![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
lol, Mark the K doesn't know to play Holdem! That is sure a contradiction from your earlier posts.
You idiot,
I said the games are tougher! I didn't say I didn't know how to play.
Suck an egg.
Mark the K --
PS sick of the idiots here. David and Mason, kick some of em off, please
Why dont you hire an independent , reputable and knowledgeable firm to audit your operation (like the big six accounting firms do with corporations). They could take a look at your system, how it is working and make an independent assessment as to the trustworthiness of your staff, your program, algorithms, etc. They could make monthly examinations as well as random examinations and maybe always have access to the system to check on it from a separate location at all times.
A company like Deloitte And Touche, Anderson, etc would exhibit a lot of trust from all the players. I would think they could certify that everything with your company is on the up and up for a small percentage of your annual rake.
This may be a wise investment on your part and go a long way toward gaining more customers and gaining the trust of your skeptics and keeping the trust of your current players. Regardless of whether you know you are offering a clean operation, it would definately carry a lot more weight coming from an independent third party.
Just my 2 cents....
Jeff Fairey
What an excellent suggestion,,, I have had the prototypical Paradise experience, heavy winnings to begin at 10-20 omaha, and than the "run from hell". I am getting skeptical and have stopped playing at Paradise for the time being, but I would want to go back. This would certainly be a way to get me back.
First, you can't prove a negative. Thus you can't PROVE that an online poker room is not cheating. You could however disprove specific allegations such as that they are holding out a high card to punish tighter players. A statistical test would do this. Second, the idea that the bigger games should be easier, is irrelevant. Based on the number of players seeing the flop, they apparently are not. I can think of a few possible reasons and one certain reason-the $600 max buy in per week. Third, analogies to struggling casinos or bars that cheated are poor. Paradise Poker is not struggling. Also Parasdise Poker does not win all the money that a customer loses.
There really is only one reason why I am almost positive that Paradise Poker is not cheating. It is simply that it would clearly not be in their bests interests. Yes it could possibly be in their interests to diminish the win rates of the best players but they would have little to gain by doing that and oh so much to lose if it was ever detected. We are talking simple common sense here.
As for collusion that is entirely another matter. However it is inconceivable that it is a widespread problem at this point for one simple reason: I now know of six players who are up a very large amount of money at Paradise. I just recently found out about them. They could not have been doing this well if they were facing sophisticated scams. On the other hand 20-40 and higher brings out the worst in people and no simple algorithm is sufficient to ferret them out if they know what they are doing.
Sklansky wrote,"First, you can't prove a negative..."
This is false. EG One can prove it is not the case that "insert the negation of any provable true statement."
Just because some people have won alot of money doesn't mean there isn't any cheating. And just bc 20/40 brings out the worst in people doesn't mean any cheating would be obvious or blatant. It is possilbe some might be, but not neccesarily.
I think these accusations of cheating should not be dismissed lightly. Indeed some players will lose, and blame it on cheating but this isn't true for all.
I overheard one allegation that some players could see the flop turn and river card before it was dealt out. I don't think you need to be an expert to win in this situation...
ok, i am new to the whole internet poker thing. But what sites do people suggest that have a reasonably good standard of hold-em play. Mostly I am looking at not real money places where I can hone my skills.
My friend, you have some serious problems and I hope you do not have access to Firearms.
I am not an owner or have any financial interest in any On-Line Poker Facility. I am puerly a player who answered a potential Players question honestly.
you acknowledged that you change your name. That's against the rules. Hehehe, everyone has guns in America.
wank wank
You are paranoid my friend. I liked it better when you made fun of other people rather than freaking out over obvious jokes. Get a clue.
The amount of total rubbish posted on this site is truely oustanding. Somedays it becomes totally unreadble and alot of the posts remind me of the garbage you occasional read in the tabloid newspapers e.g. My Mums an alien or I was abducted by one etc.
To any new reader or even worse a possible new Internet Poker Player who may be put off from playing, just Ignore all the conspiracy crap that you read on this site. Basically, at the lower limits you either are a good enough Poker Player to win or you are not. It's that simple and be mindful of possible player collusion at anything above $10, $20 just as you would in a real life ring games.
If a good ring game player moves into Tournaments you have to seriously adapt your playing style or you will get slaughtered and the same goes for a hot shot Tournament player who moves into a ring game they also have to adapt.
There is no difference to Internet Poker, you either adapt or you go down. Some people go down gracefully, as I did in the first few months and others cry like babies blaming the aliens.
.
You should disregard all the Omaha players. That eliminates #1 and #8 and maybe others. (Why? Because no one has been complaining about those games, and because it would be easier to collude in other games for reasons I'd rather not go into.)
The testimonials are a biased sample. For example, one guy really has claimed to have won at baccarat, using baccarat trending mumbo jumbo, at a rate that would be 7 standard deviations from breakeven. So, by your logic, perhaps we should believe that baccarat trending mumbo jumbo works. Well, some loser in the world is going to get that lucky, and maybe it was him. I know it's very tempting to be swayed by such testimonials, but they seriously could be playing with a negative expected value and you could just have heard from the lucky ones. If everyone were playing with a 2% disadvantage, we would expect to see 8 lucky players in the sea of bitching players.
This type of fuzzy thinking is just a pet peeve of mine. Don't be swayed by Sklansky's infommercial logic.
-Abdul
Have you been drinking Abdul? There are so many things wrong with your post I don't know where to begin. Firstly there is no need to avoid Omaha Players because I am trying to show that it is unlikely that Paradise itself is cheating. I have never said that there is no collusion. Second collusion in Omaha is probably stronger than in holdem if it is occurring. Third your comment about seven standard deviations is wrong. If anyone is up that much he certainly has the best of it as I think that it is about a quadrillion to one. Fourth, if everyone was playing with a 2% disadvantage, there would be no way 8 people would be up as much as they are. Fifth, those 8 players are 8 of the top twenty players currently playing (an estimate). Of the other twelve or so we know that one of them, ED Hill is merely even. The others might also be winning. (By the way, I did not include Jim Mogal or M who are also way ahead.)
I am well aware that the sample is biased. I have written often of the dangers in using biased samples. But even biased samples are instructive if the evidence is strong enough.
The fact is that these players are probably facing some uncaught collusion and are overcoming it. No way that can be detected by Paradise without expert help. Again, however, my point is that messing with the cards seems impossible UNLESS such a program only kicks in against big winners.
The worst part of your post is that it implies my "infomercial" showed either my stupidity or my dishonesty. I thought you knew me better thsan that.
I'm not arguing the point about Paradise Poker itself cheating, because I think it's silly.
I understand that Omaha is normally easier to collude in than other poker games, as I've posted before. However, the model of collusion we have here is one guy with two (or twenty) ISP accounts, two (or twenty) Paradise ID's, and two computers, playing two hands each on each of two tables, four hands total. First, that would be very difficult to do with Omaha due to the difficulty of reading 16 cards simultaneously. Second, Omaha moves more slowly than Hold'em, and so Hold'em would likely be more appealing to the self-colluder. Third, there are $15-$30 and $20-$40 Hold'em tables, but Omaha maxes out at $10-$20 (I think.)
You did not say how you became aware of these players in your original post, so don't be condescending. It sounded to me like 8 winning players had contacted you, out of the umpteen thousand Paradise Poker customers. That would be very much like infommercial logic, with a few testimonials supplied instead of scientific evidence. In fact, I still suspect that is basically the case. I doubt you did a scientific survey.
Of the players you contacted, how many did not play Paradise? How many refused to answer whether they did? How did you assure that you did not introduce bias into whom you chose to ask, for example by avoiding asking Ed Hill since you knew his answer would not support your position? Did no one report losses (you didn't mention any)?! How are your 8 testimonials better than the 8 testimonials I hear on the real estate scam infommercial? These are rhetorical questions intended simply point to the potential problems.
Ed Hill's survey sounded more credible: of 5 pros he contacted (I think including himself), 4 were about even or losing, and only one was doing well. It's highly unlikely that your finding of 8 winners out of 8 players is consistent with his finding of 1 winner out of 5 players. Somebody has a biased sample here.
Regarding the SD=7 baccarat case, I may have misremembered the SD's, but it came out to something like a one in one hundred million chance to happen at random. The point is, due to sheer numbers, somebody out there has historically crushed baccarat despite playing a losing system, and we are likely to hear from this individual, especially with the advent of the Internet.
I think you're wrong that these individuals could not have won so much if they were playing with a disadvantage. There are tens of thousands of Paradise Poker customers. Some playing with a negative EV are bound to get lucky. One Paradise player who is reportedly a huge fish also has a large bankroll ($14,000+) that probably was not purchased outright.
I'm picking on your logic, not your conclusions nor your honesty here.
-Abdul
if Dan is 8, if Dan is 8, if Dan is 8,
then the devil is 6, then the devil is 6, then the devil is 6, then the devil is 6,
then God is 7, then God is 7, then God is 7,
this monkey's gone to heaven
(a song by the Pixies)
-Abdul
It's unfortunate that a man who made a legitimate post(Ed Hill) is now ridiculed by the wizard of poker.
Two Plus Two should consider the negative impact this whole business can have on their livlihood. Why isn't Sklansky asking for a legitimate analysis of these companies? It's clear that these aren't legitimate companies. It's clear the ASF software runs biased flops, is hackable, and can be manipulated by programmers. The logical question becomes "why does Sklansky defend an obvious scam?" Money, Thats why. No other "logical explanation".
So what is *your* nickname on ParadisePoker?
- Andrew
.
20/40 game has nothing to do w/the proposition Sklansky put forth. If he was serious he should follow through.
how much did Jeff charge you for the hacking algorithym?
Hi Q,
Jeff asked me for $1k -- one time fee -- for the key to seeing what people were going to do ahead of time, and $1k per day for card peeking whenever he could break into PP. I am still laughing. why you ask?
a. He could never give a shred of proof that he had any idea of the packet data format. He made one small hint about this, but it was completely bogus.
b. If he could do this, why sell it to me? Duh. If I could break in and see cards, I would be very quiet and I would use it, not sell it.
Contact him, maybe he will lower his prices, hehehe
Mark
Mark,
Proof for his ability to see people's action ahead should be trivial. Play half an hour at the table. After it, he should tell you what your in_turn_boxes actions were.
Zbych
No. By giving us hand histories users give us permition to use them. Regardless of that we do not publish hand histories or any portion of them. We only publish statistical information based on them. The closest analogy will be: if you write a book and I publish the information about how many times letter "w" appears in your book I will not be violating your copyrights.
why don't we all just post hand histories to a public place (e.g. www.pokersource.org) and allow people to build share/their own tools/findings for free?
One of your three arguments has merit. The other two do not. The short term window of opportunity argument is plausible. Even that however, would have made sense only at the beginning. The Clinton argument is silly. That is one man who temporarlly did something his mind told him was stupid. A group of people, especially those who are smart enough to program computers, are not likely to be swayed by irrational emotion. The idea that if they were caught they could simply start over is moronic. Paradise has more than half the business. If they shut down because of cheating, how would they ever regain that market share? By saying that they are actually Paradise poker in disguise? The fact that the owners don't identify themselves is, I am guessing, due to the uncertain legal status of the site so I don't think too much relevance should be placed on it.
You say that two of my arguments have no merit. If I explain better, maybe you'll change your mind. I'd like to hear your comments.
The Clinton argument is silly. That is one man who temporarlly did something his mind told him was stupid.
Clinton is a symbol of corruption. He's not merely a symbol of corruption because he showed a complete lack of judgement by having an affair with a young, unstable employee for a period exceeding two years while under investigation for sexual harassment and while cheating on his wife. Instead he's a symbol of corruption because of his willingness to do anything, legal or not, to maximize his "self-benefit." His personal/political philosophy is corrupt even while he is able to sell it. Examples of smart or rational-capable individuals doing illegal/unethical things are commonplace.
A group of people, especially those who are smart enough to program computers, are not likely to be swayed by irrational emotion."
You assume decisions at Paradise come from committee. Most likely the owners of Paradise direct their employees, including programmers, by providing incentives, like money, to get them to do whatever they want them to do. So rule by "rational committee" seems a stretch. Further you assume that for Paradise to cheat is necessarily irrational i.e. the costs of cheating outweigh the benefits. Your assumption that cheating would be detrimental to Paradise, in a dollar cost-benefit analysis, is definitely unproven. . The idea that if they were caught they could simply start over is moronic. Paradise has more than half the business. If they shut down because of cheating, how would they ever regain that market share? By saying that they are actually Paradise poker in disguise?
Probably the chance of getting caught is negligible. They've dealt over 13 million hands without any objective criticism. If caught, however unlikely, yes they could start over. And they could succeed using the same interface technology and promotions leading them to success in the first place. And I'm sure they could do it quicker than they initially did.
Huh? For the record and the curious (is this you again, Ray?) I have no connection at all to Paradise or 2+2. Wish I did.
no, I haven't posted here in over a week.
It's interesting that the controversy continues. I'm not surprised. Anyone that plays poker daily clearly can see that the distributions are skewed. Still, there will always be people that say that the emperor wears clothes.
Sklansky has adopted your argument. My answer to both of you is that organized crime has every interest in taking millions a month off the tables. They also have an interest in transferring credits from international sources to US players affiliated with them in amounts less than $10,000 a week per screen name. Its called laundering money. No regulation exists in Costa Rica at all. Paradise owners obviously have large funds to buy protection. The games will continue even if open cheating is verified. They wouldn't have to close down and re-open either. They can just say thay had no knowledge of it, and that it has stopped.
By the way, If Andrew Prock had not admitted to hacking the system with a program similar to the one used to hack Planet Poker earlier this year, and then challenged me to sue him in Costa Rica, I wouldn't have lost my temper and had some of my contacts start looking at this(of course Andrew later retracted, but who wouldn't). I'm amazed that people that have never done business in Latin America assume that the legal systems resemble the one practiced in the United States. Of course, they also assume that that no one else has political experience in the region. They are mistaken.
Nevertheless, I'm off of online poker again. Fortunately, I have a small win from Paradise Poker.
.
[Reposted from rec.gambling.poker]
With all the talk about players colluding online, I got to wondering how effective such team play would be. I decided to cough out a sim.
In preparing it, I realized that accurately simulating two player collusion under (ahem) "real world conditions" would be a sizable endeavor. So, let me state:
I don't claim that this sim accurately models real world collusion.
I just thought I'd share the results, such as they are, as a point of interest and discussion.
Background/assumptions:
1. I modeled the sim around a 5/10 game, for no other reason than that's primarily what I play. For the record, TTHE sims have pretty much convinced me that at this level even an expert cannot beat the rake, if the game is fair and square. I believe I need to establish a bankroll and go to 10/20 (minimum) to have a chance at sustained +EV, even though short run luck has been good to me at the lower limits.
2. No actual "card play" is modeled. Rather, each hand is randomly assigned a value from 1 to 10,000. The assumption is that at showdown, the highest value is the winner. Thus, the ultimate winning hand is decided at the start of the deal.
3. A variable, call it H, is set to tell the sim what percentage of hands all players will play. Thus, if H is set to 30%, then all players will play the top 30% of their hands, and only the top 30% of their hands.
4. A variable, call it B, is set to the average amount of action ALL playing hands give from preflop through the turn. Thus, if B=30, ALL playing hands give $30 of action regardless of any other factors.
5. On the river, the second best hand, and only the second best hand, pays off $10 to the best hand (one big bet). So, if 5 players have playable hands, all 5 give (in this case) $30 of action to the pot. The second best hands pays off another $10. The best hand drags the pot.
6. Rake is 5% to $3.
7. Blinds and button movement are ignored. Everything is handled through the "Average Action" component.
8. All player are of equal ability.
Pre-collusion:
As a control, I ran the sim with no collusion for 1,000,000 trials.
Setting were B (average pre-river action) = $15, H (percent of hands played) = 20%
Results were as follows (calculated based on an assumed 50 hands per hour):
Player 1: -.68 BB/hr Player 2: -.66 BB/hr Player 3: -.69 BB/hr Player 4: -.63 BB/hr Player 5: -.66 BB/hr Player 6: -.73 BB/hr Player 7: -.75 BB/hr Player 8: -.67 BB/hr Player 9: -.64 BB/hr Player 10: -.74 BB/hr
Total Rake: $1,368,478.00 Average Pot: $41.63 Average Players per pot: 2.00 Number of hands where no one had a playable hand: 107,502
-----
Now, I assume that players 1 and 2 are colluding as follows:
If both players have "non-playable" hands, both fold. If only 1 player has a playable hand, he plays. If and only if BOTH players hold a playable hand, the weaker hand folds preflop.
Parameters for the run were:
B = 15 (remember, this is an average and includes ALL hands including blind vs. blind checked down)
H = 25%
As a reminder, this means all players play the top 25% of all hands dealt to them. All players contribute an average of $15 to the pot. The best 2 hands contribute an additional $10. Winner takes the pot. Rake is 5% to $3.
Player 1: +0.59 BB/hr Player 2: +0.55 BB/hr Player 3: -1.22 BB/hr Player 4: -1.06 BB/hr Player 5: -1.21 BB/hr Player 6: -1.17 BB/hr Player 7: -1.34 BB/hr Player 8: -1.10 BB/hr Player 9: -1.26 BB/hr Player 10: -1.30 BB/hr
Total Rake: $1,704,571.00 Average Pot: $47.79 Average Players per pot: 2.44 Number of hands where no one had a playable hand: 55,811
My conclusions, as far as this sim goes, are as follows:
0. Two players colluding by playing only the best of the two hands can beat the rake even in low limit play, without needing much other skill.
1. The more hands played per player (looseness), the more powerful best-hole-cards collusion is.
2. The more betting (aggressiveness), the more powerful best-hole-cards collusion is.
3. Based on 1 and 2, the so called 'no foldem holdem' wild and crazy California games would be the ideal place to practice collusion.
4. The more short handed a game, the more effective best-hole-cards collusion would be.
5. Therefore, if you are colluding on-line your best return lies in exploiting short handed games.
6. If you're playing on-line and suspect collusion, be especially careful in short handed play.
7. The tighter the play, the less effective is best-hole-card collusion.
Now, an RGP post without controversy is no fun so let me add this:
I did not - and cannot - prove the following statement, but my gut feeling tells me that if I (me, Bob) and another rank amatuer could practice best hole card collusion IN A REAL WORLD GAME, without the further benefits of whipsawing, etc. and without getting caught, we could sit down at a table (online, with benefit of a phone conversation, or open mIRC line, etc.) or real world (with a good system of signaling via chip placement, hand placement, foot tapping, etc.) against the following lineup:
Doyle Abdul Daniel Chip
and we would walk away with the money! The rake would chew up the other 4 players; their world class ability WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT to overcome the edge obtained by best-hole-card collusion in a short handed game! Again, I'm not claiming I've proved this, only that I suspect it is true.
One last thought: I strongly agree that online casinos should employ people who are (a) good and experienced players and (b) strong in the area of statistical analysis. The first place I'd check would be players with winning records who play predominantly short handed games, and look for a pattern of players who play together. Then I'd take a good long look at how quickly they got away from good (but not best) hands.
Food for though, Bob
Bob Dainauski Allentown, PA robertd@fast.net
Interesting Results!!!
1) Could you simulate 2 bad players colluding by setting H = 40 for the colluding players.
2) Could you simulate 2 experts at the table by setting H = 10 for 2 players.
3) Could you simulate 2 experts and 2 bad players colluding by setting H = 40 for the colluding players and H = 10 for the experts.
I can run all of these, but I can tell you the results without running them: Since the players play the best x% of their hands, and THE BEST HAND always holds up, any degree of playing looser is going to cause that player or players to get pounded (even colluders). It's one of the limitations of this simulation.
I.e. there's not much value in having the players play anything but equal - so far as this sim is concerned. If I could adapt TTHE to run this, the results of your requests would have value - in this case, there won't be much we can infer.
Bob
I'm not a world-class player, I'm not a genius, and I don't remember what I scored on the SAT. I am a good player who beats live games up to and including 30-60.
I played at Paradise for a few months, and I beat it. I didn't see anything all that suspicious. I did see lots of horrible players, who made lots of incredible suck-outs. But they usually disappeared after a couple of weeks.
I quit playing because it was too time-consuming, since I also work a regular job (which pays better than 10-20 ever will). But I have been considering playing again since they increased the limits.
I have no doubt that I could still beat these games.
Brett
The eight players (now eleven) all contacted me. I surveyed no one. (In fact I know of nobody other than posters who is losing, though I am sure some are.)While it is true that there might be eight long run winners out of 25,000 players, even if there was mild cheating, who said there were only eight (now eleven)? There are probably a hundred or two. Meanwhile ED Hill is also a biased sample since he posted his results only because they were poor. Winners aren't posting. There is no reason to think any of those people who went out of their way to tell me they are winning are lying to me. To what end? (Frankly I am a bit surprised at how well they are doing because it means there is less collusion amongst expert players than I would have predicted [and still predict at 15-30 or higher if non expert poker players or mere algorithms try to catch them]). Meanwhile I just got an e-mail from someone who Abdul knows well who tells me he is up 15K after 400 hours. That should cinch things, even for Abdul.
Nope. Fuzzy thinking, and I think your 400 hour figure is way off.
Anyway, the issue is not whether Paradise has been beatable in the past - the issue is whether something happened recently to make it tougher to beat (Paradise Poker says yes, fewer fish now) and whether it will continue to be beatable. The economics of self-collusion suggest that even if there is an insignificant level of collusion now, the game won't stay beatable forever.
-Abdul
Dan Hanson agreed with me and that's good enough. As far as collusion is concerned, I never once took a different viewpoint from yours. If five good players formed a team, pooled their money, dispensed dividends proportional to hours played, got into games together somewhat haphazardly, sometimes played completely by themselves, sometimes had two, three, or occasionally four in the same game, altered their play mildly because of cards they knew were folded, altered their play slightly to not knock out a partner or not duplicate values or to add one unsupicious bet or raise, they ought to win at least two bets per hour each. And no algorithm or non expert would ever catch them.
Mr. Sklansky says:
Meanwhile I just got an e-mail from someone who Abdul knows well who tells me he is up 15K after 400 hours. That should cinch things, even for Abdul.
From Ed Hill's post:
I was up $8000 for 500 hours playing $10-$20.
Exactly what is you definition of the long run?
Sorry, meant this for Mr. Sklansky. Should be in bed by now.
Come on Sklansky, If you keep this up, two plus two's reputaton will be destroyed.
No doubt,
Just go to Paradise Poker and start requesting them.
- Andrew
building a database from the text they send you is not a trivial task.
-steve
what is poker analyzer? does it organize hand histories into a spreadsheet or database? I thought it was a resutlts/hourly rate/standard deviation spreadsheet.
B$
I have created an excel spreadsheet that I called "Analyzer" that calculates hourly rates and standard deviations. This is totally unrelated to the Poker Analyzer service being discussed in this thread.
btw, I recently enhanced the spreadsheet, and it can be downloaded from:
http://www.geocities.com/happy_flop/
-Steve
woops
OK, David Sklansky can't really prove there's no cheating at Paradise...but here's what he can do to give people like me comfort in playing there : PLAY THERE HIMSELF AND TELL US HIS EXPERIENCE. Simple as that. DS has enough credibility that if he actually played there for a couple of hundred hours and reported that he felt absolutely comfortable, people like me would believe him. Now, those 200 hours may be a waste of his time, but that really is the only way for me to get on his side. So, DS, please, if you can spare a couple hundred hours...please, play!
Actually I haver messed around a bit and found nothing special one way or the other. You want me to put in 200 hours so I can give a verdict? What's in it for me?Except for the fact that they advertise here I couldn't care less if they cheated. The only reason I ever entered this debate was because I thought I detected flawed arguments from some of these posters. I also found a flaw (as did Mason)in one of Paradise's arguments. My obligation on this website is to point out fuzzy thinking whether the subject is check raising or internet poker. Those who accuse me of doing more are simply nuts.
well, first, do we agree that many hours is required before you can have confidence one way or another? (how many hours, you're probably the best to judge).
THe only thing that is in it for you is that it gives this site a little more credibility because it 'validates' one of your advertisers a little bit more. Financially, its definitely not worth it for you, short run or long run. I guess it was too much to ask and hope for. Which means, I'll continue staying away from Paradise and continue my play on Planet Poker (100+ hours, I see nothing unusual from real life). Thanks.
You could also try Highlands or Poker.com.
nm
Think about this before you buy into all the doomsayers about online poker or gambling of any kind. Senator Kyl has had his pet bill for 3 years now. The media has covered it extensively, the stupid albatross gambling report went out and branded online betteing like it was a form of herpes or something, the opposition to the bill has almost no organized support in this country...other than its users of course...and yet the thing hasn't been passed! Now we have credit card/bank legislation that is so obviously unconstituional being bandied about. All this and there is still no law passed. Doesn't this tell you all something? If this was such a sure slam dunk, this could have been the easiest bill to pass. However it is still not law and now we get a promise from Clinton to veto it. Imagine that, all the Clinton haters in this board and he may become the small player's best friend. Unfortunately he won't be there to protect us anymore...but it just says more and more about this whole issue. Its not the slam dunk everyone thinks it is. It gets caught up in wrangling over how best to write it and who to exempt from it. In the end, nothing happens because the issue really is not something that political hay can be made on for one, and two I think the realization is slowly coming around that it would be an outright travesty to bar only American businesses from this market.
Further have you all heard about this new bill to bar financial transactions being done with casinos? Imagine just how they can figure that one out? If I buy e-cash from any site and it gets sent to a casino, how is the government going to track and stop that? Even more ridiculous is that they will ban ALL financial transactions with any country known to have online gambling. Come on now, maybe Dominica or even Antigua could be stopped, but they are going to shut down any financial transactions with Costa Rica, by far the center of the online and offshore industry? This is not some small island country, but a major tourist attraction for Americans and a thriving outpost of business that attracts non-gambling money. Not to mention home to thousands of Americans who maybe need a family member on occasion to send down money or maybe they need to buy a retirement home there...all this would be illegal under this new law. To top it all off, do you really think the world is going to accept the US telling countries that our money is not allowed to be sent to certain countries because we have to have this witch hunt against gambling even though we are home to the largest gambling industry in the world by far (24 times bigger than any other country)? If you all believe this, please get some help. They can't shut down the sites for long, they can't stop the money going to them and they can't stop the money from being bet. The government can make all kinds of outrageous claims, but their arguments won't hold water for long in the courts here and around the world.
i think the whitehouse has threatened to veto it not because they are trying to protect or help us but because they feel that the latest version of the bill would actually increase gambling due to the numerous exceptions(horse racing, lottery, etc) it has in it.
.
Why does everyone worry about cheating by Paradise? If Paradise really was in it for short term gain, they would do the quite obvious thing...build up a customer base with legitimate games and then take the money and run. Not that I think it will happen, but frankly this whole idea of them cheating with the code just seems patently ridiculous since they would have to cheat and "move" money from some accounts into others. Why not just cut out that move and move it the quickest way possible from your account to theirs?
no, I haven't posted here in over a week.
It's interesting that the controversy continues. I'm not surprised. Anyone that plays poker daily clearly can see that the distributions are skewed. Still, there will always be people that say that the emperor wears clothes.
Sklansky has adopted your argument. My answer to both of you is that organized crime has every interest in taking millions a month off the tables. They also have an interest in transferring credits from international sources to US players affiliated with them in amounts less than $10,000 a week per screen name. Its called laundering money.
No regulation exists in Costa Rica at all. Paradise owners obviously have large funds to buy protection. The games will continue even if open cheating is verified. They wouldn't have to close down and re-open either. They can just say thay had no knowledge of it, and that it has stopped. This is what Planet Poker did when proven hacked. Of course, the supporters here of online poker insisted until proven wrong that anyone that claimed that Planet Poker was hacked was paranoid.
By the way, If Andrew Prock had not admitted to hacking the system at Paradise Poker with a program similar to the one used to hack Planet Poker earlier this year, and then challenged me to sue him in Costa Rica, I wouldn't have lost my temper and had some of my contacts start looking at this(of course Andrew later retracted, but who wouldn't). I'm amazed that people that have never done business in Latin America assume that the legal systems resemble the one practiced in the United States. Of course, they also assume that that no one else has political experience in the region. They are mistaken.
Nevertheless, I'm off of online poker again. Fortunately, I have a small win from Paradise Poker.
Money laundering is about moving cash from illegal activities into the banking system where it can then be invested in legitimate business.
Paradise Poker does not deal in cash, indeed it is unlikely that there is a worse business to use to launder money as every financial transaction is documented and can be verified by anyone with the appropriate hand history.
If money was to be laundered by online gambling it would be far easier to do so through an online Casino where the selected "lucky" gamblers won jackpots on video poker or were "professional" winning blackjack players. Even then I doubt that the effort involved would be worthwhile as the winnings would be taxable in the US.
Not true..bringing cash into the states that is not reported under the federal $10,000 limit(in other words, financial institutions do not need to report the cashing of these checks) would be a perfect way to transfer funds from other activities in the region into US hands.......The records are not available in Costa Rica...All it takes is a friendly banking system(Bank of New York re: Russian funds)...and presto....funds come in undetected by the IRS, or the treasury department.
Why not just send the checks? Why not just send the cash? There is no point in going through the pretence of making a player a winner. Money laundering is not just about moving cash across borders - its about legitimising illegitimate profits.
Thats the point, once the money is here, it is legitimate US currency. Not reported, its not taxable at all. If reported, at worst , the recipient pays tax but the after tax dollars are LEGAL US CURRENCY. DOH
Mistype once.Sorry.
The point is clear that checks for $9,999.00 can be cashed without a transaction report to the government. Certainly a large amount of this activity might go noticed if audited, or if the local banker wasn't friendly. A good wise guy will either report it as income, or have several identities in which he banks. Once the checks are cashed-the currency is legal. Certainly, it is difficult to send cash in that size in a federal express envelope.
This is tough going. As I thought stated earlier - if you want to send $9999 dollar checks to confederates in the US, why go through the elaborate pretence of making them winners in a poker game. Just send the checks. If you wish to set up some sort of an online gambling organisation as a front to do this you would not choose one where all the gambling can be monitored e.g on line poker.
I havbe faith that you have never been involved with organized crime, and I am tired of explaining it to you. Those that understand laundering do not need any more explanation. It is clear.
*
Since David Sklansky's friends want to remain unknown, why can't we get their handles that they use a PP so we can check it out.
Then we still won't know who they are. Is that too difficult?
I would think most winning players on Paradise would not want their handles known--better if they think you are an unknown fish, contrary to what Ed Hill might have done.
If you were winning would you want players you don't know to know in advance that you are a winning player online???
Jim Magdal? has posted his, and I doubt it has hurt him any.
How many paradise players read this forum?
I'm not one of Sklansky's "Super 8", but I have posted in the past that the Paradise games are beatable.
My handle is: "Mr._Fish"
All the 2+2 players who don't post their Handles are Girly Men!
CV
I've mentioned on several occasions previously that my handle is "RickG2" but for the record (and not wanting to be classified as a"Girly Man") i state it here again.
I'm not exactly sure what a "Girly Man" is but it doesn't sound good.
Chris...can a female Paradise Player also be a "Girly Man" ?
Jim Mogal
Well,
I've posted my nick twice, once here, and once on RGP. If you're curious, I'm sure you can find it.
- Andrew (who may or may not be a GirlyMan)
I have played roughly 400 hours online at Paradise. I have read Ed Hill's discussion, and Paradise's response. I have read almost all the commentary.
First off,..I'd like to relate my experience online. I have mainly played Holdem in the 5-10 and 10-20 games.I am currently 250 loser for the aprox 400 hours.
I have been very conservative in my play as there seems to be a mix of very good limit and very Strange players as well. The one thing I can say for sure is that I have been either extremely hot or extremely cold, not much in between.
In the live games that I have played in for years, I have many many sessions where I either win a little or lose a little.I normally play between 3-6 hours in the live games, and about half of that online. In the online games I have had very few sessions where I just wion or lost in the same manner as in a live game. What I'm getting at here is that there seems to be a definate drawout bias in many sessions.
I have read the arguments regarding collusion, and the increased hands etc., but neither of those hold water since many of the 3 outers getting htere are heads up.Although I suppose collusion might be a factor it somehoe seems different. As fars as the increased hands per hour, it just means I'm playing a four and 1/2 hour session in two hours. It just doesn't explain the queer action.
Now, while Paradise has said that the fishthat come in at certain times of the month, make the games better,...well why then are all the solid players complaining of a high amount of underdogs drawing out. The idea that those draw outs might be the high end pros just doesn't cut it. No,...there seems that there is some sort of bias.
Now, since paradise is fairly new , they are busy in their first fiscal year recouping their initial outlay. I believe they are ofcourse profitable, but I do believe that they spent a considerable sum for the software, advertising etc.
What I,m getting at here is that if there is truly some sort of problem, it would be suicide for them to admit it, as they would be an immediate ghost town. It's simply bad business.
So while Paradise might not be directly responsible if there is a problem, with hacking or collusion or whatever, you simply can't expect the truth from them, even if they are telling it.
As far as the idea that there are top pros in these games...........big deal. I would be happy to play 10-20 with Ray Zee, Sklanksy, etc. It's limit for gods sake. pot limit, no limit/ I'm running for the hills.But again, the main problem that has been pointed out time after time is the underdog hands getting there too much. I would also like to point out that I simply see many more pots being contested than in live games. There could be a number of reasons for this, but the strange thing is that players are hitting the flop at what seems a higher percentage. In other words someone is always getting there. In live games it just doesn't happen.
Call me what you want, but I say.. if your going to play in these games, be careful.
Are these the
Some info for those of you who are (considering) exploring the other poker sites.
First the bad news. Players online as I begin writing this:
Highlands Club ....... 9
Poker.com ............ 15
Planet Poker ....... 124
Paradise Poker ... 650
Also be aware that the other sites all use the same basic software, and it doesn't come close to what Paradise is using. In fact, after seeing the clutter of gratuitous graphics, you probably will wonder why Paradise is choosing to "junk up" their highly praised interface with the virtual cocktail crap. I keep doing double takes, seeing the empty snack tables as empty seats.
Some good news. Many of the graphics on the other sites are interchangeable. They are stored as .bmp files, and can easily be altered or cut & pasted from site to site.
The first and easiest change I made was to enlarge the tiny yellow button and make it white. In Paint, open button.bmp, go File-Image-Attributes and change the size to around 18 to 20 pixels, then make a big white circle and save it.
The overly ornate players on Planet can be replaced by the more familiar yellow ovals from Highlands, or simply open the player#.bmp graphic in MSPaint and make whatever changes you prefer. For some reason, Poker.com has chosen to permanently put a player graphic in every seat whether there is someone playing there or not. You have to look at the little red and white chip at each seat position, or look for a name, to see if there is a live player in the spot.
I pasted the chips and card backs (53.bmp) from Highlands into the other sites. Those pretty little graphics on the other card backs and those tiny little chips only seem to me to add to the clutter, making it more difficult to follow the action.
The card faces (1.bmp ... 52.bmp) from Poker.com resemble real cards fairly closely. I can't imagine why the other sites use those horrible nonstandard card faces.
Not the organization but my computer. Since they upgraded I have had a grat deal of difficulty logging on - my screen goes completely black and the PC crashes. Has anyone else had problems?
No, but I have noticed occasional problems when surfing as well. On several occasiona all the players were replaced by black rectangles and I couldn't see my cards. I think this may be some kind of Windows problem/video problem--I don't know.
I have had the same problem...I'd like Paradise to respond to this on this forum ifthey are reading this
If you start getting wierd Card problems you may want to clean out your Temp Files. I was having problems like what you guys are talking about and also was having problems posting here. I cleaned all my Files and made it so that my PC wouldn't store so many. I haven't had any problems since.
I also use scan disk and defragment once every 2 weeks.
Hope that helps.
CV
*
Yes! My modem stopped working too. I can log on now but nothng works and I am set all in in seconds. None of the option screens come up and I just sit there waiting to act. It all started with their new upgrade. Before that everything worked fine.
I wrote to paradise about it ..they are aware of the problem and are working on a fix
on the play tables 3/6 hold'em.
I believe one gets $1000 in chips when you first go into the play games. Don't really know but I assume that one cannot get any more unless the first "buy-in" is lost, if at all.
Now, how in the HE play money tables are really bad players who call, raise, cap with absolute crap cards both pre-flop and post as a habit have bankrolls of *thousands of dollars of play money*?
Are you allowed to "buy" more play money chips?
Is it that as bad as these winners are the rest of the competition is even worse? I'm sure some of them are, but enough bad players who are even worse than these winners to enable them to clean up?
I don't have the computer/programming or poker experience to have an opinion on whether something is going on at PP at the play money tables.
I don't believe I'm paranoid, but these winners are so bad yet they are winning thousands. I don't have the chart handy but I believe many of the "top 100 play money table players" are winning over $50,000. Am I correct, the maximum tables in play money are 3/6, 1/5; PP has been going for about eighteen months?
As I said above, I do not have the poker/computer knowledge/experience to have an opinion. Is it possible that PP is doing stuff on the *play money tables", that some suggest may be happening on the "for real money" tables, after all it is not hurting anyone, it's not *real* money.
Or as Ernie once said, "You know, I guess I'm getting paranoid, it seems like everyone is out to get me."
And all the boys as one voice replied, "No Ernie, you're not paranoid, WE ARE OUT TO GET YOU!"
You get more chips when you bust out. Like you said, these players are really bad, so they bust out A LOT. With no rake, these "bonus" chips just go back into circulation, resulting in 50k bankrolls.
hey this isn't limited to online. A guy busted the table in a 2-5 game in Blackhawk Colo on Friday by winning in succession...2-7o, 2-5o, 10-2s, 10's(not so bad)6-10o..he raised before the flop on all of these hands...his rush included no quality hands other than the 10's. It went on for about an hour before everyone quit. He rushed about $700.00 on his trash, laughing at everybody at the table.
Poker is also a game of luck in the short run so if someone who plays badly busts out, it is reasonable. The very first time I played poker (5-10 hold'em) I had no idea what I was doing. Just callin' and callin', if I saw a pair I thought I was huge, but would you believe it that I walked out of the casino that day up $1200. This is playing 5-10. So if looking at short run bad players may win like crazy because of luck.
Take a look at Paradise Poker's "top 100 play money rating" the top player is winning over 94k and the 100th is just over 20k. The top 14-15 are all over 50k. This is with limits set at 3/6 or 4/8. All this since Sept '99, not quite eleven months! Is this the short run or getting near to the long run?
The play money tables are set up for learning/training of how the game of poker is played and how the program works; the mechanics of raising, calling, folding, etc., and for fun.
I doubt very much that the experienced good/pro players hang out there more than the little time it takes to get acclimated to how the system works. Programmers, the good/pro players are the ones who would spot any "funny" stuff in these games and they are not hanging around enough to spot any of it.
Thus the play money tables would be an ideal place to train for collusion, hacking or any other "funny" stuff to see it it works and modify, improve scams, etc., by players and Paradise itself? I have no evidence of anything, just would like to see some comments other than "anything can happen in the short run".
Well you say Paradise is watching the play money games. Are they? I complained to Paradise about four or five players on a play money table using a foreign language among themselves. I received a "non-answer" which more or less said they don't sweat the play money tables. This despite the notice of "English only" at the tables.
All I'm saying is that the play money tables would be where I would start if I was capable of pulling off a collusion/programming scam. It appears no one is watching the coop that closely, and it would be a good place to take a crack at the hens.
Hi all,
Paradise Poker posted a message a couple or three months ago that data for 5.9m hands was available from their website. 112 meg worth. I didn't see any analysis, so I downloaded it today and played a bit with it using the typical Unix scripts that I know and love so well. Card sure look random to me. And there is some interesting stuff there too.
I have a modest request for Paradise though, since so much of this data is based upon the silly play money games, and I'd like to see real money game data: Could you post the same data on all real money games, from the beginning up through some random point? (I don't want or need all real money games, and that might compromise internal business interests.)
So, for instance, if real money started with game 6000000, perhaps you could post the open cards for hands 6000000 to 10M real games only, or a code for real games vs. play games. Or something like this.
Thanks in advance, and by the way, I believe that the cards are random in what I analysed, and I believe there is nothing in any packets which give away any information.
Mark
I'm new to this forum. Can someone relate to me the facts in detail of the not so recent hacking(s) of Planet Poker. I know nothing about it, only that it occurred. (Facts only please)
read this.
Please review the play of the winner of this hand, I cant see any justification for being in this hand after the flop. Maybe this is a typical maniac play but this person had been winning all night and didnt seem like a maniac. This person managed to pull off some spactacular wins with hands I would have never hung with that long. Thanks for your comments in advance.
RAMJAM : Raise ($10) Sako2 : Call ($10) LU-LU : Call ($8)
*** FLOP *** : [ 3s Ac 5h ] LU-LU : Check RAMJAM : Bet ($5) Sako2 : Raise ($10) LU-LU : Call ($10) RAMJAM : Call ($5)
*** TURN *** : [ 3s Ac 5h ] [ 8h ] LU-LU : Check RAMJAM : Bet ($10) Sako2 : Call ($10) LU-LU : Call ($10)
*** RIVER *** : [ 3s Ac 5h 8h ] [ 8d ] LU-LU : Bet ($10) RAMJAM : Call ($10) Sako2 : Call ($10)
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $132 | Rake: $3 Board: [ 3s Ac 5h 8h 8d ]
Sako2 lost $40 [ Qd Ah ] (two pair, aces and eights)
LU-LU bet $40, collected $132, net +$92 (showed hand) [ 8c Qc ] (three of a kind, eights)
RAMJAM lost $40 [ Ks Ad ] (two pair, aces and eights)
I believe that LuLu loses money. Watch Lulu over time, you will find a money loser.
oh....how much....do you have stats for every suspicious player? This is a typical type of hand that would use a cheating program.
A cheating program?
In a case like this, usually the most obvious answer is the correct one. Some players don't actually know that a back door flush draw isn't a good hand.
A cheating program is the most obvious answer.
If LuLu were going to be this obvious when cheating why wouldn't she cap the flop and turn betting?
at least to 5/10. I haven't seen this person before. And in a couple weeks we will probably never see LU LU again. I played with RamJam last night and that person is also a bad player who probably won't last.
Actually, the 5/10 games last night were pretty darn good.
CV
Yeah, the games were great yesterday. In fact they have been good for me for a couple weeks running. I have lost my stake at Planet and now am playing only at Paradise. The games at Planet have gotten much tougher and you get spoiled after the speed at Paradise. I really like Planet, I wish they would catch up.
By the way, Lulu didnt get me and I did'nt think this person was cheating. I just thought it was a great example of a hand were people could begin to draw that type of conclusion. Its the first hand I've analyzed where the person had absolutely no reason to be there. I think I need to follow him/her around. LOL
I played at Paradise Saturday/Sunday for about 450 hands. I lost all big hands high pairs AK etc. The hands I won were 89s twice and QTs all in late position. I three bet all these hands because I thought that the middle position raiser was raising with weak cards. As it turned out I beat AKs by hitting an 8 on the river, hit a flush and a straight to beat a set of jacks twice. I only made these plays 3 times and won three times.
I was incredibly lucky on the day - but the play must have looked just too lucky to anyone observing who suspected hacking.
Poker players often make mistakes and get lucky. However there is usually a tactical reason (sound or otherwise)why they made the mistake. The player in your example presumably didn't believe anyone had an Ace and thought that she would be ahead if she hit a Q or 8 and if she hits a flush draw she'll see the river.
Good post. Many times when I get Runner Runnered it is because the other player doesn't believe that I have the cards I'm representing on the Flop, they turn a good draw and blow me out of the water on the River when they complete it. At first I'm usually a little confused but after seeing their cards and the way the hand was played I usually have to commend them on their Suck out.
CV
Good point, I was thinking about this point the other day when i backed into wins unexpectedly because I made an incorrect read and sucked out.
By the way, if you notice in the hand in question that the player with the Q8c called two bets cold on the flop when the second player raised the original bettor. Maybe, Im giving up too much here, but I have a hard time calling two bets with this hand (not to mention not playing it in the first place!), even if I dont believe the original bettor, I almost certainly beleive the raiser. Please tell me Im not off base here!
