied to card rooms operated outside the US (ie, Paradise and Planet). With some of the current trial situations going on with regards to Inet gambling, the owners of these operations were US citizens and are being prosecuted for violating state laws (I think is the way it is playing out). So owners in the US would either have to give up ownership or leave the country (which I think has also happened in the current litigation).
From a practicality standpoint, a US law would really be unenforceable with regards to the US populace. Foreign operations will not have to turn over customer records, etc. to US authorities, and short of a major invasion of privacy, US authorities will not be able to check into your finicial history to see if you are gambling online. There really is no technical way to stop you from getting to the sites short of rearchitecting the Internet and putting "I-cops" in place. Even if legislation is passed to bar credit card companies from allowing off-shore gambling operations to charge directly, how will they stop you from using an e-cash type of service. Off shore companies will just require payment that way.
Its nice rhetoric for the law makers, but considering the amount of illecit gambling that goes on in the US already, its just ludicrous to think they can really enforce this on small time, private citizen gamblers.
My two cents... though I would love to hear other opinions.
When internet poker is made illegal in the US, how many people will really want to continue playing online when it's so much safer to drive to a casino than hoping the government will have a tough time convicting them of a felony and possibly tax law violation? Why couldn't law enforcement or the IRS "wire tap" all traffic in and out of an online poker operator so that email for example was read? Every patron would then be identified, which I think would open the door for government access to personal financial records. Something like this could be done without establishing an e-cop force or the EBI.
The government will not go after the operators. They will go after the users. The will do the Watergate thing: follow the money.
How will you answer the following question: who sent you the check from Costa Rica?
I think it is a little far fetched to think that the gov't is going to be able to monitor the massive amounts of mail that flows into and out of this country without spending far more money in enforcement programs than in expected returns for that investment. Even if they did, the use of cyber-banks will largely elminate the paper trail aspects, and now you are getting in constitutional rights to privacy if the gov't begins "opening" you presonal checking and credit accounts. Now that happens frequently in the drug areas, but many now admit that the drug trafficking laws are out of whack, and even then, they still need some "reasonable" reason for going after you.
That's the toughest part of the equation. How do they even know who is gambling online and thus getting the necessary reasons for investigating you. The online casions won't tell them, you won't tell them, and unless they violate your rights, they can't find out. Maybe nosey neighbors will get us!
The Orwellian nature of what is required to enforce this justs makes it all the more ridiculous.
Check out...
The Odds on Prohibiting Web Bets
VIRTUAL CASINO. ILLEGAL?
Internet Gambling:Is it a Problem?
The Wire Act
These are somewhat one sided, I admit. But I think they do clearly illustrate that this is far from an open and shut case of legislating the problem away.
Okay, so there seem to have been a few arrests related to online gambling - but these are limited to US Citizens who ran casinos that allowed the use of the telephone to phone in bets, correct?
So, the operators of Planet Poker or Paradise Poker have not been indicted at all...
I'm wondering if the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 will allow them to be prosecuted as they are US Citizens operating a gambling business - or will they avoid prosecution somehow?
I think they could be prosecuted today if they are US citizens, though I think the question is whether or not it would hold up. The IGPA, I think, would make it clearer that they could be prosecuted. Of course, they need to be on US soil to be prosecuted.
I have read many posts here about a "possibility" of house cheating. Here are some hard facts.
Here is the story of my experience with ParadisePoker.
I started to play with ParadasePoker in December. I won some, I lost some. I consider myself a good player, so after a month I have asked myself a question: is was clear most people there play very badly, so why wasn’t I winning a lot? I started to analyze plays. I found two strange patterns:
1. Everytime I sit down to play after being absent for more than an hour, I get better cards for first several hands than for the rest of the game. I even tried to always call with bad cards for the first 10 hands and I just kept getting great cards on 5,6,7 streets. Could it be a coincident? I repeated this experiment 75 times and was true in 62 cases (82%). My conclusion is that a player is being lured into play.
2. The same few people seem to win much more money than the rest. Are they better players? Could be.
I started to watch them very carefully. I have isolated two players that often called at the river with a small cards, like a pair of 9s and won over another player pair of 8’s. I have also seen three games within 2 weeks with four players at the river, one having an Ace high flush, one a JJJ88 full house, one a QQQTT full house and one 7777 with only one 7 showing. In all three cases, the cards were exactly the same, though the players positions were different. In all three cases the same player won (one of the two I mention above). I would have never noticed the pattern if I wasn’t specifically looking and writing the games down. On last Saturday I finally got one of these two players to play heads up against me. Unless he was a psychic, he simply knew my cards. He folded 2 showing kings at exactly the moment I got a J to my pocket Jacks, he raised me with Ts and 4s when I had 9s and 2s, when I had 3 of the same suit showing, he folded if I had a flush, and stayed if I didn’t. After that I was absolutely convinced that the game was crooked. After the game I wrote a big letter to ParadisePoker, explaining my findings. No response. When I tried to connect on Sunday, the server didn’t get me through. I wrote a question to their support. The reply was weird: they wrote that according to their records another user was connected from my computer and was involved in a staged game with the purpose of moving money from one account to another. They have cut off access from my machine and disabled my password. The computer is at my house and I know for sure that no one can access it without my knowledge. Therefore, I conclude that they simply cut me off under some wild pretense. They have not answered any of my e-mail for the last 3 days. I don’t even know if they intend ever to return money from my account.
If someone doubts my story, you can write me to vn@writeme.com and talk to me personally.
Vadim
I take it that you don't have any of the hand histories so we could include them in the PP study we have started? If you do, please send them to ppstudy@hotmail.com.
Thanks...
MichSt said: "I take it that you don't have any of the hand histories so we could include them in the PP study we have started?"
You don't want him to include only his hand picked unusual hands in your study. These will surely skew your study because they are not random. They were picked by him because they are unusual. Only if he has a random sampling of hands should they be included.
I guess I should have been clearer. Of course, I don't want just the one hand, but a complete history of all his hands if valid data, irregardless of the extreme swings that are included. All sampling data has results from the extremes, but hopefully we will get enough data to make valid predications. As of right now, we have no data submitted beyond myself and Andrew Prock.
PLEASE SUBMIT THOSE HAND HISTORIES!!!!
Unfortunately, I don't. Also, supposing a house is cheating, as my posting shows, wouldn't they be smart enough to exclude certain hands from history?
I wanted to post my message to many sites but I couldn't find them. If anyone knows of another poker forum, please, either let me know or copy my posting there.
Vadim
Interesting...maybe Alger can put the fix in for you. He appears to be in good graces with them. I won't go into what Alger thinks of me. If there is anyone here who can assist you, then it is him.
Deleting hands from the hand history would be the perfect "smoking gun" for cheating. Until people start to collect this type of "evidence" all we have is allegations. I am not discounting your compliants, I am just saying that until there empircal evidence, we can't say one way or the other with any kind of hard basis.
"I have also seen three games within 2 weeks with four players at the river, one having an Ace high flush, one a JJJ88 full house, one a QQQTT full house and one 7777 with only one 7 showing. In all three cases, the cards were exactly the same, though the players positions were different. In all three cases the same player won"
This is a fascinating allegation. Just to make sure, are you are saying that you happened to see the same player win with quad sevens three times in two weeks against the same exact three hands? I've been reading online poker complaints for over a year now and have never seen anything like this. Do you have additional details, such as the names of the other players, the dates and so forth? I'd like to send it to Paradise myself for comment. You also said you were "writing the games down." What were the game numbers for these hands? If you didn't write them down, what were you thinking?
Vadim,
Your stories are interesting. Perhaps they are proof of cheating on paradise poker but let me ask you a few questions to clear up some inconsistencies.
1) Can you give us proof of any of the things that you claim. I don't wish to insult you, but this is the interenet and I don't know you from Adam. If you could post some credible proof of these claims it would help your story a lot.
2) You state "Everytime I sit down to play after being absent for more than an hour, I get better cards for first several hands than for the rest of the game."
How do you measure that the cards are better than for the rest of the game? Do you have the raw data available or is this just your impression?
I should note that playing hold'em I have not seen this effect. Sometimes I get clobbered right off the bat and spend the rest of the evening catching up. Sometimes I don't get playable hands for a long stretch when I first sit down.
3) You write "I have also seen three games within 2 weeks with four players at the river, one having an Ace high flush, one a JJJ88 full house, one a QQQTT full house andone 7777 with only one 7 showing. In all three cases, the cards were exactly the same, though the players positions were different. In all three cases the same player won (one of the two I mention above)."
This seems to indicate that this one player has the ability to arrange which cards will come. I can think of no other explanation for it, assuming that your memory is correct.
However you later write: "On last Saturday I finally got one of these two players to play heads up against me. Unless he was a psychic, he simply knew my cards. He folded 2 showing kings at exactly the moment I got a J to my pocket Jacks, he raised me with Ts and 4s when I had 9s and 2s, when I had 3 of the same suit showing, he folded if I had a flush, and stayed if I didn’t."
This suggests that the player was intercepting your packets and determining your hole cards. This is quite different from the other method of cheating indicated above. Do you think that these players have developed both methods of cheating and use them in different instances? That seems a bit unlikely. If this guy was able to determine what your hole cards were, he was very clumsy about hiding it.