Then they try to justify the call, or they say things that the guy with the big pairs "overplayed" his hand. Of course the same trite excuses of mis-clicking are used to claim that cheaters do not collude. "OH, I simply hit the wrong button, and then I had pot odds to continue...." yeah right...What's becoming clear is that many people who post here have cheated. Great guys.
If you are reading this NOW and play hi lo stud..get on the listfor this game. I'm playing in it as i type and there are two totally clueless players at the table and several weak ones.
Paradise Poker..Table NAMUR
x
x
x
I quit at 6;30 AM EDT after giving back 200 of my win and after the main fish had left the game. I won $931.
I wonder if any of the 6 people on the waiting list were alerted by my post?
Knowing that most people that read this forum are either attempting to improve their game, or already have a pretty strong game, why would you want any of these guys in the game with you? I know that if it were me, I wouldn't let any strong players know about the game until after I quit. Call me greedy/selfish, but I believe the less competition, the better. Just curious.
Liquid Swords
In a game such as the one I was in it doesn't hurt to have three or four solid players in the game.
The two totally clueless players garantee that each pot will have three or four way action.
Have you considered that the new cocktail service on Paradise Poker can be used as a signal ...;-)
Suspecting that these sites participate in organized criminal activity is not all paranoid, and is a logical conclusion considering that they do not identify themselves, and the software has been empirically shown to be weak.
The blatant marketing of these sites by two plus two and confederates(Mr.Mogal), not only shows complete fuzzy thinking and illogic, but borders on unethical considering the financial inducement to do so by the online group. They do not deserve to be called a company until proven otherwise. New players to poker probably should pass. Mr.Mogal's posts about how good the games are reminds me of 42nd St in New York. The hustlers hollar to attract attention. A confederate claims to win to induce others to play. Poker should not be played at all when the gurus encourage players to participate in activities that have as much credibility as 3 card monty, or the shell game.
I hardly know how to respond to this but let me try.
First, a "confederate" (Would that it were) I'd love to have a piece of the action at Paradise Poker...unfortunately I don't...I'm just a poker player living in St Lucia with a lot of time on my hands and nowhere else to play but on the internet.
The writer says that "new players to poker should probably pass" I agree wholeheartedly. A fast moving 8/16 game at Paradise is no place for a newcomer.
Last night (actually early this morning) when I was posting about my results in the game it was part just having fun (lots of caffine and adrenalyn was flowing through me at the moment)...but also my comments were directed to friends who do read this notice board at all hours and are accomplished players.
The audience at twoplustwo is hardly comparable to the neophytes on 42nd street. It is mostly made up of good players who understand a lot about poker and love playing the game.
If I came off sounding like a shill for Paradise Poker I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
The use of the word confederate referred to your support on this forum in relation to Sklanksy remarks to online poker,..not to your presumably non existant relationship with Paradise Poker...I apologize if it came off the wrong way.
A fine example of fuzzy thinking is the above post.
Don't tell me M that you believe that empirical fallacies found by the rst corp are just a conspiracy of paranoid losers. That's pathological thinking. Are people here such as yourself pathological? they publish their name, address, phone number, results, and reccomendations. Your online sites certainly don't do that.
I never said that or anything like it
n/t.
*
You can't change your drink when you have cards...
besides, why would you want to use signals that others can see?
Danny
You know, the whole thing in Paradise is very strange indeed. What you just described is exactly what I looked at. Some people say that I don't play as good as I think I do, oh well. Others say, that I was wrong for using my real name, and that is the price I should pay for being famous. Paradise claims, that the competition is very though, I have seen others post the same thing. Oh Please! It was the softest game I have played in in years. Players calling UTG raises with 68 offsuit or A6, gee if that is what ya'll consider tough competition, I would love to see what you consider weak.
As for me not understanding how to play in games like these, all I have to say is, I clobbered LA after making all the necessary adjustments. It did take me awhile to get the hang as to how to play in games like this, but once I did, there was no looking back.
Paradise is the only thing I have ever seen that didn't resemble a poker game, and I don't know why! I do know one thing, I have never and I mean never in 25 years seen the worst hand beat the best hand at the frequency that it occurred in Paradise. The same held true when I had the worst hand. All 5 of my friends that I mentioned in the previous post felt the same.
Now for David Sklansky, he knows 8 good players that are all winning. I know for a fact, that there is no way in Hell that David would possibly make up something like this, he is completely honest! This really creates a dilemma in my mind. Five really good players and myself all had very sub par results for 3000 hours. David knows 8 people that are all doing well. I would like to know exactly how well these players are doing? I would also like to know how big their sample size is? If David had asked me after 500 hours, I would have said that I was doing well ($16 per hour, $10-$20). The dilemma, neither Sklansky or I would ever lie when it comes to something like this. Yet, one of us is wrong.
Sklansky has had the biggest impact on poker than any person that has ever lived and belongs in the Hall of Fame. I have done nothing but beat poker for 25 years. Therefore, we are both credible. I honestly don't know. I do know, that I have never run that bad before in my life, not even playing 10 times higher than I did at Paradise, and might I add, against a lot tougher competition.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. Paradise should hire a few expert players to go over the winning players play to assertion if it is possible they are cheating, until they do, I for one, am going to be very leery of them. Planet hired Roy Cooke to do exactly that and I think this is a very wise business decision.
BTW, if they made the money right I would do it myself! How's that!
Ed Hill
I had posted my post on RGP and David asked me to re-post it and his respone in this forum.
There is a logical way out of your dilemma.
I believe that it would be insane for Paradise to knowlingly cheat. And the fact that 12 players I know are doing well would tend to confirm that they are not. However if there is someone out there who found a way to know what cards are coming, or something along these lines, then the victims would only be those who played against him. He would not necessarily be caught by his results since he could dump off his profits to confederates who played totally normally.
However what I just postulated may be impossible for technical reasons. I simply don't know about this stuff. On the other hand if it is possible, it would certainly explain how a normally tight player could suddenly play Q2 and flop two pair.
To reiterate my position: I am 95% sure that Paradise Poker is honest, even after taking into account posts by Ed Hill etc. (without those posts it would have been 99%). But that opinion is based purely on common sense and probability theory, given I know 12 winners. Except for the fact that they advertise on 2+2, I couldn't care less if they were honest or not. My posts concerning this subject were only made because I detected fuzzy thinking in the arguments. No other reason. Furthermore even if they are honest, that does not mean that the games were honest. Besides them being hacked (again that might be impossible), collusion by a team of 5 or more expert players who switch off as to which two or three play in the same game would be undetectable to all but top notch inspectors if they did it right. Though this does not appear the source of Ed's problems it could be. For instance, suppose I decide to play 64 offsuit because my partner has two aces. My straight beats your set and you can't believe I played this hand. You get the picture. Mild collusion might cost good players 3/4 of a bet per hour. Given that, many good players would be breaking even but plenty would still be winning. This is another possible way to reconcile Ed's dilemma.
PS Ed, could you repost your comments and mine on our internet forum? Thanks
re reprinted from rgp by Ed Hill and are contained in the post with his byline dated July 5:53 AM.
Ed, I ran into three people last night who are colluding in these games. They came to me for software help, wanting to know if there is a way to change credit cards because the credit card they have on file for one of their computers is for a 'team member' that is no longer playing with them. They play limits up to 10-20, using MSN Instant Messenger to pass information about their hands back and forth.
I gave them the collusion lecture and didn't assist with the other stuff, and they would not give me their nicknames so I have no idea who they are online.
But if I can run into three guys doing this in a small cardroom in Canada, I have to assume that it's rampant at limits of 5-10 and above.
This would also explain some of the strange hands you are seeing. The correct play can change drastically when you know what your partner has.
Dan,
In light of this can you extrapolate as to whether Sklansky's Questions I,II,III,and IV on collusion are helping these guys or making more people aware of these guys?
Dan,
Hi, this is David, I have only posted once or twice before.
I have been watching 10-20 and now 20-40 for a few months an hour or two a week, it is fun to see good players.
Notice how the waiting lists of 15 or 20 are now much lower, and the players who you see at 20-40 are becoming pretty much 60% the same people, as those people win all the $$$. I know who two of these people are, and they are world-class, well known, (famous?) winners. They are so good to watch.
However, I saw something this morning from a player who did not play well I thought, although this might have been a name I didn't see before so I thought he was a loser, contributing to the regulars: He held something like (please don't scream if you remember better than I do): 63o, not in any blind, I think, and the flop came TA2 all offsuit, lottsa raising, etc. (this is 20-40 afterall). The turn was a 4, the river was a 5. There were 3 players in the pot. He won a $350 to $500 pot.
Was it collusion? Or was it knowing the card coming?
Both other players said "Huh?" Then one of them, a general big winner, who beats two 15-30 to 20-40's at a time, he left. Right away!
Was he a colluder? Or did he think he was taken?
Hm?
It was so strange. If I were Paradise, I would be watching. Ed Hill offered to watch for them. I have no time, and I'm no Ed Hill, but I hope they were watching this little piece of action...
...and my brother, he posts here, he has beaten the O8 games, but has gotten beaten at HE exactly like Ed describes. I have watched him play live, he is good, I wonder now about collusion too.
David
Dan, Please report these three people to Paradise immediately. Give them any information you have about them so they can bar them from playing.
Thank you.
Somebody posted on RGP, that if I thought it was important to have good players police the site, why didn't I do it myself? The thought hadn't really crossed my mind, but I reasoned it would be good for poker, it would a lot of peoples minds at ease, and if the money was right, why not? It might be interesting.
Now Gary Carson responds, that my posts are losing credibility because it appears that I am bantering Paradise to give me a job. Gary doesn't know me, that line of reasoning never crossed my mind.
But now, I am not willing to except any position due to the fact that I don't want to lose credibility. That line of reasoning was beyond me. Somebody says, "If it is such a good idea, why don't you do?" I say, "OK, if the money is right." And now, others are telling me that I am bantering Paradise to get a job. So it appears I can't win here, just like Paradise.
I know one thing, and I stand firm on this point. Until they hire expert players, like Planet did with Roy Cooke, to police their site. I will never play there again. The chop is huge, they could easily absorb the expense. If collusion is the problem, and the house is not doing all it can to put a stop to it, then in my opinion, it is their fault!
I ain't looking for a job, I said I would do it if the price was right, but I would much rather be a player than an employee, as long as the game is honest. Planet looks like they have done all the can be expected to do to ensure the honesty of their games, I would like to see Paradise do the same. It just isn't going to be me doing it, I don't feel like taking any more shit over this!
They may well hire a good player to police the site, but that's not going to do any good. I defy any single person to be able to process the amount of data that's going to be coming through and sift anything meaningful from it. They're playing something like 2000 hands an hour over there. If you limit yourself just to the biggest game, that doesn't satisfy the vast majority of Paradise's customers, who play low limits.
Once you have the information it's going to be hard to act on anyway, because it's hard to be certain about things like this. And if you manage to kick someone off, it'll only stop him for a day or so until he gets some friend to sign back up for him.
I always thought collusion was the main risk for online poker. I'm satisfied that Paradise's game is clean. I'm also positive that there is a significant amount of collusion going on in many of the games.
I would like to add to this as well. I live in the Toronto area and play hold em at 5-10 to 40-80 in privately run games. In these games there was a group on Philipino males who were colluding and were eventually shown the error of their ways. However, I know that they have begun to play at paradise. I know they are cheaters and colluders and they are fair/good players. There is a group of at least six of them, but i simply do not know their names or anyway they can be identified. If i did i would advise this site and of course Paradise immediately. They will live in the Toronto or sorrounding area and have a large family pool to shuffle about addresses and credit cards. I am sorry but this is all i know to tell you all. I too have played at Paradise and am certain there is collusion; absolutely certain in my own mind.(This was prior to realizing this Philipino group was there.) As such I just can't play there anymore. It is a bad card game for this reason. Just like in a real game...if the game isn't good, leave. I was spending all of my time trying to figure out who was the cheaters. Not worth it, not fun. I mean why play poker if it isnt fun? Profit or not? So everybody here, watch out for collusion if you are an honest single player like me. But perhaps this is just a new style of poker for the colluders...whoever has the better network of cheaters wins? Well, you just have to accept the fact that Paradise is not a safe place to play for honest players. I realize this is not a scientific post and is merely "unfounded anecdote". Thats fine, play there if u wish. Lots of people play in bad real games too. Any way take care all, i am not interested in one of these childish thread wars so don't start one please.
Ed,
It's sad that you have taken heat over this. You have been honest. It is clear that something is wrong. Several things are wrong. Collusion, poor software, unknown ownership,and potential for fraud from the site itself with bots or their own colluders. Online poker is a scam. That is the ONLY legitimate explanation to account for your results. The poker public, and the integrity of poker itself, has benefited from your unquestionable character.
I don't have any information on them. I don't know their aliases or even which cities they are using for their billing address. They're smart enough to use a friend or relative in another city for a mail drop.
Dan is wrong about the difficulty in catching these guys. Only a very small percentage of hands would have to be looked at to get an idea of whether things would need to be examined in more detail. You could also get leads on who to look at based on results. Furthermore, computer algorithms while not sufficient by themselves, could also be very helpful in pointing an inspector toward those who must be looked at more carefully.
Writing collusion-detecting software would be extremely difficult, unless it's something as simple as, "Write an entry to a log file any time someone folds a hand before the flop better than TJ" or something. But that would only catch a small percentage of colluders.
It all depends on the type of collusion we're trying to catch here. You're right if we're talking about two guys raising like mad when one of them has the nuts and the other has junk, but if it is subtle collusion like a someone raising the turn with a pocket pair on a board like 662 because his buddy told him that he folded a six, that would be extremely hard to catch, because it's within the realm of proper play whether you are colluding or not.
An average player who is good at colluding may simply look like a very good player who doesn't collude.
In any event, it's the sheer volume of data that makes this tough, if you don't have an automated process. This place is playing over a million hands a month.
Also, don't underestimate the difficulty of even building the tools required to sift the data. I don't know what form their historical hand data is in (probably in SQL Server or Oracle tables), but queries have to be written just to be able to manually sort the data by combinations of players, etc. Visualization tools are needed to convert the data into human-readable form, etc. When you're talking about large sets of data, the tools need to be quite powerful before you can make sense of it all. Maybe they've done this already, or maybe they're feverishly working on it.
If I were Paradise, this collusion thing would be my primary concern. I'd put the company on full-tilt red alert to come up with solutions, because it's easily their most vulnerable area.
If the colluders are successful and spend most of their online time colluding, catching them should be simple. One could determine the frequency with which all the people that have won have played with each other. So say Paradise has 20,000 players on record. Say 2000 or so have actually won. Write software that answers the question: how often have each of the 2000 winners been in hands with each other before the first betting round? Isolate the most frequent pairings, then ask how often they've both bet money in the same hand and look at the most frequent pairings again. This should give you a fairly isolated sample with which to start looking at hand histories for evidence of suboptimal play by one that tended to assist the other. Or as in the example above (a player jamming with a pocket pair and a 662 flop because he knows his partner folded a six), for aggresive play that could be tied to knowing what a partner's cards were. Ultimately, it's a judgment call, but you'd have to be a pretty disciplined colluder to refrain from raising with QT late when your partner has KK early, and these kinds of plays would stand out. I'm assuming teams of two, but the software could be written for groups of 3 or more.
Of course, this doesn't work if the colluders are losing, but rotten though it is the poker community as a whole benefits more from their collusion than from their not playing.
Another thing to look for are players constantly moving money in and out of their accounts. Most of the higher limit players keep several grand in their accounts, but colluders would want to keep their balances low in order to avoid having their profits frozen (and rebated to their victims) in the event they are caught. I don't know that any online provider would do this, but they should.
Very good points. I think and hope both sites (Paradise/Planet) are doing this sort of thing. However, I don't know if Paradise has a sufficently qualified person to review the data. Planet has Roy Cooke. Not only can he analyze the data properly, but there is the chance that he will run across names he recognizes from his years of playing experience. This could help him decide to either investigate someone further, or dismiss data as coincidental. (Because he knows the reputations of many players.) If Paradise has such a person, I would love to know about him or her.
One question: If you were a person who regularly played against Roy Cooke in live games, how thrilled would you be to know that he's sitting in a room analyzing every hand you play? I wonder if this kind of thing will deter some of the big money players like Daniel Negraneau?
The problem of detection is much more complicated than your analysis suggests. Suppose a group of 3 poker buddies decide to collude. Each poker buddy now creates 5 separate accounts using different names and credit cards. Now, how many 2 player combinations do we have? Have you ever noticed how one of the players involved in a questionable play seems to leave the table in a hand or two? Could be legitamite. Could be trying to avoid a detectable pattern. Detection by simple software algorithms is not practical. Effective collusion detection is not possible without a qualified expert to review the play. Software algorithms could help the expert, but are not a viable substitute.
Not only that, but there are going to be a lot of false correlations, both due to variance and because some players have good reads on others and therefore manke more profit when that player is in the hand.
And if a person is a real fish, the computer will go bananas because everyone who plays against him is going to be flagged as someone who makes more money when they're in a pot with him.
Collusion, if done carefully, is difficult to detect at the best of times. If you sat Roy Cooke down in front of a live game, told him there were two colluders in it, but didn't tell him who they were, it could take him a long time to figure it out, even if he could see everyone's cards. For one thing, they may play for hours without ever colluding simply because the two of them aren't getting playable hands at the same time, or when they do they are the type of hands that don't really give each other useful information. Or when they are colluding, it may just choose them to make plays that they would make some of the time anyway. The extra information just turns a possible way to play a hand into a certainty.
Hell, it might take Roy a week to figure out who the colluders are, if they are very good at it.
Now put Roy in the Commerce or the Bicycle Club, give him a special pair of eyeglasses that can see everyone's hands, and say, "there are two colluders somewhere in here. Go find them." What do you think his chances are?
Collusion detecting software will help a bit, but if you ask me it's a losing battle, because there is no punishment when you catch someone, because internet casinos do not have the force of law behind them.
The real value of surveillance in a casino is deterrance, backed up by harsh laws. If all a Casino could do is kick someone out if they were caught cheating, I guarantee you the place would be full of guys with loaded dice, computers in the shoes, you name it. And no amount of security in the world would ever stop it.
Now imagine that the rule in the casino is that everyone wears a mask to hide their real identity. If you're caught, you get thrown out but you can come back in with a different mask on. That's the situation online - even a barring has no real effect.
And, if the online casino is going to hold the person's money if they are caught, the problem gets even worse, because that person is going to scream to high heaven that he's been cheated of his rightful earnings, whether he's guilty or not. That's bad PR, so the online casino has to be absolutely sure that it's seeing real collusion and not just a statistical fluke or a strange play made because one person has a good read on another.
If you sat Roy Cooke down in front of a live game, told him there were two colluders in it, but didn't tell him who they were, it could take him a long time to figure it out, even if he could see everyone's cards.
I would be very surprised if Roy agreed with this.
For one thing, they may play for hours without ever colluding simply because the two of them aren't getting playable hands at the same time, or when they do they are the type of hands that don't really give each other useful information.
I agree that it is difficult to spot colluders when they're not doing it. So what?
Or when they are colluding, it may just choose them to make plays that they would make some of the time anyway.
Near-ditto. I agree that colluders who are limiting their cheating to marginal advantages in difficult to spot situations will probably go undetected. But this lessens their impact on the games. They'll also have to be good enough to survive for extended periods of time on their skill playing middle limit poker, no mean feat by itself, and have the discipline to not get greedy, and therefore detected, when they're running bad.
Collusion detecting software will help a bit, but if you ask me it's a losing battle, because there is no punishment when you catch someone, because internet casinos do not have the force of law behind them.
The real value of surveillance in a casino is deterrance, backed up by harsh laws. If all a Casino could do is kick someone out if they were caught cheating, I guarantee you the place would be full of guys with loaded dice, computers in the shoes, you name it. And no amount of security in the world would ever stop it.
In all honesty Dan, how many cases of prosecuted collusion are you aware of? Granted that I haven't been around the poker scene that long (a few years), but I'm not aware of even one, anywhere. Do you think that the reason that most middle limit players don't believe that collusion cuts significantly into their edge is due to all the prosecutions for collusion that have taken place? Where would prosecutors get the evidence? If someone were caught red-handed jamming with junk while his partner has a big hand, the cheater could just say: go to hell, I felt like playing my hand that way. Prove that I'm just not a dope. When the cards go into the muck, proof of collusion disappears. There must be other reasons why there isn't more collusion.
I suspect that the far more common casino reaction when collusion is suspected is to kick them out forever. Internet providers can do the same and more: they can confiscate cash on account. I don't know that they'd do this, but it certainly seems appropriate.
You say that the cheater will cry foul and create bad PR. I disagree. I think that anyone caught using interstate wires to cheat people at poker would be very reluctant to invite whoever caught them to make all the evidence public. This would certainly be the case for those using, as others have suggested, multiple accounts with phony names and social security numbers.
I'm certain that Roy could pick out people he SUSPECTS of colluding after they played a few hands together. But it's one thing to suspect it, and it's another to get enough evidence that you're willing to confiscate someone's money and kick them out of the game. For that, he'd have to see a number of questionable hands. And that could take several days of observations if the colluders are careful.
So how the hell is Roy going to do it when he's got to look at dozens of tables? How quickly is it going to get old when your collusion-detection software spots something and you then spend several hours pouring over data to find that you're going down a blind alley? And by now the computer has generated 20 more pairs for you to look at. And the guys you kicked out last week are apparently back under different identities.
Does it sound likely to you that Roy Cooke would actually sit and pour over data like this 8 hours a day? More likely, he'll be a 'consultant', who will go over conspicuous cases, give advice about catching colluders, and act as a figurehead to make everyone feel a little better.
If the casino had the power to have colluders convicted under inter-state wire fraud laws or something, then this would all be workable, because for the deterrant to be effective you just need to bust a couple of people. Fear will keep most of the rest away.
Collusion in real games is policed not by legal sanctions from the house, but by the other players. It's risky, and it's hard to pull off when people are watching you. You also run the risk of getting yourself busted up if someone figures out what you're up to. Also, once you're known as a cheat it'll be hard for you to get into the other games, and if a cardroom bars you there's no way you can get back in again so you lose that opportunity forever. None of this occurs in online casinos.
I was speaking of cheating in gambling in general. Do you refute my point that if a casino could not punish someone for cheating other than ejection, that it would be rampant no matter how much surveillance there was? That's the analogy here. There is simply no downside for internet poker colluders. NONE. It's trivially easy to get back in the game under another alias. And this is especially true if you were only a break-even player without the collusion, but a winner with it. Then there is absolutely no downside.
The only thing stopping me from colluding online is my personal set of ethics. I have absolutely no fear of doing it whatsoever. I'm certain I could pull it off, but just to be safe I'd use a friend's mail address in another city, and have him send in a cheque for me. Then if I were caught, it could never be pinned on me anyway, so my reputation would be safe. I'd have nothing to lose, and potentially a lot to gain. If my ethics didn't stop me, I'd be sitting home every night playing Paradise poker with my partners.
Perhaps I have a different impression of the difficulty in catching colluders because of my experience playing blackjack. I've played black-chip blackjack with an advantage, and have never been barred, even though the casino has an eye on me the whole time, and the pit is trained to look for counters. There are guys out there betting thousands per hand who have never been caught. This while working in a hostile environment where hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on equipment to catch you, and trained pros are watching you all the time.
Blackjack card counters are a good analogy here. The casinos don't want them, spend huge cash to find them and kick them out, and yet there are tons of them out there because there is no legal sanction against them. Casinos would love to ban them all, but in 30 years of trying to figure out how have never managed it. This despite the fact that the cards are played face up, and the main way of getting an edge is to vary bets with the count, which should be a fairly blatant manoever.
The thing is, if you asked me to watch a person to see if he's a card counter, I could tell you within a few shoes. It's actually very easy, in concept. The problem is more one of information overload, lack of manpower, and a tradeoff between the expense of countermeaures and the potential loss of revenue from counters. At some point, the casino has to accept that a certain amount of card counters are acceptable, because policing beyond that level costs more than they lose to them.
The same situation exists online. Roy Cooke can't watch every game. If you hired a pro to watch every game, it would cost a bundle. So you make some token efforts, try to catch the most blatant offenders, and hope to keep the level of collusion down to the point where it doesn't totally scare off your customers.
The problem of detection is much more complicated than your analysis suggests.
Perhaps; I don't know anything about computers. But the idea that anyone can beat these games with a cell phone and a buddy is a myth.
Suppose a group of 3 poker buddies decide to collude. Each poker buddy now creates 5 separate accounts using different names and credit cards. Now, how many 2 player combinations do we have?
105. But how does one go about getting 5 different social security numbers and related credit histories? Friends and relatives? Maybe, but it sounds like an awfully large network to maintain. You'd not only have to win a lot but hope that nobody became conscience-stricken or held out for more than their fair share. And if you could create a credit history out of think air (how?), wouldn't it be easier to just borrow money from a bank, or engage in more lucrative frauds?
Have you ever noticed how one of the players involved in a questionable play seems to leave the table in a hand or two?
I've seen a lot of players that will jump into a game, suck out with a ridiculous hand, and leave. I don't find that questionable. When I consider what could motivate people to play this way it makes sense. Regardless of how long team memebers stay in a particular game, they'd still have to generate a pattern of playing with each other in order to collude.
Effective collusion detection is not possible without a qualified expert to review the play.
I agree.
Mr.Alger would have one believe that illegal immigrants do not pay for false documents. Hey , its as EZas $500.00, and your a new man. Ask wildbill about it.
.
In addition to hiring expert, poker sites may to give players at the table option to notify supervisor about suspect action on the spot (reporting by e-mail is too much time consuming). Of course this way they admit that collusion problem exists.
Zbych,
You know, the whole thing in Paradise is very strange indeed. What you just described is exactly what I looked at. Some people say that I don't play as good as I think I do, oh well. Others say, that I was wrong for using my real name, and that is the price I should pay for being famous. Paradise claims, that the competition is very though, I have seen others post the same thing. Oh Please! It was the softest game I have played in in years. Players calling UTG raises with 68 offsuit or A6, gee if that is what ya'll consider tough competition, I would love to see what you consider weak.
As for me not understanding how to play in games like these, all I have to say is, I clobbered LA after making all the necessary adjustments. It did take me awhile to get the hang as to how to play in games like this, but once I did, there was no looking back.
Paradise is the only thing I have ever seen that didn't resemble a poker game, and I don't know why! I do know one thing, I have never and I mean never in 25 years seen the worst hand beat the best hand at the frequency that it occurred in Paradise. The same held true when I had the worst hand. All 5 of my friends that I mentioned in the previous post felt the same.
Now for David Sklansky, he knows 8 good players that are all winning. I know for a fact, that there is no way in Hell that David would possibly make up something like this, he is completely honest! This really creates a dilemma in my mind. Five really good players and myself all had very sub par results for 3000 hours. David knows 8 people that are all doing well. I would like to know exactly how well these players are doing? I would also like to know how big their sample size is? If David had asked me after 500 hours, I would have said that I was doing well ($16 per hour, $10-$20). The dilemma, neither Sklansky or I would ever lie when it comes to something like this. Yet, one of us is wrong.
Sklansky has had the biggest impact on poker than any person that has ever lived and belongs in the Hall of Fame. I have done nothing but beat poker for 25 years. Therefore, we are both credible. I honestly don't know. I do know, that I have never run that bad before in my life, not even playing 10 times higher than I did at Paradise, and might I add, against a lot tougher competition.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. Paradise should hire a few expert players to go over the winning players play to assertion if it is possible they are cheating, until they do, I for one, am going to be very leery of them. Planet hired Roy Cooke to do exactly that and I think this is a very wise business decision.
BTW, if they made the money right I would do it myself! How's that!
Ed Hill
You've probably contributed more to this forum than all the other posts combined, but I found this statement interesting: "I have never and I mean never in 25 years seen the worst hand beat the best hand at the frequency that it occurred in Paradise."
This has to be correct, and inevitable, of course, unless sometime during the last 25 years you've played at tables that deal at the frequency that they do at Paradise. When the games move at a sustained rate of 10-20% faster than normal I'd expect to see a lot of strange things in a short period of time.
Just another conveniant, non-empirical response.
What a stupid statement!!!! 10 or 20% = a lot of strange things!! Seems to me it would be 10 or 20%!!!!
I am beginning to become more and more of the opinion that collusion has become such a big problem at Paradise that playing the high limits there is frought with danger.
I also believe that Paradise (and Planet) have done little to nothing to combat collusion. None of their assurances have come close to convincing me that they are activly addressing the problem in a constructive manner.
Nevertheless, I still think that the games are good overall, and I think that Paradise is dealing an honest game.
- Andrew
From a purely spectative standpoint, there have been consistent winners in the high limit games since it opened. My experience after playing there for a few months is that the random number generator is not even. DISCLAIMER: this is only my observation, I will probably investigate this a tad further in the future, with some hand history occurrence reports. Point is that, from what i've seen, there are quirks to the distribution of cards dealt, but there are also a lot of players who have adjusted to match these quirks and use them to their advanatage.
Until I have definitive proof, however, I will most likely be rebuying in over at Planet Poker.
milkman
There are a number of other problems in the poker implementation that could lead to complete security compromise. We have only exploited the easiest one at this time.
I apologize for not replying to all messages earlier. I have to admit that I am surprized by the attitude of many people here. It looks like some of the participants are ready to attack anything. I was hoping for a more positive attitude and helpful suggestions of how to create the best service. Some people suggested that this service is merely a trick designed to collect hand histories and use them to get an advantage. I hope that it should be clear that it makes more sense and more profit to us to sell this information than to use it ourselves. We are trying to create a good and honest service. In addition I would like to thank all those who sent their hand histories over the long week-end. We have received over 2000 of histories during these 4 days.
I will be posting fake hands to your hand history log. Using different email accounts and some *slight* modifications to real hand histories (i.e. changing cards and win amounts slights). Your hand history database will therefore rendered useless and along with it your commerical spamming activities.
have a good day.
It won't work. We get hand histories from different people and verify them against each other. Besides, it would take a lot of fake hands to change percentages significantly. I am not sure what "commercial spamming activities" you are referring to. We did not send out any spam.
What are the statistics of poker players you would like to see? Which ones, IYO, are most important?
When calculating things like hourly rate and standard deviation how is the result skewed by the fast internet game.
Yesterday for three hours I played simultaneously in two 8/16 seven card stud games..each game was averaging 70 hands per hour..so I was effectively playiing 140 hands per hour.
In a live game you'd be lucky to get 40 hands an hour.
Over to you MASON
How do you cope with playing two stud games, where you might not be able to track folded cards too well. Does it happen often that one game messes up the other.
I can see how HE/Omaha can be played simultaneously, but I would imagine stud would pose more problems.
Graham
It is seldom that you are actually PLAYING in both games at the same time. Most hands in both games are folded on third street.
You do lose out no being able to observe everything...I surely would not try it at higher stakes but at 8/16 it's been fun and (so far) rewarding
Just wanting to get some opinions on the $5-$10 HE game at Planet. I've been playing them for the last few days and have seen some extremely weak plays. I've seen individuals raising preflop with AXs, KXs, KQo, etc. I've seen people overplaying over cards on the flop (raising and even reraising with overcards), and I actually saw one guy/gal raising with absolute garbage both preflop and on the flop. I've ran my bankroll up from $250 to $750 in the past week or so. I originally deposited $200 and stuck to the $2-$4 and $3-$6 games, but had I known that the $5-$10 were so weak, I would have started there in the first place.
I know that there has been alot of talk about the $5-$10 HE games online being tougher than their live counter parts, and am wondering if I'm just witnessing a one time phenomenon, or if the previous talk was just about the Paradise games. Any feedback is appreciated.
Liquid Swords
I think the 5/10 games have gotten tougher recently, but they were still loose enough where I should be able to book a win. Unfortunately, all those hands you mentioned and worse busted me and I dont feel like charging my credit card again. Its been great for me and I've won quite a bit there. So I would continue to play and enjoy.
If and when they get tourneys, Ill be back.
I play 5-10 on Planet Poker a lot. I've been doing very well. As a matter of fact we were at the same table a few times in the last few days. The games have been real soft the past few weeks. The thing I really like about it is that most of the people at the table don't believe when you bet, raise and then reraise. They'll still stay to the end with top pair good kicker, lose to a boat and then moan about how they had to see it through. I love this country!!
When Planet Poker first started, I had a friend of mine that played poker and sometimes we would end up in the same game. We would either be talking on the phone or notice each other and begin to chat through the instant messenger.
Now we did not plan to meet so that we could collude and cheat, it was just very easy on the few occasions our paths crossed. We did this maybe two or three times and never for a very long period. I think the longest we played together was about an hour to an hour and a half.
Not once did it help me, except maybe knowing that I only had 8 flush cards instead of nine which did'nt influence my decision one iota. The ironic thing is our discussions actually hurt me because I folded a hand that I would have played and won had I not known what my friend had.
My conclusion was that it was generally a pain in the ass and distracted me from concentrating. Plus I didnt feel good about it. It is blatent cheating and even if noone knows, I know, and I like to reduce my hypocrisy to a minimum. Additionally, cheating does not make me a better player. My goal is to win and improve as a player. Colluding is counterproductive to my goals. Just my opinion.
I have'nt colluded since the early days of Planet and don't plan to ever again. Playing "straight up" has improved me as a player and I've even won a modest amount of denero, despite all of the possible pitfalls.
It appears to me that I'm not the only one out there who has done this, however I may be the only one to admit it. Im curious to hear from those of you who have done it too. I have a feeling the answer to this will be very similar to masturbation, i.e. 95% of all people masturbate, the other 5 % are liars. LOL
My overall conclusion is that, aside from the obviously relatively minor advantage(IMHO) of knowing two extra cards, successful collusion that can't be detected does'nt appear to be that easy or advantageous. Expert colluding may be as difficult as expert poker. (Just my take after my head was aching after reading sklanskys posts)
If your goal is to improve your poker and have some fun, then collusion is obviously a waste of time. Hopefully the majority of those that play agree. But as everyone knows, when money is involved, anything goes.
Your experiences show one reason why Mason and to a slightly lesser extent, Ray and I do not believe there is much dangerous colluding in live games below 200-400. For two people, the gain is small and the risk and aggravation is big. Anyone who is good enough to gain from collusion without getting caught, has lots of incentive not to collude. Unfortunately the same is not the case in internet poker, especially given 20-40 games dealing 60 hands an hour. For one you have perfect information and the chance to actually discuss the best strategy with your partner or partners. Secondly the risk is less since you are anonymous. That is very enticing to some players, even very good ones. On the other side of the coin however, is the fact that internet sites can review hands in detail and know which hands were folded. An expert observer, seeing a pattern of strangely played hands, should therefore be able to detect anything fishy.
While I feel that the current level of occasional collusion on these sites can be overcome, that doesn't mean it won't be a growing problem in the future. Those colluders who are also good players and are successful and subtle enough to avoid detection will keep getting better and winning more $. It could become a very serious problem indeed at some point.
I think Paradise and others would be well advised to take steps to continually improve their collusion-detection software and have at least one expert available to review hands. It is only logical to assume that the few successful colluders will continue to get better over time. They may even recruit and train others. Therefore, Paradise and other sites should not just sit on their present state-of-the-art detection methods, even if they feel that it is currently sufficient; continual upgrading will be advisable, simply because successful colluders will be upgrading as well. In addition it is possible that in the future there will be larger numbers of colluders if word of successful colluding spreads. Since the proper strategies and detection methods are far from well-known, sites wishing to maintain a reputation for good games should make every effort not to fall behind in what has potential to become a "race" of sorts; colluders vs. site security and detection methods.
oh this is truly paranoid on my part. I believe that most people are honest. The post above must be Radya Raskolnikov (that's from Crime and Punishment, for those who haven't read Dostoyevsky). Most card players do not cheat. Isn't that such a naive belief. I also believe that cheats should be punished. What another crazy thought.
I will make the following comment. Since the internet game is cleary a different animal anyway why not change the game a little, using the technology available. Simply reveal the mucked preflop hands in a "muck board", thus letting us honest players in on the folded hands as well. This could easily been done at the end of the preflop betting, showing a board with all the mucked cards for all to see. this could be done so as not to reveal player strategy. Of course this would change the nature of the game. If we use hold em as an example, it might drastically effect the way the game is played, the odds all that. This is obvious so I wont belabor it. Yes it would make hold em not really hold em anymore but it would somewhat neutralize the colluders who are clearly becoming more and more prevalent on line. At least all the players would have the same info available. There could even be "revealed and unreleaved tables" allowing the colluders, the total fish and the misguided purists a chance to slug it out in the tradional only us guys with the cells phones know game. Anyways just an idea for the internet sites, perhaps if one of the struggling companies agrees to this, they could gain some market share from the sleeping giant Paradise. Hey fellow poker players, i would just like to play in a fair contest with you all, and let the best player win, not the best jihad. Take care, i am sure that many will chop me to pieces and the other more rational ones will offer their well thought out opinions.
I for one am working hard to improve my game. As a matter of fact, when I play Holdem, this is my primary objective.
I would not be nearly as interested in playing online if the game did not resemble Holdem as played in card rooms.
I think Paradise Poker should (if they haven't already)hire a GOOD poker player to monitor each of the 15-30 and 20-40 games (every hand) and watch for collusion.
Dear Bob J., Of course you are right about hiring collusion police, no argument. However, I think you are mistaken to think the game online is the same as a cardroom. Collusion is far easier with much less potential danger. Colluders can and do end up in hospitals in real games. My point is of course for people like yourself, an honest player who loves the game. You are the kind I want to play with, win or lose, not a group of colluders. I have made a previous post about known colluders who are playing at Paradise. Just so u know thats all. I dont want the game changed either but this is reality. Collusion is growing and will become more prevalent as time moves on. And i wish u luck in improving your game.
Why show the mucked hands pre flop? Why not just wait till the hand is over and make the mucked cards available in a hand history? This will not affect the play of the game it will only give you a better read on how an opponent plays. I'm not saying this is a good thing but better than showing cards before the hand is played out.
it wouldnt be necessary to reveal who had what cards........your idea bartholemew would give away strategy. anyway, keep playing internet poker if u wish. the honest players are at a disadvantage however.
oh i forgot to state why: because then everyone would know the mucked cards not just the colluders. thats why.
How do you access rec.gambling.poker?
Do you have to be on Yahoo or something?
Am i a real yahoo?
easiest way is using website remarq.com or deja.com....
Actually, the easiest way is to go the green area on your left, click on favorite links, then scroll down to rgp. Or you can go here:
http://x26.deja.com/%5BST_rn=if%5D/topics_if.xp?search=topic&group=rec.gambling.poker&GRPP=929814287.308609059&title=Related&query=poker
Brett
You have to be kidding!!!!!!!
The most common way to access any newsgroup is via your ISP. Ask them whether they have rec.gambling.poker, and how to access their newsgroups. If they don't have r.g.p., press them to add it -- it's a popular newsgroup, and most of the ISP's should have it, or be willing to add it. If they won't, you might consider another ISP. Alternatively, you can access it on one of the websites that offer newsgroups (e.g., www.deja.com). I believe this option was mentioned by another post.
After reading the collusion questions on the General Theory forum, it strikes me that an indication that colluding is taking place online might be a high level of pre-flop calling as opposed to raising in the higher limit games.
I have found a lot of difficulty beating games of this nature. I have looked at the winning hands and the pre-flop behaviour and concluded that the players were loose passive - so I could not understand why I was finding myself in difficulty. I put it down to inexperience.
Any thoughts welcome.
While I am not world class at poker -- to say the least (haha, laughing at myself) -- I do know a lot about Internet software deployment. My company (I am CEO) is a software firm which 4 years ago started development on a purely web-based application. (The firm itself is 18 years old.) We have had to make beautiful graphics, price it at attractive rates vs. the competition and add features they don't have. We've recently gotten a lot of press attention, sales are very strong, etc. What have I learned: Customers DEMAND the best. (I knew this already, hehe)
What am I saying? For Planet Poker, Highlands, Delta, poker.com et al to succeed, you need to meet or exceed the leader in interface, price, and the intangibles. I have no idea of the financial picture at your places, but I'd like the option of more than one place to play online, especially given some of the collusion, cheating, etc which people have accused the market leader. Here are some suggestions:
1. Make your interface look better: The standard Planet, Highlands, Delta etc screens are terrible. When I went from V3 to V4 of my web-based product, we got graphics experts to make new screens. This alone was worth double or triple in sales. Look at the Paradise screens and your own...there is no comparison.
2. Make your place a better buy: The rake is too high everywhere. If you lower your rake, you will attract customers. Half the rake might make 3 or 4 times the number of games, and you will win customers too. Do the math for heavens sake.
3. Put higher stakes games in place: Not that I'm playing 15-30 or 20-40, but others are. (I have the $$$, I do NOT have the skill to win!) And look at the lists the day Paradise opened the high stakes games. What are you waiting for?
4. Put in tourneys: Tournaments will attract players. Players will stay. If irc poker can have a multi-tournament, why can't you hire people to write this software? I love tournaments, first to run em gets my business.
5. Put in a jackpot: People (especially the kind of people you want to attract!) love a jackpot. Look at what Artichoke Joes in San Mateo does: They have a free $15k bad beat. Put a bad beat in, even at $1k, your games and sales and profits will increase.
6. Publish real game data: Show that you have real random number algorithms by publishing data on real money games.
7. Hire someone to look for colluders, also for hackers: Some of you have done that, bravo, but not all. ALSO: HIRE software people who REALLY know who to look for hacking. If you are ever hacked, you are dead meat. If you never find any colluders, you will not be trusted: People are colluding, you know that, right?
I have much more to say, but no more time today. This is plain silly: If you have run out of money ok, sorry for you. If you did this with no bankroll, it's a shame. Huge money can be made, but you are all missing the boat. Write to my yahoo.com account above for more advice. Like Ed Hill, I am not looking for a job, I work 18 hours per day now running my own business. But I would help for the right 'package'.
Mark
Imagine the boost in biz over the introductions of pot, spread, and no-limit games into the internet. Now, anyone have any good ideas how to rake those efficiently?
Also, this was brought up earlier, the current rake for heads up HE is too cost prohibitive, is the answer to lower it or charge by time? or what?
milkman
Peter,
Like I said, I was just scratching the surface. I simply do not understand it...in my business, when a customer demands features we jump through hoops to get it to them. Headsup rake is ridiculous. Pot, spread and nl games would be harder, but not that much harder, but let's do the easy stuff first, like making an interface which people can use, and a rake which isn't silly.
Mark
:)
Actually, I've been writing my own hold 'em client/server game that will be no limit first, then other variations as I find more and more time to work on it. If it's solid enough maybe I'll step into the ring and do the real money thing, but for now, it's just for fun.
Very intelligent post BTW Mark, I've tried all the internet cardrooms including those and PokerSpot, which has promise, but the interface needs a lot of work, the games are slow, and the tables are too cluttered.
pete
Mark,
This is some of the most rational advice I've seen on this site. Its positive to see that you have quit slandering people with legitimate complaints and have begun to realize that real problems need to be addressed.
Me slander somone: Never! hehe. You should see the email I just sent to this customer who was not only rude to my support Manager and his team, but had never bought maintenance.
But seriously, my suggestions are business suggestions. I want to be able to play at more than one site. If only Paradise makes it, then we will all be worse off.
Mark
AMEN to that!!!!!
It was a sincere compliment.
Maybe you should read the message you just posted and think about your behaviour? We'd *all* be better off.
Ray,
I was joking. Can't you compliment me and leave it at that? I guess not.
I am serious about trying to help the Planet, Delta, et al. You seem to only want to be insulting.
Mark
someone is co-opting my name, they shoukd be banned. They don't even have the guts to say who they are. That's what I get for trying to be nice. This forum is not filled with good card players(oh Badger, Ed Hill, and the famous Gurus are I suppose), mostly its filled with cheats and insult artists.
Since I started questioning the validity of online poker, people such as Andrew Prock, Wankers, JB..etc...have tried to just right off their illogic, and emperor wears clothes attitudes by attacking my character. As time has gone by, more and more of what I originally had to say has been proven correct, and my attackers have continued to lose credibility.
The same thing started happening to Ed Hill, people started calling him a whining loser until they learned who he was. Now his concerns are recieving serious attention. Most of his complaints I expressed before. Its clear that many posters here are honest card players. Several who play the slander and ridicule game, however, are a good bet to have ulterior motives.