4) Finally, you write that after you reported your findings to Paradise, they shut you out of their site. Do you have any proof of this? Any e-mail from paradise or anything? Could you give us your paradise ID so that we can write them on your behalf asking why you have been shut out and requesting that they reinstate your account unless they can show good cause not to?
Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. They are definitely food for thought.
Since this is the longest reply I will put my answers in here so others can read.
1) Can you give us proof of any of the things that you claim. I don't wish to insult you, but this is the interenet and I don't know you from Adam. If you could post some credible proof of these claims it would help your story a lot. What kind of proof can there possibly be? Perhaps, I should have print out the screen everytime something suspisious comes up but I didn't think of it at the time. Besides, I am sure, there would be people that say that these screendumps were artificially created. When I started my investigation, I mostly wanted to find out if the game was honest or not, not to collect any kind of presentable evidence. I wrote down a winning person name, hand that he had and hands that opponents had, if they showed. Then I analyzed my records. Also, why would I write all that if it was a lie? What can I possibly gain from it? Besides, I am using my real name and real e-mail address. Since yesterday I got 5 e-mails. One person (Randy) says that he plays a lot and never had problems. Four people wrote that they suspected a foul play as well. I replied to all of them asking them to post their messages here.
>>How do you measure that the cards are better than for the rest of the game? Do you have the raw data available or is this just your impression? << Perhaps, I was confusing. What I meant was that cards during first initial hands were better than opponents cards. I measured it by always calling to the river and see how many times I would win. Result - over 80%. I admit I did not do such experiment after I was in a game for more than 10 hands but I don't feel like the luckiest person in the world.
<>
I suggest you repeat my experiment. I also wouldn't call all my hands at the start "playable" but they nearly always improved, often on the river. Also, I only play stud.
>>This seems to indicate that this one player has the ability to arrange which cards will come. I can think of no other explanation for it, assuming that your memory is correct. << Or that the player works for the house and they do it, perhaps, once a day... Would be hard for anyone to notice. My written records are correct.
>>However you later write: "On last Saturday I finally got one of these two players to play heads up against me. Unless he was a psychic, he simply knew my cards. This suggests that the player was intercepting your packets and determining your hole cards. This is quite different from the other method of cheating indicated above. Do you think that these players have developed both methods of cheating and use them in different instances? That seems a bit unlikely. << I agree. The only reasonable explanation is that the house is doing it in both cases.
>> Finally, you write that after you reported your findings to Paradise, they shut you out of their site. Do you have any proof of this? << I could post a copy of my letter to them here, but would that be a proof? I have a copy in my "Sent" folder.
>>Any e-mail from paradise or anything? They ignored this letter. E-mails from Paradise basically said that to their knowledge my computer was used to move money from one account to another. None of these accounts were mine. One was "reddog". They refused to disclose another name. In short, they did not accused my "user name" in anything, they accused "my computer" and they did not provide any proof.
>>Could you give us your paradise ID so that we can write them on your behalf asking why you have been shut out and << They already put a wild story here with the purpose to discredit me. My ids were "anjulis" and "Narod".
>>requesting that they reinstate your account unless they can show good cause not to? << I can always get in and play from another computer by another name but why would I want to play at a site that I know to be crooked?
>>Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. They are definitely food for thought. << I sincerely hope so.
Vadim,
I'd like to echo what Chris and Doug said. If you have the hand history numbers or email, or anything else, then presenting it would make it a lot easier for us to make up our own minds about what's going on.
If anyone is planning on recording "suspicious" events, make sure to get the hand number. Preferably you should get the 100 hand history block that includes that hand number (if you were playing in that hand.)
- Andrew
I have to say, i play on paradise poker, since two weeks after money play started, and i haven't seen anything super fishy like the same hand being dealt the exact same way. I have seen fish getting lucky with quads (only twice), and people who raise with crap and suck out. I still haven't seen a straight flush yet after many hours of play. The game seems fair to me so far. I will let this forum know if i ever change my mind.
Lars
I've played may 1000+ hands at Paradise. I have see several straight flushes one of whick was a Royal which I received. Four of a kinds are plentyful. Saw four the other night with two in a row. More than once I've received the same pocket cards twice in a row. I wonder about card shuffles and card distribution. I wonder about cheating and collusion. I am down a few hundred bucks. Recently I've starting winning some back, but I have had to greatly alter my normal live poker winning strategy.
I hope the results of the survey show Paradise is an honest game. They have the best poker site I've seen. I won't play there much more if soild poker play results in any more losses. I am not going to support internet poker losses with live poker winnings.
"I have see several straight flushes one of whick was a Royal which I received. Four of a kinds are plentyful. Saw four the other night with two in a row."
This is interesting because I've experienced and heard others comment on a seeming plethora of "good hands." The only explanation I can think of, other than "online paranoia," is that the low limit players online play better, on average, than those in a casino, which I think is true, and since there are fewer maniacs (indeed, almost no maniacs) and other truly horrible players online, there are fewer time-consuming hands that involve one junk hand contest against another, so that quality hands, even rare ones, are shown down with much greater frequency. Sort of like the difference you see betweem typical winning hands in $2-4 and $10-20.
I think this is another reason that some players that win in live low limit struggle online. When you remove the hardest of the hardcore fish the games just get tougher. Still, the oneline games are pretty good.
I would like to add two observations, for whatever they are worth. 1) I know several players who have been winning over a period of months 2) The one weekend I played, I saw 4 or 5 quads in stud and hold'em, which is definitely more than I can recollect seeing in a weekend of casino stud and hol'em. Selective memory? Perhaps. Statistically significant? Of course not. Given that pp claims to use an advanced shuffling algorithm, I would be very interested to know if they have cross-checked it empirically with their large database of dealt/played hands. For instance, are quads coming up historically with about the same frequency as would be expected statistically? PP could certainly cross-check the actual historical database for this to see if it is out of line with expectation or not, along with broad similar checks to ensure that their "advanced" shuffling algorithm does indeed produce statistically expected results, and that the hands that have existed have also been distributed in line with statistical expectation. Just because the code may look airtight does not mean for sure that a subtle bug or such may not exist, but if it is found to have produced historical results in line with expectation, I think that would be reassuring, at least as far as it goes.
In case you missed it since it was buried in a discussion thread, myself and Andrew Prock are undertaking a study of hand histories for Paradise Poker in an attempt to see if there is anything strange afoot.
What we need from you: - Hand histories from Paradise Poker that you have reviewed to make sure they are not tampered with - Email these histories to ppstudy@hotmail.com
We already have a tool to extract the relevant data and will be working on one to churn the data once we have more to work with.
Thanks...
It's been noted, but I think it's important to say again:
Paradise hand transcripts should be a random sampling of hands and not individual hands where something specifically is suspected.
Also important to note is that for you who wish to remain anonymous when submitting transcripts can save your hand transcript file as a text file in your email program and use your word processor's find and replace feature to replace your name and online ID with an alias.
We try to stay out of public forums whenever possible, but when our good name is slandered we must come forward and present the facts.
The fact is that the contents of the Vadim posting are untrue. His posting is an attempt to follow though on his threat to slander us if we did not refund his losses after his account was closed. He NEVER wrote us any email stating his "findings", as they never occurred… it is a slanderous fabrication on his behalf.
After we closed his account, he stated to us in his final email:
"And here is the posting that will appear tonight everywhere on Internet. Try to convince anyone that it is not the truth."
The individual posting this message had his accounts closed and his entire available balances cashed out.
The accounts were closed due to serious suspicion of fraudulent activity. Our security department has detailed records of all IP addresses connecting, credit cards involved, and alerts to transferring funds from one account to another. The accounts involved were an extreme risk and therefore closed.
One must ask that if he had intended to investigate the integrity of our site and had intended to challenge us publicly, why on earth would he do it without recording the game numbers? The answer is that his post is a fabrication, plain and simple.
We have over 12,000 clients and quickly growing, and unfortunately there are a few bad apples. We are proud of our security features and their ability to find suspicious activity quickly and remove any undesirable players from the games immediately.
Our mission is to provide our players with the premier poker environment on the Internet. We know that without our players' trust, we can not be successful. We have built a site that has thrived because of our good name in the poker community and we will continue to do everything we can to offer among the most fair and honest games played anywhere in the world.
was Vadim suspected of laundering money?
Thank you for responding to charges i knew they where not true.
Right-O. I guess if PP says there not true, then they must not be.
Bravo, I am tired of hearing this constant bashing of online poker, especially Paradise Poker. I have always had positive experiences playing online poker. Hopefully your response will curb these attacks.
I' ve stated several times that I thought Paradise was legitimate. It's listed below, and in the archives. Vadims argument is weak with what he presented, and it comes to a surprise to me that many people here were so ready to believe them without more evidence. I've had some bad beats there, but I've only truly questioned Planet Poker in this forum. I've been viciously verbally assualted, however, for questioning that the distributions online may suffer from programming faults, or worse, open manipulation. Apparently, many of the same complaints exist on RGP. I've been accused of paranoia when all I've asked for is empirical evidence. The forum has been a mix of those who agree with me, those who oppose me, and those who believe that everyone here is me. I think a database which MichSt has started is a good idea. I've stopped playing online promarily because I don't have a bankroll that can stand larger fluctuations than I experience in live play. Nevertheless, if Paradise Poker believes that this guy was doing something illegal, they should pursue litigation against him. If they do(and let us know about it), it would go a long way to establishing true legitimacy. With that said, I harbor no ill will to anyone here, and hope you all do well in internet gambling. My real name is Ray Springfield. I will only post under that name in the future on 2+2, and the alias rayfish will be retired from my use.
"I harbor no ill will to anyone here"
The feeling here is mutual, Ray, and I sincerely apologize for my sarcasm, particularly to the extent that it has crossed the line into viciousness.
I did not really expect you to admit that you do anything wrong. I expected that you will deny my findingds. However, accusing me of slandering and of some "illegal" activity is too much. My user Ids were "Narod" and "anjulis" I challenge you to produce an evidence of ANY fradulent actions by me and put this evidence here, in this forum, for everyone to see and discuss. I have asked for this several times in my e-mails, I have asked to be put in contact with management, I have asked for your names, all to no avail.
I am surprized that some people will believe anything even when presented with unarguable statistics.
P.S. Considering that you have an easy opportunity to modify history, recording game numbers doesn't seem very important.
Vadim...as i expressed in the email i sent u, you have no hard facts supporting your claims. With out the hand histories, you're claims hold NO water. Why did u have two different user IDs, thats a clear infraction of paradise pokers user agreement. As far as i'm concerned the burden of proof lies with you. You need to present real evidence for anyone to believe you.
>>With out the hand histories, you're claims hold NO water. As far as i'm concerned the burden of proof lies with you. You need to present real evidence for anyone to believe you. << We are not in court. I simply state my findings after a month and a half of collecting statistics. Anyone who chooses not to beleive me can do so. I invite everyone to start collecting their own statistics. As I said several times, I do not consider hands history a clear evidence since it could be tampered with.
>> Why did u have two different user IDs, thats a clear infraction of paradise pokers user agreement.<< It was not. One id was mine, another - my wife's. We played from the same computer, therefore, never at the same time. Since PP accuses not any of these accounts but the computer, both accounts have been disabled.
Vadim's statement about accounts is correct. Narod is my user ID. (his wife)
PP locked both of our accounts (without any notice and explanation at first).
What I definitely can confirm - that no any other accounts were created from our machine and it's very painful for me to be accused in some nonsense.
It's very obvious to me that PP has problems with their security and do not have capability to solve related problems as they arise.
Again, as I stated above, we did play poker on line with our own names and addresses, doing nothing wrong or illegal.
Mila
The good thing about paradise is that anyone can go on there and request a hand history of any game ever played, not just the ones you participated in. If they were changing hand histories after the fact, I am sure a lot of people would have complained about it by now.
Also you can request your own hand history at any time for up to 100 hands. You had 100 hands to sit there and think "oh that was strange, let's look at it again" but not once did you request a hand history for yourself? In fact, if you are claiming that they are changing hand histories, show us one of those.
Out of all of these allegations you can't provide a single game number for us to look at? Also I would like to see the letter of allegations you made that they never responded to, I find that very hard to believe as well. I have written to paradise support a few times and always get an answer back within hours, sometimes minutes.
I was not claiming that they change hand histories. I have no evidence of it. I say that since they have the ability to do it then hand history is not reliable.
I think we can safely draw a few conclusions despite the conflicting version of events.
Most obviously, you’re lying. You claim that while you were watching for evidence of cheating, you saw the same player, three times within two weeks, beat a JJJ88 full house and a QQQTT full house with quad sevens. You assured as that “the cards were exactly the same” on all three occasions, and that you were “specifically looking and writing the games down.” Yet you never wrote down the name of any other player or any hand number even though this information was in plain view the entire time each hand was being played. Then, having witnessed three separate cases of the most blatant deck stacking anyone has ever heard of, you still weren’t convinced the games were crooked until you played heads up with a player that seemed to know what cards would fall, and you still neglected to write down any of the hand numbers. In fact, you haven’t been able to generate a single hand history or user id of any other player in any hand even though you have spent weeks writing down evidence of “cheating” which you refer to, laughably, as “proof” and “unarguable statistics,” including another experiment where you supposedly recorded data for 75 hands. You argue that Paradise Poker can “modify” hand histories, but if they did you could easily have caught them red-handed by enlisting the support of another player/participant/victim (especially one of the guys that lost a full house to quads), and had your version of events readily corroborated. You want us to believe that this simple expedient never occurred to you.
You then claim that you wrote to Paradise with your “findings,” and were inexplicably denied service after they gave you a weird” reply: “they wrote that according to their records another user was connected from my computer and was involved in a staged game with the purpose of moving money from one account to another. . . . .The computer is at my house and I know for sure that no one can access it without my knowledge.” You now belatedly admit that you playing on Paradise with two user ids and two accounts, which makes the Paradise reply concerning “another user” hardly “weird” at all.
Finally, Paradise Poker has accused you of forwarding your allegations to them with a threat of posting them unless they paid you off, meaning that you were willing to withhold from the public your “evidence” of cheating in exchange for cash, and you don’t even deny that.
There comes a point when a story is so utterly tainted and preposterous that one can only conclude that it is a lie. Mister, you blew past that point in spades. I don’t know about anything you’ve done outside this discussion, but certainly appears that you’ve tried, however feebly, to defraud the readers of this forum.
< As I said I do play, using one of the IDs
< As I said, none of us ever did anything illegal, neither with PP, nor with anything else.
How can I not know, Chris that you don't work for PP.
Have you ever been accused in something you did not do? If yes, how does it feel?
Mila
"How can I not know, Chris that you don't work for PP."
You can't, obviously, but the fact of the matter is that I don't have any connection to Paradise Poker or any other internet company.
I appreciate that you might have a disagreement with Paradise over whether your accounts deserved to be closed, but your failure to support any of Vadim's allegations of cheating further suggests that he made them up. In fact, you wrote above that the account closing dispute amounted to "what I can confirm." I'm not suggesting for a second that you were guilty of doing anything wrong, only that Vadim's account of cheating isn't true.
<>
I was not involved in Vadim's researches. I have no interest in any of them (neither those made by Vadim or somebody else). Why would I support or not support Vadim on that? Again, I was neither involved interested to be. But I don't understand what additional judgements you can make based on the fact that I am not supporting Vadim or anybody else.
I myself had a weird experience playing a hand which I asked PP to explain in my e-mail (re:unfair game). I never got a response from PP on that issue.
Again, my real concern is that since no any accounts (but our two) were opend by any of us, something is going on with PP, which I would love to know.
Mila
< I didn't say that. I have the names of all players in these games and I forwarded them to PP. I didn't bothered to write down hand numbers, that's true. Also, I noticed this "coincidence" only after analysis and comparing records - obviously, as I cannot remember all hands for the last 2 weeks.
<<, laughably, as “proof” and “unarguable statistics,” including another experiment where you supposedly recorded data for 75 hands. >> Not 75 hands. 75 games. 75 times I was absent for over an hour, then sat down and recorded results for first 10 hands. That's a lot of statistic.
< You misunderstood. PP knew about two ids on my computer since they were registered under the same last name, same address and same e-mail account. They claimed that another account (namely 'reddog') was operating from my computer. I have asked them many times how can they be sure of that and asked them again today in this forum. Never got a meaningfull response.
< I strongly deny that. It is a crude lie. I did not write anything like that to them. I simply forwarded them an exact copy of my original post here.
< You, and anyone else can come to any conclusion you wish. My story is absolutely logical and truthful. I don't have the hands numbers, that doesn't make it a lie. It is well known in this forum that you are a very strong proponent of the idea that the PP is honest and good so that either you work for them with a task to create a good public image or you are so hard-headed that no amount of proof can make you change your mind.
Note, that PP has not replied to my request to post any proof they have here.
"I have the names of all players in these games"
Again, who are they? For someone who so loudly trumpets his "evidence" and "proof," you sure have an odd knack for withholding it.
"75 times I was absent for over an hour, then sat down and recorded results for first 10 hands. That's a lot of statistic"
But you never once wrote down the only one that could help corroborate your tale. Gimme a break.
"I simply forwarded them an exact copy of my original post here."
What on earth for? Your original post was written after Paradise had supposedly never answered your cheating allegations and stopped communicating with you. If you weren't trying to shake them down, what were you trying to accomplish by giving them a "sneak preview" of an imminent announcement they'd see anyway ?
"It is well known in this forum that you are a very strong proponent of the idea that the PP is honest and good. . . ."
I've never said that or anything like that. I just disagree with those that contend that internet poker is much more risky than live poker or that people playing it are likely to get ripped off. At least so far. I might be wrong, of course, but there are apparently thousands of people playing internet poker daily that believe the same thing.
On the other hand, your tale of being cheated at Paradise Poker is so shoddily constructed, riddled with discrepancies and all-around inept that anyone reading your posts must have the impression that Paradise most likely runs a clean game.
Why shouldn't we believe that you work for them?
<<"I have the names of all players in these games" Again, who are they? For someone who so loudly trumpets his "evidence" and "proof," you sure have an odd knack for withholding it. >> I don't want to name them here to the clear reason: Since I don't have a proof that would stand up in court I would be opening myself to a suit from this people for libel. PP has their names. Besides, it is reasonable to assume that after all these revelations they have changed their user names.