When did I ever attack your character? What did I ever say? All I attacked were your outrageous claims where it sounded like you were simply making things up to back up your claims, it still sounds like that because you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence about anything you claim. If that's an attack on your character then so be it.
A few things have become apparent and that is that you are going to continue attacking online poker because your agenda whatever it might be requires it.
I am not going keep begging for proof from you anymore as it is obviously not at all something you are interested in at all, there is a much bigger picture. I don't know what it is and I don't care.
As I review the archives it is you that appear paranoid about the ownership, or discovery of the ownership of these online entities. You seemed very uncomfortable with the exchange with Wilson. Its outrageous that you believe the request for a prospectus, for the financial backing, software legitmacy, and CPA data is unreasonable.
Clandestine motives obviously can exist for leaving this information private. The call for regulatory oversight is not outlandish. Only those that have something to hide proclaim a request for this information to be outrageous.
Like I said, I don't care because it is seeming entirely unreasonable to try to discuss any of this with you, you have already made your mind about this and have come to some crazy conclusions, so crazy I would not know where to start countering.
You want a prospectus from a private company, do you even understand what you are talking about? Private companies don't offer prospectuses....... do you know why? do you understand why?
Do you know the difference between a private company and a public company? A few of the online cardrooms are public companies, have you looked them up?
My guess given the quality of paradise is that there are some big name companies behind it who for obvious reasons do not want it disclosed, especially if some law gets passed that makes it illegal.
I am still shocked at the amount of messages that have appeared here in the last week. maybe one day I will make it through all of them.
1. a prospectus is for a company that has filed for public offering. a red herring is for compnaies testing the water. Either way, the information within them give the owners, the financial condition, the projected financial condition, an address, a phone number, and information about the officers's background. Something along these lines would be beneficial to the poker community to know. Paradise won't do it. Why? 2. Submitting the software to an organization such as rstcorp for review of randomness, and security then publishing the results would be beneficial. Paradise will not do it. 3. Paradise could hire Sklansky to audit collusion. I doubt that they do it. 4. I suppose that if enough ruckus is raised, they may do something. 5.springfield may be a jerk, but he's got real points.
Well what makes you think that an audit proves anything? A true audit involves random sampling of results and often requires unannounced checks to truly prove authenticity. Besides what do all these people think they are going to find? A group of 10 or 20 players "preferred" by Paradise or something? This isn't blackjack or any other game where its player vs. house, its player vs. player and that makes cheating a whole hell of a lot harder to pull off. Sure it is possible, but it just seems very implausible considering what Paradise has at stake now that they have clearly set themselves away from the pack of poker sites. All these new sites pay for big ads and get 10 players signed up. Paradise hasn't advertised all that much more than everyone else yet it seems they get more and more players since people will congregate where the games are. If anything was discovered that questioned the integrity of the games, the owners, the software, ANYTHING, then Paradise has lost a huge valuable franchise that you can't put a price on.
As for the ownership issues, there is nothing unusual in their behavior. If you buy a plane ticket from an online travel agent, do you ask for their ownership? How about if bought anything else that wasn't from a very well known public company? Very few places where you do or buy anything in this world have accessible owners and yet that doesn't cause a panic.
The regulation is a very peculiar issue. I am quite sure that most online operators would be more than happy to submit to it if a legitimate organization was available that would be a noticeable and respected voice. However we lose that chance because the US government is a bunch of idiots. They claim that the lack of regulation makes online casinos a threat, well if thats the case why not regulate them? I am sure Nevada could easily have a regulatory body up in a year that could oversee the industry and we no longer would be playing poker at Paradisepoker.com, but more likely Bellagio.com. Make your bet on the game? Go to Stardust.com. Thats just too obvious to most people but the government would rather appease the morality mongers and the casinos that would rather not spend money on an online site and protect their offline investments at the same time. The only other solution is to have a regulatory body outside the US, but then we would have hundreds of people on here claiming they were corrupt and just taking payoffs. In no way can anyone appease the complainers on here like Ray because no matter what they do, I am sure Ray would come up with 10 more things he found wrong, or make claims that what they did was bogus.
I have an idea for all you people that don't believe these are legitimate businesses. Next time you go on vacation, go down to Costa Rica and see things for yourself. You will see its far from a third world country, that the police are straightforward and not asking for bribes, the army is not running the government, and some of the online casinos actually have full sports books in the local land casinos in the hotels around San Jose. There is about 3 or 4 places to play real poker in cardrooms and the action is much like here, in US dollars with limits from 2-4 to pot limit with 10-20 blinds. Most of all if you wish to see an online business, just call one of the sportsbooks and tell them you are a customer or prospective customer and want to see the operation before you invest your money. They will be glad to show you around and let them ask questions. They will even point you to their competitors if you ask just to prove that there are many competitive shops in town looking for your business. If you want you can go and meet with government officials I am told and discuss the businesses with them if your Spanish is good. In all this I am sure you will come across the owners of Paradise. Just ask around, down there I am sure someone is bound to know. If you do all that and are still unconvinced, well I am sure you also want to see a body of Elvis before you will believe he is dead too right?
They have a no extradition policy. Thats why you like it, Bill. Your ex-patriot friends that are facing hard time in the States can happily cheat in the famous boiler rooms, and off shore gaming establishments.
n/t
estoy seguro que tu no teines ninguna idea de las maneras en que el gobierno de Costa Rica funcione. He trabajado con gente alla en el pasado. Dinero es la manera para hacer qualquera cosa. Mi primera esposa fue una empleada del consulado de Mexico. Lo que es claro es tu eres sin verguenza. He visto muchas personas como ti. Uso ti porque no tengo fe en las opiniones que sugieras a la cominidad aqui.
transalation for the above message:
"I am a total net kook, although I am the type of person who wants to know who owns Coca Cola before I'll buy a soft drink, this is not the main reason I post here. I post here because I have lost total control of my non-cyber life, I am small and diminished. In this forum I've found power and can make repeated exaggereted claims that noone cares about, proof nothing and help no one but totally disintegrate a forum for people who want to discuss things in an educated manor. I am a Net Kook - I have the power...."
I am is a crook. What are you going to do about it? I cheat at bookmaking. I cheat at cards. I cheat on my taxes. I cheat on my wife. I laugh at the government at every opportunity. I have no ethics whatsoever.Given the chance, I would rat out my mother. All my problems are caused by government regulation. Tim Mc Veigh is my hero.
How do you sleep at night wildbill? I thought slime like you had no conscious.
wildbill's views regarding the US government clearly mark him as the true conspiracy theorist. His views are very similar to right wing fanactics.
why was wildbill allowed to post this inflammatory response? He should be banned.
Ray, you're not going to get any credibility by saying that money accomplishes everything in Costa Rica, and you know this because your wife used to work in Mexico.
she worked in the diplomatic corp (Mexican consulate). Big difference. At least you understand Spanish, Ed.
Ed is a friend of mine at work. He is correct. She worked in the Mexican consulate. I posted in spanish because wildbill suggested that the authoritites in Costa Rica would discuss the situation if you spoke spanish. I've known many people that have done business in Costa Rica. Some in the securitites field, some in the mining industry, some in the the entertainment field. Most had ties to the US intelligence community. The activity there in the 80's was pretty hot.
i'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE THOUGHT OF DOING THIS BUT HOW ABOUT EMPLOYING SESSION FEES INSTEAD OF RAKING PER POT. I THINK THIS WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER, ESPECIALLY FOR INTERNET POKER. COMMENTS WELCOME.
Another good suggestion. Hey folks, you listening?
Mark
I couldn't agree with you more...I recently rejoined Planet Poker because I read they improved their interface with speed buttons, etc..But it's still just as slow as ever.
The more competition the bettor.
There is no reason why we should be paying up to $3.00 in rakes,when these online casinos have very little overhead.
The first casino to offer a $2.00 rake with an interface just as fast and good looking as Paradise, and lets me play at multiple tables, gets %100 of my business. Period.
Danny,
Thanks. I even forgot to mention the multi table thingy. Of course. Of course. My list was soooo long, I think I forget that and a few others. The real problem is that as some of these guys get as good as Paradise, slooowly, Paradise will get better.
But the rake thing (holding the line) surprises even me...that no one has lowered it.
Mark
EXCELLENT POST!
I agree 100% with each of your suggestions (just don't rake extra for the jackpots).
WAKE UP POKER ROOMS ! You won't get a lot of players until you can offer a playing experience comparable to Paradise Poker's.
This means you must hire programmers to write your OWN software, including a superb interface. You must provide responsive customer support.
Paradise Poker is doing an excellent job, and I will stay there until someone can do as well (or better).
Well I have tried a couple times to start using Paradise as I have been on Planet for quite sometime now. I have downloaded it 3 times and each time it freezes when I try to run it. Their tech support team has little help for me. Not that I am terribly mad about it or want to rant, but its not like they are doing that great a job. They would have had my business quite awhile ago if I could ever get their software loaded.
As for the rake, well I highly doubt it is much of an issue right now. All these operations take quite a good sized start up cost. The only ones who would do it would be the competitors, but they are the ones dealing with the biggest burdens with fewer players and income rolling in. Truth is that their rake is very fair for the poker market at large. You can say that they have low overhead and could charge less, but they envision themselves as competing against the live rooms. If you think 5%, $3 is high, try playing poker in Mississippi or even worse in some home games in Texas or Florida. Even in Vegas that rake just matches what you find in some places and for Omaha or Stud the rake is lower than at many places here. Of course CA has even higher rakes. I don't know if they would necessarily get 4 times the action just with a $2 rake. Never forget its only the top quality players that think much about the rake. I have noticed where I have played that in the lower limit games that the higher rake often has the wildest games! The players who think about these things tend to avoid the expensive games and leave it to the gamblers who give a lot more action. Just look at the Bay Area for a great example. I used to go down to the Oaks occasionally which is well known for having the lowest rake, but the games suck there most of the time. I also went to San Pablo where the rake is about middle of the road and the games aren't that great there either. Go to Artichokes back in its heyday or CA Grand or Outpost and the rake is ridiculous but so is the action. I am not about to get into the value of low rake/high rake, but I write this just to point out that lower rakes don't necessarily make the games better nor do they attract a lot of what you might look for. Besides Paradise is going to attract scant few new players to their site with a lower rake and the extra action they get from the players will be moderate at best.
The only way we will get cheaper games and better rooms is if we have healthy sites with a few viable competitors. The only way that will work is if e-cash is more widely used. With the coming potential banning of financial transactions to offshore gaming, I think the e-cash idea will spread. After all if you buy your e-cash in this country, but send it to another country, there is little Congress can do to track all that money. This will be a big boon because it will allow for us to move our money around as we do in real life. Most of us don't have deposits in poker room cages, our bankroll is in our pockets. When we don't like the action at one we can just go to another. We don't get that freedom online and thats obviously something the sites want to keep, but in their best interests they will have to accept it in the long run. After all why should the average player have to play the same opponents in his poker game. Why should the same guy have to bet into the lines his only online sports book offers him? I have brought up these points many times and people seem to ignore them. This would be a change for all of us that would improve our games and access to lines, yet no one seems to care. If we the customers demand it the sites will give in and lets us have much better conditions.
The rake is way too high, you have got to be kidding me! The places you name, give away, free drinks and free food. What is Paradise giving you? The Casinos also hire surveillance, that BTW, protect you from being cheated! How about all the times that you get disconnected in the middle of the round? You always get to quit the hand before your big blind in a live game.
They give you a no tip game that saves you more than the free drinks of Vegas and the cheap food of CA. Hard to get free food anywhere Ed. Not to mention the right to be in the atmosphere you prefer...smoking or non. Need I add in the cost of getting to the rooms which for many people is quite prohibitive? If you live in North Carolina, boy it costs a lot to get to a public room. Even in CA, most people live a good half hour from a good room and thats gas and mileage on their car. To top it off, if you aren't a cheapskate, you probably tip more for your "free" drink than you would pay for it in a store. All in all the online experience is quite cheap and thats why I stick with it. I rarely get disconnected and I have a very unreliable internet setup. No cable modem, no DSL, and yet I get cut or timed out only once an hour at most.
What about the fact that poker on line is not really poker. You don't get to see who you are playing against and have no idea what you are up against in terms of honesty. Playing a poker game for money on a machine should cost a fraction of what it costs to play in a casino with real people.
Oh yeah, it is difficult to change games, you can't change seats and unlike the real world where you can see your competition you are looking at a bunch of screen names, no sounds and little to go on except your cards. Some poker game.
Why do I always elicit such responses from you? They are almost comical at times like the mob ties questions, but really now you aren't even responding to what I wrote. Every post on this board should relate to poker online, after all this is the "INTERNET POKER" board. Alas, it takes a posting by me on using e-cash for online poker and sports books to get you to tell me what you think of online poker? What kind of bullshit is this? Why don't you go bother your wife or something, provided she didn't leave you 15 years ago for such unreasonableness? Next are you going to post and say, "stupid graphics of sports players, no TVs showing games, no free cocktails...some sports book you find online" I am just waiting for you to tell me how the online sports books have colluding players and a bunch of cheats out to get your money, changing the results of the games you bet on...
It doesn't take a G-man to see that you are affiliated, or have been with La Cosa Nostra. Its comical that you deny it. I hope you get sent up the river.
Planet was the industry leader until the hacking scandal hit. The pendulum can swing. Mike Caro appears to be doing a good job over there. I don't expect Paradise to do anything to improve unless forced to by loss of market share through negative publicity.
Matt,
I read the "hacking" stuff, that was their own mistake, right, publishing the algorithms...which were easily hacked by RST, big surprise, LOL.
But, I really do not think anyone paid as much attention to that as much as the nice Paradise graphics, plus the rebate on the charge card, etc.
I have a long sad story of a company whose board I was asked to join. They were the first in a field with unlimited potential (it had to do with electronic car security, I joined to give board level management to the homebase realtime software used in tracking of the vehicle on maps). These people had a great early product, but the CEO was always slightly wrong on every decision, and the money people would never really pay attention to the board. I can hear him saying "Lower the rake! NEVER." I can also hear him saying "Graphics? Our graphics are great! The girls at the seats are so cute. And our screen is smaller than theirs..." He also always said -- "it's only software"...I am laughing as I write this...
Mark
These are all excellent ideas, I have no doubt that given the success of paradise these are all the sorts of things the next generation of online cardrooms will take into effect. From the point of view of the game itself that must mean making it more lifelike, though I am not how to do that.
I happen to like the new graphics of drinks..... its something subtle but it does add something even if it is just enjoyment for some people who like it. I really dont understand why they would add something like thing from a business point of view, how does something like that make you more money? I assume the answer is that it adds to the experience and if people enjoy it more they will play more.
Who knows what will be next? Some things I would like to see include background sound, I have one of these surround-sound systems for my computer with a subwoofer and four speakers and having the background sound of chips clattering and people talking and maybe even the brush calling people to the tables, that would be cool. Maybe pictures of people playing, that would add to it.
n/t
Chris Alger, please do not reply. We all know you work for Paradise Poker and you simply clutter up the discussion.
There is no doubt that there is cheating on Paradise Poker...but it is not just collusion. It involves playing against people who can see the cards to come.
This is a verifiable fact. Those of you who are suffering bad beats only have to ask yourself if there is any logic that would explain why people raise you
"Those of you who are suffering bad beats only have to ask yourself if there is any logic that would explain why people raise you"
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the low limit games on Paradise are getting better. There are certainly a lot more of them. And a lot more players of the sort that think like the above. So there you have it: dumb aggressives and their driven berserk victims. What more could you ask for?
(In the surprising event that anybody cares, I suppose I could prove I don't work for Paradise. Email me at the above.)
n/t
I posted a message deep in another thread about how difficult it is to control collusion when you can't really punish people for doing it. No amount of great poker players watching the games is going to stop collusion, because it will typically take a long time to catch someone, and when you do the only sanction is to make them stop playing under that alias.
Imagine a casino that could only eject cheaters and could not punish them in any way. That casino would be full of dice cheats, holdout artists, and guys with computers in their shoes. No amount of security would ever control it, because the casino is impotent to do anything even if the cheater is caught.
What's needed with online poker is a change to the fundamental structure of how the games are set up. Instead of trying to mimic a real-life casino, the online rooms should build the games in consideration of the fundamental advantages and disadvantages of the online environment.
Some possible way to stop collusion:
This should be especially attractive to Paradise Poker, because it allows them to leverage their size. These methods won't stop collusion if there is only one or two games, but when there are ten at the same limit, it becomes very effective. The 20-40 guys will just have to suffer until there are enough games at that limit to bring these tactice into play. Accordingly, Paradise might want to stop spreading so many limits, to build more games at the same limit.
You wouldn't have to do all of these things. In particular, you could let people keep and play with their regular ID's as long as seating was random and the games were re-shuffled say every half hour. This would also be fair for everyone, as they wouldn't have to be worried about being randomly placed in a rock garden while the live game goes on beside them.
Comments?
I am a rookie...less than 6 months at hold em/Omaha and still playing low limits (1-4-8 and 4-8. I can only get to a casino approx once/week.
I sent the 4th of July weekend at Binion's (24 hours and $167 profit).
Am I wrong in assuming the collusion on Paradise would be less likely at the lower limits (2-4 and 3-6)?
I NEED practice! haha
Thanks for any input anyone might have
.....Because it is a natural part of internet poker, collusion should openly be allowed.....
.... In fact, it should be embraced....
... No one should take the effort to try to stop it...
.... Collusion, as far as internet poker is concerned, should not be branded as "cheating"....
.... Rather is should be accepted as the norm....
.... While brick and mortar poker is a competition strictly between individuals, internet poker can be much much much more because it provides opportunities for individual versus team, teams versus teams, team versus individuals, teams versus teams versus individuals plays and strategy making.....
.... It is three dimensional while brick and mortar is only two dimensional.....
...... There are so much more things to pay attention to and think about if collusion play would be openly allowed....
..... And it should be.
It is allowed. What's stopping it? What is the punishment? Who is enforcing it? Do you really think they are going to go to the trouble and expense of putting a monitor in every game? May the best set of thievs win.
I don't like it. You couldn't select your game or use what you've learned at some expense about players in other sessions. So you'd be limited to relying on optimal play against random, constantly changing opponents. Might as well print out one of the better-playing profiles from Turbo Texas Hold 'em and go robot.
The last thing internet poker needs is to be even more different than a real-world environment. I wouldn't want to see any of these changes unless and until someone could show that successful (as opposed to attempted) collusion is a significant problem, although your story below certainly sets off alarm bells.
I pointed out that you could keep everyone's real names as long as you re-shuffled the tables regularly.
What's wrong with that idea? Every half hour, a little dialog pops up that says, "re-shuffling players". You find yourself against 9 new opponents, each of whom uses a handle like they do now. So you can still track the play of others. Everything plays exactly like it does now, except that you don't get a choice of whom you play against.
This would have lots of other, non-collusion benefits. You wouldn't have to keep putting yourself on lists for other games, trying to find the loose ones. Players wouldn't be constantly jumping in and out. And collusion would be practically impossible if there were more than 4 or 5 tables, other than at random times when two players happen to be together at the same table. If there are ten tables, this would fix the problem permanently. Even if they did manage to hit the same table, half an hour later they're gone again.
You make some excellent points. However, it does take a lot of the personality away from the game. It isn't always colluders playing at the same table. I frequently sit at the same table as my closest friend. We never give each other a break but we have a lot of fun with the post mortems afterwards. Also, I'd hate to lose the thrill that some grudge matches provide. Your scenario would eliminate these situations.
I agree with this post. I chat a LOT when I play...it's lot's of fun and some players are just FUN to play with. even if they are tough players.
Well then that's better. Actually, the players move in and out of games so fast that they might as well be reshuffled randomly. I guess my only reservation is that you couldn't stay in a good seat for as long as you wanted. And I still don't like the idea of being forced into the rock games against my will.
If it's re-shuffled randomly, there won't be any 'rock games', other than by chance. And if you land in one, you'll be shuffled out in half an hour anyway.
There seem to be two schools of thought about fighting collusion, one saying stop it before it even happens and the other is about having the right tools to catch it when it is going on.
I do not like the first one at all. Anything that changes the game ruins the game. The rules used today are from what has built up over time and is generally accepted. If you start messing with the rules of the game, you are more likely to ruin it. Changing one of the bishops in chess to a queen would make the game more exciting, but most people would agree that it is not chess any more, just a variation, and any chess strategy that you know needs to be thrown out the window.
Not allowing people to choose their seat changes the whole thing significantly. People who take poker seriously would not accept simply being told where they will be seating. Anything restricting people's ability to play freely can not make the game better.
The way to fight collusion has to be catching it and then learing from that to prevent it. Have the computer find patterns of known colluders and then learn to look for that. I think it is silly to think a human can do it. Paradise is dealing 100,000 hands a day, even random checking of a few hundred a day won't help. All hands have to be looked at, and it takes a computer to do it. Maybe the expertise of someone who has been around the game for lots of years helps to come up with those algorithms but anything that catches people would be full of false positives, I do not see how that would not be the case.
Good luck. I develop software for a living, and I've been involved with AI stuff in the past, and I can tell you that writing software to catch colluders would be a hugely difficult task. You could build software that had a few rules in it for very simple things like, "flag anyone who raises with less than top pair or a good draw", but that would simply hit thousands of false positives, and wouldn't catch the guys who are a little smarter. Narrowing it down would be extremely difficult.
But the main point is this: Without some form of sanction (other than booting your userid), no amount of software or human intervention in the world is going to stop collusion. I have to believe that even if you had a good collusion-catching system in place, I could probably get away with it for days or weeks before I was caught, if I'm careful (actually, I'd be willing to bet that I could collude indefinitely without being punted, unless Roy Cooke himself was watching every hand I play for a long time).
Did you see my post about blackjack counters in Casinos? It's a hell of a lot easier to catch a counter than a good colluder, but the casinos are full of them because there's no punishment for being caught, other than to be ejected from the casino. But you're still better off than if you hadn't played at all.
JB is colluding with Paradise Poker on this forum. He should be banned.
"I wouldn't want to see any of these changes unless and until someone could show that successful (as opposed to attempted) collusion is a significant problem, although your story below certainly sets off alarm bells."
How can one find the story without going through all Dan Hanson posts??
I'm not a regular contributor here but I submit it's high time the software stops offering automatic repetition of the title of the previous post. That would oblige posters to make up a title of their own. And then, almost everyone would navigate much more clearly!
Dan
I read your post and at this point in time I think it's a pipe dream to think that Paradise Poker will change ANYTHING. They are doing well and wouldn't want to alienate players who like to change games etc.
I also read a post lower down in this thread suggesting that the rules of internet poker be changed and "legalize" collusion ....I don't like this either... and since there HAS been some small success in catching and barring some players who are cheating one would hope that the sites continue this and inprove their detection methods.
I know that my previous post have been from the standpoint of a big winner at Paradise Poker and I have pretty much ignored the "collusion" problem and in fact have made light of it at times. In fact I just quit a four hour session of playing two games of 8/16 stud and hi lo simultaneously and booking a big win. To date I have played 30 575 hands at Paradise and I am up $15950. This after starting off losing $2 400. If one or two hundred of these hands were the play money and I'm in games that are averaging 60 hands per hour..I figure it's about 500 hours of play at an average of over $30. per hour.
Now, when I look at these statistics I compare them to play at 30/60 in the casino. I say this because if I am playing two games at the same time at the 8/16 limit and each game is dealing at the usual Paradise blinding speed....it's really like being in a 30/60 game in the casino.
I read Ed Hill's post and I know Ed and have played with him at the Horseshoe in Las Vegas. His reputation is excellent...but I think his thinking is a little bit fuzzy here.
I just think that you have to look at the 10/20 on Paradise like a 40/80 in real life and then the swings become a little more understandable.
You, yourself, Dan in the early days of internet poker also posted similiar thoughts that people were exagerating claims of collusion and cheating....and I understand you have changed your mind about it somewhat and I have read your posts as to why you have changed your mind.
I think it would do everyone well to reread Paradise Poker's response to Ed Hill...they bring up a number of points about the speed of the game which I still think some players are ignoring...especially when they are looking for a rational explaination for their losses.
Jim Mogal
I honestly don't know if collusion is a big problem there right now or not. But I have to believe that if it's not, it will be at some point. Information on how to do it will become more available, there will be more organization of players, etc.
In any event, even if it's not a real problem, it certainly is a problem of perception. Paradise should do what they can to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
But then, these guys just cluttered up their user interface and took up valuable screen real estate by putting these silly fake drink tables into the game, so perhaps they aren't thinking too clearly about this either.
I agree that the cocktail service is silly and a waste of graphics.
But Paradise hasn't made many false steps.
Personally I think they have hurt themselves by introducing the higher limits..but time will tell i suppose.
Jim, there are very few games on the stud side at paradise. there is definately something happening in the holdem games. I have started playing stud as well and am doing well so far, but please quit advertising. For the likes of me I don't know why you are advertising for good players to come and make your hi-lo games tougher.
how much do they pay you to advertize, Jim? You aren't just another slime bucket are you?
Mr. Hanson, I think those ideas are good and are at least in the direction. It is clear that successful collusion will increase in the future if nothing is done. Of course the posters are correct too , that the sleeping giant Paradise Poker will not likely be the originator of these implementations or others. We will have to wait until after their Pearl Harbor. For those of you presently aboard the Arizona, yes she does look pretty invulnerable... Anyways good luck in your poker games, all. And choose your games well.
>Seat players at random.
Removing game selection removes one of the skills of poker. One of the problems with Planet is the inability to choose a seat, and unless there is no list, changing seats is impossible on all sites. Perhaps the games would not break so often if it were possible to change seats. I know one of the most common comments (attached to negative numbers) in my notes is "good game -- bad seat", and I frequently choose to leave the game when the weak and the aggressive players are lined up on my immediate left, whereas, in a live game I would be more likely to wait for a seat change.
>You can't see player's names.
Mixed feelings on this one. The colluders would still know each other but other players would not. The site operators would still know everybody. There is a sense of community (important to making the live ones feel welcome) gained by persistent names. Notes on other players would have less value but the ability to quickly evaluate players/games would increase in value.
> Re-shuffle the tables at random intervals.
Nope. Not interested. I wouldn't mind not knowing who is who from day to day, but when I invest time and money in a game, I want to be able to use the knowledge I gain. This just puts poker one step closer to Bingo.
>Get rid of the ability to watch games before you sit in them
Huh? Whatever for? Did you ever stand on the rail at a card room before you worked up the courage to sit down for the first time? Allowing people to watch live games, and giving them "play money" games (with NO rake) is ... a good thing.
>get rid of the 'caller percentage' display
It has occurred to me that the display itself is not the problem, but rather, the ability to play two games at a time. Many of the two game players are excruciatingly tight, which seems to me to be the most likely explanation for the low percentage of people seeing the flops. I know I frequently pass a marginally playable hand because I am involved in a pot on the other table. I also know that some other players do the same thing, and I know that they know that I know, etc., therefore I must tighten up even more against them when they are in a pot, therefore they must tighten up even more against me when I am in a pot, therefore we have created a self-reinforcing ever-tightening spiral, but if they are going to play in two games and be very tight, then I must also play two games and be very tight. Hmmm...
Okay, getting rid of the player's names was a bad idea. Hey, I was brainstorming. Maybe it was more like a light drizzle.
Anyway, I don't see the problem with randomly re-shuffling the games around, as long as everyone retains position. Personally, I'd prefer it just from a playability standpoint.
One of the problems with Paradise is that soft games never last. As soon as a game appears with a 40% call rate, it has a waiting list a mile long as all the grinders line up to get into it. This is not good for the weak players, who never get the chance to play very long with other weak players.
This one thing would eliminate collusion as a serious threat. If there are ten 3-6 tables, and you get seated in one of the ten randomly, AND the lineups of all tables change every half hour or so. You'd still know the aliases of all the players, so you could still take advantage of the weak ones, etc. You just can't pick and choose your spots.
Off the top of my head, this is the only real defense I can think of against collusion. I agree that Paradise is unlikely to make a radical change to a winning formula, but if I were a competitor looking to gain market share I'd do something like this, promote the hell out of it, point out the dangers of online collusion, and show that I was the most collusion-proof site on the web.
It takes the imortal words of Sam Grizzle to describe the competition lately in the 8/16 7 stud hi lo 8 or better at Paradise.
I have virtually given up playing my best game, 7 stud high.
These games vary from merely great to super fantastic. As I write this I am in a game with 6 players who have no clue.
I've read and reread Ray Z's excellent book and often get good information from some of the experienced players over at the "Other Games" forum when i post questions.
I haven't had time to worry about collusion and such...if it's occuring they just are doing it wrong in my games.
If you can play 8 or better stud at all, there is no better spot than Paradise these days.
That's funny, whenever I watch you break the paint rule I think the same thing ;)
- Andrew (aka MM)
x
You need to read your Super System for that one, Jim. There's a good section on Hi-Lo in there. G
This forum is starting to look like a class reunion from the State Pen, class of 2000.
Funny, for me it is just the opposite. I slay the low limit holdem games but have all but given up on stud. I think those games are tough. Actually I think I don't know anywhere near as much as I need to play it properly, but I don't care, you will find me at the 5/10HE, 08 sometimes.
For those that care, my running total spreadsheet shows me at +$1,848 since November.... but there have been some big swings in there, -$850 to +$2,580 is the range. I've probably paid $8,000 in rake too :-(
Given the rake (which I think is way too high for online) the majority of people lose. I am very pleased to be in the minority. One day when other sites compete the rake will be the first thing they compete on and I am looking forward to 25 cent rake!!!
Great point. Places like Highlands, Poker.com, and Poker Spot are stupid not to lower their rake to get the players in the door. The only thing that makes Paradise so great is that its got games to play in. Whenever I log into Highlands I see 7 to 10 players playing 2/4 and they are probably all employees.
Lower the Rake and the players will come.
CV
n/t
AFTER PLAYING FOR 3 MONTHS EVERY DAY AND TALKING TO ALOT OF PLAYERS PLAYING LONGER THAN ME ON PARADISE I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSSION THAT PARADISE POKER THEMSELVES HAVE PROGRAMMED THE OUTCOME OF THE GAMES SO THAT UNDERDOGS BEAT THE BEST HANDS AT A FREQUANCY MUCH MUCH HIGHER THEN THEY SHOULD. WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS YOU ASK? SIMPLE,THIS WAY THE BAD PLAYERS DONT BUST OUT SO FAST AND THEY KEEP THEIR CLIENTEL. THIS WAY THEY KEEP THE MONEY EVENLY SPREAD . MANY PLAYERS HAVE AGREED WITH ME AND ALSO SAY THAT IN ALL THEIR YEARS OF LIVE PLAY THEY HAVE NOT SEEN SO MANY FAVORITES LOSE TO UNDERDOGS. TRUTH REVEILED.
I think I've heard this somewhere before,it does ring a familiar bell...LOL
Essentially you state the probable form cheating would take by Paradise. Since we have no objective data or extrapolation of merit to prove your case false, we're left with opinion where motive is questionable. E.g Sklansky -- "paradise need for expert consultation to prevent collusion."
When the game moves twice as fast as it does in live play, you can expect to see twice as many drawouts.
Also, many of the players at Paradise play loosely, calling on the flop and the turn if they have any kind of draw (although they may not be getting the odds to justify the call).
I have been drawn out on many many times on Paradise. I am also consistently winning.
Let 'em draw!
What I dont understand is that if this were true, wouldn't a good player not only know how to adjust to this but make an absolute killing with it??? Knowing that favorites lose to underdogs would be the biggest edge anyone could ever ask for in a poker game.
It is like employing the stock broker who picks stocks and 80% of them go down, that guy is far more valuable than anyone else.
I am winning because I refuse to change my style which is well matched for online and that is DISCIPLINE. I don't EVER play crap hands. NEVER. I don't MIX IT UP at ALL. I realize that I come across as a total rock to people keeping tabs on me and you would think that knowing that people would learn to back off when I am going after a pot, but they don't and when I have the best of it I get them all in there. Works for me great enough of the time.
JB..just forget about it. No one believes your BS anymore. As a matter of fact, change your acronym to BS. Its more appropriate.
Call it my BS if you like, at least I have hard facts and numbers to back up my claims..... what do you have?
where are your facts and numbers?You have nothing. You are a hustler. Its clear to everyone. Your associates may object ot you publishing any data her. You'd better think twice. They might not pay you anymore.
I published my numbers a few messages ago, where are yours? Quick make something up!
you published nothing but opinion. More BS. Quick leave the country, or get your lawyer to try to deny that that you are suspected. You published "prove it" when confronted about the ownership group. We'll see you soon up the river.
I think I missed something, when were we even talking about ownership??
you are becoming very confused ray and it is getting a little frightening.
read the many posts below where you are involved. You are a paranoid, guilt ridden owner of this scam. You should be afraid of the law.
Whatever you say, mr. highlands. time for your lithium.
Is there anyone left in this forum interested in actually discussing online poker? it has turned into a real joke.
see you on rgp
I have nothing to do with any of your competitors. You will find RGP has more upset people that have been cheated by Paradise Poker than here. It is truly unfortunate that you failed to share any of the data that you claim to have.
"AFTER PLAYING FOR 3 MONTHS EVERY DAY"
So how did you manages to keep your bank roll so long? Oh never mind I see you answered it later on.
"THE BAD PLAYERS DONT BUST OUT SO FAST AND THEY KEEP THEIR CLIENTEL."
Instead of blasting them, you should be thanking them. If it weren't for their secret code that allows bad players to last longer, you would have busted out 2.5 months ago.
.
The header about sums it up. I'm thinking I'll just tell my bank not to pay these friendly unknown Costa Rican folks and then let the back and forth begin. What's the worst that can happen? I pay them eventually. It sounds like a freeroll. I'll naturally watch my back next time I'm in Costa Rica but hey, I've lived dangerously before.
What do y'all think?
The hearder reminds me. I'm thinking I will go down and rob the friendly corner store. If there are customers I will hit them with a bat and take their wallets. What's the worst that can happen? I'll pay my debt to society if I have to, but if I get away it is a freeroll. I'll naturally avoid police officers and that corner store for the rest of my life, but hey, money is money and fifty bucks is fifty bucks.
What do y'all think?
JB seems like a crook, probably involved with Paradise. Hey Wildbills friends win even they lose. They can simply not pay. What are you going to do? Extradite them from Costa Rica? NOT! They have a no extraditon policy.
What makes you think they don't have a extradition policy? Do you know this for a fact? Besides almost any crime against you would be committed in Costa Rica, not the US so why would there be any extradition to bring someone to face a trial that a US court has no jurisdiction over? Please think before your next stupid, idiotic, paranoid posting...
If a crime is committed against you, you do what you would do in this country, you take it to court. Costa Rica has had a democracy and a normal fair court system for over 50 years and your case will surely be heard by the local authorities much as it would in this country. They have a gambling commission that regulates all casinos online and offline as well. You just have the typical racist American mindset that any foreign country outside the G7 has a corrupt legal system that doesn't function. This is not the case in this country. I don't know if this is true or not in other offshore gambling jurisdictions like Antigua, but Costa Rica is a country of law and order. Of course you never would know this because you surely haven't been there so you will just accept your preconceived notions as the truth. It any case its truly offensive to make such ridiculous claims as "crooks paradise" to a well functioning country that had the insight to legalize gambling instead of trying to stamp it out as people in this country seem so eager to do.
You are the one that is ignorant, Mr.Wildbill. The Costa Rican Government will not extradite individuals involved in gambling, legal or not. You know this. You are the deceptive character. As for travelling , or associating with individuals in that country, you are incorrect.
n/t
My boss will tell you his nightmare story of when he reversed a charge from a well known electronics chain. He bought a lemon of a VCR, they hassled him with the warranty and would not fix it so he refused to pay the VISA bill. VISA went back and proved that it was him (yes he was a complete idiot in trying this). Anyway they simply took his visa card and to this day they wont give him one.
He thinks it is still haunting him like getting turned down for a car loan for no other reason.
I had a major disagreement with paradise few months ago and I refused to pay my credit card on the basis that I did not received the service I paid for. I got the credit without problems. Don't just pretend you don't know them - it will work just once, and you will need a new hard drive if you want to play later under another name. PP is tracking your drive serial number
Thanks for the caution but I won't be playing there again.
I was thinking of this question. Has PP caught and bounced out some colluders? If yes then obviously the games are not entirely honest. If no then they are derelict in their duty to protect me.
I have finally gotten through all of the messages that I have missed while away (no not in Vegas).... and I think that I will speak for the silent majority when I say that I think PARADISE POKER IS GREAT. I like being able to come home, pop open a Bud, prop up my feet and play some poker. After being away from it, I really enjoyed coming back.
Understand that I live nowhere near anything that resembles a cardroom and for me this is just the ultimte luxury..... and now after reading hundreds upon hundreds of messages, the majority of them are the usual unfounded allegations. Well I am going on the record simply saying that I have seen nothing at all that would make me thinking something funny is going on and that I love playing there.
No Ray I dont work for them either although I did ask them once if they would hire me as a prop or shill but they dont do that. With 100 tables why waste the money??
Paradise if you are listening, YOU GUYS ARE GREAT!!! Keep it up and I am looking forward to the future, your site keeps getting better and better but no more food items, how about tournaments instead.
hey BS(thats your new name).Shut up!
I obviously touched a nerve with you, makes me wonder who you are..... either a really big loser who is having a touch time convincing others that your losses are a result of you sucking at poker......... or what??
BS(JB) says that he has numbers on Paradise's fiances and, stats. He must be an owner. There is no other way to have access to this information
When did I say that? When I told you to make something up I meant something that is at least believable..... or are you referring to MY numbers that I have posted??
However if you want an insight to Paradise's finances I will do the math for you. 100,000 games per day x $2 average rake = $200,000 a day but actually half of that is not real money so say 1000,000 a day x 365 = 36,500,000 a year.
I would be surprised if the owners even knew that this forum exists.... this kind of crap never makes it above management level
There is no management to speak of. This is not a US registered firm. They chose Costa Rica for the non-extradition policy. The fact that you berate some-one touting Doyle Brunson's site was very revealing to your involvement. You are not even a good liar BS.
i knew it, so thats it.... you are one of the guys from doyles site after all. its a real pile of crap you have come up with you know.
I dont know Doyle personally but from what I know of him he must be mortally emberrassed to have associated his name with you
There you go again. Your paranoia regarding Doyle Brunson is a clear sign of mental instability. I hope Doyle lives very far away from you. Really, JB you are about as calm about your involvement with this racket as a fly in a spider's web. You are stuck hard, and the spider is coming!
2+2 staff,
You can say things like this with this type of name and that doesn't violate any policies you have set? Its one thing to disagree with someone, but this is an open forum for godsakes and this is an outrage! If you don't like what someone says, say something in response, but say something respectful. Wait since you do nothing but badger people on here I suppose your momma never taught you manners did she? Or was it your daddy that forget to teach you how to be a man?
2+2 staff, Why is wildbill allowed to post insults, and then cry foul when he gets a taste of his own medicine?
To supplement Dans excellent post:
1. Don't let players see their hole cards until it's their time to act - o.k. it slows the game down, but makes it hard 50% harder to send hole cards to opponents.
2. Rather technical but stop all other tcp/ip traffic while playing planet. Stops people using IRC or IM to send messages to each other but also stops non cheats from web surfing or reading RGP! Paradise should already be sniffing client side packets for people using common protocols and watching people collude. Doesn't stop people from talking on the phone to each otherbut that at least may incurr some extra cost..
d.
Interesting idea's, but the only solution to collusion is to have a qualified expert player reviewing the play. I say qualified, because I don't think all or even most expert players would be qualified to identify collusion.
1. Don't let players see their hole cards until it's their time to act - o.k. it slows the game down
Addresses only one small part of the collusion problem while significantly slowing down the game. I personally like the faster pace of the games. I'm sure Paradise likes the extra drop.
2. Rather technical but stop all other tcp/ip traffic
I like surfing and chatting to friends in other games while playing. I would gladly give up surfing and chatting to stop collusion, but as you note colluders can still use the phone. Persons colluding with themselves by using multiple computers would also be unaffected. Unfortunately, this change would only have an impact on non-colluders.
the task of stopping collusion on the internet is nearly impossible. It's just too easy to collude without anyone knowing it. Like you guys said, it takes real good pros to spot collusion, especially if it is done properly. Collusion which is thought through is impossible to spot. This is the main reason why I have stopped playing on the net. I've played Paradise and Planet, combined I've made about 5K in the past 2 months but after reading this forum and thinking about it, it's just not worth it. I'll rather drive the 2-3 hrs to the nearest card room.
There are a number of other problems in the poker implementation that could lead to complete security compromise. We have only exploited the easiest one at this time.
I enjoy reading the postings and have played at online casinos as well as Planet Poker and Paradise. Several months ago, CNN did a story on Planet Poker. It showed how some players were cheated, not necessarily by Planet Poker, but by other players having obtained Planet Poker's computer dealing formula thereby being able to track the complete deal and know what each player held and what was going to come up on the board. After seeing this, and going to the Web site that exposed PP's negligence in monitoring its site (PP did, after all, represent that it had a secure site), I challenged my VISA charges. Planet Poker never responded to my challenges and I was ultimately refunded. Had PP had a leg to stand on, my challenges would have been responded to and, most likely, the charges would have remained. I have played poker and lived in Vegas for a good part of my life and have played poker all over the world for the last 35 years. I don't mind loosing -- but I do mind being cheated (even if it is done unintentionally throught negligence such as Planet Poker).
My point -- in legal casinos or poker rooms, gambling is regulated. Be it Vegas, California or somewhere in Europe, there is an oversight body that protects the consumers. With the internet, there is none AND there must be. If you're doubtful about the honesty and integrity of these online casinos and poker rooms, you have every right to be. For all you know, the same guys who served 10 years in a Federal prison for selling bogus oil leases or who-knows-what, are operating these places. Are you really secure handing over your money for safekeeping with some Costa Rican entity? Who do you go after if they decide to disappear with your money tomorrow? Recent Federal indictments show that the internet is not quite the "safe" and "honest" place one might think.
Gambling on the internet MUST be licensed and regulated. Since this is practically impossible AND since the Federal government is philosophically opposed to gambling, I believe that we will see the end to internet gambling in all forms (at least within the borders of the USA)in a very short time. Without regulation and licensing, all players are at risk from the REAL Rounder's KGB types that have pervaded gambling and racketeering from their inceptions.
On the other hand, many industries that are totally unregulated have had very good quality control. When you are unregulated, proving your safety becomes a major competitive advantage. That's why there are so many private governing bodies in unregulated industries.
When the government steps in and puts a stamp of approval on something, that competitive advantage goes away, and companies tend to maintain the mandated safety requirements and little more. The anti-cheating measures in our local, government-regulated casinos simply suck. The dealers don't follow proper shuffling and dealing procedures, there is absolutely no effort to look for collusion, blatant cheating like players flashing cards is treated with a warning and not much else. Why? Because they are regulated, people simply become complacent. Security is irrelevant to them, because they assume it must be good if the government licensed them.
And if you're a real crooked casino, it's a lot easier to con or bribe a government inspector than the entire public. Look at the heat Paradise Poker is taking over nothing at all. They know that if they are ever caught cheating, or if their software has security holes, they are history as a company. That intense scrutiny wouldn't exist if the industry were regulated.
Paradise Poker knows that even if caught cheating, which they basically have been, or the heat wouldn't be coming from so many sources, then they can just keep quiet about things that are clearly true(their ownership problems, potential bots, poor software, and collusion) and deny any direct involvement. Paradise has done NOTHING to address real problems.They will continue to do NOTHING as long as naive people continue to argue that it is in their best interest to run a straight game. I believe that they are probably taking close to $1,000,000 a MONTH off the players inadditional (above the rake) dollars by bots or shills that know what cards are coming.
Dan,
These sites have already been shown to be hacked. what makes you think that the compulsive gambling public will stop playing them when shown to be crooked?
These sites won't even admit who owns them. Sklansky posted(maybe in jest) that they pay him to post supportive statements $175.00 a post. This means that their company resorts to propaganda rather than legitmately addressing players' concerns.
With your see no evil attitude, they love people like you.