<<"75 times I was absent for over an hour, then sat down and recorded results for first 10 hands. That's a lot of statistic" But you never once wrote down the only one that could help corroborate your tale. Gimme a break. >> The only one what? In over 80% of cases, my hands at the beginning were winning.
<<"I simply forwarded them an exact copy of my original post here." What on earth for? Your original post was written after Paradise had supposedly never answered your cheating allegations and stopped communicating with you. If you weren't trying to shake them down, what were you trying to accomplish by giving them a "sneak preview" of an imminent announcement they'd see anyway >> I wasn't sure that they monitor this forum and wanted them to know that their cheating practices were exposed.
>>"It is well known in this forum that you are a very strong proponent of the idea that the PP is honest and good. . . ." I've never said that or anything like that. << That was the general thought in all you messages. I am not the first one to suspect you in working for PP - just read all the messages. BTW, under what ID do you play? It would be interesting to compare your play with my notes.
>>I might be wrong, of course, but there are apparently thousands of people playing internet poker daily that believe the same thing. << Not thousands, just hundreds. But there are even more people that play other online casinos or allow themselve to be fooled some other ways.
>>On the other hand, your tale of being cheated at Paradise Poker is so shoddily constructed, riddled with discrepancies and all-around inept that anyone reading your posts must have the impression that Paradise most likely runs a clean game. << You did not pointed out to any discrepancies in my post. You simply keep saying that since I don't have hands numbers, I must be lying. Again, you don't have to beleive me and you made your point. Let people decide for themselves.
>>Why shouldn't we believe that you work for them? << At least, you do have a sense of humor.
P.S. There is still no reply with proof here from PP. Isn't it a proof by itself that I am not lying?
"I don't want to name them here to the clear reason: Since I don't have a proof that would stand up in court I would be opening myself to a suit from this people for libel. PP has their names. Besides, it is reasonable to assume that after all these revelations they have changed their user names."
Stand up in court? Vadim, your "proof" can't even crawl out from under the porch. How could identifying the victim of cheating be libelous? Besides, for it to be libel you'd have to be lying. Your concern over being accused of it further suggests that you are. (You have an amazing knack for weakening your own story). And why would victims of cheating want to change their user names? If you were telling the truth it's a lot more reasonable to assume that we'd have a dozen posts from people that remember one or more of the spectacular quad seven hands. Guess we'll just have to wait....
On why you notified Paradise of your allegations beforehand if you weren't trying to extort them: "I wasn't sure that they monitor this forum and wanted them to know that their cheating practices were exposed."
Not credible. You could have just as easily told them after the fact, and then you couldn't be accused of trying to shake them down. The only possible reason for showing Paradise of your accusatory post beforehand was that you wanted something from them.
"There is still no reply with proof here from PP. Isn't it a proof by itself that I am not lying?"
Of course not, especially since you've given us no evidence that your account was closed after you accused them of cheating. The fact that your account was closed for whatever reason is not evidence that cheating exists at Paradise Poker or anywhere else.
< >>Your concern over being accused of it further suggests that you are.<<
All your arguments are like that: you said this and it suggests that... I suggest only what I say, so stop comparing my words to some behaviour model you have in your mind. I am concerned about any possibility of being sued for whatever reason. Aren't you? Isn't everyone in their right mind?
>>And why would victims of cheating want to change their user names?<< Not victims, the cheaters. Obviously, I cannot give you all players in overs 1000 hands I recorded, but I can, for example, give you names of victims in the situations with full houses over quad 7s. Will it convince you or you will make up another reason why PP are great and I am lying? If you say that it will convince you I will write the names on Monday (I am in the office and my records are at home).
>> If you were telling the truth it's a lot more reasonable to assume that we'd have a dozen posts from people that remember one or more of the spectacular quad seven hands. Guess we'll just have to wait.... << Now you are pretending to be stupid. There are at most 40-50 people in this forum, yeat PP boasts of 12,000 players.
>>On why you notified Paradise of your allegations beforehand if you weren't trying to extort them: "I wasn't sure that they monitor this forum and wanted them to know that their cheating practices were exposed."
Not credible. You could have just as easily told them after the fact, and then you couldn't be accused of trying to shake them down. The only possible reason for showing Paradise of your accusatory post beforehand was that you wanted something from them. <<
I didn't show it to them beforehand. I posted it here and send it to some poker magazines, to PlanetPoker, to Mike Caro and to PP at the same time (in the same mail).
>>"There is still no reply with proof here from PP. Isn't it a proof by itself that I am not lying?"
Of course not, especially since you've given us no evidence that your account was closed after you accused them of cheating. The fact that your account was closed for whatever reason is not evidence that cheating exists at Paradise Poker or anywhere else. <<
The fact that PP evades any request for showing any proof of their claims is sufficient proof that they don't have any. What evidence could I possibly give you that I did accuse them of cheating? If I post a copy of my e-mail to them here, you would simply say that I just typed it.
Using your way of thinking("you say this, therefore you are that"), since you defend them so strongly, it seems to be obvious to everyone that you are affiliated with them.
I hope that other people will also enter this discussion that seems to be turning into me fending off your insults instead of discussing PP practices.
I just have to say
Bravo Vadim !!!!!
I don't know if you're telling the truth or not(I tend to think you are), but you sure pushed Alger's hot button.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
The reason Chris is so aggravated is because Vadim's version of addressing Chris' well-founded concerns with Vadim's attempt to discredit PP is to attack Chris personally.
The one thing that neither side here understands is that proving cheating in online poker is near impossible to prove. Vadim is right in that PP could easily change the hand histories, but then he expects us and expects PP to believe the hands he's told us about.
*shrug*
Thanks, but if you saw the same guy get quad sevens against "the same exact" two full houses twice in a row, you'd tell everybody at the table, note the hand number and get a hand history. If the history came up altered (they include, BTW, player comments during the hand), you'd have a bunch of corroborating witnesses. In two hands of stud he could have had 14 corroborating witnesses, but he doesn't have one. This isn't a my-word-against-theirs kind of thing, this is an I-discovered-a-cure-for-cancer-but -the-dog-ate-my-homework kind of thing.
"This isn't a my-word-against-theirs kind of thing, this is an I-discovered-a-cure-for-cancer-but -the-dog-ate-my-homework kind of thing."
lol!
Nicely put.
>> but if you saw the same guy get quad sevens against "the same exact" two full houses twice in a row, you'd tell everybody at the table, note the hand number and get a hand history. <<
I wish that you stop changing my words. I wrote: "3 times within two weeks", not twice in a row.
You also legally ignorant. For it to be decided to be a libel I have to be unable to prove that I am not lying, regardless of where I am telling the truth or not.
I must have slept through that lecture (Cornell Law, '90). Even laymen know this is nonsense.
All your arguments are like that: you said this and it suggests that... I suggest only what I say, so stop comparing my words to some behaviour model you have in your mind.
It's called drawing an inference. The reader gets to do it. It's reasonable and it's fair.
I am concerned about any possibility of being sued for whatever reason. Aren't you?
Nope.
Isn't everyone in their right mind?
Uh, no.
>>And why would victims of cheating want to change their user names?<< Not victims, the cheaters. Obviously, I cannot give you all players in overs 1000 hands I recorded
which no one has asked for
but I can, for example, give you names of victims in the situations with full houses over quad 7s.
Ah, finally, at last. I note that this is what I've asked for all along, never the names of the "cheaters," which makes all your rambling about libel a smokescreen. After all, you have no problem accusing Paradise Poker of cheating. I think I know why this most obvious possibility of coroboration is still not out in the open.
Will it convince you or you will make up another reason why PP are great and I am lying?
Of course not. Why should a list of names offer anything more than the possibility of coroboration? I know a lot of the handles of the Paradise Poker stud players. Obviously, I'm going to ask the ones you give me if they saw the same thing.
If you say that it will convince you I will write the names on Monday
So we can't have any corroborating evidence unless we agree in advance that you're telling the truth? That statement is the best evidence yet of your bad faith. It would never be uttered by someone who thought he was telling the truth.
[snip]
>>On why you notified Paradise of your allegations beforehand ....
I didn't show it to them beforehand.
Okay, you now say you didn't show them this particular post beforehand, you just copied them. You admitted in your original post, however, that you brought your unimpeachable "evidence" to that bad guys first. In response, PP claims you tried to extort them. You say you never asked for a thing. Fine. So what were you asking for, a confession? Again, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST BRING THIS TO PUBLIC ATTENTION IN THE FIRST PLACE? After all, you say you already "knew" they were cheating. If there was a shard of truth to anything you're saying you would have (1) obtained, or at least attempted to obtain, some corroborating evidence and (2) taken your claims directly to the public. You did neither.
[snip the rest]
I think Chris Alger is right. I think Vadim lost. He thought he was cheated and asked for his money back.They said no. The rest is history. I don't think its possible to hack the program to manipulate the cards while the deal is in progress. I think it might be possible to know what the cards are going to be if one knows the programming code. Nevertheless, thats part of the danger of playing online. I don't buy Vadims four 7's scenarrio. As a responsible adult, the fault for losing online rests with the player. If a person can't afford to lose then they shouldn't play.
wow - and I was just looking for some poker skinny. I plated on planet poker at the beginning - have played for free at Paradise - and been outa the net games for 4 months - been busy. But - Vadim sounds much like a friend who can only lose to cheaters - whose blackjack game is subject to dealers who deal seconds even tho he bets $5 to $25. I would guess Vadim is not lying - only wrong with a vengeance. And I am a lawyer - you guys are right not to fear being sued - libel cases are expensive and need 6 or 7 figure rewards to entice mouthpieces to bring em. Vadim - the concensus seems to be - put up your proof. In any legal forum - so far - you lose badly.