There was no 'maybe' about Sklansky's post. It was an obvious joke.
Paradise has 'problems' in the same way that the U.S. Air Force has 'problems' with Area 51. The 'problem' is that a whole bunch of people are making wild claims and demanding that they prove a negative. PROVE that there are no UFO's. PROVE that there are no cheats with knowledge of the cards to come. Since they can't prove it, they stand mute, because anything they could possibly say will be used against them by the fanatics.
The 1st explanation was moronic, that's why they have posted no more!!!
Your theory makes no sense. Why don't they pay for studies from rst corporation? Why don't they permit a financial audit? Why don't they declare who they are? They don't need to do any of these logical things when they have fanatics such as yourself defending them everyday. I don't think Sklansky's remark can be dismissed out of hand at all. Real questions have been asked. Real methods of addressing those concerns are available. The company has chosen to pursue none of them. All they do is rely on the almost religious zeal of hypnotized people such as yourself.
Are you sure you are not a compulsive gambler?
Amen!!!!
Do you ever go to a local auto shop to do work for you? Do you demand his financial standards? Do you ask to meet the owner or his name if he isn't there? Do you stay away until he gives you audited financial statements? Do you insist another mechanic come in and check his abilities? What you dont??? My goodness how could you considering what you want a online website to do for you. We all know that finding an autoshop that you can trust is tough. We ask around, we give them a little business hoping to find out if we can trust them with bigger business. All in all, much like what most players on Paradise and other online gambling sites do. I don't know too many people sending max deposits at first and I don't know too many that don't start with at least a healthy dose of skepticism. If you don't like risk...don't send them money, it really is that simple. Why must you all make these statements to defame an organization that to this point has never been proven to be guilty of any wrongdoing? If you don't like internet gambling, fine don't do it, but don't be an ass like the religious right and say since you don't like it no one else should have the choice of doing it. Those of us that want to gamble online and keep our choices open have enough enemies as it is!
As for federal regulation bans, I am seriously doubting it. They play politics with their bills to ban it and nothing gets done. After all very few people in society are truly affected by the availability of online gambling so its just a way for politicians to make noise with the religious fanatics in this country. Now that the Justice Dept and a Presidential candidate have spoken out against any of the bills circulating, things might have turned a bit. Top it off with the state of New Jersey even talking about regulating online casinos and the obvious likelihood of Nevada doing the same in the near future I think the doomsayers might have it wrong. These bills had no real opponents and yet they can't be passed, that shows you how impotent they are.
When I go to a crooked mechanic, I can sue him in US courts. I can also get action from consumer advocates, the better business bureau , and the authorities.
When online poker rooms cheat, all I get is called a loser by people of questionable reputations.
First off, my experience with Internet Poker has been largely positive. I have played well over 500 hours at Paradise and I am ahead. I have seen some incredibly weird things online but I have seen stranger things at live casinos which I would swear was cheating if I saw online (e.g, guy hitting three straight flushes in less than an hour). It is important to note I only play low limit.
However, to argue that regulation is not needed because people can make their own free choice (ala WillBill's statement "If you don't like risk...don't send them money, it really is that simple.") is simply not logical.
We can all agree some industries need regulation. For example, look at how stupid the following statement is "It is ridiculous to require hospital regulations or to make sure doctors are licensed. If you don't trust your doctor, don't go to him, it really is that simple."
Also, I think we will see significant changes to the online gambling industry over the near future. It is a business with very low barriers to entry. Paradise Poker's success is by no means secure. There will be many more competitors who will give the players what they demand be it much lower rakes, ownership statements, better reputations, etc.
.
I've been a moderate winner at various LA-area casinos (Commerce, H Park, Bike) low-limit HE for the last couple years but have never experienced "running bad" to the degree I have since playing at Paradise. Normally I would think I just suck compared to everyone else at PP but I've recently read Mason's "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" and am now tempted into rationalizing that my current $1500 loss playing 100-150 hours of 5/10 & 2/4 (which I dropped down to when I was -$1000) is due to a 3-sigma "bad run" instead of simply that the players are better than me at Paradise vs. the LA casinos. If the latter, then I should stop playing, since I have negative EV. If the players are just as bad as in LA, then I have a chance and need to ride the bad wave out. Please comment/advise.
The quality of online players are definiately better than live casino players. The theory that I have is since you play many more hands online comparing to live casino play, it is therefore easier and faster for fish to bust out. So fish only have two choices, either quit or play tighter and better. It's less fun when there are not enough fish for everybody...
Yes, your experience was unusual. Even just one standard deviation would be -$2,143 from your EV for 150 hours of 2 tables of $5-$10. So, your results were unusually typical, and you should expect much worse results in the future. Yet, your results suggest you do not have an EV that would correspond to one big bet per hour at a physical table. However, you shouldn't expect to be able to beat the rake on the $2-$4, and a big bet per hour equivalent may be asking for too much in $5-$10 given the rake.
-Abdul
.
This is a draft of players' statistics for hold'em as they will appear in Poker Analyzer. Please, let me know your opinion. Should other statistics be added?
Total: yy hands
Before Flop
.............................................Called...Raised...Called/Folded...Folded
with a pair................................x%.......x%..............x%...............x%
with suited cards......................x%.......x%..............x%...............x%
with big unsuited cards.............x%.......x%..............x%...............x%
Other.......................................x%.......x%..............x%...............x%
unknown (folded later) ...........x%.......x%..............x%...............x%
After Flop
...................Checked...Check/Call...Check/Raise...Bet...Called...Raised...Folded
Pair...................x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
2 pairs...............x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
Trips.................x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
4-Flush.............x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
4-Straight.........x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
Straight............x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
Flush................x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
Quads..............x%..........x%....................x%..........x%....x%.........x%.........x%
The same for turn and river.
ONLINE POKER ROOMS HAVE FEWER COSTS THAN LIVE CASINOS YET THEY DONT GIVE THE PLAYER MUCH BACK IN TERMS OF BONUSES AND PROMOTIONS.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN JOINING AN ONLINE POKER ROOM WITH THE FOLLOWING UNHEARD OF BENFITS, PLEASE EMAIL ME FOR DETAILS. N_MEHMI@HOTMAIL.COM
1ST DAY NO LOSE GUARANTEE. LOSSES PAID BY THE HOUSE.
FREE $100 TOURNAMENT BUY-IN FOR THOSE PLAYERS PLAYING ENOUGH HOURS.
UP TO 40% REBATE ON YOUR DEPOSIT FOR THOSE PLAYERS PLAYING ENOUGH HOURS.
BAD BEAT $1000 CASHPOT AND SUPER JACKPOT.
Free Wire Transaction And Deposit Charges!
GAMES AVAILABLE: HOLD'EM. 7 STUD (FIXED AND SPREAD LIMITS AVAILABLE, ALSO HI LOW GAMES) OMAHA (IXED AND SPREAD LIMITS AVAILABLE, ALSO HI LOW GAMES).
FOR DETAILS OF THE SITE, JUST EMAIL ME AT N_MEHMI@HOTMAIL.COM AND QUOTE THIS SITE URL SO I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT. YOU MAY SEND ME ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
I AM NOT THE OWNER. I'M JUST USING THEIR REFERAL PROGRAM WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO ALL PLAYERS. N_MEHMI@HOTMAIL.COM
Dragon poker? A lot of bs.
We've all heard of Dragon poker. About 5 active members in all. Have at most 2 tables going. Their software can also be hacked. Been there, Done that! Crap Place!!!
Ok, so you people post up this acceptable policy and you seem not to enforce it! I am thorougly disgusted that you allow this certain person to harass me and others on here with stupid posts that have no reasonable importance. Further is it acceptable for people to make wild unfounded claims such as JB owning Paradise or me having some sort of involvement with the mob? I think I have made a very valuable contribution to this whole site, especially on the other sports board, but I cannot believe I have to tolerate such people that go out and attack someone's character and espouse racist and untrue remarks about foreign countries. If you continue to allow this, people that have something to contribute like me will eventually be turned off and leave.
To prove my point, this person we all know on this site who changes his name to fit his latest slam, has been claiming that there is no extradition treaty with Costa Rica. It took me all of three clicks using Yahoo to find that he is lying because here is the treaty for anyone who cares to read it:
www.usembassy.or.cr/exttreatyeng.html
So are you people going to allow someone who harasses people for no apparent reason and tells lies to continue to post on here or are you going to prove you actually believe in your posted policies?
We can't monitor everything. E-mail Mason with a specific complaint and he will try to do what's right.
We also seem to getting many posts that are simply blantant advertisements. I try to delete these when I spot them and then email the poster asking him not to post anymore.
Mason I have heard many dealers at Bellagio call you a gutless person bad for the game over there, and believe me the list is quite long. I defended you saying you seem to have quite redeeming values in the advice you give and your promotion of gambling with this board. I guess I have to take it back now because all you can say is "well I remove blatant ads when I see them?" Yeah I guess they had it right, you are bad for the game as instead of creating a forum for the promotion and monitoring of internet poker and gambling, you have created a board of liars and mindless idiots taking unwarranted shots at it and the people that come here to have a serious discussion on this topic.
You were correct in taking what the dealers say with a grain of salt. Many poker dealers do not know what is good for the game of poker.
Mason Malumth is hands down good for the game of poker.
It's amusing that wildbill lambasts anyone that wants an authority to address over legitimate internet poker abuses, then when he squabbles with them(because they are better at his game than he is), he immediately runs to the authorities on the board. Not very consistant.
There is no question that Wildbull has a few problems. I have never been impressed by those who get on the Internet, attack others, but use made up names to hide their true identity. I'm writing this Friday morning. I should be at The Bellagio later today and tomorrow. See you there.
The problem is that if Mason were to censor those posts, to be fair he would also have to censor many of his own.
-Abdul
What made me howl......was Mason's calling him "wildBULL" in the body of his response, instead of Wild BILL in the post.
Freudian slip on Mason's part ? Or intentional?
Diane from Green Bay
I agree that posters often violate the acceptable use policy. However, it is dangerous for 2+2 mgmt to enforce these violations with censorship. This forum has the feel of an open public forum, even though it is not. So some people may feel that their rights have been violated if too many posts get censored out.
Even among people who acknowledge 2+2's editorial rights on this forum there are some (and I am one) who think that too much censorship discourages a free exchange of constructive ideas.
So they have to be careful in deleting posts, since it risks an onslaught of accusations about trying to bias allowable points of view in the forum. Even if they deleted several of the most egregious offenses, I don't know that the overall quality of the forum would be improved because it might result in a barrage of posts about censorship.
I don't like the personal attacks, and ridiculous citing of false facts either. But IMO people who make such posts only disgrace themselves, and I just stop reading their posts.
Steve
I agree,
While there may be some wacko's out there (Ray always seems to pop into my mind, but he seems to swing between reasonable, and utterly lunatic) the best thing is to give them a place to vent.
It is true that this place is becomming a bit polluted, but it's actually kind of nifty that 2+2 has produced a new "net kook", on par with Doug Grant - in kookiness, not total text production.
- Andrew
Andrew thinks I'm both reasonable, and an utter kook. Well, to each his own. I don't lie about what my intentions are like some people who acknowledge they have. I won't mention their names, but one person's intials are A.P..
I make no bones about the fact that I believe that I have been cheated, and I will do everything in my power to make those that did so lose revenue. I've been a democratic advocate in my life. The platform committee polled my thoughts frequently. I will lobby for the bill to pass.
oh good,
he's back
- Andrew
Oh great,
Andrew is back.
--Ray Springfield
Never left Ray. I also didn't say that I wasn't going to post here again.
- Andrew
no, you just ran away and hid after acknowledging that you are a liar. Of course,all poker players lie. The question becomes should we believe that you are lying about hacking and cheating, or should we believe that you lied about denying hacking and cheating? The problem wih compulsive liars is that one can never know if they say anything truthful. Intelligence dictates to err on the side of caution.
I said that I would take a break from posting, and I did. No lie there. I repeat: Oh great ,Andrew's Back.
The tone... the style....
Is anybody sure that Ray Springfield isn't an alias for "He who's name must not be spoken? (D. G.)"
Just asking
Who is the person whose name cannot be spoken?
I wasn't born Ray Springfield. My first name on the birth certificate is Raymond. My last name has been legally changed. Can anyone here guess my birth name?
Could Ray Springfield really be... Ray Gordon?
That's my best guess, Loose Louie
.
Poor wildbill. He , and two plus two, can do business with indivdiuals breaking US law in the scam that online poker represents. Wildbill can glorify the Mob in his posts, and then cry when people suggest that he must know individuals involved with them.
Serious complaints can be made about the software, the ownership, collusion, and security of the software and nothing but excuses are offerred for the "compnay". When wildbill posts on two plus two boards against the Nevada Gaming Commission, The US Government, the IRS, and any other law enforcement organization while at the same time glorifying mob rule in Vegas, he deosn't have much of a case.
I guess this post goes to show why this section needs moderation. Internet gambling is possibly one of the most significant things that's happened to poker in the last decade yet the signal to noise ratio here makes any attempt on discussion unbearable.
I suggest people post to RGP. At least you can ignore threads and killfile abusers there.
It's a shame because this was becomin a useful site. d.
The posts on extradition were regarding policy, not the fact that a treaty does not exist. Of course Mr wildbill should know this since he acknowledges association with US ex-patriots on other posts here.
The Costa Rican government has a policy of zero extradition. The US does not honor the treaty either. If the US did, both John Hull and Oliver North would have been extradited years ago. Costa Rica indicted both for narcotrafficking.
The post histories here do suggest that nothing was mentioned about extradition treaties, only policies. Further, wildbill has been very vitriolic in ranting against the US government, casino regulation, and gambling law. Wildbill has praised the mob, and acknowledged ties to Costa Rican betting syndicates.These are facts. wildbill has been very hostile in his posts.
This sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Praised the mob? All I said is they run efficient operations and further that a week doesn't go by that I don't hear people talking about how much better Vegas was when they ran it. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no interests in the mob and don't have anything good to say about their methods of keeping power. I do not condone their violence and don't think they really serve any interest of the public. There are you all happy now, I have made it quite clear the mob is not supported or associated with me.
Just another proof that what contributions of people who think are not respected here. I don't make personal attacks as this other person in the thread has done to me and anyone else who dare say something postive about online gaming. If he had made his points clear without taking to personal attacks, I would have absolutely no problem with him. However telling misleading lies and questioning ones ties to illegal crime among other things is outright classless and disgusting. I know he doesn't care, he damn well knows he would never get respect anywhere except where he can hide his lack of intelligence and manners. I am sure all he lives for is getting recognition from people like me by writing responses to his posts. The bigger his lies, the better I am sure he feels. Therefore since 2+2 will do nothing to stop this and will let their board slide into the abyss, I will make you all happy and refrain from reading or making any more posts on this particular board, which if you ask me should be called INTERNET POKER HATERS....
If you want to harass me then come to the other gambling games where I am a regular and respected contributor. We don't talk about politics, online cheating, or other stupid things that are driven into the ground ad naseum. We just have heated debates on gambling without very very few classless attacks on ones character. Isn't that what this whole board is supposed to be about?
Suck it up Wild Bill. You take yourself much too seriously. Ignore unwanted posts and they go away. Give them attention and they blossom. How can anybody take the internet so seriously. Suck it up and move on.
no one told any lies but you. Personal attacks by you have been numerous. You are whining because people are hitting on a nerve. Nerves are hit when sensitive areas are touched. The views you put out have a lot to do with response you get. If you don't want to play with the flesh eating sharks, then stay out of the water.
Just to prove to everyone that I am a reasonable person I will go down and meet with Mason and anyone else that wants to discuss things with me on Saturday night at Bellagio. You will all see how ridiculous it is to think most of these things of a 28 year old person who lives a modest life and attempts to only attack idiots with baseless arguments that Paradise is cheating people. Once again I don't even have an account with money in it at Paradise so I have no vested interest in their success or demise...but thats all water under the bridge. Once again somewhere around 6-7pm come down to Bellagio and I will hopefully meet with Mason and anyone else in Vegas that cares. I will make myself extremely easy to find, just look for the guy wearing the Montreal Expos jersey I don't think I have ever seen anyone else wearing one any place in town before so I should be easy to find.
It's not guaranteed Wildman, but there is a good chance that I will be in the Bellagio Poker Room at exactly the time you announced. Please do me one favor however, don't bring Abadaba with you. I can only handle so much at one time.
Well I gotta run by 6:45 or so, since no one else seems to mention they will be there, maybe we should set it up another time when you are sure you will be in the room.
I was there, and David even asked me if you showed up.
Well since you said you might not be there I thought it best to wait until you were certain you would be there. I am pretty certain you will return there soon, just give me a day or two warning and I will come down.
In regard to the 2-4 and other low-limit games at Poker paradise, who are better the Stud players or the Holdem players? - obviously it is difficult to compare them directly but think of it in terms of how good the holdem players are compared to your average low-limit live game against the Stud players in comparison to yor average live stud game
thanks,
I make more $ playing 2/4 7-stud then I do hold 'em. I find the 7-stud games much easier.
I agree. The biggest difference I see is that there are some holdem players and some stud players who play virtually every hand. In stud, this is a much bigger error than in holdem.
The high-low stud is often even better than high stud; however the pots tend to be smaller (in my experience) and the rake lower. Your variance will go down in high-low, though.
Nakor
thanks for the tips guys!
This post is a copy of card player writer Nolan Dalla's post on RGP regarding the Internet Gambling bills before Congress. I wonder how long the Internet poker sites stay in business if these are passed? These bills are terrifying to me.
**************************************************************************
Two bills on the subject of Internet gambling have been introduced in Congress. The Kyl Bill (S.692) was approved by the Senate in November 1999. The Kyl Bill was forwarded to the House and introduced as H.R. 3125, sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte. This House is currently considering implementation of certain ammendments (minor changes) in the bill. However, most observers believe the House will eventually approve the resolution. Furthermore, President Clinton is unlikely to veto the bill, meaning if the bill makes it to the President's desk before the end of his term, there will very likely be a ban in Internet gambling.
(NOTE: Candidate Al Gore has expressed his opposition to the Kyl Bill. In the event this bill gets bogged down in committee, the bill would have to be reintroduced in the next session. Although it would likely pass both houses of Congress in the next session, there is some hope a "Gore Administration's" advocacy of freedom of the Internet and no taxation on goods and services purchased on-line would be reflected in his veto of the Kyl Bill. On the other hand, a George W. Bush Administration From the language contained in the bill, it appears if the Kyl Bill is signed into law, online poker games (played from PCs and through ISPs based in the United States would be illegal).
Here are the abbreviated versions of each bill, taken from the Congressional Research Service:
H.R.3125 Title: To prohibit Internet gambling, and for other purposes. Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person engaged in a gambling business to knowingly use the Internet or any other interactive computer service (service) to: (1) place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager; or (2) send, receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager. Prescribes penalties.
Grants the district courts original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this Act. Provides enforcement authority for violations taking place on Indian lands.
Exempts from liability under this Act any service provider who, after being properly notified by a Federal or State law enforcement agency that a particular online site of such provider is being used to violate this Act, removes or disables access to such site. Requires a provider, in order to receive such immunity, to: (1) maintain an electronic or written policy that requires the provider to terminate the account of a violating subscriber following receipt of a notice of violation; and (2) not knowingly permit its service to be used for such prohibited purposes.
Authorizes alternative injunctive relief against such a provider, under certain limitations and considerations.
Exempts providers from liability for content, furnished by another person, that advertises or promotes non-Internet gambling activities, unless the provider is engaged in the business of such gambling. Requires such providers, in order to receive such immunity, to maintain the termination policy and to not knowingly permit the use of their services for such activities as required under the exemption above. Requires the provider to take appropriate action after notice from a Federal or State law enforcement agency that the provider's service is being used for such prohibited purposes. Authorizes alternative injunctive relief against such a provider under certain imitations and considerations.
Exempts from liability a provider who takes any action required under this Act. States that nothing in this Act shall otherwise require a provider: (1) to monitor material or use of its service; or (2) except as required by notice, to gain access to, remove, or disable access to material. Lists exceptions to the prohibitions under this Act, including certain State and multi-State lotteries and authorized horse or dog racing. Directs the Attorney General to submit to Congress: (1) an analysis of the problems associated with enforcing this Act; (2) recommendations for the best use of Department of Justice resources for enforcement; and (3) an estimate of the amount of activity and money being used to gamble on the Internet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
S.692 Title: A bill to prohibit Internet gambling, and for other purposes. Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person engaged in a gambling business to knowingly use the Internet or any other interactive computer service (service) to: (1) place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager; or (2) send, receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager. Prescribes penalties.
Grants the district courts original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this Act. Authorizes the United States or a State attorney general to institute such proceedings. Authorizes a professional or amateur sports organization whose games or athletic performances are alleged to be the basis of a violation to institute civil proceedings to prevent or restrain such violation. Provides enforcement authority for violations taking place on Indian lands.
Exempts from liability under this Act any service provider who, after being properly notified by a Federal or State law enforcement agency that a particular online site of such provider is being used to violate this Act, removes or disables access to such site. Requires a provider, in order to receive such immunity, to: (1) maintain an electronic or written policy that requires the provider to terminate the account of a violating subscriber following receipt of a notice of violation; and (2) not knowingly permit its service to be used for such prohibited purposes.
Authorizes alternative injunctive relief against such a provider, under certain limitations and considerations.
Exempts providers from liability for content, furnished by another person, that advertises or promotes non-Internet gambling activities, unless the provider is engaged in the business of such gambling. Requires such providers, in order to receive such immunity, to maintain the termination policy and to not knowingly permit the use of their services for such activities as required under the exemption above. Requires the provider to take appropriate action after notice from a Federal or State law enforcement agency that the provider's service is being used for such prohibited purposes. Authorizes alternative injunctive relief against such a provider under certain limitations and considerations.
Exempts from liability a provider who takes any action required under this Act. States that nothing in this Act shall otherwise require a provider: (1) to monitor material or use of its service; or (2) except as required by notice, to gain access to, remove, or disable access to material. Lists exceptions to the prohibitions under this Act, including certain State and multi-State lotteries and authorized horse or dog racing. Exempts from the provisions of this Act class II or III gaming activities properly conducted on Indian lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or other Federal authority or with the approval of appropriate State gaming or regulatory authorities.
Directs the Attorney General to submit to Congress: (1) an analysis of the problems associated with enforcing this Act; (2) recommendations for the best use of Department of Justice resources for enforcement; and (3) an estimate of the amount of activity and money being used to gamble on the Internet.
************************************************************************** **************
The Senate already passed it in November.Clinton will sign it. This industry could be dead by 8-1-2000.
I know that this may come as a shock Edwin, but there are players on paradise that don't live, or play from, the USA.
Saying that the industry would be dead if americans were not allowed to play seems a little meglomanical. Surely they would suffer a great deal, but I think that there might be enough of us left to put together a game or two.
Since Paradise is based in Costa Rica, it would be pretty tough for the US Feds to shut them down. Even if they did, another site could become the center of attention.
Adam.
see subject
So, these clever folks think that there is a limit to the number of ways someone could access an internet site? Even if they pass the law, it will be very difficult (and expensive) to enforce. This is from my limited knowledge on the subject.
I've played there, and have lost. I've lost less than the casino though!
I'm pretty new to internet poker. I'd like to ask though how can so many players play bad hands and win? I saw a guy with 6-10 not suited called for big raises to the end. On the end he raises me. I turn over Kings and the 6-10 hit a gut shot straight on the last card to beat me. It doesn't make sense. This player did this several times, and won big money. I played big pairs and lost too much. I need help to know how to defeat these strange players.
I have two theories:
1. your opponent is a very lucky fish 2. he has the capability to see the cards coming
I have had same experience couple times, but I don't have the evidence to prove theory #2. Others welcome to comment.
Theory # 3: He might be able to read your mind. Try proving otherwise.
Seriously, if you could repeat the hand a thousand times over, it would be like playing blackjack where you win more than 80% of the hands (assuming you were heads-up). What would be your complaint, that you don't get to win 90% of the hands?
If you really think they're drawing out on you more than other players, consider how often you get caught bluffing and how many cheap cards you give. Players that have trouble in these areas probably get sucked out on a lot. Better yet, recognize that by focusing on the obvious and the inevitable, you lack a solid understanding of the game. Hit the books, read the archives and try to identify real problems you might be having.
Keep playing good, solid cards and don't become daunted by bad beats such as this. The short term luck factor is always present, but that same hand played many times will eventually show a big profit for your hand.
I have read and own, The Theory of Poker, HPFAP, The Feeney book, Mason Malumuth's Essays 1 and 2, Gambling for a living, Super System, The zen of Poker, an andy Nelson Book, Lee Jone's book, the other psychology of poker book by that new author(I forget his name), 7CSFAP, and a few others. I have played casino poker only about 15 years..with the max, however, of only about 20 hours a week. I am a modest winner over that time. I have never seen people suck out like they do at Paradise Poker.
If you think Paradise Poker is bad, you should visit Yahoo!
How could anyone possibly come to a definite conclusion that someone or (especially) some Internet poker entity (ie Paradise Poker) is cheating by simply observing "many" hands?
I guess that's why I never finished my computer engineering degree, because I couldn't analyze tens of thousands of hands simultaneously in my head. (OK, I can't even get a simple statistics problem right, but that's besides the point!) I used to know someone who had PI memorized to like 30,000 digits, but not many people I know can do that.
But seriously, can anyone can simply observe a number of hands and come to any useful conclusion about cheating? Computer analysis would be required. Yes, there are very strange hands that occur in holdem. Funny there is no discussion about being drawn out on in seven stud!
Considering the number of responders that totally missed Sklanksy's Collusion questions, I'm not surprised that A) People feel as if they can identify suspicious patterns (like those on a baccarat table), and B) Few people have given consideration to collusion as a science and C) Other than those primarily concerned with the interesting mathematics, the *unknown* best minds in poker are unlikely to pursue that path for financial gain.
To support point c): Consider the discussion of a single hand played in Hold'em. Many experts will have different opinions on the best way to play a *single* hand. How likely is it that 2 experts, that have worked out the logistics of communications, and an expert playing strategy are going to be agreeable enough to play as a team precisely enough to be highly successful? This leads to the conclusion that an expert colluder would be better off working alone. I think that most people who attempted this would do no better than they do playing poker. Many would do worse. People who do not put much effort into their attempts to collude (cheat) will fail.
In addition, the type of people who pursue perfection, and might have the knowledge and talent to devise a complete colluding strategy are usually not the type of people who derive a feeling of success from cheating. They get a feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction from doing something better than others who try to excel in the same arena. People that cheat are looking to get something for nothing, and that just doesn't happen.
It seems that many attempts to collude would be inevitable. However, I doubt much danger in *most* games because, just as many people attempt to become card counters in blackjack, few will be any good, and many will lose more than a competent basic strategy player.
Thank you for a sensible response.
I'm one who missed Skalansky's collusion questions. Are they further back in the posts or in a separate section?
Thanks again!
The collusion questions are in the general theory forum.
I have had a couple people draw me out in 7 card stud. But, they have also left the table with no money left before it was over. There are people they play very loose and will take chances all the time. Sometimes they will hit it. I love those people, they will give it back because more often than not, they won't hit it.
I believe that in some of the holdem games there has been some collusion, but i have been playing for a while and mostly there are bad players and over aggressive players that three bet draws etc. And yes, after playing for years, you can tell when the game plays alittle different.
This is part of the problem. The online games play different than normal ring games.
If you are a solid player, you will make some money.
I understand that after extensive experience, a good player will be able to detect other players' (suboptimal) habits and get a feel for the game in general.
But on any given hand, anything can happen, sometimes leading you to think some higher forces are working against you. (Or that cheating is present)
In a ring game, cheating would be much easier to detect (for the observant--that rules me out!). Online, however, (combined with the fact that this is a game of imperfect and hidden information) the lack of a physical environment leaves you with only mathematics (combined, perhaps, with a poker experts' help) to determine whether or not cheating is occuring.
Yesterday I tried for the first time to play for play money at Paradise. What I found out is I keep getting disconnected every 10-15 minutes or so. Am I going to be charged an all-in when this happens or how does it work? I know they only allow 1 all-in per 24hrs. Surely there must be more to these disconnections. Could someone please explain.
There are times when everyone is getting disconnected - if it is one of those times then ask for your all-ins to be reset- they often give you two or three all-ins at these times.
If it is just you, try to reconnect - sometimes you get a better connection. Still ask for your all-ins to be reset - I think they look at the hand where you were all-in and make a judgement call as to whether you gained advantage. Don't play if you have no all-ins it is just to much of a risk.
I have recently had a lot of difficulty with my screen going blank and my PC crashing. I have always had all-ins reset when I ask.
You definitely want to have a stable internet provider. Get the best connection you can. Ten to 15 minutes in between disconnects would be a nightmare.
I connect thru the Microsoft network. Which one do you connect with?
Make sure your computer internet settings are set properly. There is a setting where you can set how long your computer is idle while on the net before your computer disconnects itself. You will want to disable this function or set it at infinity.
"Make sure your computer internet settings are set properly"
Please give me a hint on how to get to these settings?
Also I never lost connection outside on-line poker. Yesterday I played for about 4hrs on Paradise and got disconnected several times. A couple of times I was in the hand. They were nice enough to reset my all-in status but I don't know how long I can keep playing like this. Also when I was playing hold-em the day before I got disconnected when I was in a small blind once and once when I had the dealer button. By the time I logged back on I lost my good position rounds.
This really sucks! Help!
Try start menu/settings/control panel/internet/connection/settings. You should see a "disconnect if idle for" tick box. You should untick this.
Are you just getting a straight disconnection or are you crashing? You might like to look at some of your other settings like screen savers - they may kick in after 15 minutes as well.
"Try start menu/settings/control panel/internet/connection/settings. You should see a "disconnect if idle for" tick box. You should untick this"
I will do this. Thank you Dave.
"Are you just getting a straight disconnection or are you crashing? You might like to look at some of your other settings like screen savers - they may kick in after 15 minutes as well. "
Straight disconnections. One second I'm on and two seconds later I'm looking at my desktop screen having to log to the internet again. I don't think it's my screen saver. I will change it though.
Thanks again. I think maybe I should send an e-mail to the support team and see what they have to say about it. I just can't keep playing like this. It's a torture.
Dear Ed,
This letter is also being sent to Nolan Dalla. We would like to address some of the issues that you've raised publicly that question the integrity of our business.
We try our best not to post publicly as most of the discussion deteriorate into flames and screaming matches, and rational discussion stops. You are welcome to post this message, or any part of it, on RGP (or any other public forum) if you wish.
The software and operations are owned and run by Tropical Paradise Enterprises SA, here in Costa Rica. The president of Paradise Poker is Linda Seaton. Linda does not come from a poker background, but had the initiative, market awareness, financial resources and the contacts to start-up and fund the development of Paradise from the beginning. It was her foresight to assemble a team of world class programmers to work in-house allowing for a product that can be constantly upgraded and meet the ever-increasing demands of our clientele. This, in our opinion, has set us far apart from the competition. Our market share validates this business decision.
Our company is built on having the highest levels of integrity. We have strong business relationships with well-known, prestigious firms. As an example, our corporate consultants are PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). Having PWC audit our private company publicly doesn't make that much sense since we only offer poker. We do not take bets against players as our revenue comes solely from the rake; therefore, a the value of a financial audit from a client's perspective would be meaningless. If we did need them to calculate payout percentages we would have no problem in engaging them for this service, but in a 3rd party rake structure, this simply does not apply as players play against each other.
We also have a very close and trusted relationship with our respected credit card processor, SureFire Commerce (a publicly traded company). SureFire does a great deal of due diligence on all their clients which include many other prestigious companies. Our bank in Costa Rica (Banco Cathay de Costa Rica) is also of the highest integrity.
With respect to our marketing campaigns (that you may not have been aware of)... we launched a few targeted email campaigns. These campaigns were filtered to exclude email addresses of our current clients and RGP posters since these users are obviously already aware of Paradise and the email would have been redundant. Nevertheless, the response was very positive (as the emails were very targeted) and resulted in large numbers of new players. Future advertising includes more broad-based advertising which will include the Daily Racing Form (next month) and possibly some widely-distributed well-known men's magazines.
We will stress again that our software deals cards 100% randomly... and we truly believe that we have the best shuffling in the world. We explain it extensively on our website. Our data-transmission security is also first rate, using industry-accepted SSL encryption.
We have absolutely zero incentive to manipulate anything as our business is phenomenally successful as is. Why would we possibly do anything to jeopardize that? In fact, we go to great lengths to ensure that we are constantly doing everything we can to have a site of *the* highest integrity.
Our collusion monitoring is something we are very proud of. In fact, we have given another writer for CardPlayer a fair amount of insight into our protection methods for a potential article on this topic. We are also in discussions with poker "celebrities" to possibly have them add their input into this area and ensure that from an outsider's perspective there is a recognized poker name. We have been extremely careful in not hiring or consulting publicly known US experts in this area because everything we do is based here in Costa Rica and our legal firm will not allow us to hire someone based in the US, as that could possibly be perceived as being part of the operations of the cardroom.
With respect to winning players, we have several very well known poker players that are currently playing and winning at the site. We suspect as is typical human nature for most people, winning players do not publicly broadcast their winnings. We payout close to $200,000 a week in profit checks alone (not including the hundreds of thousands paid back to player's credit cards), and have several players that have been consistently winning (we are sure you would recognize many of these players by name).
Taking all that into account, we would like to extend to you an invitation to visit us here in Costa Rica. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a first-hand experience many more. We will give you a tour of our operations, our ISP facilities and introduce you to members of our programming, security and support teams. We will walk you through the operations and answer all of your questions first hand. Of course, as it's our invitation, we would be happy to pick up the tab for both your flight and accommodations.
Please let us know -- looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Trevor Paradise Poker
.
Its disturbing that they won't publish an audit. An audit might reveal the other people invloved. Hey, the FARC does business with the chairmen of the NYSE. Does that make drug running, communist insurgents legitimate? I don't think so.
So, We will have no audit,and no recognized collusion authority(no Sklansky). They acknowledged a name: Linda Seaton. A strawman acknowledgent is progress. She'll probably start taking heat when the house passes the kyl bill later this week.
If the Costa Ricans won't allow American collusion police, why do they allow any associations with some of the other comapnies listed in the response? why do they allow an American president? A president is not neccesarily an owner. A president can be just an employee stand up person. They still have answered nothing.
Ed should take the free vaction. Anything beyond that without detailed financial anaylsis is a smoke screen.
And he better keep his wallet in a safe place ,too. Right Gary?
If the Costa Ricans won't allow American collusion police, why do they allow any associations with some of the other comapanies listed in the response? why do they allow an American president? A president is not neccesarily an owner. A president can be just an employee stand up person. They still have answered nothing.
Ed should take the free vaction. Anything beyond that without detailed financial anaylsis is a smoke screen.
1. "e-mail advertising" is called SPAM and it illegal. 2. I don't know any non_US great poker players.
Ed,
Preface: My experiences at HE were similar to yours although the O8 low limit games were so weak that I managed to walk away ok. I am not playing any more there for a few reasons, amongst these are the threat of the plug being pulled and having difficulty getting my money out after the Kyl bill passes.
With that all being said, this is a nice offer. If you have time, you should go. I think these people are on the up-and-up, but they will have a big problem if the govt passes the Kyl bill. Which I think will happen and kill their business in the USA. There are a fair number of overseas players, so they might do ok, but it is a sad day when the casinos and the religious fanatics get together and pull this Kyl bill off.
About the play there: I posted elsewhere about how good I think the the 20-40 winning players are. I have watched them for many hours, and their control and ability is amazing. Many of them are from the UK or Australia and Europe. Some of them are from LV or LA, but one thing I know: The fish who get into the 20-40 game and play too many hands and/or play badly get fried real quick. I think they are a lineup of the overseas and USA too WSOP, like PP claims.
Mark
Ed,
If you feel that by going there that you can:
1) assess the fairness of their games 2) asses their collusion-detetion ability, and 3) have your report on these items be persuasive to the poker community,
then is a great opportunity to do us all a service by going this "market-conduct exam".
One question I would like to have answered, if you go, regards their collusion-detection. Although, they claim to be good at watching out for it, I do not know of any cases where a player has been caught and disciplined. I realize that Paradise may not want to publicize such cases for business reasons, and privacy issues. But there would be added comfort on my part if I knew that in addition to detecting colluders, that they actually took actions to stop the colluding. It seems to me that one could look into this question best by going to thier business location, talking to them, and seeing actual cases. I am not really interested in details, but I would like to know from an independent 3rd party such as yourself whether or not players have been disciplined for collusion, and if so, is it adequate.
If they say they have never needed to discipline anyone because they have never found collusion, then I would be suspicious. I would want to see their collusion detection methods in action.
Steve
They should invite David Sklansky with a top programmer in tow. David would be able to see if their collusion detection algorithms are up to snuff and the programmer could verify the shuffling algorithms and code. If Paradise is serious about opening their doors to Ed Hill, why not invite a pair that could determine better than he what Paradise wishes to show. Mason could even subject all 13 million hand histories to statistical analysis (the programmer could write some code that would sift the database if Paradise does not already have spreadsheet type access to pertinent data). Of course, they might have to compensate Sklansky and Co., or at least offer them a heck of a great vacation.
My point is not that Sklansky should or should not accept such an offer if Paradise extends it, but rather that his view after an inside look at Paradise would carry more weight than Ed Hill's or Nolan Dalla's (and rightfully so), and that would be in keeping with Paradise's apparent aim in making such an offer. In addition, such a team would probably be able to relatively quickly assess the level of collusion detection employed, the fairness of the shuffle, and the statistical validity of hands already dealt (assuming Paradise has some way of pulling relevant data from the database).
If they ask Sklansky, Mason & Hill with a computer expert they agree on , I will regard what they say as GOSPEL!!!!!! Small cost to clear this all up. PS I forgot Nolan Still a small cost!!!
Ed Hill visiting Costa Rica does not address any of the issues raised here by Ed Hill and others. This is a smart Public Relations move by Paradise and nothing more. How is Ed going to evaluate the fairness of their software and the quality of their internet security? He can't. Ed can report back on how nice and sociable paradise employees were to him. Ed can tell us about their great smiles and nice offices. But, Ed can not address any of the issues raised by him or others about Paradise's operations.
I think we should let Ed say whether or not he can answer these difficult questions by an on-site visit. Maybe he can, maybe he can't.
For example, if they can show him what they do to stop collusion, then he can evaluate their method. Now it is possible that they don't really implement what they show him, but at least he can evaluate whether they know how to do it well. This would be a significant finding. Personally, if I were satisfied that Ed was an expert in detecting collusion, and he said that they know how to do it at Paradise, then I would believe that Paradise is choosing to implement collusion detection rather than not choos to.
Seeing whether or not the games are fair would be harder. This is basically deciding whether or not you trust the management, rather than evaluating a computer program.
However, even the fairness evaluation couild be helped by an on-site visit. If they are willing to allow him to look at actual hands played in money games with hole cards, then he could better determine if "the worst starting hand beats the best starting hand" more frequently than chance would dictate. (The quote is from Ed's post that started this all). They may be willing to show hands with hole cards on-site without letting him take the data home so to protect the players. If they sent him the same data, then the games would be compromised. Thus there is potential benefit from an on-site visit.
Steve
I think that Paradise is NOT guilty of most of the charges made against them. I agree that it is in Paradise's best long-term interest to run a fair game.
My point is that an independent audit by expert card players and qualified software developers with a background in this area is required to establish legitimacy. Paradise's invitation of these two individuals is simply smart public relations.
I've developed software that controls slot machines in AC, LV, Reno, and other locations. I've worked with the regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Nevada. I've had the inside view on detecting cheating.
I know of employees from a major slot manufacturer that programmed slot machines to payoff under the proper conditions. The games ended up on casino floors. The programmer then visited those casinos and proceeded to setup the proper conditions.
I know of a keno system that was compromised by persons with inside information. They went to casinos using this system and won large sums of money.
Independent verification and certification of these sites is an absolute necessity.
amen
This thread is a perfect example of why Paradise won't engage in public debate. They sent you a perfectly reasonable message, and all it has generated is another round of accusations and suspicion. They are absolutely correct - they have nothing to gain by trying to explain anything to these people.
where did you learn to read? Not one accusation existsin this entire thread. All that has been asked is for the company to answer some legitimate questions by vanilla sources. No one is threatening to criminally investigate the place. You do appear to be a sychophant for this industry.
I do not purport to be an expert on the intricacies of internet regulation, and especially not this Kyl Bill that is currently being considered. However, I do know a bit about computing and the internet, and here are a few of my thoughts:
Even if this bill is passed, it will be extremely difficult to enforce. For this very reason, the regulation of content on internet sites has been very limited. The practical implications of trying to stop approximately 80 million internet users in the US from accessing any particular website are mind-boggling. How exactly does the Gov't intend to stop me from logging on to Paradise if I so choose? Indeed, how will the gov't even KNOW I am logging on to Paradise? Internet Service Providers do not constantly monitor the online actions of its users, unless they have a complaint of some sort that identifies a particular user's IP address. The inherent difficulty of enforcing any such laws are the main reason laws such as this one being considered have failed to gain much support in Congress. Just take a look at the online porn industry, which, although having been one of the few areas of internet traffic that has been the focus of the fledgling regulation of online matters, has flourished. There are thousands of violations of internet pornography laws every hour, yet I don't see anyone refraining from visiting the sites, or being arrested, or losing access to the internet. In fact, according to statistics I recently read concerning the proportion of web surfers who purchase pornography over the internet, if every violation of these internet pornography laws were actually enforced, there would be noone left to use the internet!
Basically, the point of this post is to assure all of you faithful Internet poker players that, even if this Kyl Bill passes, I wouldn't worry too much. Paradise will still be in business, if only for its non-US customers. I know I will still be playing from the US, since I am aware of how difficult it will be to enforce this law. I will also have no ethical qualms about "breaking the law" by playing online after the bill is passed. The sole reason the US is even considering this law is because it cannot profit from these online casinos at the moment. It's not an ethical issue, if it were, then the US would not be the largest producer of gambling entertainment in the universe, and I wouldn't have the largest casino in the world in my backyard (Foxwoods).
Comments and skewers welcome. Maven
They can track you from participation on websites. They can also simply take the ip addresses of the known internet gaming houses of ill repute and block transmission from them.
It will probably take a couple of high profile felony convictions of people like yourself to convince the public that there are better ways to lose their money.
You obviously don't know very much about internet protocol. your ignorant statement belies this fact. Let's take your statements one at a time:
"They can track you from participation on websites"
This might be true, if they (I assume by "they" you mean the government agency charged with enforcing this law) specifically wished to track an indivual user. However, trying to track the several thousand players who play on internet poker sites would be a daunting task indeed.
"They can also simply take the ip addresses of the known internet gaming houses of ill repute and block transmission from them"
Well, this shows your complete ignorance of internet traffic and TCP/IP protocols. How exactly do you propose that the site be blocked? This is not nearly as simple as you make it sound. Since these sites are all in foreign countries, and domain names and IP addresses are neither regulated nor controlled by the US government, how will they be blocked?
"It will probably take a couple of high profile felony convictions of people like yourself to convince the public that there are better ways to lose their money"
You make several false assumtions here. First you assume that violation of this new law would carry a felony sentence, which is still unclear. Second, you assume that I am a losing player, a judgement you are wholly unqualified to make, since you know nothing about me.
I would suggest you not post such ridiculous messages under fake names. If you have a valid opinion, at least post it under something other than some moronic alias. You are the poster-child for the need for verifiable logins for this forum. Do you not realize that your actions are detrimental to serious, thoughtful discussion on these forums?
In order to avoid fueling the fire of moronic posts like yours, I will refrain from replying to any of your future posts. If everyone on these forums would do the same, you simpletons will hopefully go away for lack of attention.
Maven,
Thank you for your thoughtful, well written posts. I have a couple of questions maybe you could answer.
When I hook up to the internet am I assigned a different IP address with each hookup or is the same addresses reserved for me at all times?
Are you implying that Paradise Poker can change it's domain name and therefore it is difficult to block any site based outside the US?
This bill is so infuriating! The hypocrisy of the United States Government is appalling. Free markets are great as long as they fill the pockets of the powerful....
If you are using a standard dial-up connection (modem), then your ISP (Internet Service Provider) assigns you an IP each time you log on. This is called a dynamic IP address. Your ISP applies for a range of IP addresses, and parses them out to its users. That's why you will notice that the first 3 sections of your IP are usually the same, but the last section changes with each dial-up session. (For example: 212.155.168.101 one day and 212.155.168.139 the next).
If you are on a cable modem, then you have a static IP address (same IP every time you turn you computer on).
Thanks for the info.
Another question.
What do the first 9 numbers identify, the service provider only, or the ISP and the location of the user's computer?
Thanks for your time, JTLV
ip addresses are assigned by the nic. They have to be registered..worldwide. Maven is aware of this. He posts under the name "Maven", thats obviously not his real name. He either is not as competent as he believes, or he is being intentionally deceptive. Of course, he said that he would openly break the law. If he breaks the law without caring on one issue, he most likely already breaks the law on another. No mention was made of Maven being a losing player. He took exception, however, so I believe it hit a nerve. If the FBI can locate the creator of a virus in the Phillipines in less than a week, they can locate an illegal gaming establishment in about 20 minutes.
Maven,
While I do have some confidence in your knowledge of Logic due to your studies and your experience in teaching Logic, I must point out that it is essential to correctly interpret the English as it is written before attempting to find logical flaws. Here you attack the previous poster's statement on logical grounds without first possessing a correct understanding of the poster's statement.
The previous poster wrote:
"It will probably take a couple of high profile felony convictions of people like yourself to convince the public that there are better ways to lose their money"
You responded: "You make several false assumtions here. First you assume that violation of this new law would carry a felony sentence, which is still unclear. Second, you assume that I am a losing player, a judgement you are wholly unqualified to make, since you know nothing about me."
1) He is not necessarily assuming, nor is he necessarily implying, that violation of this new law would carry a felony sentence. Rather, he is stating that that is probably what it would take (to convince the public, etc.)
This is a subtle but important difference. He could be well aware that it might not necessarily be classifiable as a felony, but he thinks that a couple of high-profile felony convictions, should they come to pass, would probably be what it would take (to convince the public, etc.)--and he might even think that lesser convictions might not probably convince the public, etc. While we don't know for sure what he is thinking, we can see that he is neither definitely assuming nor definitely implying...etc.
2) He did not refer to you as a losing player; his reference was to the public losing their money.
Finally, in your opening paragraph, you stated: "You obviously don't know very much about internet protocol. your ignorant statement belies this fact." If he doesn't know much about internet protocol, I should think that his statement, if indeed ignorant, would support rather than belie his lacking such knowledge. I have taken the liberty of copying a short definition of the verb belie from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Main Entry: be·lie Pronunciation: bi-'lI Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -lied; -ly·ing Date: before 12th century 1 a : to give a false impression of b : to present an appearance not in agreement with 2 a : to show (something) to be false or wrong b : to run counter to : CONTRADICT 3 : DISGUISE 3 - be·li·er /-'lI(-&)r/ noun
I bring up these points simply because it is vital to have a clear picture of the premises before undertaking any logical analysis or deconstruction of statements, and in order to do so, it is essential to correctly understand them as they are written. It is also all too easy to take the tone of a paragraph or post and allow it to influence one's perception of what the poster is actually stating. I have noticed this trait as being quite prevalent both on this forum and on RGP. Dissection of ideas must start with clear perception of what is stated. Of course, in many cases it would be helpful if the writers were more concise as well.
This post wasn't meant to be hostile to Maven at all. Maven is obviously hostile to me, however. I'm still amazed that anyone can play on this site and not notice 1. the clearly repetitive patterns of non-random distribution, 2. the unusually high frequency of best hands being beat, 3. Collusion. No remedies have been offerred by Paradise, nor are they willing to have the software, their ownership, or finances audited by 3rd party reputable firms. To support this industry under these circumstances is like selling snake oil to unsuspecting true believers in miracles at a revival. Economic interest is the only rational motive for this support. These sites have plenty of money to spread around. The true question becomes why I care about corruption. I shouldn't. Its the American Way (2 ways to make money: the honest way, and the American way).
I believe my assumption that the "high-profile felony convictions" in question would come as a result of a violation of this new law to be a fair one. Why would any other type of felony conviction (high-profile or otherwise) "convince the public that there are better ways to lose their [its] money"? (Brackets denote grammatical correction by me). If I were to be convicted of some other type of felony (i.e. kidnapping, rape, etc.), how exactly would this impact the public's perception of internet gambling? I see no connection; therefore my assumption that the poster is referring to a felony conviction DIRECTLY RELATED to internet gambling, and especially one related to this new law, is a fair one. Another other type of felony conviction would seem to have no bearing on the public's perception of internet gambling.
"2) He did not refer to you as a losing player; his reference was to the public losing their [its]money." (Brackets again provided by me)
I will agree that he did not refer specifically to me in this statement. Unfair assumption on my part, though in my defense, the tone of his prior posts were offensive toward me, so maybe I was a bit quick to jump the gun here. You hit the nail on the head when you state: "It is also all too easy to take the tone of a paragraph or post and allow it to influence one's perception of what the poster is actually stating." Indeed I am guilty of this type of misreading in this instance, and will make every effort to avoid such in the future.
Next you quote me and state: ""You obviously don't know very much about internet protocol. your ignorant statement belies this fact." If he doesn't know much about internet protocol, I should think that his statement, if indeed ignorant, would support rather than belie his lacking such knowledge. "
Indeed you are correct here M. This was a typing error on my part, probably due to my re-editing of the sentence later in writing, and not thoroughly rereading the whole post. The statement should have read thusly: "Your ignorant statement about blocking specific web sites BELIES your knowledge of interner protocol and TCP/IP routing." Thank you for the (unecessarily) provided dictionary definition , though I hope you are not trying to imply that I was using a word whose meaning I failed to fully understand. :)
In reference to your last paragraph, one does not need to be dealing with Venn Diagrams or P's and Q's (as used in logical truth tables) to apply logical analysis, nor are the rigors of this analysis any less stringent when applied to spoken or written arguments. In fact, logical analysis works just as well in everyday speech and text (i.e. letters to the editor, INTERNET FORUM POSTS) as it does in mathematics.
You are right on the money with your statement, however: "I bring up these points simply because it is vital to have a clear picture of the premises before undertaking any logical analysis or deconstruction of statements, and in order to do so, it is essential to correctly understand them as they are written." Of course one needs to fully understand the premises to understand the argument. The problem on these forums is that too often the premises go unstated, and the posters leave themselves open for misinterpretation. On the other hand, one can often draw rational conclusions as to the nature of a posters' premises, based on the context and tone of a argument. In fact, it is often cumbersome and unnecessary to state all the premises (especially those that are painfully obvious). This is why I feel my assumption of the premises regarding the felony conviction argument above was fair, since my assumption makes the most sense from a rational standpoint. (Why would he be referring to a felony conviction related to something other than internet gambling?)
I think our back-and-forth on these issues is productive, if only to demonstrate to others on these forums how thorough, logical analysis can lead to thoughtful and incisive exchanges. (Especially the internet poker forum, which seems most in need of rationality).
I will be at Foxwoods this weekend; if I remember I will bring a book for you, dealing with identifying and deconstructing logical fallacies in everyday language. It's a great book, and I am sure you will enjoy it.
Thoughts and Skewers Welcome.
Maven
Several typos, I better fix them before someone jumps down my throat :)
1st Paragraph should read: "Any other type of felony conviction" instead of "Another other type of felony conviction"
3rd Paragraph should read: "the tone of his prior posts WAS offnesive toward me" instead of "the tone of his prior posts were offensive toward me"
Maven,
I was not suggesting that the poster might have been thinking of another type of felony conviction (other than internet-gambling related), but rather that he might have been aware of the possibility of, say, a lesser charge (say, e.g., misdemeanor) and conviction on the same or similar grounds. He could have been thinking that this would likely be insufficient in the public's eye to...(etc.)
I am not sure if I will be at FW this wknd. or if I will be out of town. I would of course be interested in the book you mention and would appreciate the chance to look it over--thx.
Well, I can only by what he DID say, and not what he MIGHT or COULD have meant. The only logical interpretation of his statement is that violation of this new law would result in a "felony conviction," and that these convictions would convince the public of the inadvisability of gambling on the internet. There is no mention of "misdemeanor," only felony. Thus I believe my assumption of his premise to be a valid one, or at least a reasonable one....
Maven,
You are correct when you say that you can only go by what he did say, not what he might have meant. That is exactly my point. While your interpretation might be, and is, a reasonable one, attacking his logic on that basis is not as reasonable as your interpretation is. In other words, there are possible scenarios in which his statement would be completely logical. The point of the sentence in question, also, was not whether it might become a felony to gamble on the internet, but what it might take to "convince the public", etc. If he feels that things lesser than a couple of high-profile felony convictions would not "convince the public", but that a couple of high-profile felony convictions would "probably convince the public", then his statement is entirely logical. Whether these potential future convictions might be felonies or not, or what the bill or law might indicate in this regard, has no bearing on the logical integrity of his statement. Therefore it makes no difference to the logical integrity of his statement whether he assumes they would be felony convictions or not. He might be making an error in his assumption, if indeed he has one, but this is a separate issue which we at present have not verified and do not at present have enough information to verify.
The Internet Forum in particular could indeed especially benefit from greater objective analysis and less emotional reaction/interpretation. I suspect that there is somehow a greater feeling of powerlessness that losing on the Internet engenders (compared with losing at live poker), and that this combined with suspicions of cheating as a cause of personal losses magnifies the emotional element substantially, even to the point of somewhat reducing the objective analytical ability of many participants.
Mark S. ("M")
Maven,
I am annoyed and upset too at the hypocrasy of this proposed legislation.
However, if it does get passed into law, and assuming that no judge gives an offshore gambling site injunctive relief, then it will be very easy to enforce immediately.
Justice Department makes a list of known ip addresses of offshore gaming sites, and gives those to every ISP in sight. ISP simply adds the ip addresses to a firewall 'deny' file. This will take minutes to do. Poof, Paradise is offline. Any technical person (I run an Internet Software firm) knows how to do this. Too bad it is so easy.
Mark
Maven sure shot off some hot air. It is obvious that he is the one doesn't know what he's talking about.
Mark posts quality messages.
Mark, I will attempt to reply to your message without also replying to the moron's posts below ours, the same moron who changes his name with each post. Obviously my real name is not Maven, but it IS a handle that I have used consistently for many years on the internet in various forums, so it is not so much an alias meant to confuse others as it is a convenient way to identify myself on the internet, a place where VERY few people use their full given names (not only for privacy but also for practical ease-of-use).
As far as blocking a site through every ISP in America, this of course is possible, but also very impractical, as the "forbidden sites" can easily change domain names.
I do not intend to argue the feasibility of doing this, but rather the likelihood of it happening. Let's assume this bill gets passed. Many here seem to think that internet poker is dead and buried on the spot. I disagree. Implementation of this law would be slow to very slow, depending on the level of priority assigned to it by Congress and the responsible agancy (FBI I assume).
If it were so easy to erase undesirable websites, why then is pornography, especially illegal pornagraphy, by far the most popular destination for websurfers? Why can't the Gov't stomp this out if it is so easy?
In any case, as others have previously pointed out, Paradise Poker and other sites do not cater exclusively to Americans. There is a very healthy contingent of European, Canadian nad Australian players online, which would keep the doors open. And I know that I will still be able to access the site regardless of any type of "IP block" the government would try to institute. I could accomplish this in a multitude of manners (IP spoofing, remote port redirection etc.) Not to metion the fact that anyone who is seriously interested in playing online could simply buy ISP access from a Canadian company. many of which would be happy to offer toll-free dial-up access and steal customers from American providers. :)
Comments and Skewers welcome, Maven
Maven argues that his alias identifies him. I don't think so. He also retracts from his previous position about blocking. In doing this, Maven starts talking about hacking methods used to get around firewalls. Maven sure sounds like an honest man to me.NOT!
I mentioned that he Maven isn't his name in the post under Maven's friend. He read it, or he wouldn't have responded under Mark's post. Hey Maven, what other names do you use,..Avocado Fats?
Many Paradise players aren't from the USA this bill means nothing to us. They can pass the bill but the poker sites will continue to serve the rest of the world. US based players will find a way to play. Maybe the US government will wake to and realise the Internet is a global phenomenon for once and stop navel gazing.
d.
Is it possible to beat the rake at the 2$-4$ and 3$-6$ games at ParadisePoker?
Yes.
Well the first attempt to get the internet gambling prohibition passed fails. As I have been saying all along, despite all the ease that some people think they could pass this law...it just aint going to happen. Clinton's people said he will veto it without a doubt if it has any kind of exemptions in it and since the vote couldn't pass a majority to override a veto, you can kiss it goodbye this year. This bill with no exemptions will not even pass a simple majority vote, but politics will be played. As I said before, the sponsors probably don't care all that much if it really passes or not, all that matters is that they say to their donors and voters that they tried to protect your children and our uncaring opposition doesn't believe in that and they will earn just as many brownie points. What do these guys really care, they aren't out gambling on the net, the law doesn't affect them. To top it off they come up with more outrageous and stupid provisions all the time. Its not longer really about making laws against betting online, its about telling ISPs to cut off service to online betting sites in one bill and trying with futility to make it illegal to send money to not only gambling sites, but any country that has gambling sites in it. The Justice Department has already said right now they have no intentions of ever going out and arresting bettors for this behavior and Bush isn't running on a platform of lets put people in jail for gambling. Gore is saying he will never approve any internet restrictions. Therefore if Bush gets elected there is an outside shot of this happening : the government will officially tell you what you are doing is illegal, as opposed to now where most people figure its probably illegal, but they do it anyways. Do you see any real difference? If Gore wins suddenly I wouldn't be surprised to see a few states get bold and start doing just what people are mentioning, joning in the fray and taking their cut. In the end though, all the questions of cheating and fraud probably will never be resolved because people could still cheat with the software they use online and collusion is still possible even with the best of regulation. Even though quite a few people want to say the end of the industry is coming soon...please just think about how foolish your beliefs are. This industry never started out with any blessings from any governments and they certainly aren't worried about getting them now.
"One way to promote the Internet is to make sure that the seamy side of life is dealt with on the Internet," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va. "Just like child pornography has to be dealt with on the Internet, so does unregulated, out-of-control, illegal gambling."
After the vote, Goodlatte said he hopes the House leadership "will honor the will of the majority" and bring up the bill for another vote, this time under normal rules requiring only a simple majority for passage"
It would appear that the committee that presented this to the floor(controlled by Republicans by the way) arranged for the vote to require a 2/3 majority to pass instaed of a simple majority, even though the bill has not been vetoed. I'm sure that some legislative loophole exists for such an action, but the truth is more probably 7 figure donations to political action committees. Legalized bribery sure makes things comfortable for groups like Tobacco, arms dealers, and apparently offshore gaming interests.
I'm surprised the major Casinos didn't offer larger "gratutities".
It seems like the U.S. would be a much better country if a 2/3 majority were always required to pass a bill.
-Abdul
No kidding, ain't that the truth. If you all will note, I did say it might still pass, but it seems pointless right now because there is little consensus. With no consensus lawmakers start doing really stupid things. Take Orrin Hatch. He was at first the mostly likely person to take up the matter in the senate and then two weeks later he was the main opponent of this bill. Huh? Well it turns out Mr. Senator wasn't for internet gambling, he just wanted HIS bill to be the one to lead the charge. So he fought another bill. Guess why? Because like you hear it now, the other bill wasn't strong enough...he wants nothing less than a right to cut off gambling to anything possible. Hell he probably would take a shot at gambling in Nevada if it weren't something protected by states rights issues. People that saw the death of internet gambling on this board just looked at basic facts and considered it a no-brainer. Thats a mistake as this is politics and politics makes for strange bed-fellows.
N/T
whats a consesus? learn to spell mr no name.
p
That is not completely true...it just didn't pass the 2/3 majority it needed to basically get rubber-stamped. It got far more than 50 percent of the vote, but not enough to pass this vote. It probably will be brought up shortly for a regular vote with more debate and amendments allowed. However this is significant because it cannot pass a Clinton veto now.
l
The bill will pass this week.
Where do you get all this information from? First that Costa Rica has no extradition which is a flat out lie and second that Clinton will sign this bill as it stands. Clinton's spokesperson came out and said flat out I will not sign this bill if it has exemptions. The Justice Department has advised against it because of the racetrack loopholes saying it will legalize more gambling. If you look at the bill this is most definitely true. The race tracks would get legal wording allowing their interstate simulcasting which could through strict interpretation be deemed illegal by a court. Further this would legalize pari-mutuel wagering within a closed loop system as the bill states it. In other words if anyone wanted to run horse betting in any state basically, it would just have to have a "closed-loop" system and utilize a pari-mutuel method. Further the justice department stated that this would effectively make the state the wager took place as the state of legal transaction. Its not hard to imagine Nevada sports books or anyone else going out and setting up shot nationwide to take race bets. This is why Justice recommended a veto of this bill and Clinton's spokesperson specifically said he would follow their advice. Where do you come up with the idea that he would sign it???
As for Costa Rican extradition, last year 19 people were extradited from Costa Rica to the United States. Costa Rica will not extradite someone facing a capital punishment crime which is why they usually will not extradite drug lords who often face numerous murder charges. I forgot the website I read this on, but there is some negotiation right now to change the capital punishment exemption whereby the Federal courts systems will make it a policy to remove possibility of death sentence just to get an extradition as this is the policy of quite a few countries worldwide. The US Justice Department I guess has decided that its better to get a person locked up than not get any chance at a conviction because of a desire for the death penalty. However there is no truth to the statement that if someone committed a crime against an American that they would not be subject to extradition. In your types of cases no one will be facing capital offenses in all likelihood. However I would think that the overzealous US laws might run into trouble. After all if someone is just running a book or a poker room on the net and Americans are betting on it, I don't think the US government will be able to convince a foreign government this is reason for extradition considering it is a legal activity in that country.
Just recently three people were arrested for theft as they used the details of a US customer of a sports book's banking profile to wire funds out of his account. They thought they would get away with it, but within a day they were caught and two sports book employees and a bank employee now face charges that will likely lead to 3 years in jail. Now if they got extradited to the US how long do you think they would serve? Do you even feel that certain they would get convicted? In any event this supposedly lawless country (in your opinion) had a banking system that caught this in a matter of hours and the police had the three arrested by the end of the next day. You still think this is an easy place for con artists to work? Con artists know they still have a much easier time using the phone to rip off old ladies in Florida than they do when they have to work through the international finance system.
Learn to read. Policy and treaties are 2 different things. Ask John Hull. Do you know who he is? Probably not. Well, what does one suspect from a man who calls himself wildbill.
I believe my earlier assessment of you is correct. I hope that you develop either serious legal problems, or difficulties with associates for being so public about your miscreant affiliations.
Lovely thoughts. I hope you develop pancreatic cancer and die a horrendous death so the world can be a better place. Hmm, sounds like something you would say....in other words, why must you have such hatred towards everyone? Fine there is a treaty, but it still yielded 19 extraditions last year so why are you going and picking up on one case to say there is no extradition? Do you not read everything I say and just find it necessary to keep your closed mind focused on only what you think and believe? I don't give a rats ass what happens in Costa Rica and the people I know there are merely friends that I have picked up over my short lifetime, but I do believe people on here should speak the truth. You seem to forget the truth most of the time just so you can make pointed attacks on posters that are just sharing their knowledge and opinions. Be thankful most of us aren't idiots like you that hold vengeance above anything else. And even better yet everyone else should thank those of us that stick our heads out to get chopped off by an ass like you. Take Dan Hanson, he is a top notch poker player that I have talked to before and have seen survive the wars with top players in various venues. Yet to you he is just fair game to attack viciously even though he hasn't been that regular a poster. You make it seem like he lacks any knowledge and speaks lies. If that is so why does Poker Digest give him a column? And how has he survived the years as a professional at one of the toughest jobs there is? I really thought you virulent posts were comical until you went attacking him. A person I and many in the poker world respect should be welcomed as a poster and not subjected to crap like that. If Doyle Brunson comes on here and posts something are you going to call him a senseless idiot with ties to the mob??? After all he used to play in illegal home games with members of many crime families present at various times back in Texas. In your logic that means he must have close ties to them and support all they do! Come on get real. Post something that respects the people on here and gives your opinion without rudely ripping on anyone who dares hold an opposing view to you. Hell if you want keep posting your crap against me, I am getting a bigger and bigger laugh out of your crazy mind with each post. I am waiting to hear in November when you accuse me of using my mob ties to get someone elected or something like that.
Show us your source for extraditions. Selective enforcement is certainly possible. Anyone with money is not extradited. Poor campesinos might be.Interpol has only one listed fugitive.You indicate 19 extraditions took place, how many to the USA?(probably zero). Once again, deception. I know of only one high proflie FBI arrest in Costa Rica in recent memory. That of penny stock hustler Carlos Shidlowski. He wasn't extradited, though. He was arrested by US FBI agents while in Costa Rica. The FBI will exceed their jurisdiction these days if the case has enough notoriety.
Why has the US government failed to extradite John Hull, or Oliver North, nor Felix Rodriguez, nor Barry Seal(though he is dead now)to Costa Rica?
Why are you implicating Brunson if you are anyones' friend? If what you say is true about his previous affiliations, then he probably should be investigated for his poker site. As my previous post indicates, you talk to much for your friends' legal health. They are the ones you should be concerned with. This business is ripe for abuse. Its probably crawling with it, too.The more you talk, the more we will find out.
I don't see you calling for any regulation which might restore public confidence. So take your self righteous extremist views and go scream about Waco instead of bothering me.
Hey, I didn't say anything about Dan Hanson. Where do you get that from?
I've been reading posts here about cheating and hacking on internet poker sites such as paradise and planet poker. I haven't really believed any of it since now that I have seen it happen first hand at Planet Poker.
There have been way too many draw outs by players which just should not be playing their cards. And when you do have a winning hand there are at most one player and the big blind in the hand. (ie: twice it happenned that when I had a premium starting hand such as KQs, flop the nut straight and the only caller before the flop is the big blind.)
(ie2: pocket Qs in the small blind, only one caller out there, this is very unusual in this particular game, flop A A 10, turn 9, river 8, lone player called all the way with J7.) These are only 2 examples of many.
(ie3: player RAISED flop with Kh5h, flop one heart, turn and river heart, but he was raising before the flop, on the flop with nothing, on the turn and bet the river.)
This is just sick. I'm not complaining because I lost since a few hundred dollars is not a large amount but I have noticed these things and want to make everyone aware. Someone or people must have some kind of knowledge about the cards to come, it just isn't possible for this to happen so OFTEN. Comments welcome.
If you think Paradise Poker is bad, you should visit Yahoo!
Mike Caro sees eveybody's cards and tells all his friends, especially when he sees that the opponent posts on this site. There is a way to get around this however. Say something insulting toward Mason Malmuth on rgp. Depending on how nasty it is, your chances of being dealt a pair of pocket aces goes up to somewhere between one in 128 an one in 32. (Those numbers have something to do with the binary system but I am too computer illiterate to understand the details.)
Funniest Post of the year!
Standup can't be too far away. Look out Seinfeld!!!!
Pocket Aces won't be any good in the games that go on at Planet Poker. Someone with 2 8 offsuit will river 2 pair or something of that sort. What's sick about it is that if they have a pair of deuces on the flop they would probably raise the heck out of you and river their second pair.
I understand that Planet Poker is the only game that Abdul has been able to beat. This explains why we virtually never see him in the poker room.
Do you ever tell the truth, Mason? I've never played Planet Poker for money. I play a fair amount of poker, and my average win is almost certainly higher than yours in the games we both play. Get laid, get a cat, and get professional help.
-Abdul
"Get laid, get a cat, and get professional help."
Ouch!
He could respond that you're doing all three at the same time.
And let our imagination run rampant. (Sorry, Mike, couldn't resist it.)
I was playing a stupendous 3-handed $80-$160 game last night at 4 am. Where was Mason? I was playing $100-$200 two nights ago at 4 am. Where was Mason? I played $15-$30, $30-$60, and $80-$160 on many recent nights before that. Where was Mason? Of the thousands of times that I've been playing poker at 4 am, I don't recall ever seeing Mason. By Mason's logic, I should conclude that Mason does not ever play poker. What a maroon!
I never see Mason when I play poker in LA. I never see Mason when I play poker in Phoenix. Does Mason play at all? What a maroon!
I never see Mason when I play blackjack in the U.S., much less England, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic, etc. I never see Mason when I make sports bets in Vegas. I never see Mason when I play video poker in Vegas. Does he even exist? What a maroon!
I also never see Mason when I'm at home working on my book (thank Allah.) Does Mason write at all? What a maroon!
I don't play much poker on the weekends, as I play blackjack then, and sometimes I'm on the road, but I would be happy to meet you in my office any day next week at 4 am to play heads up $100-$200, maroon. Virtually nothing you believe about me is correct.
-Abdul
Does this mean I will have to carefully poofread Mason's new book "The Biography of Abdul Jalib (Unauthorized)" ?
David:
It's interesting that you bring this up. I'm currently working on the chapter entitled "How Abdul Always Maintains Emotional Control Even in the Toughest of Situations and Circumstances."
Physician, heal thyself.
Moderator, censor thyself.
-Abdul
"I also never see Mason when I'm at home working on my book"
Completed manuscripts can be sent to us at Two Plus Two. Give approximately 30 days for review.
You're letting David write your posts again, as you have no sense of humor.
-Abdul
Unreal....and the other day Malmuth chewed out some poor poster for asking about play at a Las Vegas casino.
.
Hot dang! This is way better than that "Gary vs. The Kid" thing we had a while back...
These types of posts are why I read on the internet. Everything is is pure crap.
Willy,
Either it is possible for it to happen so often, or all the people who wail about ridiculous beats by players who shouldn't have been in the hand are making it up. I hear this all the time in the live games at Foxwoods. Maybe some of the idiots there too have knowledge of the cards to come.
I agree. It is the funnist post of the year, and David, of all people made it!
I play on planet for about 3 months now and I cashout from $1000 to $2000 each week. I don't think there is much cheating other than an occasional collusion. Your post implies that not one but almost all players can see your cards + know what cards will come.
Sklansky and Malmuth would play there regularly if the game was that soft.
1. I am up $15,000 so far but it doesn't meant that it will be $75,000 a year. "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results" :-). I mostly play stud. I find that stud is much easier to beat and that element of luck in stud is much less.
2. I don't know if they play it or not.
Its normal internet crap. The managment at 2+2 benefits from internet poker by advertising. The sites have shills that post here and attack any legitimate complaints, colluders themselves post here, and so do hackers who know how to see the cards. The owners of Planet, Highlands, and probably Paradise all have Vegas connections(Caro, Brunson..etc...) Complaining to the wolves that are responsible for the cheating does absolutely no good. Its a racket that is destroying any progress that poker's image may have accomplished over the last few years. The general public should see internet poker as sleazy, corrupt, and something to avoid.
I think you are right. Saying that cheating goes on and expecting people on this forum to care is like claiming that rapes go on in a prison. People either look the other way in order to not get involved, or they smile and decide that you are the next victim..
Gary, what are you saying? That these prominent figures (Caro, Brunson, and presumably Skalansky and Malmuth) are part of a huge conspiracy that they know would wreck the game of poker if uncovered?
Who are the ones that have built poker's image over the last few years?
You are correct that many people make ludicrous comments on this forum (just like any other Internet forum with potential controversy). It is up to the reader to decide in his own mind which ideas to embrace and which to reject.
So you have made the observation after your 15 years of experience that you "have never seen people suck out like they do at Paradise Poker." [from another of your posts] So based on these observations (paired with your brilliant analytical mind, no doubt), you have come to the unrefutable conclusion that all these Internet poker sites are involved in a conspiracy with all of the big names in poker? Get real!
Was that a flame? If so, it was my first. But I would classify your post as ludicrous. What proof do you have to back up your claims?
I said nothing of the sort. I simply suggested that Internet Poker is sleazy, and I believe that it is.Several people from Vegas are involved at varying sites. Thats an observation. You came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy. I believe that it is no different than say a defective model coming out of Detroit car factories. The companaies frequently pay off lawsuits rather than recall. Raping the public is a common business practice. I suggest that you seek psychological help for your conspiratorial psychological bent.
I repeat what I said to John M.
"I said nothing of the sort. I simply suggested that Internet Poker is sleazy, and I believe that it is.Several people from Vegas are involved at varying sites. Thats an observation. You came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy. I believe that it is no different than say a defective model coming out of Detroit car factories. The companies frequently pay off lawsuits rather than recall. Raping the public is a common business practice. I suggest that you seek psychological help for your conspiratorial psychological bent"
Apologists for the companies on this site are suspect. They have economic motive to ignore the facts.Your many more hands per hour argument is just a smoke and mirror theory put forth by Paradise management to avoid publishing audits by legitimate corporations like rst.
Get real Mr.ALger, and get psychological counseling.
Talking to yourself? Who's the one in need of psychological help?
Also I did not come "to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy." I wrongly believed that you had come to this conclusion. I am the one arguing against conspiracy theory. But since you obviously do not believe that there is a conspiracy, then we are in complete agreement on that issue?
Anyway, I apologize profusely that I misinterpreted your earlier post...
So what exactly are you stating in your original post? Since you don't believe in a conspiracy theory, it would your post contains numerous, unrelated "observations." (Aside from the "facts" that hackers, etc., post on this site and Internet gambling is sleazy.) So please expound upon your views one by one:
1. "The managment at 2+2 benefits from internet poker by advertising." *** This sentence is poorly constructed as we don't know if 2+2 is reaping profits from others advertising on its site or if it gets the chance to advertise because of the existence of Internet gambling. Assuming that you mean they are paid by those who advertise on this site (which I could be wrong, again because your vague sentence), you are suggesting that online poker entities pay for each of their posts? If so, then I have a suggestion to these companies: Why not use aliases so they don't know that it's you posting the ads? (Gee, I bet they haven't thought of that one yet!) There, now 2+2 won't benefit from this advertising any further!
2. "The sites have shills that post here and attack any legitimate complaints" ****Shill: "One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle." OK, IF you were to prove these entities were a swindle (rather than simply unobjective "observations"), I would believe this statement as well. You will, of course, argue that I am shill. Let me save you the trouble, because I know what your argument will be..."What idiot would spend 30 minutes arguing with this other idiot about such moronic ideas when he could be making thousands of $$$ playing online poker?" (I'm sorry, I couldn't find any ungodly long synonyms like the words you use in the thesaurus) Well, you got me there! I wonder myself.
2. "Colluders themselves post here" ****I can believe this...If you would post a list of all the colluders you know (besides me, of course), I would really appreciate it! I HATE playing at tables with other colluders. I prefer to work alone while colluding.
3. "so do hackers who know how to see the cards."
****I have some friends that can "see the cards", too. But most of them play on Yahoo! You can see for yourself...just log in and watch (no need to put what little pride you have on the line). More than half of the hands are won by those who "shouldn't" have been in the pot. You see, my friends are not hackers. They use various mystic powers to "see the cards." These powers may be better known to you as stupid play, no-fold'em holdem, or dumb luck. I don't believe there is a law against this, and most semi-knowledgable poker players welcome this type of player at the table. Me thinks you hate them!
4. The owners of Planet, Highlands, and probably Paradise all have Vegas connections(Caro, Brunson..etc...) ****And you would be more likely to play if those lowly scoundrels were not associated with these sites?
5. Complaining to the wolves that are responsible for the cheating does absolutely no good. ***Please name the wolves which you are talking about. It seems to indicate that Caro and Brunson are the wolves. Or maybe you are refering to Skalansky and Malmuth. I cannot tell, because your superior grammatical skills and reasoning don't make up for your poor paragraph construction. Everything you say is so vague that you can twist it however you would like. In fact, I think you could do a 180 and claim to agree with me in the end without losing too much face.
6. "Its a racket that is destroying any progress that poker's image may have accomplished over the last few years." ***I am assuming racket==Internet poker, but again I can't be sure...please clarify.
7. "The general public should see internet poker as sleazy, corrupt, and something to avoid." ***Every moron knows that Internet is capitalized. You have such a penchant for correcting others grammatical errors, that I thought you might like to correct your own deficiencies as well.
Now, having said all that, I will take back anything that I said that you can refute with proof. I am very much looking forward to PROOF, as your strong posts indicate first-hand knowledge of this "racket" you are speaking of. So please, be everyone's champion and expose these wrong-doers.
Sklansky has acknoeldged that 2+2 gathers revenue for advertising. That is all he has acknowledged. Brunson and Caro post on their own sites. Several posts here have been from people that say they collude. All you have to do my mentally ill friend is read the archives. A poster named Jeff claimed to have breached the server, and offerred to sell the information to others. He hasn't posted much since. I assume he made a mint.Andrew Prock claimed to be able to see the cards. Chris Alger claims he has nothing to do with the company. Whenever he is involved with posts that have some validity either twoplustwo or Paradise poker quickly show up. I think he calls or e-mails his contacts.
The wolves statement refers to the forum in general. I think that players could trust their local crack dealer more than anyone I've seen here regarding integrity and cheating. The crack dealer at least has a local reputation to maintain in order to vend his product. I stand by post. I also stand by the assumption that you are paranoid.
Is it unusual for a website to collect advertising revenue? So what's your point?
I do not doubt collusion; I never challenged you on that point. But as to it's overall effectiveness...that's another matter entirely.
As for Jeff, I could easily make a claim that I have hacked the system (see the "post message" button below), and offer to sell information to anyone gullible enough to send me money.
Have you verified Andrew Prock's post, or you just read posts and believe every negative thing that is posted?
You wrote: "Chris Alger claims he has nothing to do with the company. Whenever he is involved with posts that have some validity either twoplustwo or Paradise poker quickly show up."...What is your point here? It APPEARS that you are accusing the 2+2 owners of "conspiring" (hmmm...where have I seen this word before?) with Paradise Poker. Or is this just another of your pointless sentences, simply "observations" from which you draw no conclusions?
You like name calling, don't you? Not just me. Over half of your posts use name-calling as a brilliant strategy to lessen others' reputations.
Paranoid: "Exhibiting or characterized by extreme fear or distrust of others."
As you are the one claiming the majority of the posters here are cheaters, I would say you are the paranoid one...I have made no paranoid references, and it seems that you are the distrusting one with every remark.
The master of English misuses yet another word.
I don't have experience with crack dealers, so I am sorry if I miss your analogy.
Once again, you look for conspiracy when none exists. The point is more that 2+2 forum is a forum for professional cheats than it is for the obviously corrupt online houses. I never criticized anyone's grammar. You need help. You are the one with flawed logic. You are the one with paranoia. Get help.
I checked Andrew Prock's posts, who you claim posted that he was able to see the cards. As far as I know, no one claims to be able to see the cards.
Andrew Prock says, "Nevertheless, I still think that the games are good overall, and I think that Paradise is dealing an honest game."
Nowhere does he claim to be able to see the cards.
wrong, Prock claims to have a program that can do it, and its in the archives. Check again Moron.
I bet that John M would pooh pooh that the crack business is run illegally for profit by organized criminals.
I think the CIA can legally run crack houses as long as the DEA doesn't find out.
wrong..when the DEA find out about it, the agent gets told to look the other way. Check out www.copvcia.com.
You aren't very good at your criticism. I do not criticize the grammar of others. I make errors all the time. I don't know why you are attacking Gary, but his posts make sense. Yours do not. You stated that you are a fool and a moron. I believe that..
My point in attacking Gary's misuse of grammar, etc., was that he has criticized others for doing the same if they have posted against his views...I really don't care. But his arguments have no facts to back them up, and his logic is flawed.
If he had presented his ideas as possibilities, not strong, unrefutable facts, I would agree that some are possibilities, however unlikely. I am not arguing that his points are not possible. Of course they are. But they are not probable.
Your logic is flawed is you believe that we will consider you a pro that has no access to card information when you cap it with 7-4o. You are just another hustler or shill. Just admit it. Your denials are pathetic.
I think you are absolutely right about internet poker being something to be completely avoided!
The amount of drawouts/suckouts is unbelievable. I should know since I've joined the suckout crowd 3 days ago.
Support my new model. When you gamble the cards will come!
p.s (especially if you know what's coming. We call it feel for the game! he he he.)
This game is obviously unbeatalble, use table selection, you want games where all other players at the table are tight and extremely aggressive. Lot of short handed capped pots with premium pairs and aggressive blind play play in a heads up situation... seek these games instead of the games where players play Q7o preflop and you are sure to win...
d.
Darren,
Are you saying you don't want to play against people who play poor starting hands?
Why the hell not?!!
plEEEEEEEEEEEEEz!
Judging from your post, you're fairly new (less than 500 hours) to internet poker. The kind of suckouts you described are not unusual.
You might be playing more shorthanded poker than you've ever played in your life. Even if you're not deliberately playing a shorthanded table, with players coming and going so fast, there's often an empty chair with one or two new players waiting for blinds. There are certainly more shorthanded games than you ever see in a casino.
Among the effects of this kind of action is that some players put more stock in usually weak hands like Ax and Kx. It also punishes the loose-aggressives less. It also puts players into a shorthanded frame of mind, which means players often won't believe your raises even when they should. And of course if you're playing an optimal full-table game when four players are out, you're playing incorrectly.
Even if you've played a fair amount of shorthanded poker, you've never played it this fast. When you take 10 or 15 bad beats during the course of 150 hands, a horrendous event in any game, in a 2 or 3-handed internet game those hande can come in less than an hour and a half. When you've been playing casino poker for years and this has never happened before, it's disquieting and seemingly inexplicable.
Another effect is that your win rate is lower because losers get replaced by fresh players faster, it's harder to keep track of players and aside from the speed of acting there are no tells. The players are also a cut above for their limit than what you find in a casino. This also tends to increase your fluctuations.
In short, internet poker is "streakier." This is why so many players have stories about logging onto some game server, winning more in a week than they've ever won in a casino in a month, and then watching it vanish in a flash. As you can tell from many of the posts in these threads, it literally drives some people crazy.
(Watch. Some nut is going to post about how I'm really just an agent of the conspiracy....)
I repeat what I said to John M.
"I said nothing of the sort. I simply suggested that Internet Poker is sleazy, and I believe that it is.Several people from Vegas are involved at varying sites. Thats an observation. You came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy. I believe that it is no different than say a defective model coming out of Detroit car factories. The companies frequently pay off lawsuits rather than recall. Raping the public is a common business practice. I suggest that you seek psychological help for your conspiratorial psychological bent"
Apologists for the companies on this site are suspect. They have economic motive to ignore the facts.Your many more hands per hour argument is just a smoke and mirror theory put forth by Paradise management to avoid publishing audits by legitimate corporations like rst.
Get real Mr.ALger, and get psychological counseling.
One only needs to read your post to come to the definite conclusion that you are a conspirator, just like me.
Aside from that, I would be interested why you say Internet poker is "streakier." If the players are better, it would seem make a more "stable" game with less fluctuation.
But, being a co-conspirator, I will have to agree with the rest of your post.
One only needs to read your post to come to the definite conclusion that you are a conspirator, just like me.
Aside from that, I would be interested why you say Internet poker is "streakier." If the players are better, it would seem make a more "stable" game with less fluctuation.
But, being a co-conspirator, I will have to agree with the rest of your post. (Not that I disagree with the above statement, just curious)
I've noticed it from my own results, which are characterized by amazing hot and cold streaks, and anecdotes I see on the forum and on r.g.p. I think it might mostly result from a lower overall win rate which in turn is caused by difficulty in getting solid reads on opponents.
This happens to every good player that has mentioned it as a problem. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe this just isn't conincidence? Your complaints mirror Ed Hill's, and others.
After taking a dozen or beats in a couple of hours, everything has occurred to me. But to conclude that it's evidence of cheating? Remember the basic arguments:
ARGUMENTS SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS NO HOUSE CHEATING:
1. There's no motive for cheating because there's so much money to be made dealing a straight game that cheating would add little to bottom line profits and potentially kill the golden goose.
2. There's so much money to be made dealing a straight game that competitive pressures would lead some some internet provider to do it even if one were corrupt, and there's no reason to believe that I haven't picked the right one.
3. There's obviously so much paranoia about cheating that legit operators not only have a strong incentive to police the games and ensure that they're operated in a fair manner.
4. Persistent cold-decking would likely reveal itself through analysis of hands over time, and anyone could do this. The cheating could therefore be detected, not only killing the golden goose, but, and I think this is a killer point, exposing the cheaters to blackmail.
5. Anyone involved in the cheating could blackmail the others or demand the lion's share of profits, etc.
6. The argument that cheating is more likely to be attempted by an offshore (out-of-legal-bounds) operation actually cuts the other way whenever the "cheater" can be found at a particular location by any of his tens of thousands of "victims." In essence, the perpetrator would be saying: "I'm over here and there's nothing you can legally do to me." Think about it.
ARGUMENTS SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS HOUSE CHEATING
1. I'm clever enough to regularly beat casino poker and I conclude that I've probably been cheated because I lost after a lot of bad beats on the internet.
2. Internet poker is "different." The difference must be cheating.
Collusion and the threat of collusion is a different matter, but I don't think there's a real debate here. The major reason this topic is so recurrent is (1) some embittered weak players are trying to get back at their internet competitors by defaming providers and trashing the games, and (2) the ability of mediocre players to delude themselves is endless. It's the biggest reason they remain mediocre.
You are still stuck on calling players like Ed Hll a loser. Too bad. I thought maybe you had come to realize that your opinions weren't the only valid explanation for the occurences. I'm wrong. I still believe that you must have economic reason to keep up your foolish logic.
Every corpration in America that can "cheat", does cheat. The auto industry is the best example. None other than Lee Iacocca as chairmen of the Ford Motor Company made the decision to not recall the Pinto because it was cheaper to pay the liability suits. I call that murder one several times over. Of course he had every interest in protecting the reputation and name of Ford Motor Company. When businessmen such as he do this, they gain accolades rather than the life sentence they deserve. This is all documented fact. Check it out. Another example is in toxic waste dumping. The EPA wouldn't exist if companies didn't make a regular practice of violating the law. Its common business practice. We do not live in utopia.
Those who expect the online industry not to cheat when it is so easy and profitable to do so are simply naive, or bought off. I guess your performance has been less than stellar. Perhaps we should amend the adjectives to bought off mediocre loser.
Most manufacturers have an incentive to sell the occasional shoddy or dangerous product and others have an incentive to pollute, which causes defective products and pollution. Internet poker is therefore plagued by cheating.
Another stellar bit of reasoning from the pro-cheating contingent. I especially like the argument that anyone pointing problems in this logic must have a corrupt "economic reason" to do so.
I forgot one:
7. Those arguing most loudly for the idea of house cheating reveal themselves to be so incapable of elementary logic that it would be impossible for them to beat any but the simplest opponents.
(BTW, I have nothing but respect for Ed Hill and did not and would never group him or any of his posts here with those that I characterized above.)
Unregulated gaming. Thats what you support. Your attempts to isolate those that complain about the same problems is nonsensical (everyone but Ed Hill that complains about the distributions is a loser).You should tell your contacts at Paradise Poker to program a win for you at a higher percentage so that you can solidify your raging propaganda here.
I believe that bought off, naive, mediocre loser is an appropriate description for those that believe that unregulated gaming is free of corruption.
It isn't necessarily streakier, but the speed of the game makes it SEEM so. For example, if your normal Standard Deviation in a ring game is $200/hr, then if you're playing twice as many hands per hour your hourly SD would be $283, all else being equal. Of course, your win rate should double, meaning the chance that you're ahead after a given period of time should be higher. But if your hourly win rate doesn't change due to poorer play on your part, better opponents online, collusion, or whatever, then you're going to need a bigger bankroll to play.
$282 Dan. First mistake you've made since you said that most of these morons would make a better president than you.