>>I think Vadim lost. He thought he was cheated and asked for his money back.They said no. The rest is history.<<
Where did you get that from? Neither me, nor PP have said that. If that was the case, PP would have say it.
>>I don't buy Vadims four 7's scenarrio<< What about other facts that I wrote? Do you "buy" them?
>>It's called drawing an inference. The reader gets to do it. It's reasonable and it's fair. << You drawing an inference to the wrong behavior model. Besides, inference is often wrong.
>>Obviously, I cannot give you all players in overs >>1000 hands I recorded >>which no one has asked for << It was my understanding that it was what you have asked. I have posted three ways of cheating that I spotted. You only seem to dispute once. Using your famous "inference", I infer that you agree with other two.
>>Ah, finally, at last. I note that this is what I've asked for all along, never the names of the "cheaters," which makes all your rambling about libel a smokescreen. After all, you have no problem accusing Paradise Poker of cheating. I think I know why this most obvious possibility of coroboration is still not out in the open. << As I said on Friday, I got my records. In the first occurence: Full House: LK111 Full House: reapa
In the :second Full House: Mr.Chip Full House: 1 more hand
The third: Full House: Loser Full House: Shamrock
I honestly have no idea what other proof I could possibly show.
>> I know a lot of the handles of the Paradise Poker stud players. Obviously, I'm going to ask the ones you give me if they saw the same thing. << Do it. If you can be convinced, may be it will convince you.
>>That statement is the best evidence yet of your bad faith.<< I have very bad faith in possibility of you publicly accepting that I am right. I still have very strong suspicions that you are a mouthpiece for PP, especially since they still didn't post any prof of their allegations despite all my challenges.
>>You admitted in your original post, however, that you brought your unimpeachable "evidence" to that bad guys first. In response, PP claims you tried to extort them. You say you never asked for a thing. << I suggest you re-read their response before posting lies. Not only they never mention that I was asking for any money, they even deny that I wrote to them at all.
>>Again, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST BRING THIS TO PUBLIC ATTENTION IN THE FIRST PLACE?<< I guess, that what you would do. Is it possible for you to accept the fact that not all people think and do exactly as you are? And that is doesn't meant they are liers or criminals.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mila (lnarod@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Vadim (vn@writeme.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: Vadim (vn@writeme.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Vadim (vn@writeme.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 February 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: GoldChip (stayne@gamers.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 February 2000, at 12:06 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 February 2000, at 3:08 a.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Saturday, 26 February 2000, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: Vadim (vn@writeme.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 February 2000, at 2:36 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Saturday, 26 February 2000, at 7:44 a.m.
Posted by: Baddog
Posted on: Sunday, 27 February 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Vadim (vn@writeme.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Vadim (vn@writeme.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 February 2000, at 10:04 a.m.
Okay, enough of this whining about cheating and collusion - I want a serious discussion about the most important issue concerning internet poker - that is the issue of internet gambling prohibition.
Being heavily biased by anti-gambling proponents and the heads of the real-world gambling industry, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 will probably soon be passed into law.
Now, it seems to me that this will outlaw Paradise Poker and Planet Poker and other Internet poker sites - however, the wording of the law centers on the operators of the business, not on the individuals using the cardrooms, so I was wondering if any legally-minded person could say something about whether this bill, if passed into law, would result in the indictment of the owners of Paradise and Planet Poker (Americans, I believe) and in the closing of these services or if there is some loophole that makes them exempt.
Here's some more links that MichSt posted earlier: The Odds on Prohibiting Web Bets VIRTUAL CASINO. ILLEGAL? Internet Gambling:Is it a Problem? The Wire Act
Really, the laws governing internet gambling will affect your bankroll a lot more than some schmuck trying to cheat on Paradise Poker in the long run...
Just fighting to keep my threads at the top,
~DjTj
DjTj I agree that a serious discussion should commence on this issue. When I think about Government attitudes toward gambling my blood pressure always goes way up. For instance there are many states now who offer state lotteries that in reality only amount to a regressive tax on their poor citizens. In many states certain forms of gambling are legal while other forms are not. I don't want to get too worked up over this hypocrisy. My main point is that the current state of affairs regarding gambling legislation is hypocritical, inconsistent and chaotic at best.
Now it seems as if the government wants to regulate activities that originate outside of their jurisdiction. This bill seems to be incredibly complex and I would think has little chance of being passed and if it is couldn't possibly be very effective. This doesn't mean that as citizens we should ignore what is going on. I think about it this way, if the off shore casinos somehow cut the Feds and the state governments in on the action there would be no problem. It all boils down to money and when government can't seize an opportunity to tax yet another income they will try to stop the flow of money.
I doubt that casino owners are american citizens. Most likely, casinos are registered to some offshore company somewhere in the Carribean.
Actually, the statistics show that a majority (~60% I think is the stat I read) of online casinos are owned by American operators or are at least backed in part by US money. Not sure about Parasise or Planet, however.
Tom's point here about the sheer hypocrisy of excluding state lotteries from the proposed internet gambling prohibition is dead on and, IMO, a potential Achilles heal of the Kyl bill. The idea of allowing lottery transactions on the internet to flourish while shutting down small stakes poker games will stike many as an egregious display of governmental arrogance. How did McCain vote on the bill?
(Not to change to subject, but I could personally care less about shutting down the 600 or so internet casinos other than the ones offering real poker because there's a qualitative difference between poker and other casino games, most obviously that poker has the potential for a positive expectation and the others are fixed negative EV games, making them the exclusive the province of suckers.)
Don't 'suckers' have rights too?
Of course, I'm just suggesting they have more of a right to play a fighting chance game like poker instead of a dead end one like roulette. You may scream paternalism all you want, Dan, but the fact remains that casino gambling imposes significant tangible and intangible social costs. The libertarian line that society has some moral obligation to pay those costs on whatever terms the market will offer (such as using the taxes it generates as compensation) is hokum. I'm just arguing for a regulations that respect the qualitative difference between variable expectation and negative expectation activities.
One interesting, potential loophole taht may be in the ICPA99 that I have heard is that is specifically refers to "games of chance". A strong arguement could be made that poker does not fall into this category (similar arguments have been made about blackjack). I'm not sure if this actually in ICPA99 or previous legislation, but it would be interesting to see how it played out.
I have addressed many of these issues ont he other games board. First of all, the owners are almost exclusively Americans or Canadians that just locate their businesses in the Caribbean or Costa Rica. The law is intended to try to get them to have a "guilty conscience" or a fear of the government. They are almost exclusively the targets of this bill. If they continue, they face possible prosecution should they ever return to the US, much like Jay Cohen is facing right now. The players are facing a stupid penalty. If you get caught, the feds could tell ISPs to "bar" you from getting internet service. Does anyone really believe this is constitutional? What if they gambler was just going to get his email, isnt his free speech being limited? My thought is that this bill might pass and get laughed out of court quickly. Kyl and his cronies don't really care if they get the law passed, they just want to make a "statement" to their constituents plus pick up some donations while they are at it.
Another thought I had and I wrote up is a real longshot, but hey its worth consideration. I have suggested that why doesnt a country such as Costa Rica go to the WTO and get any laws prohibiting internet or offshore gambling struck down. The US has had laws for things as simple as tax breaks for foreign corporations struck down because they are an unfair hindrance on international trade. Well restricting people from gambling where its legal could certainly be contested as being a hindrance on international trade. As long as the banking transaction takes place in the foreign country, it will be hard for anyone to argue that these bets are taking place in this country. This is the position of the justice dept and I can't imagine some silly law making them change their minds. At some point these arguments will all just go away. The government cannot make laws telling its citizens they aren't allowed to go to a foreign country to gamble, and offshore gambling is very close to the same situation as the point of the transaction is considered by the government to be the point of sale, so to speak. If you order a product on the phone with a business in another state, you aren't charged tax because the point of sale is where the business is, not where you are. This definition is pretty much held to be true, so if the business and the computer server are in another country, why should the government be allowed to suddenly change their definition? I don't think any court will side with the government as long as care is taken to insure that all activity is conducted in the foreign country, money transactions included.
Great post Bill. It is very scary to me to see how far government tries to extend their power. Logically what you say about the courts seems right but you never know. I agree that a lot of this seems like pandering but here these guys are trying to jam this bill through for a second time.
well, most Latin countries are economically dominated by US business interests. Costa Rica is one of the more stable countries in the region. Still, the tourism industry, and US investments are large. I think your probably right in that these laws probably cannot be enforced, but the USA carries the big stick on the block in the western hemisphere. Noriega is an extreme example of a leader there going astray from US interests.
No, this is not a crybaby story. I observed this hand but was not in the pot. Player A raises UTG. B reraises from the BB, and A caps it.
Flop AT4, 2 spades. B checkraises and 4 bets go in on th flop.
Turn Js...B bets, A calls.
River 8s...B checks, A bets, B calls....
Player B had pocket aces(c,d) Player A had 97o...no spades.
Comments?