A few years ago I started paying particular attention to what players do on the hand immediately after they make an exceptionally horrid suckout. (This was in live casino action, 10-20 HE.) The results were interesting, but here's the point: At both Planet and Paradise I see suckout artists do something frequently that I almost never saw in live action....They leave! Yep, they sign off immediately after taking the pot with their K7 offsuit runer runner flush winner. I am NOT claiming this is evidence of cheating! What I am wondering is, what are some theories about possible reasons for this phenomenon? Here are two of mine: 1) It doesn't really happen more often, it just seems like it. 2) If a player did have pre-knowledge of the cards, it would be a good idea to disappear for awhile after making a particularly noticeable suckout! Anyone else notice this happening? Any other theories? AKA Goatboy
Ala Poker Spot I just received an email from Highlands Poker with a ton of cc: email addressed attached. This pisses me off to no end. Highland and Poker Spot have bascialy published my private email address. (Yes I have two email addresses one private and one public for things like newsgroups.) This is the second time Highland has gotten on my bad side. When I loaded their software my computer went crazy. I'd never had a compatability problem with my Compaq until Highland. I was never able to get HIGHLAND running and finally deleted the program. There were lots of shared files left over afterward that windows would not let me delete.
The Highland email was regarding cash outs....I've never played a single hand or made a deposit at Highland.
I have found the secret to winning at Paradise Poker and will let all you forum readers in on it.
In order to win you must order a hamburger the minute you sit down, this will gaurantee successful results.
For example, I got AA, KK, QQ, QQ, JJ, 10/10 and AK in a two hour period and they all stood up.
It had to be the hamburger!
Jeff Fairey
how about a cheese burger? Or will that jinx the lucky charm?
I think the draft beer will give you a better edge, I got AA 5 times in 1 while drinking draft beer, try ut it will work. :) Ace
I have been playing at Paradise for a total of 432 hours now, playing the 2/4 Stud game(just learned and taking it slow), and am up approx $2300. I can see where people get their different opinions of cheating or collusion. I have no proof either way so I am staying neutral(plus if there is cheating/collusion by players, it won't be at my 2/4 game). I have heard people say that online is tougher than casino action at the same levels. If that is true, casino action must be pretty weak(I have only played a couple times in a casino so I am not qualified to say that casino action is harder or softer). Granted it is the 2/4 game, but I have seen many many bad players. They stay with hands I couldn't even imagine anyone in their right minds staying with, sometimes they suck you out on the river, but they lose it all before it is done, so I can see where people think there is nothing going on. Just lately though, I hit a stretch where I can understand how people can think there is cheating/collusion going on(I guess not really collusion because they couldn't get help from anyone else on these hands). In a span of a half hour, I lose 5 hands holding either a straight or a flush. All were drawn on the river. 2 didn't really bother me(besides losing), because they were in with a solid hand or solid drawing hand and it was the obvious thing to do. The other 3, they had no business even staying after the first 3 cards, or continuing after the 4th card. I understand that streaks, both winning and losing, happen, and I am not crying about them, but I understand how people would think something is going on when hands like that come up so much over a short period of time. But the kicker happened at the end of that session yesterday.
I had KQ hidden with a K showing. I raised and everyone left but one person, who re-raised showing a Jd. I called and my 4th street card was an A and his was an 8c. I bet, and he called. My 5th street card was another A, his was a Jc. I bet, he raised, and the raising went to the cap. 6th street, I get another A, aces full of kings, he gets a Jh, I bet, he raises and the raising went to the cap again. On the river, I get a meaningless card, I bet, and the raises go to the cap again. I flip over my full house and he flips over 4 Jacks, drawing another one on the river. I was shocked, and not so much at losing, but that he played the hand that way. I stared at it to see if there was anything I could pick out that made him stay. I saw nothing, he had 3 clubs but drew the third one on the river. Collusion wouldn't have helped him, I was showing trip aces on 6th street and representing the biggest full house(raising on 3rd with a King showing). I don't see why he stayed from the start, especially re-raising with nothing at all, even knowing how bad some of the players are on there who stay with shit. I just wrote it down to one idiot getting a lucky draw.
Like I said though, I have no proof and I am not trying to show proof, just showing how two different people with good common sense can think two completely different things. I can see both sides, those hands look interesting even if you can't prove anything with 6 hands. You lose a few hands like this and it is common human nature to wonder, especially if you have never seen it happen before. Was it without a doubt cheating? Was it without a doubt not cheating and just luck? since I have no proof either way, I will take the neutral stance and say it was one stupid lucky player who probably thinks he knows what he is doing and is in for a rude awakening in the future. Can't wait to see him again. :)
Well thought out and reasonable post!
What would you be thinking after the same scenario if you were down a couple hundred $$$?
Two people with similiar thoughts and common sense could think the total opposite about a hand, about cheating/collusion, etc just by a slight change in their situation, whether it has happened very rarely(but probably shouldn't happen at all), or it seems to happen all the time, or a big change like the difference in their overall totals, whether there is a a + or a - next to it.
well..I see now that you have taken it upon yourself to answer every post in favor of the industry...you cannot win these arguments my mentally ill friend. Until Paradise is willing to have rst(or a simialr company) audit their software, and make several other steps to promote anything close allegorically to iso certification, your efforts are futile.
I just respond to them to get into stupid arguments with stupid people, although this post of yours has some element of common sense. Other posts of yours have consistently taken a more superior attitude and your brash accusations are not backed up by any facts.
If you wish to continue to justify organized crime, go ahead. Some day maybe you will develop a conscious. Of course, you could add sociopath to your resume which includes paranoid traits.
IMO, you played the hand wrong. You should have re-raise on third street, check/call on 5th since he represents 3 Jacks, bet/call on 6th and 7th since he represents 4 Jacks. You should not assume that a person that is raising 3 aces is bluffing since he could not really expect you to fold. I also suggest that you move to planetpoker. One big advantage they have is that you can "shuffle" your cards on show so noone knows what you started with. Also, after upgrading to fiberoptics their server is faster than paradise. Also, they have 2 15-30 stud tables while paradise is stuck with 8-16. I usually play 15-30 on planet.
Looking back, I figured I played it wrong, but even representing 3 jacks on 5th when you don't have them, staring at aces and raising over and over on 5th and 6th, isn't that a sign of a crazy player? He did that for over an hour and wound up losing it all back plus more because he wasn't drawing anything. Even a loose player would just call and take their chances, not continue to raise wouldn't they? The rest of the people at the table couldn't believe I didn't lose it right there, but it was ok, playing for draws like that will kill if you play awhile, and it did, I had most of his chips when he lost everything he had at the table. If I was down overall or that was happening frequently with the player doing it always seeming to be able to make his draw, I probably would have went on tilt and thought it was cheating, but they usually lose it all back and more playing like that.
I play a lot of 20-40 hold-em on Paradise. Recently Paradise answered concerns about cheating and collusion in a post on RGP. In it they state that there are several big name, recognizable players that play regularly on Paradise. This got me thinking. Since no one plays under their real name, I could be playing in a 20-40 game with Huck Seed, Erik Seidel, Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan! Obviously if I saw this line-up in a casino I might pass. (Unless Phil Hellmuth was there too, stuck and steaming. :-)) So my questions:
1. Since these types of players are going to be found in the biggest games, 20-40, does this make the 10-20 or 15-30 games possibly a better choice? Yes, I know, those 5 guys probably aren't playing but you get the idea.
2. Does anyone care to divulge what names certain pro players play under? This would make game selection a lot easier.
I played all limits at Planet Poker up to 20-40 and to tell you the truth the tightest games probably were 5-10. In a sense this probably makes sense because my feel for it is that most top notch players aren't wandering onto the online real. They already live in towns with lots of access to poker and see no reason to go online where their player reading skills, ie tells, are rendered useless. The players coming online are generally either in no poker zones or people like me that hate smoking. If you look at the people likely to play online they are very trusting of the internet world and probably using it quite a bit in their line of work. Therefore we can conclude they are far above national averages in income and what they lose in a poker game is just easily replaceable disposable income. The successful players online seem to fit into theis realm as well, but they measure themselves in winning and therefore play well to win, not necessarily for the money. This doesn't apply to everyone online, but I would say its definitely a common thread as to why there is such a seeming prevalence of very good and very bad players. With this in mind, it generally means no limit is all that much better than another. Those 2-4 games I saw on there were tighter than 20-40 at times. I think you should just play the limit you feel comfortable with and have sufficient funds to handle the swings and forget about where the optimum limit might be.
I've been playing poker professionally for 7 years with enough success to gain a living and even save a bit money. After I learned about internet poker I decided to give it a try even though as an experienced computer (and internet) user I understand how easy it is to collude. This has not been a problem for me so far as I've only played at the lower limit games (fear of collusions and feeling a bit uncomfortable sending loads of $$$ into South America :) ).
My problem has been different: especially in Texas Hold'em, it seems as if the shuffling algorithm were crooked to support the loose players (ie. the looser you play, the better board cards you catch and vice versa - the tighter you're with your chips, the less you will flop). After all, it would be sensible for the card room to prevent the fish from going broke too quickly.
Never have I had such droughts I've had in PP - I have now had more than 20 AKs, AQs etc this session yet I've not managed to connect w/ any on the flop, yet someone who cold calls my raise with Q6 or whatever (when I'm having AQ)seems to connect the majority of the time. On the other hand my big pairs seem to do ok - although my queens were just cracked by nines in a heads up match, but there's nothing odd there. I am much more worried about not being able to connect with the board with the big cards.
Another matter thät worries me is the absense of A2-hands in Omaha/8 - I often play hundreds (literally) of hands without seeing single ace-deuce in my hand.... I don't really play Omaha8 in real life for several reasons (low limits, slow game play)so I'm not sure how probable this is (and my calculator is 3ft away...:)), but it just does not "feel" right. However I do get reasonable hi-only-holdings - however the flops are usually all low those times.
I would probably not have written this otherwise, but playing two tables at the same time I've not managed to connect with any card on the flop yet this session (other than once when I flopped a set to a large pocet pair) and I've played for several hours already. Actually I don't think I have won any other pots today - so it's going just like it went yesterday. I've not yet broken my real-life unlucky streak record though, but in RL these streaks seem to occure far less frequently. Actually right now I am very close to my all time one-session limit hold'em loss record (if we count it in big bets) - I just don't get any cards that co-operate with the flop...another AQ just missed the flop...
I'll try to cry and whine some more if I've lost even more over the next month or two.
For some reason, the highs and lows are or seem to be more extreme with internet poker. I attribute it to the differences between internet and live: faster play, less information about opponents, better opponents, fewer opponents. Still, missing 20 flops is a lot. I'd be interested in hearing how you fare over the next few months.
Because of today there will not beanother two months - lost simply too much in too easy games today and will never again play online poker because of that. I simply do not trust them at all. In my experience, in texas hold'em, I simply get many good starting hands that either do not connect at al or will be outdrawn in ridicilous fashion (someone cold calls 3 bets preflop with Q9off and makes a straight etc...). In omaha/8 - which btw. is a game one can not lose much even in short run if one knows anything about poker (in poker paradise/hell that is), regardless of the limit, I simply get waaaaaaay too bad starting hands hour after hour (last 14 hours of omaha produced me total of 5 ace-deuces... also several 23's in late position, for none of them wasd there an ace in the flop). And quite a bit tioo often when I am scooping the pot with nut high and nut low draw (often heads up), the opponent catches one of the two remaining aces to make the impropable low (only two outs for the opponent to win the low) and the same card also makes him the hi hand (a2345) breaking my top set.
One last thing I'm going to cry is drawing - nut flush draw is impossible in O8, at least for me. Sure one can fail several nutflush draws in a row and sure this happens to me often in real life, but in paradise they just never come.
In conclusion: I am now quite sure there is something really wrong in Paradise Poker (haven't tried other poker servers and never will) - the card distribution seems to be really odd, either it is because the manaement wants to keep the fish from going broke, or perhaps the house players have a "luck advantage". Also some "interesting" drawouts suggest that some players do see either the board and/or other players cards when they should not.
And finally: I can not proove anything and will not. I probably haven't played enough hours to count out extremely bad luck (P(jackpot in national lottery)), worse than I've ever had during my poker playing career, and I've had my share of bad beats (well, some outdraws as well - not too many on PP though, but that doesn't surprise me for a reason people who know how to play know).
Finally 2: It is possible that everything is ok with PP, however, my advice is this: play only with play money if you want to play on-line - even if everything else is ok, collusion will always be a (small?) part of on-line poker and detecting it is not as easy as some people tell, especially if there's no-one observing the tables full time, and most people who are able to detect collusion prefer to win in poker instead of looking at computer screen watching others play all day long.
Finally 3: I also have several friends who have used on-line poker services. Their results have been mixed - one friend of mine is up (although at the Planet Poker) a few grand at the moment, but as usual, not enough hours hours have been logged (and big bet wise he hasn't won all that much as he usually selects the biggest game in "town").
Good luck to you all - I'll try to keep whining in this forum (until I'm barred :) - see you in RL poker tables (from 10-20 up to 40-80 + big bet games).
If they barred all the whiners they might as well remove the Internet Poker Forum.
I would like as many posters as possible to answer the following question: What,in your opinion, is the probability that Paradise Poker is KNOWINGLY cheating? By this I mean they are altering the randomness of the cards (either for the benefit of friends or for the benefit of losing players to increase revenue) or they know what cards are coming and are helping confederates.
I am not asking about collusion. I am not asking about outside players somehow hacking the site unbeknownst to management. I am not asking about an unwitting flaw in their program tha can be found and taken advantage of. I am not even asking about a renegade employee doing something behind the bosses back. I am speaking about a thought out scheme by at least some members of the owners or management, to make the game either not random or the upcoming cards knowable.
Surely, even the more suspicious folks out there wouldn't say the answer to the above question is near 100%. Even a 10% chance would be a good enough cause for concern. But until now both the attackers and defenders of Paradise have not bothered to put a number on their degree of certainty. I think it would be usefull if those who have participated in this debate would, without elaboration, weigh in with a number between 0 an 100 percent. I won't give my number for now to avoid biasing others. I will say that one of the reasons I am asking this question has nothing to do with internet poker. In any case no one should feel reluctant to answer this question. Even Paradise themselves would probably find the results important.
75% certain that management is aware of irregularities in the distributions.
I'm just both a CNE, and MCSE. If that means anything to the computer literate.
1st post here, but have been playing at Paradise for a few weeks.
20%
0%
I am 99.99999% sure that Paradise has a clean program. I didn't say 100% because there has to be some chance that they have a problem, but I give it the same chance as I would the Mirage or Bellagio having a crooked dealer or something of that nature.
CV
BTW David, I am still waiting for my money! 50K I think it was....
%chance that there is collusion - 100%
% chance there there is RAMPANT collusion - 100%
% chance that there is some intentional non randomness in the cards - ie holdouts, etc - in ANY form at any time for any reason - 60%
% chance that certain house players are allowed to play with foreknowledge of cards to come, player's hole cards, etc - 90%
NOTE: THIS MAY INCLUDE SOME OF THE PROGRAMMERS DOING THIS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT WITHOUT MANAGEMENTS KNOWLEDGE - BUT WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? The end result is exactly the same. The programmers could have, with no effort, incorporated backdoors for themselves, and features that use cheat codes that only they know of. Ever use the cheat codes in DOOM? You know what I'm talking about.
Use of 'bots' or other automated players that are employed by the house to play in the games - 10%
% chance that the site is VULNERABLE to outside hackers - 100%
% chance that the site HAS been hacked in any meaningful, damaging way - 10%
% chance that the software is vulnerable to hacking and giving unfair information to the hackers, without having to actually hack the server - 100%
% chance that this has already been done - 100%
AF
So you first-hand knowledge of someone hacking into the software?
I would say the chance that Paradise is rigged: 70%
and thats being kind
I asked Paradise for a history of my account. I've played over 26,000 hands. In the begining (+/-5000 hands)I got my ass kicked. Mid way (5001 to 15000)my sucess was irregular. Mostly lots of hours with little or no profit. Recently (last 10,000+)I've been a consistant winner. I feel If you play correctly you will win. A recent 3 day vist to Bay101 gave me the same cards, same situations, same results. It was just so slow and boring at times. At one point I went 3 hours without a playable hand.
The odds Paradise has programed the system to cheat? Less than 10%
5%
was playing omaha hilow and we had 3 royal flushes and one lower straight flush i a span of 2 hours.
random shuffler my a**.give me a break
I've been playing table poker for 450 hours. I've had two straight flushes in that time. They were 10 minutes apart.
Anything and everything happens.
Less than 3%.
To nearest whole number, likelihood that Paradise is cheating as defined in the survey: 0%
Without elaboration: <2%
With elaboration: Hmmm, impossible to tell without a detailed analysis (barring detailed disclosure by PP). Cheating is a legitimate concern; however, many talk as if they have proof of cheating. And many site an abnormal number of drawouts as this proof. Poker is a game with such large deviation that anything could happen in a given hand or a given series of hands. People claim to have played hundreds of hands and been drawn out on an unrealistic number of times. But can one person be reasonably expected to draw a scientific conclusion on the basis of these observations without the aid of a computer? I think not. More likely, they remember bad beats more easily than the rest of the hands.
less then 1%
n/m
Roughly 1 in a thousand.
Close to 0% - the distribution does feel a bit strange sometimes, but I've had worse times in RL tables so far.
The biggest problem is not the management of PP, but the programmers of the software - backdoors are simple to create and as humans tend to be greedy... what I'd like to know is how PP has made sure that their coders have not created any backdoors.
*
I think the possibility that OWNERS or MANAGEMENT are cheating is nil. However, there is always a slim possibility that some employees (programmers and the like) are manipulating cards for the benefit of confederates. (just like at a BJ table)
I would say has done: 1/100.
I would say is doing consistently: just on the right side of 0.
Roughly 1 in a thousand.
I think the chances of Paradise "knowingly" cheating are almost nonexistent less than 1 in 10,000 or something tiny like that. It's not that I know they wouldnt cheat it just doesn't make any sense for them to nickel and dime a little at time as these cheating threads suggest.
I think the more realistic danger is Paradise simply shutting their doors, taking all the account balances and later and nice knowing you all!! I dont think this is likely maybe 1 in 1000. or 10 times more likely.
Chances that PP is intentionally cheating their clients = >1%. Chances that the worst day 25% of the posters on this forum have ever had is the day Art Bell went off the air = 68%
2.17% (two point one seven percent)
0% to < 1% chance they would be cheating directly to help their profits. however since i see so many people saying they think the results are abnormal only at that site it should be carefully thought about. if they are doing something it would most likely be helping the bad players with the bad hands to stay in action which keeps them raking for a longer time. or programming their clients that are short of credits to stay alive longer to help the rake. that said i dont think they are doing anything wrong and that is only a guess. however i would always quit and play elsewhere anyplace i thought i wasnt getting a fair shake. it seems they have offered to let people see their opps and decide that it is on the square for themselves. for the life of me with all the noney at stake for them why dont they do more to quell the rising tide of sentiment against them.
"for the life of me with all the noney at stake for them why dont they do more to quell the rising tide of sentiment against them."
Good point, but the answer is they are making so much money they don't care. The dissenters are a very small number of their players, and are mostly better players like Ed Hill. Let's face it, they don't need or want good players.
It is in their best interests if the good players leave, and the fish keep passing the money around the table until the rake swallows all of it.
Brett
Brett,
I must differ with you when you say that Paradise would be better off if all the good players left. Even brick and mortar casinos need the good players to help provide a consistent customer base and to help keep the games going.
far less than 1%, if they are remotely competent business people.
0.
Danny
I would have thought that there would be virtually no risk, because Paradise has some bugs in the networking software and they should be frantically trying just to get things to work, with no time to even think about getting devious. However, the managers and programmers clearly have too much time on their hands (cocktails?!), so I have to bump up my odds of monkey business from 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000.
Why aren't they worried about the major bugs, like first of all having to reboot all the time and second of all after rebooting not being able to restore the last game states (just players mapped to seats and table bankrolls)? What about all the random disconnects, which tend to penalize players playing two tables since you can get a free all-in for one hand but not also another if you're in two hands at once? The random disconnects are also a free bonus to the fish, since both pros and fish alike get randomly disconnected in the blinds, and then have to post a big and small blind to be dealt back in - they could rename it the "Disconnection Lottery", but I guess that doesn't have the same ring as "Paradise Poker." (When a few players all at once get disconnected, then you know it was Paradise's fault and not a player's ISP connection.)
Yeah, I toyed around with playing Paradise Poker, and yeah I won the disconnection lottery, but when the new version came out I was looking for improved reliability, not cocktail service. And no, I did not play under the name "Abdul", which one player uses.
-Abdul
How should I parlay this one Abdul...haha!
Well you all know my beliefs, but since some idiots think I am in bed with the owners of Paradise Poker, I will just say what you all think I will say in that its 0%. After all I think they face the same math as a Las Vegas casino, cheat now and make a lot until you get caught and lose the cash cow forever.
In regards to what people say though I have to agree, there are always weaknesses in a system such as Paradise. My suggestion to Paradise is simply to move things around. I played on Planet Poker and get this one. I got a cash out check. I ordered it on a server in Costa Rica. The check got mailed to me from Alberta. The check was drawn on a Nevada State Bank account so I didn't have to wait to have funds clear(this move kinda made me worry that it could get them in some trouble). Now having a background in accounting that is what we would call good controls. I don't know how Paradise does it, but thats what I would suggest. Keep the players info on a server in one place preferably one country. Keep the games server in another place, hopefully another country in this case remaining in Costa Rica. Keep the money functions in yet another spot, probably a Canadian bank since that country seems to be little worried about online gaming, yet has trusted financial institutions. And give almost no one access to more than one function. Maybe its done somewhat like this already, but a clear separation of duties would be enough to convince more I think that Paradise has done things to prove that the ownership is trying to avoid internal shots at its integrity. It still could happen, but then Paradise would know immediately who to suspect.
1% Chance that Paradise is delibrately involved in cheating.
close to zero
Did Art Bell really go off the air???
Probably less than 1%.
.5 %
Close to 0%. They have very little to gain, a lot to lose, and writing software to exploit the game yet remain statistically undetectable is very difficult.
0 to the tenth equals nothing at all one white duck Copyright Jethro Tull
>1%
They would make more money over time running an honest shop. If it were crooked, eventually it would leak and they would shutdown.
0.00000000000001%
Everything I've observed at Paradise makes me think they're completely straight.
After some thought...with really no first hand experience to base my estimation on....i would say somewhere between 1 and 2 percent. Even on the off chance paradise did set up their website with cheating the public in mind, common sense would tell us that they would now realize that alot more could be made in the long run by correcting the software to run honestly. High rake/cost proportion that they receive and interest on the vast sums in their coffers being what they are.
Adam.
.
<1%
Close to 0%. They have very little to gain and everything to lose.
Approximately 0%.
I have a database with around 6000 hands in. All the statistical analysis I have done on the cards I have seen, have shown results within statistically acceptable limits.
In fact it appeared that results have deviated from the mean LESS than one would typically expect. However when you look more closely you realise that this is due to the various statistical test not all being independent.
I do not believe the people at Paradise Poker are capable of creating a system that appers random on statistical analysis but is not; in a way that profits them.
I also do not believe they are capable of setting up an intelligent semi random card dealer, which deals random cards to people who ask for hand records, but not to people who do not, in a way that profits them. Or something similar. This sort of thing is just two difficult to implement. Just think of the extra development time, and research needed to create such a system that works and could remain undetected.
Hmmm, maybe later, when online card room’s technology has become more advanced it will be possible to introduce such extra profit making techniques. But not yet.
What are the chances that the cards are not always being dealt randomly (a) because of an error unbeknownst to Paradise or (b) because of a renegade employee? Two seperate answers please.
Unbeknownst, 0.001%, an employee, maybe 0.1%.
(a) unbeknownst to Paradise: 0.0001%
They are certainly using a reliable random number generator, and the odds that there is some systematic error converting those numbers to cards is very small - and would probably have been fixed by now.
(b) because of a renegade employee: 0.001%
There is no need for a version of the software that allows manipulations of the cards or for any parameters involving the cards to be taken from one specific client, so unless some cheating is already built-in, which most people seem to doubt, it would require a lot of work for an employee to cheat against management's wishes.
~DjTj
a)unbeknownst to Paradise 1 in 1,000
b)renegade employee at this moment in time 1 in 500
a & b both under 1%
a. 30% b. 20%
a)50.99%
b)00.00001%
a) far less than 1%
b) from less than 1% to 7%
Q: How many employees/programmers are there and how good are Paradise's internal controls?
Q: Motivation: do the ones with access or opportunity benefit significantly from "profit-sharing"(changing their perspective perhaps from "employee" to something more like "partial-owner"?) Are they as employees making so much that risking their salary/compensation would be almost as crazy as Paradise risking their $1000's/hr. in rake?
a) less than 5%
b) 50% - backdoors are simple to create, easy to hide and humans just want money money and more money.
1) close to zero
2) close to zero
A)0.0001% B)0.5%
Less than 1% on both.
The management most likely has security protocols that prevent a renegade employee from access to the internal workings. Also, since they are making MAJOR bucks - they probably pay well, and offer bonus incentives.
Just a guess, though!
Mit
n/t
Paradise has published much of their card shuffling algorithm and spoken to me about it. I'm fairly satisfied, but mildly concerned by the repeated shuffling that they do each hand (10 times, as I recall, when once would suffice.) That just causes their system to grind to a halt under heavy loads. I seem to recall from computer science classes that it's not a good idea to repeatedly call your random number generator to try to generate one very random number, as for one thing you'll reduce the time before the random number generator cycles.
Whatever they do probably works, since they published generated boards and nobody came forward and said they found a problem with the distributions.
I don't think you're asking the right question about the employees. The question is not whether they would screw with the card distributions - the question is whether anyone would have knowledge of what cards are dealt to whom and whether they would communicate that information to a confederate player on the outside.
However, there's some chance even of what you speak. For an example, look at SimCopter, a computer game where you fly around your city that you built using SimCity. When not in the 'copter you can walk around, and there are other pedetrians including some that could only be described as bimbos. Well, one of the programmers was the gay, and he was disturbed by lack of equal representation, so he put in some gay pedestrians unbeknownst to management. One his birthday and some other days, the gay guys come out in force and start doing unspeakable things out on the streets and the rooftops.
-Abdul
if they're a professional enough software development shop (they seem to have done a good job so far), then they should have QA procedures in place to ensure coders can't "personalise" code.
d.
The 'renegade employee' bit disturbs me. There is a brand-new case just coming out of a 'backdoor' in some video slot machines. Apparently, there is a 14-step sequence that you could press on a manufacturer's machine that would cause it to pay out a large amount. This just made the news here in Edmonton because a local 'computer expert' showed the back door to gaming officials. As a reward, he has been banned from all Alberta Casinos for having 'inside knowledge', and the gaming company has sued him for 3 million dollars for making this information public. I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than we've been told, but if it can happen in a video game that has its code inspected by government officials, it can happen elsewhere.
Not that I think there is even a tiny bit of evidence that this is the case with Paradise, but it's within the realm of possibility.
BTW, it's absolutely impossible to put numbers to the second part of your question (the one about renegade employees). We simply don't have anywhere near enough information. I have no idea how complex their internal software is, what it's written in, what their coding standards are, how tight internal security is, how many internal programmers they have, what kind of physical access they have to the building, whether PP sniffs outgoing packets, where the servers are, who controls access to them... The list goes on and on.
Anyone willing to put a number to the probability that their internal code base is compromised is simply talking out of his hat. We just don't know. Internal back doors can be devilishly clever and well hidden, and the outgoing data (other people's hand info) can be buried in complex ways that are simply not obvious.
After reading Paradise's Random Number page and seeing they DO NOT use the typical rand() function and are constantly manipulating there seeds with random entrophies from user-created mouse and keyboard movement I am confident that there is less than .001% chance of an error in their distribution.
Regarding a maverick employee who might have some hidden backdoor. If there is a problem in paradise THAT IS where the problem would be. 2% chance.
a) <1%
b) <2%
a)0.01% b) 0.1%
A: 50% Not because I think Paradise are benefitting any particular player. I just find it impossible to believe that any computer reliable random number generator is as `reliable` in producing total random cards as a real Casino dealer. Some streaks just seem too hot or too cold.
B:1%
Randomness is dependant on perspective. Computer programs are deterministic so can never be random. I think perhaps what is really being asked here is, is it possible for someone to capitalise on the deterministic properties of the semi random dealing routines in such a way as to profit for themselves?
a) I believe the chance of someone not employed at Paradise doing this to be very close to 0%. To do this successfully one needs to know the internal dynamic state of a very complex computer program within a very short time scale. I do not believe doing this by remote control hacking is at all possible without detailed knowledge of the Paradise Poker operating procedures.
b) Approximately 0%. But no where as close to zero as a). However if there is some renegade employee, who has found some way of perverting the Paradise Poker playing system, I believe he is less of a worry than much more numerous colluding cheaters. The fact that any such employee has not been caught yet would suggest that he/she is only doing it on a small scale.
(a) less than 1% (b) less than 1%
1) I haven't a clue. What are the chances you or Mason produce an algorithm (an extremely important one that needs to be error free) with an error in it?
2) Just to the right of 0. I would hope employees who possess that knowlendge and are given opportuinity to do such a thing are very well compensated.
We have all read the posts here regarding the desire for tourneys in online format. This is a huge possible payout and more startegic than the normal ram and jam games at Paradise. I'm a Paradise player myself, but when I received email from Pokerspot saying they are starting tournaments, I cheered!! I think there is tremendous possibility for online tourneys since you can easily gather 200 people with buy ins to make the winning very worthwhile! I emailed Paradise when they were going to add this feature and they said, "It's not really a priority right now."
The only reason Pokerspot is lacking is the limit of play right now. I'm promoting this because I want to play there and there just haven't been enough games. Maybe this will change it. Check out the tourney info on their website.
Bryan
p.s.- I am in no way affiliated with any online cardroom other than they rake my pots :-)
What are the chances the cards are known to anyone before they are dealt or right as they are dealt. This is a six part question since bothe questions should be answered in regards to, management, a renegade employee, or hackers.
PS to Dan Hanson. It is ok to ask and answer such questions in spite of the lack of detailed knowledge by those who reply. The whole purpose of these surveys is more to ascertain gut feelings and opinions in a numerical type fashion, than to come to any conclusions about what the right answer really is. I'll have more to say about that point later.
zero percent.
Something above 0 %.
I suppose, but if I were to try and come up with a numerical answer, the error bars would be pretty large.
Are you considering a Bayesian analysis here? It seems that that might be what you are getting to. If the odds that they are cheating is 1%, but the odds that people would feel this strongly about the unfairness of the game if it were straight was only 10%, then Bayes' theorem certainly affects any conclusions.
Oh, I forgot to answer your third question...
What do you mean, "Are known to anyone as they are dealt"? Do you mean anyone in the building, or a third party outside, or what?
I have to assume that the programmers at Paradise are not morons, and therefore the information about other's hands should not be transmitted to you, which means there is no way to hack their client program and get the information. To do that, you'd have to hack the servers themselves, or gain access to the data stream coming from the server.
It's also possible that someone could intercept the packets destined for other clients and read them. But this is all speculation because I have no idea about the architecture of their software. But it is within the realm of possibility. A hacker at their ISP could probably sniff every packet coming from their servers and gain information that way.
If they are using SSL encryption through the whole data link (and I think they do), forget it. It's secure, so you'd have to get at the data before it leaves their server.
Management and/or employees = insignificant. There are to few of them to account for the number of suspicions / complaints.
Hackers = >2%. The Paradise software DOES send data at times when it MAY be inappropriate to do so, e.g., when you click one of the speed buttons the data is sent immediately, whereas on the other poker sites the data is not sent until it is your turn to act. The important questions are:
Where does this data go? Does it go ONLY to the server (still a bit vulnerable) or is it sent to all players at the table?
Are everyone's hole cards sent to all players (encrypted, of course) at the beginning of the hand or are the cards sent only when they need to be displayed? The use of encryption hints that all the hole cards may be available on everyone's computer, opening the door to cracking. Were the opponents' hole cards sent only at the showdown the opportunity for cracking ceases to exist.
Are all five board cards sent to each player at the beginning of the hand (again, encrypted)? If so, why take this chance? Just for speed? For the sake of safety, they should not even be chosen, much less sent, until the action is finished on each round of betting.
Flop, shuffle, turn, shuffle, river = no such thing as someone knowing what cards are coming unless they can crack the RNG (and we all know that story).
Chances that management is aware of cards prior to or during dealing. <1%
Chances that a rogue employee is aware of cards prior to or during dealing <2%
Chances that Hacker(s) are aware of cards prior to or during dealing. <0.000000000001%
You're asking if the cards are known before or just after they are dealt, not if the information is being used for personal gain. I think it's likely that management has the ability to watch games face up in real time for honest purposes, thus the high chance of 50% below.
Management: 1 in a million before, 50% after
Renegade Employee: 1 in 10,000 before, 1% after
Hackers: 1 in 100,000 before, after dealt 0.1% chance now but 25% anytime in the next 10 years
-Abdul
Chances that management is aware of cards prior to or during dealing 50%. Because the cards are mathematically generated. But 0% that the management would use this to help any particular player or group of players e.g. big losers to keep them in the game.
Chances that a rogue employee is aware of cards prior to or during dealing 1%.
Chances that Hacker(s) are aware of cards prior to or during dealing currently 0%. But because the cards are mathematically generated, allegedly random, with enough data they may be able to crack this in the future.
There are several ways that a system like Paradise Poker could be hacked without Paradise management even being aware of it.
For example, a person could write a 'worm' that infects the client computers of Paradise players, intercepts the windows messages to the poker client program, grabs the value of their hole cards, and re-transmits it back out to another person.
But note that all the complaints we've been seeing don't have anything to do with one player knowing the value of another's hand. Every complaint about online poker seems to be about miracle draws that always get there, or non-random hand distributions.
The first complaint would require knowledge of which cards are still to be dealt. If Paradise uses SSL, then the only way to gain that information would be on the 'inside', or with help from someone on the inside.
If the distributions aren't random, then people can know what the are. This is an easy inference.
No it's not. First of all, there is no evidence of non-random distribution (anecdotal evidence doesn't count when analyzing statistical data. Sorry).
Second, it would be ridiculous for Paradise Poker to intentional create non-random distributions. Since this information becomes publically available, it would just be too easy for them to be caught. For example, I could write a program that tracks the board of every game played, let it run day and night, and then do some very simple statistical analysis on the results. Anyone can do that. YOU can do that. I'm not going to bother, since I have seen absolutely no evidence that my efforts would find anything wrong.
Second, the people who are claiming that the distribution is non-random can't even agree on the form of the non-randomness. Some are claiming that long-shot draws always get there. Others are claiming that they runs of bad cards for longer periods than they should. Still others are claiming that they get long runs of GOOD cards, which don't hold up. Yet others claim that they get good results when they first buy in, then lose it all back. Others claim that they get good results until they cash in some, which triggers some kind of 'punishment' algorithm, I guess.
The burden of proof is on YOU. You are going around on public forums, making charges of criminal conspiracy that are damaging the reputation of a company which has invested a lot of money and effort into providing a product. Put up the evidence! I want to see you track several million hands (it's easy enough to automate with a little knowledge of Windows Programming), then come back here and give us your data, along with your analysis. Give us the raw data incuding hand numbers, so we can request the same info from Paradise to verify that you haven't cooked the numbers. Give us your spreadsheets showing the formulas you used to show non-random distribution.
If you do that, and find a real problem, you'll make the news, have legions of grateful friends on twoplustwo and rgp, and be hailed as a hero. If you're not willing to make that effort, you have no right to publically slander someone else's efforts. Raising questions about it is fine. But insisting on it as FACT is not.
You a programmer for them? the Burdern of proof is with the company. Have them submit their software to rst corporation for analysis. Oh is it slander for asking an unregulated entity that will not disclose its ownership to have some legitimate analysis. Planet Poker has been proven hacked. I suspect Paradise has been too. You don't write software for them, do you? Of course you always claim that the com,pany shouldn't do anything to prove its legitimate.
You are either a sychophant, a shill, or a programmer for this company.
The chances the cards are known by hackers = 100%, atleast at the heads-up tables. There must be lots of programs more sofisticated than "NetBus"
It would be trivial for Paradise Poker employees to determine the cards before or as they are dealt if they want to. And again it would also be an easy programming exercise to create a special client, which displayed all the cards in the deck during play. We have to trust Paradise Poker here.
Note however that it would only be a problem if Paradise Poker employees were to use their knowledge of the cards to gain an extra profit from the players. If they only do this for program maintenance, or in order to detect cheating then I do not see a problem.
I recon that there is a 80% chance that at some point a Paradise Poker employee has know the value of a card before or as it has been dealt live to a paying customer. A 20% chance that a Paradise Poker employee has at some point used knowledge of a card before or as it was dealt to gain a financial profit. Due to my trusting nature I recon there is an approximately 0% chance that there is a Paradise Poker employees systematically uses knowledge of the hands as they are dealt to gain a profit over an extended length of time. However this is probably not as close to zero as I would like.
I find it difficult to believe that someone would be able to know the other hands as they are being dealt without inside help from Paradise Poker. However I can imagine an (ex)employee might able help here. I think the chance of this having happened is still close to 0%, however over time this figure is going to increase.
due to management cheating <1%
due to renegade employee cheating <1% to 6%
due to hackers' knowledge <1% to 4%
If you ran the same series of surveys for Planet Poker last year, you would have the same results. All the supporters saying zero, and that anybody that thought differently was paranoid. Now we all know from rst corporation that the probabilty of Planet Poker having been hacked for card information is 100%. The odds therefore for Paradise are probably close to that for Planet. The odds that they have been hacked this way?
100%.
Here is a postscript from an email I sent to Mason on an unrelated topic. The postscript actually turned out to be longer than the main message, and after writing it, I thought it would be a good post for this forum.
With regard to the recent ranting about cheating at online sites, I too was nearly bitten by this paranoia bug. I started off horribly on Paradise, losing $2000 in 70 hours of play at 10-20. This loss (not especially rare in statistical terms) was not nearly as surprising as my HUGE swings. During those 70 hours I went from -2000 to +1800 3 times; a real rollercoaster. Now, I consider myself a fairly solid player, and I keep very detailed statistics of my results. I have made a decent living playing in live games at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut in the 10-20, 20-40 and 40-80 Holdem games, along with similar limits in stud. This earn reflects a nearly 1 BB/hr rate in the tougher games, and over 2 BB/hr in the weaker games, especially the 20-40 at Mohegan, which has been described by many as the best (livest) 20-40 in the country.
Anyway, the point of all this is to show how a solid player in real-life can face several adjustment issues when playing online. I nearly boycotted online play all together, until I decided to give it one more shot---with one MAJOR caveat: conduct a very detailed analysis of my play online thus far, along with a thorough statistical analysis of my results over 70 hours. The ability to retrieve hand histories helped out quite a bit. I was amazed to find that my play during these 70 hours was anything but optimal. I saw myself calling raises with hands I would NEVER call with in live play. I also saw myself peeling cards much more often (and incorrectly) than in live play. In sum, I found my online play to be very much inferior to what I consider to be "my" game. Sometimes I even had to reread the hand history several times to be sure I was looking at the correct player!! :). With regard to statistical analysis (which is admittedly tough to rely on with only 70 game-play hours), I found that my standard deviation was more than double what it is in my regular live games. This was a sure sign that I was playing too loosely, and playing too many speculative hands (especially those with -EV). I then decided to give online play another shot, while trying to play the game I know I am capable of playing, the game I play all the time in the live games, the game that has basically paid my bills for the last 5 years. Lo and behold, it worked. I am now happy to say that after 350 hours of online play, I have made back the money I lost, and now am ahead over $8000 (more than 1BB in 15-30 and 20-40).
The moral of this whole spiel is not to boast about my success on on Paradise, but that all of these players we see complaining on the internet poker forum on 2+2, even the accomplished pros such as Ed Hill, should take a LONG HARD look at not only their game, but also how their game meshes with the internet interface. I think some players rely on physical tells and reading of opponents much more than they realize. When they play on the internet, these tools are stripped from them (or at least dramatically diminished), and they are often reduced to playing based only on known exposed cards. This fact leads me to believe that internet poker lends itself less readily to those who play "by feel," even if these "feel" players are consistent winners in live play.
I believe that internet poker will be good for my overall game in the long run. It has certainly helped me to tune in much more closely to how a particular opponent is playing AT THE MOMENT. Some players play well when winning but horribly when losing, some like to protect small leads, etc. etc. Keying in on these subtle changes is one of the few strategic adjustments (not relating to simple card strength) that one can make in an internet game. Like those made for individual poker games and game structures, successful play on internet poker requires specific adjustments from traditional (S&M) strategy. Anyone who thinks they can just take their regular game from the live card room to the virtual one and expect "usual" results is in for a rude awakening. I have had this awakening, and now am much better equipped to compete in the internet arena. I suggest other would-be internet card-sharks think carefully about the necessary strategy adjusments they need to make to their regular games in order to be successful.
Just a few thoughts and anecdotal notes. I would be interested in hearing yours.
Comments and Skewers Welcome
Maven
Excellent Post and no doubt you will immediately be labelled as an employee of Paradise, as does everybody else who attempts to say something positive about Internet Poker (maybe all the critics are employed by traditional Casino's to stop people from playing on-line).
Exactly as you said, the virtual cardroom was a very rude awakening for me as to my playing ability on-line. You either seriously adjust or you go down it's as simple as that.
Hehe, I like the line about the critics of internet poker being "employed by traditional Casino's to stop people from playing on-line."
Good One :^]
Excellent post!!
My particular epiphany occurred when I went from 2-4 (won $580) in 14 hours, to (3-6) won $960 in 23 hours to 5-10 (won $1000 in 30 hours and then lost 850 back over the next 20 hours.
What had happened was I was still playing a strong game preflop but I was staying in too long against better hands because I had lost respect for my opponents. I didn't believe anyone's raise or checkraise and gave them no credit for calling 2 or three bets cold. At first I just thought I was getting a bad streak of flops but nothing had changed except my ability to fold.
Like you said, it's way different when there are no faces and emotions to put on the opps.
Among other things, I have noticed that players seem to tend to bluff more on average, and to overplay hands more than in live poker. Perhaps this is because they lose some fear of being "read" at the table, or they gain courage from the semi-anonymity of the internet. I find that I have been paying people off more than in live games (not always the best decision in retrospect, sometimes even terrible, but still often worth it).
I would tend to agree with you here. In fact, I think I find myself bluffing more often on Paradise as well, though not necessarily incorrectly. I have bought some very large pots in 15-30 and 20-40 with some very well-timed bluffs. That being said, I think it is pretty much useless to bluff in any games lower than 15-30 at Paradise. This raises some interesting adjustment issues, since I often play in a 15-30 and 10-20 simultaneously (I try to avoid 20-40, since I assume than any professional colluders would conduct their vileness there rather than in the smaller games). The strategies for the two games are very different, and one has to be very careful to separate the two and not let one strategy, i.e. bluffing spill over into the lower stakes game, where it is much less effective. So far I have done well in avoiding this, though I have slipped a few times.
P.S. M--I pulled a "Mark" type mistake a few days ago, but it worked out for the best. I was in the BB in 15-30, and pot was 3 bet to me. I held 74o, and had my other game as the primary window. Just as I was about to make an acion in the 10-20 game, the 15-30 window popped up and i accidentally hit raise, capping the pot with 74o!! 5 callers....Flop 774 (K)Turn (7) River. :) One guy had KK, another made a nut flush, I made quads on river. Needless to say the pot was a monster, and I had the whole table talking to themselves....
Oh that was a mistake? I think you adjustments have to do with convincing the online poker board community that you don't cheat. Come on, its a mistake to hit raise rather than fold? You do this all the time and you know it. Its called knowing what the cards are going to be, and you sound like a pro.
Maven admits that he is so computer illiterate that he doesn't know how to configure rgp newsgroup on the General Theory board. He can't be cheating. Then again, he's probably not a winner like he claims if he can't figure out something as simple as news groups.
He sure is an expert for internet traffic and hacking isn't he? By the way Sklansky, CNE is a Novell Certified Network Engineer and MCSE stands for Microsoft Computer System Engineer.
These wonders that can't configure newsgroups sure have a lot more credibility than certified engineers, don't they?
I have no trouble accessing rgp. My question was specifically related to MICROSOFT OUTLOOK. Next time read and quote in entirety before trying to ridicule someone.