Danny S
I will try to save the trouble of posting for the guys who will respond by saying, "this happened to me in live play… you are paranoid or a whiner or both." In fact this situation has happened to me in live play. I recall losing with pocket aces to T8 headup where the action went much the same way as in your example. The only way my opponent could win was to make a running straight and he did. But does the fact I've seen these type of situations occur in live play necessarily make someone who would question the fairness of Paradise Poker paranoid or a whiner? Of course it doesn't.
The stimulus for the Paradise Poker Survey is the frequency of straight flushes, quads, etc. (big hands) and the frequency of the situation you've described (bad beats) that will be found online. Your example illustrates two things I tend to believe about Paradise Poker: 1) the frequency of bad beats exceeds that which will be found in like situations in live play, and 2) the board tends to follow the hands that are in play. There appears to be a greater chance of the hands in play of flopping and turning a hand or draw than randomness would have. This of course makes for bigger pots and bigger rakes for Paradise Poker, but at the cost of more bad beats.
Since I've been watching Paradise Poker (about 2-3 weeks), over 1 million hands have been played. These guys are raking in perhaps $500,000 to a million dollars a week.
They are smart people. They have to know how easy it would be for somebody to track the hands and do a statistical analysis of what's going on.
Why in hell would they risk losing this cash cow for the sake of doing some extremely difficult programming in order to scrape a few more percentage points out of their customers? It just makes no logical sense.
I believe the company has tried as hard as possible to make the games fair, and to make the deals random. I have no doubt about it. It's still an open question as to whether or not they are hack-proof, and how prevalent collusion is.
I think Paradise Poker is manipulating the deal based on what I've observed. I may be wrong. But let me ask you this. If at Paradise Poker every hold em hand dealt ended up with a fullhouse, a flush, and a straight on the river, would you argue they can't be manipulating the deal to generate action because they have no long term financial incentive to do so? It's doubtful you would. If not, why then do you out of hand dismiss any idea that more subtle manipulation may be taking place? If your argument were based on not noticing anything unusual, I would accept it even if I disagreed. Even in this case why wouldn't you be happy that people were taking steps to determine if the deal was fair or not by analyzing hand transcripts? You'd have nothing to lose, but however inconceivable to you, you might have something to gain. Anyhow, I'll address your points one by one.
Since I've been watching Paradise Poker (about 2-3 weeks), over 1 million hands have been played. These guys are raking in perhaps $500,000 to a million dollars a week.
Your numbers are off. Play money hands are counted in the total number of hands and account for as many of 35% to 40% of the total hands dealt. When factoring in the number of real money games where $1 is the maximum rake collected, your speculated numbers are exorbitant.
They are smart people (and therefore they necessarily wouldn't cheat and put business at risk.)
I agree the designers of Paradise Poker are smart people. However, there are endless examples of smart people doing dumb and unethical things. Why would someone as brilliant as Michael Milken engage in illegal investment practices? Was it because legally he could only make $100, $200 or $300 million per year whereas illegally he could make $1 billion? It just doesn't make any sense, but he did it. He ended up going to jail and paying most of his profit back in damages and fines. The examples of smart people behaving unethically and to their ultimate detriment are endless.
They have to know how easy it would be for somebody to track the hands and do a statistical analysis of what's going on.
Exactly how easy is it perform a statistical analysis of Paradise Poker results? A program to parse hand transcript files has to be developed. A program for importing hand data and analyzing results must to be developed. And the person or people involved on the project must have a statistics background in order to draw worthwhile conclusions. For some this may be easy. For most it would be extremely difficult or at least fairly time consuming. Even if an analysis was to be completed indicating results are not random, Paradise Poker could claim the analysis was an anomaly or attack it on other grounds. Not to dissuade MichSt and Andrew Prock, but their survey can be claimed invalid from the start by virtue that anyone, including Paradise Poker, can send them tampered hand transcript files or specific hand transcript files showing what the sender wants to be shown. Paradise Poker has to know the likelihood of anyone putting together a conclusive analysis is minimal.
Why in hell would they risk losing this cash cow for the sake of doing some extremely difficult programming in order to scrape a few more percentage points out of their customers? It just makes no logical sense.
Firstly, you express disbelief that Paradise Poker would risk business in order to make millions of dollars extra per year, which assumes business would be at risk in the first place. Secondly, you assume that developing an algorithm to subtly manipulate the deal would be extremely difficult. To address the second point first, the programming would be relatively difficult, but it would just be another project for the technicians who otherwise assembled Paradise Poker in the first place. Contrast paid professional level programmers developing a complex algorithm with a highly motivated Al Bupp, software engineer-online poker player-statistician, developing a system to statistically analyze limited hand transcript files. Which is more likely? To address the first point, the motive to manipulate the deal is clear--millions of dollars annually. In a scenario where Paradise Poker was widely believed to be manipulating the deal (by way of hand transcript analysis for example) and business turned out to suffer greatly, what would keep them from closing shop and opening under another name? As far as I can tell, the owners of Paradise Poker have kept their identity closely guarded. In any event, greed is often enough motive to cheat even when the reward without cheating is significant and the downside of getting caught is potentially devastating.
I believe the company has tried as hard as possible to make the games fair, and to make the deals random. I have no doubt about it.
You say that you have no doubt whatsoever that Paradise Poker operates a fair game. From what I gather you trust implicitly because you believe that smart people don't cheat when the damage if caught is significant and presumably because Paradise Poker has indicated on their web site that they shuffle the deck several times to eliminate random number generator bias. Personally, I tend to remain vigilant and skeptical when it comes to the activities of an offshore internet gaming company particularly where there's a huge financial incentive to be less than honest.
It's still an open question as to whether or not they are hack-proof, and how prevalent collusion is.
I agree that packet sniffing and collusion will indefinitely remain a risk. However, you see this as the biggest threat whereas I see this as the least potent threat. Fairly run or not, online poker operators should have a deep commitment to ensuring the perceived integrity of the games. Blatant collusion and pervasive packet sniffing would quickly destroy the confidence in a fairly run game.
Well, let me take these one at a time...
First of all, I have observed a few thousand hands over there, and have seen nothing out of the ordinary.
Second, you seem to think that personal observation is more valuable than logical deduction in this case, but you are wrong. When dealing with statistical events, personal observation of short-term results are almost meaningless. And a few thousand hands IS short-term. Notice that there are several people here accusing Paradise Poker of cheating, based on their personal observations, but claiming that the cheating is taking opposite forms! One person says that they cheat by letting you win more when you first sit down, in order to 'hook' you. Another says he can't win a pot period. Which is it? It can't be both.
As for how much money PP has made, I actually accounted for the play money games. 1 million hands at $3 rake per hand would be 3 million dollars. I said $500,000 to 1 million to factor in play games and some games where the rake doesn't reach the max on average.
How easy is it to perform a statistical analysis of their hands? Trivially easy. It would take me perhaps an evening to write a program to parse their log files and store the results in a database. From there, it's easy to run simple analysis to compare things like percentage of boards that flush or pair, and compare it to random results. None of this stuff is tough, and there are probably 20 people on this forum who could do it in their sleep, for yuks.
How much more do you think they can make from this trick, anyway? First of all, in most of the games above $3-6 the rake is capped out on most hands anyway, so they have nothing to gain from increasing the action. In the lower limit games it's not clear that handing out big hands is the way to increase action anyway, since that might cause some raising that forces other players out of the hand. Manipulating a deck to achieve calculated results against human players is NOT a trivial task. Doing it in a way that's not easily detectable is much harder. And it wouldn't gain them much anyway.
It's good to be skeptical about online casinos, but direct your energy in the right areas.
.
Indeed the games are good. The question is can they long term be capitalized on without establishing a new set of odds?
Why are you all so surprised when you get a bad beat online? Don't you realize you are playing with absolute idiots who would never be brave enough to play like that in a cardroom? Online, these people can play with their heads up their wazoos without having to deal with comment or looks from other players. They have complete anonyimity.
Of course you are going to suffer more and worse bad beats when playing against the brain-dead. These people are so ignorant and desperate to win that they will call with anything, even if they are huge underdogs. If you watch them play after they give you a bad beat, you will see them call lots of pots that they don't win.
There wouldn't be much profit in online poker if there weren't fish.
Brett
3 Bet Brett says:
"Why are you all so surprised when you get a bad beat online? Don't you realize you are playing with absolute idiots who would never be brave enough to play like that in a cardroom? Online, these people can play with their heads up their wazoos without having to deal with comment or looks from other players. They have complete anonyimity."
Chris Alger says:
"low limit players online play better, on average, than those in a casino
I think this is another reason that some players that win in live low limit struggle online. When you remove the hardest of the hardcore fish the games just get tougher."
Ok let's see - I lose online because the players are idiots. No, wait, I lose onine because the games are tougher. Or, maybe I'm just a BAAAADDDD player, so I'll lose to idiots and good players alike.
maybe you are 3bett....good analysis
What do you consider to be the best book for strategy/advice on how to play $3/6, $5/10 Hold'em on Paradise Poker? I have most of the books now. What size buyin should I start with? I have no real life casino experience. Been playing IRC for five months and winning at 10/20 and 20/40 as long as I maintain discipline (patience continues to be a problem). This is a great forum. Keep it up. Thanks, Eldon
What's your handle on IRC? I sometimes play there as RR2 and RR3.
The best low limit book is without a doubt Lee Jones, Winning Low Limit Holdem. HPFAP and Ciaffone's Improve Your Poker are an absolute must for tougher games. Anything by 2+2 guys is worth reading. I liked Cooke's collection of his articles, some may disagree, but I wouldn't trade it for anything. I have Brunson's Super System, also worth a look.
Don't expect online poker to be anything like IRC. I regularly win big on IRC, but can't stay ahead at Paradise, and have quit trying.
I recommend home games if you can't get to a casino. Play online at your own risk - if you lose, don't quit poker just because of that.
Anybody here will tell you patience is one of the biggest keys in poker. It's not enough alone, but you won't do well without it.
Good luck, let us know how you do.
My point is the bad players make the games great and very beatable. I've never played the low limit games, so I don't know what happens there.
The 10-20 players on paradise are some of the worst I have ever played against at that limit. They are comparable to those in some of the private games I used to play in in Denver.
As for why you lose, (1) do you win in live games? (2) do you have a good understanding of the concepts in HPFAP and TOP? (3) if you answered yes to the first two, you probably just don't understand how to beat loose games.
One thing you should realize is that although you will receive lots of bad beats, when you do make a good hand that stands up, you will receive a very large payoff.
Brett
It's a question of degree. I think the 10-20 games at Paradise and Planet are pretty good but you'll find your fair share of tough players. I was talking about the truly horrible, play every single hand for any amount of money kinds of fish, and the maniacs. I haven't seen many of these guys online, though it's not uncommon to see very weak players at 5-10. You see very few games where most of the players usually take the flop. If you're breaking even in casino play don't expect to find an easy time of it online.
I've been following the low-limit games at Paradise, and my opinion is that they are a lot tougher than your typical casino low-limit game. Just go there and look at the percentages for callers in each hand - it's rarely more than 50%, and lots of times it's in the 30-40% range. Considering that the blinds make up 20%, that's an average of one or two callers per hand. Since there will sometimes be multiway pots, then to maintain that average there has to be lots of times when the blinds are heads-up. You almost never see the blinds chopping in a $2-4 casino game. I'd guess that the typical low-limit casino game averages more like 60-70% for players in each hand.
From what I've seen these games are also more agressive before the flop. All-in all, that can make them pretty tough to beat with a $3 rake. You'd probably be a lot better off playing the higher limit games, which don't really look any tougher.
I disagree. My experiences are in the 10-20 at paradise. A couple of examples are a player who played about 14 hands in a row, calling raises and even my check-raise to make a runner-runner flush with no other draws. And that was just this evening.
Others are players who 3-bet before the flop with hands like ATo and KQo. These are just desperation plays. How can you say these games are tough?
Brett
I was speaking specifically of the low-limit games. And yes, you get those kinds of players in the low limit games, but in the casino you get more of them. That's just my observation.
I'm not trying to be cute, but where do you play? I've got to go there.
:o)
Brett
As there is hardly any Limit Hold 'em played in English casinos, I can't give a comparison with casino play. I have noticed that the 5/10 games seem to be tighter than the 10/20 games, and all the games feel about just as easy to beat. Although I am doing far worse at 10/20 than the other limits. I don't think the results are statistically significant.
My standard deviation in the 3/6 and 5/10 games is about 6BB per hour while it is about 9BB per hour at 10/20. This is from about 50 hours at each limit. The results are much less, than have been quoted elsewhere. I don’t know whether this is due to me or the games at Paradise. Hmmm… maybe I should be capping the flop more often on my semi-bluffs.
What do you consider to be the best book for strategy/advice on how to play $3/6, $5/10 Hold'em on Paradise Poker? I have most of the books now. What size buyin should I start with? I have no real life casino experience. Been playing IRC for five months and winning at 10/20 and 20/40 as long as I maintain discipline (patience continues to be a problem). This is a great forum. Keep it up. Thanks, Eldon
For what it's worth, I recommend that you stay far, far away from online poker for a couple of reasons. 1) I am far from convinced that these games are honest. While individual experience can and will vary, I found it odd that in the 80+ hours that I played planet poker I only flopped one set, and only completed one flush. In addition, I was dealt pocket A's three times and K's four times. Of course, I know that cold streaks can and do happen. I've been playing poker for a while, and I've suffered through 'similar' streaks before (though by no means have I previously endured anything this prolonged). Still, it seemed funny (and a little too coincidental) that I'd hit a horrible run like this the first time I tried playing online. 2) Playing online will cripple your chances of succeeding in live action. I don't know how much experience you have, but IMO playing online doesn't allow you to develop the 'feel' and intuition that is necessary for one to win at mid limit games. In order to win, and win signicant amounts, at the middle limits one needs to be able to adjust his or her play to the immediate emotional/ psychological state of his opponents. When you can't see who you're playing against it becomes difficult to cultivate this skill.
I think that online poker is very similar to live games. I also think the action at Paradise is a lot better than Planet, which makes the games easier to beat.
As I told another player in a private email, if they're cheating me, I hope they keep it up. I've been killing these games.
Brett
I just want to add that I really have no idea whether or not I was ever cheated on online play. In fact, it is my suspicion that the games are honest. However, since my experience with online poker was so bad (and unusual) I doubt I will ever play it again.
Buy in for about $10,000 and jump right into the 10-20 game. Don't worry about reading books, none of the other players do.
:o)
Seriously, the same books that apply to live poker apply to online poker. True, you can't see the players, but you still get a feel for how they play online. Buy in for $200-$300 and take a shot.
Brett
Eldon, I have been playing Hold'em for about 4 years and online for 2 months, but I have found the online game easy to beat. I would recommend buying in for only $100. play really tight, and respect the raises on the turn and river.
This was posted in RPG:
Can anyone explain how this happen? (assuming he didn't give his password to someone else).
Sme
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ***to all who might have guessed there was something wrong at paradise well ladies and gents im here to tell you there is. last night i played and concluded my experience at 11:30 EST then i logged on tonight at 18:00, i looked and all my 167 was gone my contact with paradise is ongoing, but it seems as though someone managed to get ahold of my account and play for me and although i would hope they would make me money, it seems they cleaned me out. so to all who think things could be amiss by playing poker online there is, extreme problems my advice to one and all is stick to the felt. although the experience was rewarding financially at first, this is sickening best of luck to all just to let you know of the heads up be careful
HAWKIN
thank you for your advice, i did contact paradise and through my isp they did in fact agree with me, and resolved my problem. they are in fact the real deal and eager to satisfy any and all problems that occur within their "walls" once again, id like to publically thank paradise poker for their immediate and satisfactory conclusion to a experience, that easily could have been a disaster
hawkin ***
http://www.remarq.com/read/pkrgmbl/qA1q0Teau6PoC_Fn2#LR
this occured due to the fact that i had a password that was too easy, and that my user name was similar it was by only a shear coincidence that this occured and i have been taken care of by paradise throughout this situation paradise was communicating with me and they are the real deal
If you use a different computer than you normally do, just make sure you click the box on the log-on screen so it will not remenber your password for the next person who may use the computer.
I've read quite a few messages on RGP from players who have lost and suspect that cheating is involved, but not many from winners.
I've been making money for a few months now, not that much since i play low limit, but i am winning steadily. I'm sure there are several players who make money if i'm making some. I'm not doing anything special, just playing very thight and making the fish pay when i have a great hand.
C'mon winners,lets hear from you !
I am up about $400, and have been up as much as $600, with probably about 50 hours of online play. However, I have also been down about $600. These seem like much bigger swings than live poker, but maybe not.
I think some people who are good players buy in for $300, play $5/$10 against obvious fish, and get upset when they lose the whole buy in. These same players may play at a casino weekly and have probably had those kind of losing streaks before. But it seems worse somehow because you lost your whole buyin instead of just having a losing session at a high variance game.
Since the beginning of the year I'm probably up about $700 playing mostly 2/4 and 3/6 HE. I was up over $1k but had a big backslide in 3/6 which caused me to fall back to the 2/4 games.
At 2/4 I'm averaging about 1.3 BB/hr (~100 hrs)
At 3/6 I'm averaging about 0.1 BB/hr (was ~1 BB/hr before the backslide) after (~80 hrs)
Also have been making brief ventures into 2/4 stud averaging 1.8 BB/hr (~20 hrs)
If my total bankroll < 500 I stick to the lowest limits (2/4), and > 500 3/6. I'll move up to 5/10 when my bankroll can support it, and I'm confident I can consistantly beat the limits underneath it.
I only have about 350 hours to my credit, so obviously I'm still working on my game...
I dabbled a little in Internet Poker. I think it has potential but for me right now it wasn't something I wanted to get into. I definetly think the games are beatable. I think that having the games controlled will always arouse suspicion and bring about accusations from some people. I saw some bad beats but I say bad beats in live play to. I will probably be accused of being naive again but I feel that the online sites are motivated to try and keep the games honest. Why manipulate the games when they can make so much money honestly?
I think this pretty well sums it up. Like you, I would be surprised if the games were crooked. However, since my results in the 80 or so hours I played were sooooo abyssmal, I'm still a bit wary, and have sworn off internet poker as a consequence.
I've been playing professionally for 30 years and decided to give Paradise Poker a shot.
I am not paranoid nor am I delusional. But I have to tell you the truth--there were times when I felt my hands were face up to my opponents.