Hasty generaliztions and the drawing the of unsubstantiated correlations are the hallmarks of unsound and logic-deficient thinking (what David terms "fuzzy thinking"). Even if I were as "computer illiterate" as you state (which I am not, in fact I am a partner in an internet DNS reselling business, and wrote the HTML code for the website myself), this would justify no reasonable assessment of my abilities in other, unrelated areas. I suggest you brush up on your reasoning skills before trying to engage in verbal combat. The results could get ugly for you, and the spectators in the royal boxes will be likely to give you the thumbs down, as they did in Roman times with gladiators at the coliseum. As it stands now, your lack of effective weapons makes this an unfair contest.
Microsoft Outlook is at least 5 years old, and very simple. The help files would have answered your question. You are no computer hacker. I don't think you knew what was coming in 7-4o either. Then again, you wouldn't need to be computer literate if you had a confederate that was computer literate. The jury is still out on you 7-4o.(thats what I'll refer to you as from now on)
I always thought dufus should be spelled doofus.
When I have made similar mistakes it has generally cost me money.
Background.... Computer illiterate, of average intelligence, long time poker player 20+years( 7-8 k hrs), small winner( 3-6 thru 10-20, spread limits 1-5 thru 2-20). I'd love to play poker on the internet due to the lack of choices I have in Montana but I feel impotent to decide if its safe. I read the posts debating this issue. I have been cheated in the past and I don't feel confident in my ability to decide if the games are on the square. Any sugggestions or should I avoid these games? Thank You.
David,
The one survey I think everyone thinks about that: What are the odds that at sometime in the next year (or two or three, whatever arbitrary figure you want to use), will Paradise fold up and not pay people off. Everyone I talk to that fears online gaming has this reason in mind, cheating come down the list a bit, usually after if its legal.
Even if you assume they would do this the moment it was their benefit to do so, I don't see it as a good reson not to play , especially if you don't keep an outlandish amount of money on deposit. Keep in mind that even if they lost their US customers, they still would get lots of business from outside the US. Thus they would feel impelled to pay off Americans so as not to scare off those who were left.
Oh I totally agree, I have a fair amount of money offshore to complement the money I keep in Las Vegas to bet sports. I have 5 books that I balance out every month to make sure I don't lose a whole lot should one go under or slow pay, on top of the line shopping advantages of course. I have taken money out of all of them though at least one time and had no real troubles with any of them. I just say this because this is the concern of the people who haven't taken the plunge yet. Seems like a majority of the posters have done so already. The talk of cheating and improper activities by Paradise has to scare these people off and I think it would be good for all those on Paradise that want new players to sign up and join them that a statement be made on this specific topic.
There are a few points to be made about the results of the three surveys I instigated.
1. About 90% of those who answered dismissed computer type cheating (as opposed to collusion) as very unlikely, in spite of knowledge of Ed Hill's results. Therefore, those who say that my similar public skepticism proves alterior motives have been effectively rebutted. Many of those who answered this survey are brilliant guys who should not be dismissed lightly. Even professional paranoid Abdul Jalib was in this camp. (Yes, I understand that this doesn't prove I don't have alterior motives. It only shows that my own public statements are not good evidence for it.)
2.Many of those same posters who highly doubted funny business, still expressed concerns and misgivings, that Paradise and other poker sites should read carefully and address appropriately. Ray Zee was particularly harsh, which should lay to rest any supiscions that we would let advertising revenue influence our public opinions.
3. Those few of you who think there is a very large chance of cheating, especially with the express consent of management, need to look long and hard at themselves. You need to fix something that is almost certainly causing you harm in other aspects of your life, whether it be your poker results or something else. The fact that so many smart successful people, including even Abdul, voted as they did, should give you pause. It means you probably have one of two possible problems: A psychological predisposition to irrational distrust, or a flaw in your method of evaluating all of the available evidence (eg. probability, Baye's Theorum, economic incentive, human nature etc.). These subjects could of course be discussed in great detail but I will leave that to others. In any case, you would surely admit that if you do in fact have these flaws it will lead to incorrect decisions in poker and elsewhere. (In the case of internet poker, a viscious cycle could ensue whereby weak play [for instance you put too many people on bluffs] causes poor results, causing further distrust etc.)
Unfortunately those who have these problems, are I fear, very unlikely to admit them. Possibly seeing all these very opposite opinions by these highly qualified people will do the trick. It is important to understand that what I am saying would remain true even if it was to come out that Paradise or others were indeed cheating. If that were to happen it would not invalidate my words. Rather it would be a case of a one or two percent shot coming in. Please understand this. One key aspect of success is the ability to assign accurate probabilities to various eventualities. Those of you who assigned a high probability to Paradise shenanigans, are almost certainly assigning probabilities wrongly, regardless of the eventual outcome, and you need to find out why you are doing such things.
With all the time and effort put into these surveys by the participants and David especially I hope that this will put an end to all the nonsense which so often clogs up these pages, making this site often unreadable as opposed to the excellent and informative 2+2 Tournament Site.
When you read some postings you can only conclude, as others have, that these people need help and this really is not the place for it (on the tables donating to my bankroll please).
Have a read of Maven's excellent recent Post entitled Internet Poker Adjustments which in conjuction with this survey hopefully (although unlikely) might be the beginning of the end of all the Conspiracy nonsense (as soon as you have ` proof ` that I am being swindled on the Internet please let the Forum know) but until then just give everybody a break and get some help.
Saying that the suspicious ones "need help" is probably going too far. They merely should rethink their position and try to understand why other successful, smart people would differ with them so greatly. Meanwhile, I had kind of hoped that Ed Hill would participate in these surveys or at least comment on my conclusions. He should also read Maven's post below. Where are you Ed?
The percentage isn't 90%. If anything, over 90% say the chances are greater than zero. This survey means nothing. Its not a scientific survey. Why doesn't Paradise simply have their software evaluated by rst corp? The only two answers are that 1.irregularities exist, 2. They don't care to answer serious compalints because they are unregulated.
I would ask Sklansky to come up with a third possibility. I don't see one. This whole survey business is just another smoke screen.
I was also interested in Ed Hill's thoughts on my post below, and perhaps starting a dialogue with him on the subject. I think I have a few concepts that might help explain his dismal results online, which I touch upon briefly in my post below.
Maven
P.S. Its ULTERIOR, not ALTERIOR. I guess your high SAT score was due to a score of 800 on the math section, and something slightly lower on the verbal section :) I'm still waiting for you to accept the challenge about the LSAT, which was a result of the challenge given you by that Avocado Fats moron. I think you stuck your neck out too far with regard to the LSAT, and it certainly wasn't a good bet from your perspective, unless of course you have scored above 175 previously on the LSAT.
There he goes again. I guess Maven graduated from the internet grammar patrol. His posts about 7-4o are disgusting.
You are obviously alienating Mr.Hill by running unscientific surveys. I must agree with Gary. Why do the poker sites refuse to have their software evaluated by a reputable firm such as rst? Why don't you make a call on this forum for them to do so? The only logical reason is money.
Ed Hill is no doubt taking a lot of heat from you folks, and any other people in Vegas involved with Internet poker. You can't use the "you are a loser" response to legitimate questions anymore. Its unfortunate that an honest man such as Mr.Hill has to be ridiculed for simply telling the truth.
No one is "ridiculing" Ed Hill. In fact, I think David flatters Mr. Hill by expressing interest in his (Mr. Hill's) thoughts and observations on this subject. As far as your first statement, I don't see how you can reliably draw the conclusion that David's running of an "unscientific survey" is responsible for Mr. Hill's dearth of posts on this forum. In fact, Mr. Hill hadn't posted here for several weeks before David ever introduced this topic, with the exception of his one small post concerning the invitation offered him from Paradise. And what exactly constitutes a "scientific survey" anyway? We aren't conducting cancer research here, David simply took a straw poll of the 2+2 forum community to get a gauge on their thoughts concerning this issue. Noone attempted to make any meaningful claims about whether these polls tell us definitively whether cheating, hacking etc. actually take place, but only whether the PERCEPEPTION that such things are going on exists. These are two very distinct things. One could conduct the most scientifically rigorous, well-planned poll of whether life exists on other planets than earth. Regardless of the result, this poll only tells us the perception of those polled, not the "true" probability that the subject of the poll (extraterrestial life) actually exists or not.
As far as your statement that "Ed Hill has to be ridiculed for simply telling the truth," I don't recall ANYONE questioning Mr. Hill's integrity or the truthfulness of his results. I think the issue here is that, as you can read in my post concerning Internet Poker Adjustments, perhaps Mr. Hill is comparing apples to oranges when he draws conclusions based on his extremely poor results in Internet play compared to his results in live play. When one considers the important differences between live and internet play, especially the speed of the game, hands per hour, lask of physical tells on opponents, etc., it is unsound to make comparisons of statistical results based on standard deviation and win rates of Mr. Hill's play in live games.
Come now, not everyone is as well informed as you to cap 7-4o and hit quads on the river(taking down Kings full). I thought maybe we should pay attention to you, until you state that you don't know how to configure newsgroups on your browser.
It's clear you are a computer illiterate. Why are you opposed to the companies submitting their software for analysis? Something to hide?
I challenge you to produce a quote where I EVER took a stance on the issue of having sites such as Paradise inspected by an independent third party. You will find none, since I have consciously avoided this discussion, since I have not formed an opinion yet. Unlike you, who just spews whatever comes to the front of his pebble-sized brain,I THINK before I post on the forum.
As far as my being "computer illiterate," I refer you to my earlier reply on this, which can be accessed via the following link:
Maven is on tilt. Boy, Iguess being able to use Front Page Express ranks right up there with CNE, and MCSE. Engineers don't know what they are talking about. I assume that you now are calling for company to submit itself to testing by a reputable firm. Thumbs up for you. P.S., You tilt far too easily.
Someone who can differentiate between alterior and ulterior should be able to appreciate the difference between Noone and No one.
There is a difference between a one-time typographical error, (I obviously missed the space key), and repeated misspellings of the same word.
I'll agree with you on that. However, if you are going to be so rude as to point out a rather trivial mistake (unless spelling counts and no one has been notified) made by your host in public you should take care to check and double check your posts for perfection. You know, glass houses . . .
Amazing how discussion on an interesting topic with very real benefit to it's participants turns into a pissing match about grammar. The brain is a terrible thing to waste.
Adam.
Very interesting analysis.
Or it's possible that your survey simply showed a 'schooling effect' in publically posted surveys, often driven by the high-profile posters. If the first response to your survey had been Abdul, and he had said, "50%", you might have gotten a completely different set of answers. So I think the survey overall was pretty flawed.
You should have done it blind, by asking people to send you their opinions by E-mail. There was just way too much agreement in this one. Most people were within a percentage point or two of each other. My guess is that after the first four or five responses were given they tended to set the parameters for the rest.
BTW, I agree with your conclusions, but for different reasons.
Dan is in my opinion probably correct in his statement that the survey technique was flawed. When I worked in survey design at the Census Bureau a problem that we were concerned with is what is known as "conditioning." That is do the previous questions or the previous responses affect the later responses. In many situations, unless the survey is done very carefully, this will be the case. I agree with Dan that the initial high profile posters probably influenced any answers that followed them.
There is also another problem. It is the fact that in voluntary surveys, it is usually those with the strongest feelings who respond. Thus your non-response rate is very high. Typically surveys assume that the non-respondents have the same opinions and attitudes as the respondents. This is okay as long as the non-response rate is small. But in this type of survey that won't necessarily be the case and your results can be very misleading. (By the way, many years ago I won't a paper on this subject which was presented at the 1978 American Statistical Association Convention.)
You can add to that some other problems - the poster of the question has already made his personal opinion known, and is the highest-profile person involved. Also, people with 'unpopular' opinions are less likely to post them and be embarassed. If stating that you think Paradise Poker cheats labels you a 'loser at poker', then a number of good players who have that suspicion may have simply stayed away.
The latter problem is very difficult to deal with. I was involved once in designing a small survey that asked embarassing questions like, "Have you ever been the victim of incest?" Even though the survey was completely blind it was felt that the nature of the questions would severely limit the accuracy of the data. So what you can do is offer two questions, one of which is emotionally neutral like, "Do you like the Yankees?" Have the person taking the survey flip a coin, and then answer truthfully. Now they don't mind answering the incest question, because they could always claim that the coin was tails and the answer they gave was really about baseball. Later, you run a post-production step on the survey to extract the real data.
These surveys show nothing.
I think that the company came up with this idea in that they are desperate to find a way to re-establish legitimacy without subjecting themselves to an honest, hardcore analysis by an independent firm. Sklanksy probably was well paid for it. Scientifically, these surveys mean that David Sklansky can ask for responses that cannot be verified by individual integrity( the poster is who he says he is?Did any poster post twice with aliases?) The results can be interpreted in any way Sklansky sees fit. Pre survey,he says that 10% would be disturbing for the industry. Post survey, (tallied subjectively, I'm glad he doesn't count ballots in my district)he then says that 90% favorable proves his point.
The onus is on Paradise and companies like them to submit to a true third party assessment of the integrity of the software, and the security at the site. Major companies REFUSE to even begin talking to firms that are not ISO certified. Why should the poker public be any different?
Of course if Mr.Hanson works in the computer industry he know this to be true. He wouldn't permit his company to do business with another non-ISO company, but he expects the poker playing community to send thousands of dollars to an unknown entity (no knowledge of ownership), in a country without regulations, and trust them because idiots like Maven say so (7-4o is worth a cap, per Maven).
Once again you fail to quote faithfully. I wrote the part about capping with 74o in the blind as an example of how the software interface can cause mistakes by pressing the wrong button that could never happen in a live game. I hit the "raise" button instead of the "fold" button when the other game window popped up inadvertently. Please don't insult my or anyone else's intelligence by trying to ascribe something to me which I obviously did NOT write. I refer any interested readers to confirm for themselves how Gary likes to try to twist things to suit his current viewpoint. Click on the following link to see for yourselves:
Why souldn't we believe that you were on the phone with a friend that knew what the distribution was going to be? No one doubts that you are computer illiterate. Microsoft Outlook is very old.
These surveys might not show much, but they certainly do not show nothing.
They show that over 90% believe that the company may be cheating.Anything above zero shows doubt.
I've got news for you - ISO certification doesn't validate the code you sell. ISO 9000 certification is about internal processes. And it doesn't even care if those processes are good or bad - what ISO certification does is make sure that your internal systems are followed, that they are documented, and repeatable. That's it.
If my poker certification process in-house is, "Run software on typical client machine." "If software runs correctly after clicking every button, release to manufacturing.", then I qualify for ISO certification as long as I document and follow that procedure. The procedure may suck, but Price/Waterhouse or Peat Marwick, or whoever is auditing me couldn't care less.
ISO auditing firms are not qualified to judge the quality of your internal processes. They can't tell you if your bug-checking is thorough, or if your security is good. They are bean counters, and that's it. If my documented security is, "Turn the lights out and lock the door on the way out", and that's written in my procedures manual and my employees know about it and follow it, I'm ISO 9000 eligible.
I know what ISO does....it was an analogy. Your company wouldn't do business with an certified company. Poker player's should demand the equivalent. Of course internal processes themselves in a company that so few know about would be good too. Don't be a dolt. I gave you credit for being able to discern a comparison. I guess I gave you too much credit.
I meant to say uncertified companies...of course..maybe you didn't realize that.
There are many reasons why Paradise may not want to expose their code to RST. First, trade secrets. Paradise may not want another company pouring through the results of their R&D spending. Second, cost. I don't know what RST charges, but it could be a lot. Third, maybe they asked and were refused. For RST to 'certify' their software forces them to incur some liability. They may not be willing to do that for an offshore company operating outside US law. And if RST refuses to certify the software for whatever reason, that would be a PR disaster for Paradise.
Or maybe they ARE doing that, and simply won't announce it until the results are in. Such a code evaluation could take a long time.
And finally, doing so wouldn't change a thing, because nutbars like you would simply claim that Paradise switched in clean code for the evaluation and the switched back in the bad code later. In fact, if they really WERE cheating they probably would have found a way to be 'certified' much earlier to forestall stupid claims like this.
Paradise is smart enough to know that it's impossible to prove a negative, and the more they say about it the more guilty they will look in the eyes of people who have already made up their minds. They are literally in a no-win situation here against people like you. The rest of us can only hope to educate the masses enough that you have very little influence, seeing as you're still willing to irresponsibly slander a company without evidence.
Not true. If they did so the poker community could sleep better.
You are the one who admitted that they have nefarious reasons for not submitting to rst(i.e. non-compliance with US Law. That wouldn't surprise me. This company won't even say who owns them. People will still be suckers. Many offshore penny stock firms moved offhore for just that reason. They call up investors and promise them the moon. Costa Rica was a haven for such boiler room operations after the SEC shutdown the outfits in Denver and Salt Lake City.
A nutbar that asks for self regulation. Boy, I sure wish the individuals that dumped their life savings could here you now. Of course, maybe you don't care about old folks being ripped off.
I went to the Paradise site and read their descriptions of their random number generator and their shuffling procedure. They seem straight forward enough but to be honest I would have to do more research into the algorithm they use to understand what they were stating about their random number generator. The point is they seem to provide some useful information about how they accomplish a "fair" shuffle.
Even if they don't want a third party reviewing their code they could describe their validation and verification process if they have one. Also conceivably independent V&V could be accomplished via an independent company. I don't if this would satisfy Gary or not.
In your opinion, what is the probability that...
Never mind, don't answer that.
In fact, give me a break!
One problem that I believe many people have when posting is presenting their opinions as solid facts. Many (such as my ex-wife) read something and decide to believe unconditionally.
Most of us who do not believe cheating is occuring, have not completely ruled out the POSSIBILITY. However, it is so minute, that I am not overly worried.
Chance Skalansky was paid off: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000377859%
I enjoyed your summary.
Before I proceed with my plans of world domination through cheating, hacking, and colluding in online poker, I was wondering if anyone out there can give me some hardware recommendations for someone playing two hands at a time (screen res, etc.).
I bought a 21" screen 1600x1200 Res
Yup I think this works best. You can split the screen nicely up into four sections, two games, the lobby and whatever you are using to keep track of the other players. (Or possible a third planet poker game for the real players)
IMO you don't need a high speck PC, but a really good monitor pays dividends.
Two monitors.
How do you do that?
Tom D
Theoretically, you just plug them in. There is a Windows help screen on "multiple display support." You do, of course need two video cards (PCI or AGP, VESA will not work). If your computer has an onboard card and you've been using an add-on, you will have to enable the onboard card in the setup. I had to do quite a bit of fiddling, downloading and trying different drivers until I found one that would work. During the process I got an error message several times saying "Card does not support multiple monitors" but all of sudden, there they were. Also note that the driver that finally worked gave a message saying something about not being the right one and that all features may not be supported. Ya gotta just love Microsoft ;)
Dig that old 14 incher out of the garage. It's much better than hi-res flicker on an inexpensive 21.
What are the chances that twoplustwo, and the online industry are under surveillance by the FBI?
100%
First of all get it correct. The FBI has ceded most of the investigation to the Department of Justice and Janet Reno. In any case who are you kidding? The Feds watch everything. They investigate E-bay all the time looking for crime there, what difference does it make they investigate here or offshore gaming?
How many congressional bills need a 2/3 majority to pass the US Congress. This assumes that it is a straight bill, not a veto overide. I believe that the answer will be near zero. Shouldn't the Republican majority committee members have to explain why a gaming law was exempted from regular US law?
The reason why it was done this way is because the bill sponsors and their cronies that got it to the floor wanted it to pass as is, basically they wanted to limit it from long debate and amendments they feared would water it down. Quite a few bills actually do go through this way but they are usually stupid things like a resolution to spend $10 million dollars on 4 parks or something like that...insignifcant stuff that never gets any attention and no one will vote against. Partisan bills or bills on a divisive issue of any kind normally wouldn't face this test because of the 2/3 needed and also the desire or need to amend them. In the end, remember this is all politics. They might have known they never would get it to pass as is, but did it to make a point anyways. There can be a hundred reasons for doing things in a particular manner in Washington and it may take months or longer to figure it out in retrospect. The main reason one would think is they hoped to get it passed as is because it would be much more unlikely to get vetoed with the lack of amendments. Of course as pointed out they still would have to work with the Senate version. In the end the lastest word is that it probably will just get shelved quietly because its going to take a lot of debate and time to get a version that all constituencies agree on and in the end the Congressional leaders behind this already made their "point" to their supporters that they tried to get it outlawed and couldn't get the others to agree on it. After all how much effect do you really think this has on the American economy or society at least at this point in the development in internet gaming? I would the vast majority of the people doing it are already involved in gaming and this is just another outlet for them. The whole concept of millions (or even thousands) of kids getting online to gamble is a crock of you know what and is just grandstanding.
Everyone will say they don't cheat on their taxes. Is that credible? No.
The revenue departments must be paranoid. They don't believe that everyone pays all their taxes. Everyone says that they don't cheat on their taxes. All these qualified people must report all their income. This means just one thing.
Gary Carson is correct and the government is out to get us all!
I was playing 5-10 on Planet sitting one right of cutoff with T9o. 4 callers to me and the cutoff just posted as a new player. I called, 7 saw the flop of T94 with 2 diamonds. All check to me I bet and get 3 callers. Turn is the Ace of diamonds. Two checks to me and I bet. Button calls, UTG calls. River is a Ten. Check to me I bet and UTG calls. I show he folds. I get a hand history to find out what he called with without ever betting and find out he was holding QJo. He called the river with a busted straight draw without even a pair or a King in his hand. And he's playing 5-10. Why does anyone want to move up??
what hand number was that Bartholemew?
I would love to be able to tell you but I just clicked on the last (1) and didn't need to enter the hand #. But it was 39391xx. Why?
Too bad you don't have it for verification,
thanks anyway
I know what you mean, I couldn't believe it either.
limits. Enjoy.
Consider the following: with the combination of casual collusion and less sinister cheating online poker could prove difficult to beat. By less sinister cheating I mean perhaps merely the hand histories of players could be intercepted and or sold/given to certain players. For example a house player may have access to players histories, perhaps via this so-called "renegade employee" referred to in other posts. This would be a significant advantage, one could conclude exact pre flop starting requirements, bluffing frequencies, and a wide range of extremely useful tactical information. This type of cheating is not traditional in the poker room sense and is not detectable by an outside observer such as Roy Cooke. Could anyone with expertise in computer hacking comment on how difficult it might be to intercept or otherwise gather this type of data? This combined with both casual and sophisticated collusion would leave a regular player at the very least at a disadvantage. This is not to suggest I have an iota of evidence of this; it is merely a suggestion that perhaps jumping to a conclusion that there has to be non ramdom cards or serious hacking is not necessary to swing a small poker edge into negative expectation. Just for your consideration and elaboration. PS. In brief communications with Mr. Hill he related that he had dropped out of the 2+2 debate and who can blame him.
I have seen the messages here about a new service - "Poker Analyzer". They say that they are going to collect hand histories and sell analysis to the public. I don't think it is cheating since the analysis should be available to everybody. You might want to check with them.
these histories you speak of do not include folded hands...
There might be enough information from the shown hands. Also, knowing that someone folds preflop 5% of all hands, after flop 75%, on a river only 2% might be useful.
Hmm...thoughtful post.
Here is a dilemma I have not thought about before with the "Poker Analyzer.":
Those that turn in their hand histories are revealing EVERYTHING about their play (as their cards are always displayed in the histories), while information about other players is less than complete.
I thought they wrote that the sender's information is excluded from the histories he sends.
I hate No. Cal Casinos. The 'Pit' is Colma. This may be an over-reacion on my part but after playing a bit on Paradise (played 15-30 and 3-6 to warm up) I have not played for at least a year. I found the 15-30 games softish. 3-6 was very good. The game is too early to be passed any judgement on. I am not sure about this noise about scams.....
Take this, I suspect scams in LIVE casinos at times ! I have quit playing cause every time I went into Colma - my stomack turned (and it was not only the food). Ok - call me a stuck up snob, maybe you are right but I am no fool. I would not play anywhere if I suspected a scam. So what was Ed Hills problem - he lost on one session ? Please, I am very curious. Wiseguy
You will find a few thousand posts about the pros and cons of online poker here and on rec.gambling.poker. Look em up and come to your own collusion, er I mean conclusion.
I watched this hand unfold this morning while getting ready for work this morning. Would anyone consider this suspicious, or a hand shuffling glitch. Its was the 2nd 4 of a kind I observed with in about 30 minutes. I've pasted the entire Paradise print out so as not to get flamed or accused of tampering. Here ya go.... Game #15299725 - $2/$4 Hold'em - 2000/07/25-06:54:50 (CST) Table "Tahiti" (real money) -- Seat 2 is the button Seat 1: A Man ($182.50 in chips) Seat 2: speedyd21 ($131 in chips) Seat 3: glowworm ($60 in chips) Seat 4: trip7 ($111 in chips) Seat 5: moffen ($92 in chips) Seat 6: SCOTT327 ($14 in chips) Seat 7: FLOPASET ($156 in chips) Seat 8: kingsnake ($56 in chips) Seat 9: elleon ($66 in chips) glowworm: Post Small Blind ($1) trip7 : Post Big Blind ($2) Dealing... Dealt to A Man [ Ad ] Dealt to A Man [ 2d ] moffen : Fold SCOTT327: Fold FLOPASET: Raise ($4) kingsnake: Call ($4) elleon : Fold A Man : Raise ($6) speedyd21: Fold glowworm: Fold trip7 : Call ($4) FLOPASET: Call ($2) kingsnake: Call ($2) *** FLOP *** : [ Ah Td Ac ] trip7 : Check FLOPASET: Check kingsnake: Bet ($2) A Man : Call ($2) trip7 : Raise ($4) FLOPASET: Fold kingsnake: Call ($2) A Man : Raise ($4) trip7 : Raise ($4) kingsnake: Fold A Man : Call ($2) *** TURN *** : [ Ah Td Ac ] [ Th ] trip7 : Bet ($4) A Man : Raise ($8) trip7 : Raise ($8) A Man : Raise ($8) trip7 : Call ($4) *** RIVER *** : [ Ah Td Ac Th ] [ As ] trip7 : Check A Man said, "now what?????" A Man : Bet ($4) trip7 : Call ($4) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $82 | Rake: $3 Board: [ Ah Td Ac Th As ] A Man bet $34, collected $82, net +$48 (showed hand) [ Ad 2d ] (four of a kind, aces) speedyd21 didn't bet (folded) glowworm lost $1 (folded) trip7 lost $34 (showed hand) [ Tc Ts ] (four of a kind, tens) moffen didn't bet (folded) SCOTT327 didn't bet (folded) FLOPASET lost $6 (folded) kingsnake lost $10 (folded) elleon didn't bet (folded)
This "weird hand" paranoia makes no sense. Why would they need to deal out a bunch of quads if they wanted to screw people? I'd worry more about my tendency to 3-bet A2s. (You're still too good to stay at 2-4.)
Marco.
You're still too good to stay at 2-4.... Chris, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I don't know why I said "still." I meant that you play better than the average 5-10 player.
<<<3. Those few of you who think there is a very large chance of cheating, especially with the express consent of management, need to look long and hard at themselves. You need to fix something that is almost certainly causing you harm in other aspects of your life, whether it be your poker results or something else. The fact that so many smart successful people, including even Abdul, voted as they did, should give you pause. It means you probably have one of two possible problems: A psychological predisposition to irrational distrust, or a flaw in your method of evaluating all of the available evidence (eg. probability, Baye's Theorum, economic incentive, human nature etc.). These subjects could of course be discussed in great detail but I will leave that to others. In any case, you would surely admit that if you do in fact have these flaws it will lead to incorrect decisions in poker and elsewhere. (In the case of internet poker, a viscious cycle could ensue whereby weak play [for instance you put too many people on bluffs] causes poor results, causing further distrust etc.)
Unfortunately those who have these problems, are I fear, very unlikely to admit them. Possibly seeing all these very opposite opinions by these highly qualified people will do the trick. It is important to understand that what I am saying would remain true even if it was to come out that Paradise or others were indeed cheating. If that were to happen it would not invalidate my words. Rather it would be a case of a one or two percent shot coming in. Please understand this. One key aspect of success is the ability to assign accurate probabilities to various eventualities. Those of you who assigned a high probability to Paradise shenanigans, are almost certainly assigning probabilities wrongly, regardless of the eventual outcome, and you need to find out why you are doing such things. >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have refrained from saying this in the past, but here goes: 1. Early 80's, Stardust cheating scandal. 2. Mid 80's, Maxim cheating scandal. Never made public knowledge. 3. Mid to late 80's, Dunes cheating scandal. Never made public knowledge.
In all three of these incidents, the casino itself was not to blame; it was the people that the casino employed. Either way, I don't think that matters to the people that got their money stolen from them. These people trusted the casino to hire people that were honest, and that didn't happen.
American Coin in the early 80's had the concession to put all the slots in the Vegas bars. What a business. You would have to be crazy to cheat well I guess they were. Gaming caught them with chips in their video poker machines.
The video poker machines at Sycuan were always so high that I was too suspicious to play them. It didn't seem right that the jackpots were always big overlays. Nothing became of it; they got caught cheating in the blackjack before any suspicion was drawn to the machines. Were the owners to blame, probably not. The floor-people were bringing in marked cards so that certain players could cheat the player bankers. Again, I don't think it matters to the people that were cheated who exactly was to blame.
While still poker room manager of the Mirage, Eric Drache is supposedly caught cheating Ralph Morton. Mirage replaces him, but am I to assume that nothing ever happened in the Mirage in the big games when the poker room manager is involved in a scandal?
None of this has kept me from playing; I have always done real well playing poker. It didn't stop me from giving Paradise a shot. I encountered very sub-par results, had five friends that played real good, all sharing the same results. Had an e-mail conversation with Nolan Dalla, who also had a few friends that play well, all having the same very poor results. I talked to Roy Cooke who told me, "that a few good players he knew all had poor results in Paradise, and were all winning at Planet." This caused me to seriously question Paradise.
I thought that an open forum was to share opinions for the good of the group? Apparently I am mistaken. You personally asked me to put my Paradise post on your forum. What was your purpose? Evidently, to refute what I said.
You conducted a poll, got opinions that matched yours, and from what I gather in the above exert of your post, are of the opinion that anybody who thinks that there is a high probability that Paradise is on the not on the square, is some kind of lunatic.
In my original post, I stated, "this was either the worst run of cards that entire group of good players have ever seen, or something was wrong in Paradise." Judging from those poor results, considering that this is an unregulated gaming outfit based in Costa Rica, it seemed to me that it is not too illogical to question the integrity of the outfit. I guess in your opinion and your panel of intelligent people it is.
Everybody you find seems to be doing real good in Paradise, I find this odd. Do you think that there is a possibility that you are not being told the truth? You are viewed by many to be a God and a lot of these people consider them your disciples. Do I really think that they are not telling you the truth? No, most of them wouldn't lie to you, but I could see where some would, if for no other reason ego. Now for the real question, are these people really winning? Technically, yes. What are their hourly rates? You could ask somebody that has played 40 hours a week, in two games, for 9 months how are they doing? They would say, "Killing it, I am up $10,000." Would they offer the fact that they have played an equivalent to 2880 hours and are therefore making $3.47 per hour, I doubt it.
I knew going in that I would catch a lot of heat for making my original statement, but I figured it better to take the heat than keep my mouth shut and allow my fellow poker players to "maybe" get cheated.
In my opinion it is our duty to poker to insure that our fellow poker players are not cheated. Cheating does happen. Is Paradise cheating, I don't know? Do I question their integrity, yes.
"While still poker room manager of the Mirage, Eric Drache is supposedly caught cheating Ralph Morton. Mirage replaces him, but am I to assume that nothing ever happened in the Mirage in the big games when the poker room manager is involved in a scandal?"
Based on information that I have gathered Ralph Morton claimed that he was being cheated by Eric and Puggy Pearson in a game that took place in the state of Washington before The Mirage opened. According to Donna Harris' recollection, Morton had invited Eric and Puggy to a private game, and then lost. He then claimed he was being cheated and confiscated the cards. To Donna's knowledge no law suit was ever filed and nothing was ever found on the cards. Mr. Morton only succeeded in damaging his own reputation and the matter was never brought up again.
I stand corrected on the Ralph Morton-Eric Drache statement. I do have a lot of respect for Donna's opinion. I am sure there are plenty of other incidents of cheating that I am forgetting or never knew of.
It has been nearly two years since I have made a post to this forum. However, I now feel compelled to come forward at this time and give my own perspective of the Paradise Poker "controversy," since I share some of the responsibility for creating some of the doubts as to the overall integrity of the site.
First, it must be noted that there are various levels of suspicion -- and not all critics of Paradise Poker and its operations should be lumped together collectively. Some claims (of being cheated) are not credible in my view. I also note that Paradise Poker seems to have many satisfied customers.
My role in the debate first surfaced after I'd been contacted privately in e-mail by several individuals I know to be winning (live-action) players. Some of the players, I suspect, were looking for a place to vent their frustrations. Others asked if I would be willing to investigate further. Without going into a lot of detail, some of the stories I heard were horrifying. Of these, ED HILL's experience I found to be the most disturbing -- yet oddly enough, the most credible at the same time.
After a great deal of discussion ensued on RGP (which is the forum I read and occasionally participate in, when time permits) I became annoyed with Paradise Poker's total lack of a response to the (very valid) points that were raised. My view is/was that any multi-million dollar company -- and particularly a company involved in gambling, an industry that has historically been tainted with mistrust -- has an obligation to its cusomters to explain its operations, reassure its customers, and generally act in good faith on questions that deal with issues of integrity.
It took an exceedingly long time for Paradise Poker to come up with a public response to the questions that were raised. While such a delay does not imply internal corruption or a conscious attempt on the part of the company to cheat its players, I was troubled by their period of silence.
To Paradise Poker's credit, they have recently come forward with what I believe is an extraordinary offer and opportunity to clear up some of these questions. Ed Hill and myself have been invited to visit the site in San Jose, Costa Rica. I made it clear that I would not accept the offer unless Paradise Poker agreed to allow me to bring along a programmer -- who would be more qualified to ask the questions about internal and external operations. Once again, Paradise Poker showed good faith by accepting my terms.
We are now in the process of assembling an "evaluation team." I have made it clear to Paradise Poker that -- in the event we accept their offer -- we would write (and post) a report which details our findings. In the event the members of the team (including Ed Hill) do not agree about our observations, ALL POINTS OF VIEW are to be included in the report, nonetheless. We feel this is only fair to give a broad-based perspective of the operation, from technical and non-technical viewpoints.
We will go to Costa Rica with an open mind. Right now, none of us (who may make up the evaluation team) have definitive opinions, one way or another -- although Ed Hill and others continue to be vocal with what I think is a healthy (and justified) dose of skepticism. While I have had some doubts about Paradise Poker in the past (and have expressed them publically), I do think that having Paradise open its techincal operations to us is a very encouraging sign. Once again, we will draw no conclusions one way or another until we have been given an opportunity to visit the site and ask questions that will satisfy critics and potential customers.
I do want to lend my support to Ed Hill and others -- whose intentions I view as noble and courageous. It's not easy to come forward and describe experiences that may cast doubt on one's intentions and abilities.
Nolan Dalla
How valid can a one time observation be? If they're cheating now, don't you think they have the capability of cleaning it up for your trip?
Nolan, I 'll go - please see me for further details and I do it for cleap. (comp)
I appreciate what you have written about Paradise Poker. I agree also that the survey's were flawed in the sense that people who disagreed with the main stream opinions would be reluctant to post. Obviously your sources and experience at Paradise are much diffent than the what people are telling David. I think you are right about providing an expert poker player adding to the credibility of Paradise's operation. I brought this subject up a long time ago.
I will speak to one thing that I feel I am qualified to discuss and that is the potential problems with Paradise software. First of all from what I understand Paradise does or at least did have problems with a new version of their client software (I think that's what they call it). Apparently it is/was downloaded to the player's machine automatically when they logged in. And apparently it had some problems where the player's PC would "lock up." I know it doesn't necessarily mean that there are problems with other portions of their software like the random number generator and the shuffle algorithm(s). It does point out to me though that there software processes shall we say could use some work. It makes me question a few things:
-- What is the Paradise software verification and validation process. What does it consist of? This question should be easy for Paradise to answer.
-- If the software verification and validation process isn't "tight" enough or thorough enough I would have a lot of skepticism regarding the quality of their code from design through implementation.
-- If Paradise doesn't use some sort of independent V&V for their software I would like them to explain why they don't do this. I wouldn't accept an answer that they would compromise their source code if they did. This is because reviewing source code is not necessary for verifying and validitating that the system requirement have been accomodated.
-- Finally I would like to see a report at the Paradise site describing their V&V process (if they have one) and some documentation on what the results were.
What is this V&V ? How can you expect to verify an complex piece of software (that is likely) proprietary. If in doubt don't play it, but you can just wish and hope that anyone can verify anything and make your worries go away. I made a carrier in software but I am unsure how you could 'stamp' anything like this SAFE. I am not even sure what is the alleged problem. Collusion, that would be easy with cell-phones anyway. Software holes where you are playing against the house who sees your hands ??? I doubt that they would need this kind of blatant cheating when they can just rake you ?
V&V is verification and validation of the requirements. Any organization that writes software that they distribute for use by others goes through some sort of process to verify and validate their software. Some are V&V processes are better than others. Paradise has posted on this forum about their random number generator and their shuffling algorithm. Paradise has invited posters here to go to their site and review their articles on both. To me the articles basically outlined the requirements for dealing cards in a random manner. They say it works great and their are no defects in the code. That's fine and if they know this to a 100% certainty then they must have had a V&V process to "prove" that their claim is true. Since they more or less published their requirements I simply would like to read how they verified and validated that they were met.
I have gone on the record several times stating that I don't see the motivation for Paradise to cheat. However, I think Ed made a good counter argument. Gary Carson has all pointed out to me that I probably don't fully grasp the psyche of those who cheat. Gary I thought made a very good counter argument. Gary wrote a very interesting peice that he posted on RGP regarding the motivation of those who cheat. The point is that even though someone may risk costing themselves a lot of money by being caught cheating it may not prevent them from doing so.
I don't play poker online and it seems hard to believe that Paradise would be motivated to cheat but as Ray basically said I feel that Paradise needs to be more forthright in discussing this issue. Several posters have pointed out that it seems to be that Paradise seems to have the most complaints. It may be because they are the biggest site or it may be because there are real problems there. When someone like Ed Hill complains I listen.
Independent V&V involves having a company or organization to involved with development verify and validate the requirements. The idea being that an independent source will be more objective and provide a better process. If the software is too complex and unwieldy to verify and validate this would indicate major problems to me.
I think one reason why Planet Poker has fewer complaints is that they are endorsed by Mike Caro. I indicated in David's survey that I believe <2% chance of Paradise cheating. My probability for Planet Poker would be more like < 0.5%.
Yet Paradise has smoother software, so I think the minute extra chance (in my opinion) is worth the risk.
I respect those that are leary of online poker, but NOT those who claim 100% without a doubt that cheating is going on. Ed Hill's posts (as well as other reasonable individuals) have been well-thougt-out and thought provoking. Others (on both sides of the issue) have been outright rude and condescending. I guess that's to be expected on nearly any Internet forum, but when posters start resorting to name-calling, etc., they usually lose my respect quickly.
I don't think it is illogical to question the integrity of the outfit. I just think the chance that management is cheating is very low, and the chance that renegade employees are cheating is pretty low. With that said, I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a somewhat cautious approach. In fact it sounds like this might be what Ed Hill has done. If I were to lose back all my winnings I too might well quit immediately. Of course, it helps to live close to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, where I can usually find a good game anyway. I play online mostly for the convenience at times, or when I can't find a good game locally.
I recently read a post on RGP where the poster claimed to have received quads six times, and a Royal and a straight flush as well, all within a 10-hr. period of time on Paradise. If that had happened to me I must admit I would be far more skeptical than I now am. In the absence of such incredible flukes that are possibly beyond flukes, I think David has a point when he says that people who ascribe a high degree of probability to Paradise knowingly cheating are probably off-base in their assessment of the whole picture. At least, most people who do so probably are. If someone was really on the extreme ends of the bell curve in terms of card distributions on Paradise, I can see where it would be easy, and not necessarily wrong, to ascribe a higher degree of probability to the cheating possibility.
Online is really different in a lot of ways and I am sure there are a lot of winning live players who would not win online. Someone (Gary Carson, perhaps?) pointed out that comparing win rates (or lack thereof) was not really the best statistical comparison for purposes of dtermining if the cards were fair.
Much better would be if Paradise simply released all 13 million+ hand histories (with names omitted, but hand numbers intact). Anyone could then perform any statistical analysis desired. In fact, if Paradise simply substituted a code number , unique to each players' handle, this would even allow analysis to see if certain individuals were receiving far more than their share of winners in a statistical sense. While this might compromise some players' playing styles to some degree, it would probably go a long way toward alleviating concerns of this nature. After this, Paradise could simply let anyone who wished to change their handle. Of course only shown down hands would be revealed in the above scenario. If Paradise merely only released the hand histories sans handles or identifying substitutes, it would be less valuable, but still invaluable for settling the debate over whether the cards have been falling within random parameters or not. There would be no founded fears that Paradise might cook the data, because the hand numbers would match any hand numbers that people already have on record. Wait, Paradise could always cook the data on hands where nobody had requested a history. But to do that with the purpose of balancing distributions, if they knew them to be significantly unbalanced, would be highly complex and onerous, so I don't think it too likely.
I think we should request that Paradise release all 13 million+ hand histories, with hand numbers intact and handles omitted. This should also be in their best interests unless there are factors I am not considering.
Why not release all 13 million+ hand histories (with players' handles omitted)? Anyone could then run any sort of statistical analysis desired, effectively answering the question of whether the cards are really within random parameters or not, which seems to be the principal complaint.
This seems to be the most reasonable request of all, but who is going to volunteer to do a COMPLETE review of it? 13 million hands should come close to a complete set of probabilities, but this is an exhaustive review to be undertaken and even then everyone has different questions they want answered. Overall though it seems far more effective than studying the software because after all we don't care as much about the software as the results it gives off.
Just think about video poker machines. They all have software that can be checked to prove it deals a 52 card deck randomly, but no one really pays attention to that. They pay attention to the actual payout percentages. Auditors check this to prove that the machines are dealing the game they represent. The machines should over time pay out very close to their expectation which may be a few percentage points below optimum considering the poor play that you sometimes find. Even if you knew that the software was correct, auditors still want to check that payoff percentage. In this case that is what people would seem to want with Paradise. After all as everyone is pointing out a clean program could easily be replaced with a dirty one.
If a Nevada company offered online poker sometime in the future, the state would probably do this. They would say keep a log somewhere on your server of every hand played. At some point in time we are going to come in and analyze 500,000 or a million hands. From this we are going to determine if your program is dealing fairly. We are not going to tell you when we are going to check to make sure you are not substituting clean programs at some point in time. Then the auditors would use their own random system to choose a set of hands to use for their analysis. This type of review would be FAR more effective than what people want Paradise to do in terms of letting someone review their software. All the software audits might do is determine if the program is easily hackable or has a posibility of being compromised.
I don't know who might do a complete review of it, but a partial review could be very meaningful as well. There is probably some fairly simple way to sift the hand history files for data of selected types, and then using a program to summarize the data should not be tremendously difficult. Mason could probably identify a few key types of data that ought to be extracted; a few key indicators of whether the mix was more or less random or not. It should not be necessary to do a complete, exhaustive analysis in order to establish some legitimacy here (or to uncover serious monkey business if the card distribution is way out of line). However, with open hand histories (less players' handles), the opportunity for more complete analysis would always exist, and this fact should be reassuring to those wondering about the integrity of it all.
If Paradise were to make the hand histories, sans players' handles, publicly available, the mere fact that the data would be open for analysis would also mean a lot in the minds of many skeptics.
*
From RGP: Jul 26, 07:14 AM Thats hersh followed by 006 then @tc. umn. edu (in response to M)
Message 6 of 12 Re: Request to Paradise
Didn't paradise already do this? I believe they announced on the 2+2 forum where the file could be found. If I remember correctly a few people did some simple statistical analyses and found nothing unusual. Detractors then modified their theories to say that the programs were rigged to cheat in an evenly distributed manner or that the log files were doctored. Everything continued as before. The problem is you cannot prove an absence of cheating. So conspiracy theorists will never go away. They will just come up with more and more outlandish theories.
If Paradise already did this then my request is pointless. I may have forgotten, or perhaps it was in a thread I didn't read. M
No way I was trying to make him look silly. In fact I expected him to answer at least the first survey, concerning the Paradise management, with a small number. As to the hacking and renegade employee questions, I would have given that a HIGHER probability (say 3%) than most of the other posters. Of course my opinion on those matters is suspect since I know little about computers.
Again, my main point was to show that most thinking people would be shocked to learn that Paradise was knowingly cheating, even given Ed's results, because of various compelling reasons, along with the fact that many players are in fact big winners as we speak. (No honest player beat the Stardust.)
David, I suppose it all depends on what we consider a high degree of probibility. If we have different ideas on what high is I can see where the confussion is. When we spoke at the Orleans, you asked me, "If you had to bet, I bet you would bet that it was on the square." Even money, of course I would. There are many good reasons of why it would be insane for them to cheat. There are a few good reasons for them to cheat also.
1. They don't want good players busting the suckers. 2. They would like to get as much as they can before the Kyl bill is passed. 3. There is no regulatory agency to catch them. Just the fact that you can't really get caught, would be more than enough for a lot of people.
If I misuderstood your reasons for asking me to put my post in here, its no big deal. You have always been good for poker and a lot of the money that is in my pocket today is because of your writings.
I keep reading about this terrible run of luck/cheating/collusion where the Ed Hill's better hands were beat. It would help me to see 20 or 30 of Ed's hands where he got these bad beats. I used to watch the big boys play from time to time. Ed Hill was often one of the 10/20 players. As I recall most of the time Ed was taking pots without a showdown. I am sure this is partly because he is a well known winning player. Maybe he ran into someone who didn't know he was so good. He is also the only player I've ever seen have pocket AA and flop AAx.
Posting Ed Hill's hands or hand numbers here would go a long way in answering a few of the Paradise questions.
I don't have them, I haven't played on Paradise since the end of May
A small cross-section (20 or 30 hands) of Ed's hands would do nothing to prove or disprove cheating.
From last night alone, I could find that many amazing drawouts against me alone. While I would never find myself drawing out most of these hands against someone else, I have no reason to suspect those players of cheating (or the software being programmed to cheat).
I am of the OPINION the Paradise Poker does NOT cheat. But I also respect Ed's posts, as he is one of the few posters that has major concerns about cheating going on that does not resort to name-calling and unreasonable argumentation.
Ed, someone suggested that you may stop posting here. Even those that don't agree with all your views I think will agree that it would be a loss if you stopped posting.
John M is one of the biggest name calling pro online fanatics on the board.
I am new to Holdem and learning while playing at the low limit tables on ParadisePoker.
I have never been to a real live card room, but there is one thing on PP, which I just can't imagine to be a real live rule:
If you call your opponent on river and you lose and muck your cards, your hand is still shown on hand history, not only for you but for everyone.
Isn't this in contrast to usual habits?
I don't believe everyone gets to see your hole cards.
I tried to pull up a hand history of a one that I *didn't* stay to the river and showdown. I couldn't get the information of the other players who made it to the Showdown but mucked when they didn't win.
CV
I always can, you'll find the information at the bottom part, right to the players name.
cards of all players who call the river bet and muck, as well as all hands that call a turn bet when there is no river bet, are listed in the summary section of hand histories. The histories provide conclusive evidence: most of your opponants on-line are dodo-heads. spitball
ps. wahnfried, you play o.k., especially for a learning player. you should have no trouble with the 2-4 and 3-6 games. good luck.
p.ps. to get the kind of information in a live game that Paradise provides in the histories, you would have to ask the dealer to 'show all hands' at the end of every hand. you ARE allowed to make this request, but doing so is considered...tactless.
Spitball is correct that you can ask to see any hand that called the river in a live game. The etiquette is you usually would only ask if you were involved in the hand and folded because of that player's bet/raise.
How do you ask the dealer this? I can't find it.
Thanks
x
I have been reading some of your posts regarding the outcomes of the different surveys you submitted for our consideration. I would first like to point out that Ed Hill is, as always, a true gentleman of the highest class, despite being a world class poker master. His own postings on these matters are extremely well put - EVERYONE HERE should give them due consideration.
For one thing, I find it disturbing that you would suggest that those of us who have any doubt regarding the honesty of an unregulated casino have one or more personal and/or emotional problems. I believe, like most thinking, intelligent people, that critical thinking is NOT a quality that is indicative of mental illness. All brilliant people engage in the activity. To insinuate that we have some kind of emotional problems because we engage in the pursuit is suspect. There are SO many examples of such activity in REGULATED CASINOS, why SHOULDN'T we have doubts about an UNREGULATED casino? Why should we be denigrated and insulted for having perfectly reasonable doubts?
You implore us to listen to people like Abdul (whom I respect) when they suggest that the odds that there is some kind of cheating are 1 in 10000. This is complete nonsense. More than 1 in 10000 REGULATED casinos cheat, so why aren't the odds at least as good for a thoroughly UNREGULATED one? Would you be willing to accept a wager where I offered you 5000:1 odds that there is cheating by the management? If you believe that there is only a 1 in 10000 chance of it you should gladly accept.
You suggest that we need some kind of help with our personal problems - what about yourself? I remember when you offered to bet me 50 thousand dollars that you were more intelligent than I. I accepted. I haven't heard from you since. Perhaps YOU have some kind of mental illness that you should seek help for?
Incidentally, I belive the correct spelling is ULTERIOR, not alterior.
I really do not understand what is wrong with you. You are just a nobody who plays a funny card game all the time. Do NOT preach to me. I do not respect your judgement in matters regarding my emotional health.
AF
Mr. Sklansky ULTERIOR, not alterior. Minor error Avocado Fats (brilliant) Would you be willing to accept a wager where I offered you 5000:1 odds that there is cheating by the management? If you believe there is only a 1 in 10000 chance of it you should gladly accept. A LITTLE BRAIN FART THERE?????
My, I bet you thought you were clever when you wrote this brilliant post. Unfortunately I have bad news for you - rather than make ME look stupid, you have made yourself look like an ass.
If you believe that there is a 1 in 10000 chance that something will happen, and I offer you 5000:1 odds on the outcome, you should jump at the chance! Everytime it doesnt happen, which is a LOT of the time, you only pay me 1 dollar. Then, when it does happen, you only have to pay me 5000. So, for every 10000 samples, i pay you 9999 and you pay me 5000. Doesn't that sound like a good bet?
Don't post with the big boys until you get a clue. You are humiliating yourself.
AF
Looky here, I actually DID make a mistake this time!
I will correct it.
I meant to say that every time the event doesnt happen I pay you one dollar, not you pay me one dollar. The rest of the post is accurate.
AF
LOL LOL
You can't win or lose but one BET (brilliant?).
I did not mean to say that Mr. Hill was a first class gentleman DESPITE being a great poker player, I meant 'in addition to.'
Sorry, trying to do this and write at the same time.
AF
And I seem to recall where you asked me to point out many of the mistakes, false claims, and flawed logic that you have made in many of your posts. You asked me to "be specific" and I was.
Seems you couldn't refute them. Well the post is still there and you are still an idiot.
Are you calling Ed Hill an idiot? Note that I am not the only one making those points. He made almost the exact same points that I did.
And incidentally, if I am so stupid, why does David Sklansky refuse to follow through with the challenge he extended to me?
You are not worthy to clean Ed Hill's toilet - get the fu*k out of here and learn some respect you idiot.
AF
I see now why I made an error by responding to this nut.
I have made an error not why!!
People who assign probabilities very wrongly have problems. It is a thinking problem or an emotional problem or both. More likely it is a thinking problem but if the subject in question involves someone possibly doing wrong, than assigning this a much too high probability, could involve psychological aspects. Actually , I don't think anyone quarrels with the above. The statement is similar to saying that a poker player who thinks his opponnents are bluffing far more than they really are, needs to reevaluate either his psyche or his thought processes to find out why this is happening. Those who are disagreeing with me are rather simply saying that they still believe that there is a large chance that Paradise is cheating. They have not been swayed by the survey. (Hopefully, however, they do at least acknowledge that the survey shows that my opinions are not proof I am on the take.) The "lecture" I gave these guys assumed that the survey would make them reconsider their stance . If it didn't than it was moot.
Some of the more virulent Anti-Paradise people remind me of the Area 51 UFO coverup flakes. They simply cannot be convinced, and any effort you make to do so will actually strengthen their resolve.
A few years ago, the Air Force came out with the story on Area 51. They were getting frustrated with the heightened attention on the Groom Lake Airbase where many 'black' projects are carried out, so they tried to throw some cold water on it by releasing all the details on their top-secret balloon flights. The details clearly matched a lot of the eyewitness accounts, they had documents from the 1940's showing all this activity, with crash dates that matched the 'wreckage sighting'. The materials the balloons were made of were an exact match for the material found at the wreckage site.
So, this pretty much ended the Area 51 hype, right? Not on your life. The UFO nutbars cited the Air Force press releases as PROOF that the UFO's existed. After all, if there really was nothing there, why go to all this trouble? They must be hiding something!
The same thing will happen with Paradise. If Nolan Dalla goes down there to inspect, he will be accused of A) Being a lackey of Paradise Poker, or B) Being fooled by Paradise Poker. After all, it would be easy to swap in 'clean' code for his inspection, doctor up some phony quality standards, and then after he leaves go back to the old way. So his going won't PROVE anything (of course not - you can't prove a negative). But the anti-Paradise folks will see this as proof that Paradise IS cheating.
no, you are wrong. Nolan Dalla's trip will be viewed fairly. You are the nut. You are the one that ignores evidence. You are the lunatic on the fringe.
I always find it interesting how post of these insulting posts are made by people who don't leave an email address.
Dan Hanson's post isn't insulting?
No, it wasn't.
You are wrong. Mr.Hanson's post is flat offensive. Ed Hill, Nolan Dalla, Roy Cooke, and several posters here are all UFO fantics? Give me a break. Dan Hanson is a raging idiot.
Dan Hanson, who is one of the clearer thinkers on this Forum, is only saying that if paradise Poker was put under a microscope, turned inside out, had all their software, hardware, firmware, records and accounts open to all who wished to inspect them, and then if paradise management then swore on the lives of their children that no cheating was going on, there would still be those who would say, "Sure, but that's only to lull us into a false sense of security." So, who has he insulted?
So if I put up a post that included sex, your wife, my house...but all those phrases separately in different paragraphs would it be assumed I was talking about having your wife over tonight? Dan Hanson said the paranoia is LIKE UFO believers in one paragraph, mentions Nolla Dalla in another, and talks about Paradise's examination in another and you drew your conclusion that Dan Hanson is insulting these people directly and claiming they are UFO fanatics; interesting, maybe you missed your logic class.
Dan Hanson is flat ofensive. The whole analogy is offensive. Of course, wildbill is offensive also. Where is Mason hollering for Abdul to come defend Paradise? Lets all call the guys nutcakes who believe that blue is blue. If we do it enough, we will convince them that red is blue! Poor little Dan Hanson, like wildbill, can dish out scathing, illogical criticism, but when confronted they go running to twoplustwo management as though twoplus two were their mommy. "Mommy, I called Matt a moron, and he called me one too, isn't that unfair?"
Boo hoo hoo little men.
WHOOSH!
Hear that sound? That was the sound of the point I was making going straight over your head.
You made no point, and continue to use insults rather than address a real pitchfork revolution taking place at rgp and here against shabby internet gaming practices.
Sklansky, it is about time someone put you in your place. You are an arrogant schmuck, who is absolutely worthless outside the poker community. I just wish the two plus two chumpski's would grow spines, join the vertebrate community, and stopping sucking your tweeter.
My little sister is more respected than you and she makes more money than you - she drives an ice cream truck.
Does anyone know of any posted odds on Gore-Bush?
Carib Sportsbook has it listed:
Bush -200 Gore +190 Others 150-1
A few others I have seen in the last few weeks have been a little lower on Bush and a lot lower on Gore as the spread at some places is 40 cents, not the 10 cents you get at Carib.
Thanx
The poor logic being used in these arguments still bewilders me. I love Ed Hill's posts - thank you for them. Maybe you will open some eyes around here.
People claim that PP won't cheat because they have a good thing going, why ruin it? Yet we have seen so many examples of people messing up a 'good thing' by trying to make it 'better.' See Ed's posts for more.
Why would an accountant embezzle from a client? Accountants are well paid. Why ruin a good thing? Yet they do. And here's the clincher - THEY CAN GET CAUGHT. *PP CANNOT* Remember this - they can NEVER - EVER - get caught.
AF
There are two important differences.
1. An indivdual sometimes stupidly cheats when it is in his best interests not too. However, a large group of people, some of whom are obviously very intelligent, would not all be so twisted, especially given the fact that they would risk somone squealing.
2. I now know of at least 20 significant winners, a virtual impossibility if someone is messing with the deck or knows cards beforehand.
Another point that should be made, is that if they were cheating, they would find less dramatic ways to beat people. Crazy drawouts would not be part of the plan.
You have some valid points. My temper at times causes me to tilt occasionally at poker. It turns me into only a modest winner rather than a significant one. Nevertheless, I don't believe things are kosher at Paradise.
Recently I have been observing Planet Poker, and their algorithms seem to have eradicated the four card flush board problems they used to have. Perhaps Mr.Caro has had a positive influence on the practices of that operation. Planet used to be the industry leader until they were hacked. If positive steps continue, then I predict that will return to prominence.
Still, I find several of your assumptions biased. Collusion can exist at all levels of play. A poker acquaintance in Denver recently made $900.00 at 2-4 on Paradise in 2 four hour sessions. I don't think he was colluding, but the dollar figure shows what can come off even a low limit table in a brief period. House cheating even at this level would prove lucrative. As a matter of fact, if I were cheating with confederates, card showing programs, or colluding then I would do it at a level that would avoid suspicion from experts such as yourself (3-6,5-10, perhaps 10-20).
Secondly, your surveys are not scientifically based. The same people screamed last year that I was a lunatic for suggesting that Planet Poker was hacked. They did call me a paranoid lunatic, and worse. I turned out to be correct. Now I believe that Planet is probably more straight than Paradise. I'm not playing at either, however. The fact that the majority of posters on twoplustwo see things in one light does not make their vision correct.
Respectfully,
Ray Springfield
I have never said there was not collusion. As for hacking I have no right to a technical opinion. Until I found out about all these winners I would never have taken a firm stance doubting it. My main point was regarding the insanity of the hypothesis that the owners are part of a vast conspiracy to cheat.
I guess you believed Nixon right up until the end as well.
I beleive Paradise can pull hand histories for any player, table or time period. Recently at my request they gave me a history of my account from the beginning. At the time i'd played over 26,000 hands. I didn't ask for old hand histories, but we all know they keep them on file. Certianly they can run a search for Ed Hill's hands.
Maybe Paradise is cheating. I just don't see it. I've had long runs with crappy cards, just like live poker. I've also had long runs with incredible cards. Once making over $1000 at 3/6 in about 8 hours(playing 2 tables at once), just like I've done (5/10 table)in live play.
I would beleive they were skimmimg a little off every player rather than picking one or more players and busting they down to zero. There are too many untraceable ways for paradise to cheat if they wanted. Why not pick out rich players with a gambling habit who can't play worth a damm. We see them in casinos all the time. They keep rebuying and keep losing. The list could go on forever.
When I play well I win, when I play poorly I lose. There are more reasons I play internet poker badly than in a live game. Trying to get in a few hands before dinner. Getting to comfortable. Running to get something between hands. Surfing the net. Just not taking / having the time to calculate the correct odds. Its too easy to hit that call button on the run back to the computer as it beeps.
I am sure Ed's vist to Paradise and following report with be informative. Ed Hill has a great reputation where ever he speaks and plays. For everyone's sake, I hope he just had a run of really bad luck. If Paradise proves it self honest Ed should be back playing and winning in no time. Even my back luck has an begining and thank goodnes an END!
DS has come to the conclusion that paradise is probably not cheating, or aware of or condoning in house cheating because
1) They are making so much money legitimately it would be stupid of them to risk it all by cheating. After all, all it takes is one person to find out and blow the whistle to ruin everything.
2) Most of the best and brightest minds contributing to this Forum agree that the chances that they are cheating are slim. Anyone who goes against the consensus is guilty of fuzzy thinking and poor situation analysis and should look to themselves for the reasons for their insecurities.
In 1971, the chances that George McGovern, Ed Muskie or Eugene McCarthy were going to be able to wrest the presidency from the Republicans were quite slim. Still, someone who had reached a prominent position in the Committee to Re-elect the President thought it a good idea to try and short circuit the Democratic momentum (which barely existed) by engaging in flagrantly illegal acts.
When this was bungled some of the brightest minds in the country, people with dubious scruples and tainted motives, decided to commit more illegal acts to cover up the first stupid and ill-advised act. People like, HR Haldeman, John Ehrlicjman, John Dean, Attorney General John Mitchell, Chuck Colson, Jeb Macgruder, Harvey kalmbach, G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, Richard Milhouse Nixon, Spiro agnew all thought it worth everything to act criminally.They had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Now, if you asked many of the best and brightest minds on the political scene at the time what they thought the chances of the White House being directly involved in the break-in or the cover up were they would probably come up with the same percentages that your survey came up with. And the others would have been labeled paranoid.
The committeee to re elect was conmducting an extensive campaign against the potential candidates in the Democratic party, many people were involved and all it would have taken was one whistle blower to ruin everything. That didn't stop them.
Why did George Mallory attempt to climb Everest? Because it was there. Why would someone, of high intelligence, risk his future and reputation to try and hack into paradise poker? To see if it's possible. You ask why would Paradise want to cheat the customers, their bread and butter? The answer might be as easy as the answer to why a dog licks himself.
I recall playing with JayNT at Planet Poker. He played pretty well.
There are all sorts of flaws in your analogy. One important one is this: Those bright people participated in the coverup, not the burglarly itself. Had they been consulted about the original crime, they would have undoubtedly nixed it.
In spite of the foregoing, I want to make something perfectly clear (perhaps a bad choice of words given the subject of this thread). The single biggest argument against organized cheating on Paradise is that so many good players I know are beating it. (By the way, these were not players I asked. If they were their ego might force them to lie. Rather these were mainly people who went out of their way to volunteer their results to me. Most of this information came to me after Ed Hill's original post.)
You've misinterpreted the analogy. JayNT uses "bright" to describe two groups of people. The "bright" people who committed the alleged illegal acts, and "the best and brightest minds on the political scene at the time" who would have considered the chances of a break-in and cover-up by the White House to be very slim.
The analogy to ParaPoke is that the owners are "bright" people who may or may not be cheating(They had nothing to gain and everything to lose), and the people who participated in your survey are "the best and brightest minds on the poker scene"(And the others would have been labeled paranoid). All in all, a very apt analogy.
You then say that the single biggest argument against cheating is that so many players you know are winning.
This is far less persuasive than JayNT's argument. We don't know the players, their win rate or their number of hours. If you had asked Ed Hill after his first 500 hours of play, you would have added him to your list.
Just curious, what are the "other flaws" in the analogy?
I suppose by your assumption that if a bright person was consulted prior to the cover up he wouldn't have then engaged in the cover up. Sorry, DS, no dice, pun intended. Everyone who went along with the coverup knew they were doing something wrong. No one, not even the President or the Attorney General stepped up and said it was wrong. All Nixon had to do on June 18th (or maybe July) was assemble everyone on the White House lawn and demand to know what had happened. He didn't. They were all just so arrogant and drunk with power they didn't believe they'd get caught. And all it would have taken was one leak.
Even after pounding away at the story for months the Washington Post stood alone in its belief there was a story there. Therefore, reporters whose livelihood depend on sniffing out stories couldn't see the story of the century right under their own noses.
Now, I'm not saying I believe Paradise is cheating. I happen to think they're on the up and up as is Planet Pokwer where I play, but the argument that people will behave logically and rationally with millions of dollars on the line is just a monumental misjudgement of human nature.
I am about as computer literate as you are. But, I suspect it wouldn't take much for Paradise to cheat if they wanted to. Is there anyone to stop them? Would they be able to make even more money than they are already making? If people found out about it, or suspected something was wrong would the majority of bright people believe it? Not for a long time.
The only thing you can possibly look to for any kind of confidence in their honesty is the backround of all the people who have the power to monkey with the system. I believe honest people behave honestly. Find out if the people in online poker are basically honest people and you will have your answer. Until then everything else is pointless speculation.
By the way DS, you state, "The single biggest argument against organized cheating on Paradise is that so many good players I know are beating it." Well, I'm sure if they have anybody at paradise who knows how to tell a strong player from a weak one, they can still make a profit by only cheating at the lower limits, and let the strong players win on their own at the big tables. This way you'll have a relative few big winners and hundreds of small losers. If real casinos can build skyscrapers on 5% juice Paradise doesn't have to cheat a lot to realize huge profits. The argument that their customer base will soon erode is faulty. Las Vegas has been going strong since the 50s and they haven't run out of customers yet.
Sorry, I am laughing so hard I can barely type!
AF
I don't know why David published this under my thread. I'm not JayNT.
Watergate, however, was just one of a series of clandestine operations authorized by Nixon (ex.Ellsberg office). The plumbers were his own intelligence unit. It was staffed by former CIA people like Howard Hunt, and Sturgis. These guys were involved in the Bay of Pigs and formed Cuban exile paramilitary groups and hit squads. It is interesting to note that Geoge H.W. Bush had an oil company named zapata. The CIA operation at the Bay of Pigs had the same name. The two boats carrying paramilitary troops in the failed invasion were named Barbara, and Houston. Of course Mrs Bush is named Barbara, and the Bushes maintained a home in Houston. This has some significance lately, considering George W.Bush is the leading presidential contender. Enough trivia.
Man, those clandestine operators are so clever, until they make their one big mistake - they name their company after their covert operations!
Rule #2 of covert ops - don't name the invasion boat after your wife.
This stuff just cracks me up.
Its the truth. Look it up in government publications.
After you're done, look up the word "Coincidence". You might also want to check out the meaning of "Zapata", and see how commonly it is used.
You forgot to mention Zapata is a much beloved revolutionary hero in Mexico for being strongly anti-American and a hero of the peasants, famous for his words of "better to die on one's feet than live one's life on his knees". Considering that, maybe you should imply that George Bush is really anti-American and going to become a President of the peasants leading a new revolution...well at least it makes as much sense as the rest of your reasoning.
No, the post was about Nixon's plumbers and George H.W. Bush's ties to central intelligence prior to his becoming the director under Gerald Ford. Many people today don't realize that President Bush was DCI.It was simply a note of history. Of course many people here do not read history, and they make it up. You are correct about Emiliano Zapata. I have travelled extensively in Latin America and am very familiar with the culture.
The poorly explained point is that George W.Bush, in my opinion, is not his own man. I believe when he is elected(which right now looks like a foregone conclusion) his father will have returned to power. The Kennedy's were similar. Joe Kennedy had a stroke early in the administration, however, and then had very little input.
George and Barb back in power? I don't think so...
I was actually think about it a few days ago and it amazes me how much different he is than his father. Did you ever see his father speaking Spanish? Did you ever hear his father talk about spending more money on education or keeping affirmative action? His father was a real statesman, the type you would expect from someone who working in intelligence and in Washington for a long time. Son has worked in Texas being a governor which requires a lot more people skills and domestic issues. Pretty amazing to think about it, Dad lost an election to someone that is completely reminsicent of his son, a Governor who makes great strides to keep the support of his party while also trying to appeal to the moderate voters and the independents. Ok, enough politics, I am sure Mason will start getting mad...
well, we just disagree. Nothing wrong with that.
Anecdotal evidence does not show anything. There have been many other illegal activities, most of which the White House has had no hand in.
I see no reason why Political commentators who said that ‘the chance that the White House being directly involved in the break-in was close to zero’ need be wrong just because the White House was directly involved in the break-in. The question to ask here is how many other times were they similarly on the wrong side of the odds. If less than 1 in 100 times then their judgement would seem to be fine.
The main point as I see it is that most organisations are above board and honest. Ok they is always going to be minor corruption and a tendency to fudge things when put under enough pressure, but large scale fraud is rare, mainly because it does not work very well in the long run. So if one makes a pole of a collection of intelligent people as to whether any random company is likely to be engaged in systematic and extensive fraud in the absence of any evidence, then the answer will always be no. I think Paradise Poker falls in to this category.
I have seen no evidence that Paradise Poker is engaged in fraudulent activity, just the expected complaints from paranoid, unlucky and cheated poker players.
My main concern is that it would be so easy for Paradise Poker, or more likely one or more employees to cheat by playing in circumstances where they can see all the cards. However accusing someone of a crime you have no reason to suppose has occurred, just because they could be committing it does seem a little unreasonable.
So what might convince me? Well Paradise Poker admitting it for a start,. Ok maybe I should try harder. How about an ex-employee who can be easily identified as such, who claimed that a group of programmers at Paradise had rigged something up that allowed them to cheat, and gave a convincing technical explanation of the methods involved and was willing to back this up in court. Followed shortly by large-scale redundancies at Paradise Poker, a substantial payoff, along with some unconvincing cover up claims.
The fact that despite numerous paranoid poker players, no real evidence of cheating by Paradise Poker has been uncovered suggests strongly that they are clean.
Has anyone here gone over to Costa-Rica, found out where the Paradise Poker staff have lunch and tried sitting at the next table?
..I don't think you are correct sir. You would not make a good law enforcement official. Murder is common in America. Most of these murders do not have confessed killers. I guess , using your logic, then the murder victims committed suicide in every unsolved case.
I was reading this current thread with great interest. I for one think I will have to side with Avacodo on this issue. I find it amusing that Mr. skalnsky, s self-professed "genius" would find it necessary to resort to name calling in order to get his point across.
Is there cheating on Pardise? I doubt it. But I also doubt that Skalsky is in fact a genius. I'll admit he looks like your typical math nerd but ill be willing to wager a fiar amount he that he is no genius. Sure he may be smarter than his peers but you have to take a look at his peers. Oh, they are mostly poker players. I'm still waiting for a poker player to come up with a cure for cancer. Lets face it, the average poker player is just not smart. Dont you think if Skalnsky were truly a genius he would be in a field where at least some degree of intellect is necessary? something like engineering or computers or even the medical field.
I'll admit his knowledge of statistic is quite good but then again statistics is not all that difficult. Even I, who is definately not a genius, was able to breeze through my stat courses in college. You didnt see to many people copareing the difficluty of a stats class to a physics class.
I also find it amusing that skalnsky constanty find the need to debase tournamnet and big bet poker players. Big bet poker is definately harder than limit poker. If in fact big bet poker were so easy dont you think Sklansky would be up there beating the game? Or if tournment were really that easy wouldnt you see his name a lot in card player? The fact is skalnsky can beat the middle limit games and thats it.
Is Sklansy smart? Yes. Is he a genius? Probably not. Maybe about 500 to 1 against.
You did well at stats but you must have failed English and definitely failed at spelling...
Just listen to yourself before you say some of these things. Why isn't he in engineering, computers, or medicine? Well did you ever stop to think that maybe he didn't like those fields? After all isn't one allowed to do what they like? The professional poker world and the professional sports betting world that I am more acquainted with are littered with people that have PhDs and Masters degrees yet choose to do something that requires not even a high school diploma. When I got out of college I wanted to do nothing more than be a pro sports bettor. I spent my years in college to get a degree that I didn't even want just to appease my parents and keep myself occupied until I turned 21. I took summer classes and heavy loads just so I could graduate as soon after 21 as I could. I got out when I was about 6 months past my 21st birthday and moved to Vegas. For 2 years I did a fairly good job making far more money betting sports than I would have just taking the typical accounting job I was prepared for. My parents skepticism died out slowly and I was leading a decent life. Then after 2 years I was flat burned out and wanted to do anything else. So I went out and made use of that useless degree and got into the supposedly boring career life. I know a lot of people would dream of being a pro gambler, but I want no part of it. David may just be the exact opposite. He most assuredly could do many jobs in the finance world and be quite highly paid at it. He chooses to do what he does not because he can't succeed at other things but maybe because he does just fine now and enjoys recognition as being one of the preeminent gambling writers. When people are doing what makes them happy, I can't understand why others would take shots at them telling them they could do better, or even worse, telling them they must lack the skills to do something else if they are stuck in their current field.
As for the genius part, genius is a very broad term. Maybe you are thinking of master or something like that because genius can be strictly defined as someone holding an IQ or a proficiency in something that is far above average. David probably possesses that. To be a genius just means being in the top 5% or close to it in any category. It doesn't mean being the smartest person on the face of the earth. There are thousands of unrecognized geniuses walking around any big city.
And lastly what is it with you complaining about him saying what he does about tournaments and big bet games? Its his opinion and he makes very valid points on it. I think though he would agree that different skill sets are better accustomed to different games. His skill set just matches limit poker best. Players with the best understanding of strategy will always choose limit poker because you have many more decisions to make and you won't have to get lucky at certain points just to survive like in a tournament. The best players with the best understanding of strategy are the players that play cash games for the highest stakes. Tournament players will even tell you this. After all, if you want to know where the best are just follow the money.
I always find it amusing when some clown calls someone an idiot but can't spell, use proper punctuation, or use proper capitalization.
Yikes! Maybe he isn't a genius (although I do like his books and posts). However, since you seem to like odds, I bet he is a 500 to 1 to be smarter than you.
Good luck with that spelling thing.
Ill take that bet. Let's wager $1000. You win $1000 if skalnsky is smarter than me and I win $500,000 if I am smarter than Skalnsky. Personally i doubt if u even have $50,000 let alone 500,000. But ill definately take that bet. Time to put your money where your mouth is.
Yuo ar definatli know genus.
I'll take the bet. Hell, you can pick a random person off the street and if you'll give me 500 to 1 I'll bet that he's a genius.
Do we have a bet?
So i didn't bother to check for spelling errors. Gee that must make me dumb. LOL And yes, I will take that bet about being smarter than Sklansky. And about that 500 to 1 shot bet about taking someone off the street and determinging whether he is a genius. Ill also take that bet provided you bet $500. So If i loose i'll give u $25,000 if u lose u give me $500. Somehow i don't think either of you will have the balls to accept the wager. You skalsnky devotees are hilarious.
I made a mistake. I can only safely bet $50 since i dont have $250,000. Let me know whenevr you are in california so i can take your money.
I will give 500-1 that David can type with fewer errors of any kind (spelling, punctuation, you name it)than you. Thats my lock of the century, hell my lock of the millenium!
Besides having lived in California I know they are quite protective of any one who can fit into any kind of category, you know things like its illegal to discriminate against one armed Jews with Colombian wives, that sort of stuff. Knowing that one has to figure they must have a law that makes it a crime to steal from the stupid, its probably better if we all refrain from making bets with you. Since they can't prosecute people for betting over the internet yet, I am sure they have lots of time to enforce their well-meaning laws. Especially since the FBI is surely watching me right now according to many on this board. I definitely don't want to have to call up my friends in the mob to get Oscar Goodman to defend me from extradition since there is a treaty for that after all...
As you can see below Ed, a number of people have lumped you in with them (One thing they seem to have in common is that they never, to my recollection, post on any of our strategy forums where logical flaws can be exposed in a more slam dunk fashion.) I have a sneaking suspicion, knowing you as I do, that you are not particularly happy having these fellows invoking you in their cause. Perhaps you might like to clarify things.
This subject has already been kicked around so much that it should be black and blue by this point. Which was all I intended to do when I posted my original opinion.
David, due to the fact that you now know of a lot of winners, you are using this as a basis to win your argument. That is no different than what I did when I made my post. I do find it odd that everybody you know is winning, when everybody that I know was losing or breaking even when I made my original post.
Would you be under the opinion that it was totally illogical to think that was something was wrong if it were you in my shoes 2 months ago? Where you had had totally silly results, had 9 friends (including Dalla and his three friends) that had results that mimicked yours?
My only purpose for making the post was to alert the poker world that in my opinion, something could be wrong in Paradise. From there they can draw their own conclusions. In the past two decades or so there was no open forums where poker players could state their opinions, because of the lack of these forums many people were cheated.
Anything I have to say at this point would be totally redundant, just like everything I just said. I don’t see the sense in going any further with this. Nolan and I are probably going to take them up on their offer to go to Costa Rica and examine their system. I don’t see the sense in it either. Even if something were wrong, I don’t see how Nolan and I are going to find it, even if we do bring a person that is very knowledgeable with computers.
The one thing I can say for them is, at least they gave me an offer to put up or shut up so to speak. I do respect them for that.
Now as to the part about cleaning my toilet, you can send Mason as a proxy.
There is still a misunderstanding here Ed. When you first made your post it concerned me a lot. You said something was wrong and that seemed very reasonable. The only disagreement I had at the time was that you should have been more fearful of collusion, hackers, or a renegade employee, than a conspiracy by mangement. Since that time I have been apprised of many winners. This is very strong evidence that if there is something wrong it is very mild indeed. When you made this post both you and I were unaware of most of these winners.
All I was trying to say was that there are several posters on this forum who have off the wall ideas and are pointing to you as someone who agrees with them. I thought you might like to take issue with that. And what's this about Mason?
For someone as intelligent as you must be, and to believe that there is no card dealing manipulation at Paradise Poker. And that there is obvious management involvement,in my opinion. You must be either intentionally or subconciously protecting your own self-interest.
/
Everyone has their favorite poker hero - Doyle Brunson, Bobby Baldwin, Johnny Chan, whatever. My hero is Mr. Hill. Why? Not only do I admire his style of play and ability in the game, he is also a true gentleman and a great fella.
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hill some time ago. He was very gracious and I admire that in a celebrity.
David, I am very disappointed that you attempted to turn Mr. Hill against his supporters by initiating this thread and trying (rather ham handedly I should say) to get him to denigrate us. What was your purpose in doing this? If you ask me it was very low class of you. I don't care if you are a genius or not, or whether PP is cheating or not. But what you did displays a sorry lack of good taste and gentleman-like behavior. It reminds me of junior high school, to be honest.
Too bad.
AF
I guess I should have been more explicit before I made that comment about Mason. Awhile ago you said in jest that Mike Caro reads this forum and anybody that said anything bad about Mason deduced their chances of getting AA on Planet to somehting like 32 to 1. Well, I have been playing on Planet and feel like getting a rush of Aces. Providing that they all stand up, if they all get beat, well that will be a different story.
LOL
Why is it that incredibly gifted people like Mr. Hill and Mr. Sklansky have such a difficult time posting replies to the proper posts?
I have a theory about why increadibly gifted people have trouble posting replies to the proper posts. It's just that -- oh, wait a minute...
So you are saying that close doesn't count? Notice that this one is in the proper place, therefore I am no longer my own hero...LOL
I must agree with Avocado on this one. I admire and respect a lot of the contributors to this forum and RGP. Poker names like Sklansky, Caro, Malmuth, Hill, Dalla, Krieger, etc all have my undying repsect. However, when I see you people arguing like kids at recess, it bothers me.
I understand in this type of business there is a great deal of ego involved. When you can rob a man blind with a deck of 52 cards in your hand, there is a definite feeling of power and machismo. But to be publicly attacking and criticizing each other in front of the very people that account for your royalty checks disturbs me. If you all have so much disdain and ill will towards each other, can't you at least swallow your pride and try and keep it low key? (like in personal emails and not on message boards)
Once again, I respect all you gentleman for your thoughts and your wisdom. Without your guidance, fools like me would never be able to walk away from a poker table a frequent winner. But this useless bickering has to end...if nothing else, its bad business (unless, of course, you feel this incessant squabbling sideshow is a good way to plug your work).
I have been reading the posts here for a couple of months and can't help but finally post a message of my own calling you all lunatics for endlessly debating the whole question of cheating. It seems to me that some new poster can endlessly keep postulating some new idea for how Paradise is ripping everyone off. Even a first-hand inspection by some knowledgable inspector could probably be fooled if the conspirators/renegade were cagey enough. It seems to me that the bottom line is that everyone who is serious about winning should keep their own records. If they are losing after about 500 hours, they have a choice between the two obvious conclusions. Either they have been cheated enough to make their play unprofitable or it never was profitable to begin with. But until such time as someone comes forth with hard proof against paradise, this debate will rage endlessly (and pointlessly, though that is just my opinion). Anyone who is winning (including myself) is naturally going to be of the mindset that paradise is straight, the losers (i would guess) would be more inclined to argue otherwise. But the point is not who is on which side of the debate. Simply, that neither side is ever going to sway the other. If someone really wants to do something constructive on this forum, why not organize some sort of non-profit org. which can watchdog all of these poker sites, something similar to what the Internet Gambling Commission does for online gambling sites. Or maybe they themselves would be willing to do it. And for those of you who are still inclined to debate topics for which neither side can ever furnish evidence and the arguement can go on endlessly, I will so be launching a forum of my own dedicated to debating the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, so we can leave this for the discussion of productive topics which will ultimately contribute something to the online poker experience.
Perhaps you've never debated an issue just for the sake of debate. Most of the contributors to the Forum realize that it matters little whether or not they think paradise is cheating. Thinking it will not make it so. But on this Forum when someone uses a logical argument to back up their position there is a lot to be gained by trying to punch holes in their argument. First of all, it's fun. Second of all it teaches all those who read and contribute how to better formulate a winning argument. If you do not want to participate that's fine. But don't knock those who enjoy the banter.
nt
Sammy B's rersponse was right on the money. It was the only reason I got involved in the first place. I will admit however that we have gone about as far as we can on this. Sadly it seems that except for probably Ed Hill and possibly Ray Springfield, all of the other conspiracy theorists won't budge even in the face of cogent arguments. (Someone did switch sides earlier on this Forum but I forgot his name)
As to the chicken or the egg, the chicken clearly came first if you accept the theory of evolution and you define egg to be a chicken egg. The first chicken hatched from a non chicken egg.
My point exactly, david. The subject has been beaten to death. As for sammy, I see your point as well. I suppose it is what drove me to finally make a post here as well. P.S. thanks for the insight on the chicken/egg debate.
You mean a non-chicken laid an egg and the embryo evolved into a chicken before it hatched?
Which came first, the non-chicken or the non-chicken egg?
Sorry, this was supposed to be posted one notch up.
I'm willing to admit that the management at Paradise may not be intentionally corrupt. I'm not willing to declare that the software has no problems.
I have read many of David post as "this is illogical" or "your statement has logic flaws" etc. What is this ?? Sometime a persons logic is just different from yours or perhaps his written reasoning has some need of chiseling. But accept them. Paradise is a client of 2+2 - they are biast !!! David is biast. This site has a competition and if you (Gary) are not treated well here, you can always go there. I am not going to take sides in the cheating issue but I KNOW that anything can happen and Paradise may not even be aware. One can just have logging turned on in their server and play on the net while watching the unix box. (provided there are using some unix boxes but experiencing the speed my bet, it's not NT). I work at a institutional broker/trader - their client server application is far more sophisticated but you can see at all times what the client machines are doing. What I am saying the we have millions changing hands and I can watch it !! Why do you think Paradise would be different ? A rogue employee can even log in from afar (his house) and play at the same time ??? There is no amount of VV or any of this non-sense would fix that. All client servers have levels of logging real time and this can be viewed easily.
I am not saying that this is happening but *could be* and you would never know. I am working on a distributed system that has clients on the floor (NYSE) and in London, TelAviv.... anywhere. I can watch it from my cube if I know what to look for. David this is real !! Wakey, Wakey, and drop the Tupac talk please !!!!
My logic is not mine but rather that of Aristotle. However, the fact is that I do not disagree with the rest of what you say. I simply do not know enough about it. I actually would have answered most of my survey questions with a higher number than most others did except for the question regarding a vast conspiracy by the owners. Even this would have had a small chance in my mind except for the large number of players who are beating Paradise across the board, a fact that was not known to me when I first asked Ed Hill to post.
This is truly amusing. Sklansky and his crew of defenders are able to use false logic, and nothing but dogma to defend an enterprise which will takes no positive steps to address real complaints. Sklansky and his slew of posters then are allowed to verbally characterize dissenters as "nutbars" who resemble UFO fanatics.
If David Sklansky has spent even one day observing the distributions on Paradise, then I would be surprised. If he has, he can clearly see the problems that others have spoken of. Once again, the only logical conclusion that Aristotle would come to is that David Sklansky and twoplustwo are heavily involved financially with this entity. If David Sklansky had any true character in this issue, he would whole heartedly support Nolan Dalla (a very credible critic of this site)in his investigative efforts. No word has come from Sklansky on this issue. He simply states that it is logical that anyone speaking the truth about observed irrgularities is mentally ill. The tactic is amazingly similar to totalitarian regimes classification of civil rights activists as mentally ill in the old Gulag Archipelago.
You have totally mischaracterized my position. I have never "defended" Paradise Poker. I have never discouraged investigating them. I have explained in some detail why they and others are more susceptible to collusion than they think in spite of their safeguards. I have never advocated playing there.
My whole point in entering this fray was to point out that common sense along with the fact of many winners should lead you to the conclusion that the probability of organized cheating is small even if the management of Paradadise Poker is Attilla the Hun and John Gotti. I do not vouch for their honesty. I only observe their intelligence and the evidence and am trying to explain the relevance of that.
As for me being financially involved and thus lying to this forum for economic gain, I am quite sure I could make a lot more money by taking the opposite position. They do have competitors who are being thrashed, not because they are greatly inferior, but rather because on the internet, even a tiny advantage is all you need to get all the business. That tiny advantage would go away quickly if I helped fuel the fire. What do you think that would be worth to other sites?
Ok, We will give you the economic point. The point I'm making is that many of the online supporters are illogical and offensive. This is not a one way street. It appears to me that most people questioning online poker are asking for some self regulation by the industry. That does not appear to be forthcoming.
It struck me just how often those two terms seem to go together. Whenever someone says something offensive about anything, it is usually illogical as well.
This would not be such a curious observation to you, if you considered the fac that by its very nature, logic abhors emotion. Since nearly all "offensive" remarks, as well as ad hominem attacks, rely on illogical appeals to emotion, rather than rational conclusions based on acceptable conditions and premises, they (offensive remarks) are very rarely "locigal."
Or to look at it from the opposite side, if someone verbally attacked someone, yet made perfect sense and was completely logical, it would be difficult to consider this attack "offensive," even if the net result was a criticism of another person.
Could you please supply us with a list of industries that were either self-regulated or government regulated within 2 years of their inception?
Besides, government agencies in charge of regulating certain industries whether they be the FCC, ICC, OSHA, FDA and the like do not exist to protect the consumer. They exist to protect the industry which they regulate from unfair competition. They keep the playing field level by insuring that the companies are all following the same regulations and hence,incur the same expenses. Just try lodging a complaint about a trucking firm to the Interstate Commerce Commission and see what happens. But, if you're an employee at one of these firms and blow the whistle on the fact that the company you work for routinely bribes the offcials at the weigh stations then you'll see them stand up and take notice.
So, if you don't trust on-line casinos don't play. If you like higher rakes keep pushing for regulation. Whatever expenses Paradise incurs for regulation will pass directly to the player.
JayNT wrote above: "So, if you don't trust on-line casinos don't play. If you like higher rakes keep pushing for regulation. Whatever expenses Paradise incurs for regulation will pass directly to the player."
I think this may be going too far with regards to Paradise passing along additional costs. While this statement probably applies pretty well to the insurance industry, I don't think there is nearly so close a relationship between Paradise's costs and the rake players pay. For all we know they well might already have an incredible profit margin which could easily absorb some additional costs. Companies in the insurance industry, and many other well-established industries, face far more competition, too.
This does not mean that I support increased regulation of internet gambling; I probably don't.
I do think it would be a good thing if internet poker sites would make publicly available as much information as they realistically can.
They will.
Just as soon as they feel it is in their best interest to do so and not a moment sooner.
You may have noticed that I was one of the people who criticized the survey, and I posted a lot of messages on the vulnerability of electronic systems like this, and how they could be subject to attacks by hackers or internal employees. I even posted a message describing a similar 'back door' that was inserted into a Video Slot Machine, and managed to get by the internal checks of a very large company AND the regulatory boards overseeing the machines.
I also think