Every time I played in their one on one rooms I lost. Most of my opponents played every single hand except when I had a big pair or flopped a big hand. They always raised when I had 9-2, j-3, 8-4--you get the picture. But of course I could have just been running bad, but I've had these feeling before.
In the ring games strange things happened. I've never seen people play 10-20 they way they play on line. I've played everywhere but this was strange.
Overall I felt the games were bad, the interface was very poor and choppy. All in all just a big mess. I've been playing in real games the last few days and it makes me appreciate them even more. I like to handle the chips and cards and not have to stare at a screen with the resolution set so small it strains your eyes to see anything.
Poker is meant to be played with real people. Playing poker on line is not poker--it is simply cards. I can sit down in a real game and tell instantly who the bad and good players are. I can select my seat, and change seats if I wish. On-line, you can't see anyone or hear what they are saying. Audio and visual clues are enormously helpful.
Playing poker online is so boring and the action is so hard to follow that I find myself wondering how long it can last.
It's also very easy to get caught up in it and just log on and play all the time. You can wear down very quickly without realizing it and then your patience wears kind of thin.
I lost money playing poorly and I lost money because I was outplayed. I also lost money because I was very unlucky. All things that can happen in a real game. But one thing that never did happen was that I never felt I had total control like I do when I am playing against real opponents. Even if I am getting beat I can usually tell if I can make a comeback or not. Whether or not it is even worth trying. Online it's just a guess. Some of the online games were so tough it was frightening!
All in all I feel like a fool losing as much money as I did in such a short period of time. So I quit. I didn't go broke, but I'm giving it up for a long time. I already feel better. It's so easy just to go play on the computer and I think that is a real drawback. Besides I didn't enjoy it. Even when I was winning it wasn't all that much fun.
I also got the feeling that people were communicating by instant messages sometimes. No proof, but it just felt that way. After all it's so easy to do.
I don't recommend playing on line from a professional point of view. I don't like the interface and the choppy way things are handled and I don't like the lack of face to face confrontation that makes poker what it is. Proceed at your own risk.
i made about 1800 when i first started, then went on a huge tilt, where i lost everything the potential to have these swings i feel would never happen in a live game. but still the potential if you keep in mind you are playing with real money is to make a fortune
I think the answers to the original question are quite telling. The original poster asked for winners on line to write in, and we have one winner's response and the rest telling how poor their results are.
I wonder if the others, including Old Pro, see what I have been writing about at various times. That is, I still see an incredible amount of poor hands winning at the end. Playing premium starting cards, and then only when improved by the flop, or 4th or 5th streets, does no good in these games.
I switched to 7 stud, 2-4. Last night I saw flush after flush, usualy by the same two seats. They were comming with runner- runner and runner-runner-runner. My trip As, As&Ks,etc couldn't win.
I know this happens in live games, I know one game tells nothing, but I wouldn't write this if it was one time. It is every time I play on-line.
Any others observing this? Is it just because people play so differently on-line that these things show up more?
mick,
The truth is most people lose when the play poker, online or at live tables. Even if all the games are on the level, this is what one would expect.
- Andrew
"They always raised when I had 9-2, j-3, 8-4--you get the picture."
This is a very odd statement. What the hell difference would raising make?
"They always raised when I had 9-2, j-3, 8-4--you get the picture."
This is a very odd statement. What the hell difference would raising make?
I don't think I understand your question but maybe I can elaborate. When I had the above hands I always got raised and when I had pocket queens, kings or aces they always folded.
I don't know about you but I would prefer not to be raised when I have 8-3 and just see the flop for free or raise it myself if I choose to do so.
Short handed, if your opponent is always raising when you have very weak hands and doing it accurately they are going to have a tremendous edge against you.
I meant that you shouldn't be frustrated at being raised off hands that aren't playable anyway. Now you say you would have preferred a free flop. Okay, so you were in the big blind with them. Still, I'm puzzled about your frustration at not getting a free flop with them. Losing out on the 5% or so of the flops that hit these hands pretty well shouldn't be big deal. I'm more puzzled by your frustration at being deprived of the ability to raise with them. I'm not a pro, but I've never raised with these hands and never intend to.
I am up $300 on Planet Poker. Up 50 cents on Paradise (busted out the other night with 50 cents that I couldn't get into play.)
These results are for 3/6 and 5/10 but mostly 3/6.
I have experienced wild swings on Paradise poker. I have gone from $400 down to $600 ahead and back down again to $.50 but this is partially my own doing. I tend to try to buy in to the loosest games (38% or higher). These kinds of games will have a higher standard deviation (I believe).
On Planet, I don't select the table as carefully. I often just buy in on the first table that opens up.
Most of my losses I attribute to tilt (one big $400 loss where I was trying to push 5/10 players off of pots :-); playing tired or otherwise distracted; and falling in love with top pair best kicker.
Like most of the people here I have had some horrendous bad beats put on me. Most of the time, the person putting the bad beat on me is a steady loser and their money along with mine is redistributed before I even leave the table.
Although the 3-6 and 5-10 games are a bit more conservative than what you'd find in a casino, all the games I've seen are generally beatable. I've also never read or heard anything that suggests they're not.
For example, I've never seen anyone say: "I've been beating [middle/low] limit live games for several thousand hours. I played scores or hundreds of hours online, was game selective, saw people make the same number if not more mistakes than they do in a cardroom, didn't suffer from an exceptionally unlucky streak of cards, and still couldn't win." Having something close to an average run of cards is important because winning players often head south for extended periods. Most of the stories implying that one can't win online, at least the ones I've seen, amount to tales of bad beats and dry spells or describe things that I don't think are the norm, such as unusally wild games. I can't comment on the accounts of people seeing bizarre things over and over, other than to say my experience is completely different. I've also never seen anyone suggest that the games are too tough, although I've seen an occasionaly lineup that wasn't worth the time.
On the other hand, I've heard plenty of accounts of middle limit live game winners also beating online games, and I've seen good players online beat the games (although I haven't been tracking them closely).
My own experience after 300+ hours on Paradise and 75 hours on Planet (admittedly short) is that I've beaten the 5-10 games for about $12 an hour. This isn't enough time and I suspect that my longrun hourly might well be lower unless I improve, perhaps even if I do improve, but I've been slowly improving for the last few years so who knows? I'm also ahead at the smaller games but have spent about 90% of my time at $5-10. I was beating the 10-20 games as well until a recent prolonged bad streak put me in the red. I'm pretty sure I can beat it, though.
I think there are a lot of players that aren't that good that are beating online $3-6 and $5-10 for a few bucks an hour or more. A bunch of others would also if they could get their steaming under control. In other words, just like you see in the cardrooms.
The 2-4 games are your typical loose-passive affairs, the 3-6 games are loose but tougher than what you'll see in a casino, the 5-10 games vary from pretty easy to pretty tough, more often the former than the latter. You rarely see more than 2 or 3 very weak players at the same 5-10 table. The 10-20 games seem the most variable, and range from raise-and-fold rock games to ones with a fair amount of multiway action. Weekend evenings are still the best.
I have seen few if any extremely aggressive games or maniacs, certainly fewer than what I've seen in casinos. This makes sense when you consider the lack of visual attention. (Or maybe plpaying online makes people more cautious.) On the other hand, it seems easier for some players to suddenly go on "e-tilt" online and put a rack or two into play before they realize it.
Anyone who has won an appreciable amount would not be very smart to post it on the internet, unless he/she is prepared for tax scrutiny.
I have an acquaintance who is averaging over 2.5 big bets per hour for a four month period at Paradise 10-20 holdem. He has cashed out over $10,000 and is still playing with a nice bank. Without getting into details, I've also found the 10-20 stud and holdem games to be beatable over a three month period.
Like any poker game, you need a bankroll adequate for the stakes. Mason and David have written about this in their books; the figure of 300 big bets is what I remember as their bankroll recommendation for a winning player. That is probably about right for Paradise - I've had one losing streak that ran through about 150 big bets, but fortunately I had already won well more than that. And, its back running the right direction.
There are a lot of maniacs in the holdem games, and you have to have a strategy that works in loose aggressive situations, but given that it is great action. I normally play 30-60 and above, and would not play 10-20 live. But these games are worth it.
I don't know who you're friend is, but if his e-name is "Mr. Miami" than I can assure you that he'll lose it all before the year is out.
Nope, in fact I've never played with "Mr. Miami", but it sounds like just another maniac, who would be welcome. Maybe he plays at lower limits?
I am looking for someone to let me look over their shoulder while they play Holdem on Paradise Poker. I will consider going anywhere but prefer to stay in Texas. They must prove before hand that they win on Paradise Poker. Price negotable... Can be reached at: JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com
I've been playing on line for about a month or so won a little lost a little. But before I started being a little afraid I called my credit card people and dropped my limit (which they couldn't believe.) Well some way they charged my account $150.00 over my limit. So watch out
Then don't pay it. This is like any other credit card transaction where the vendor charges you more than what you agreed to pay. It's a hassle, but other than your monthly statement, what's there to watch out for? Besides, I thought these outfits all sent email confirmations of every buy-in. Don't they prove how much you authorized?
they do send conformations-but they some how went over my limit and i didnt get it. how can i not pay it, i called credit card company and cancelled it, when i discovered it. what more can i do??
Internet Gambling
February 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo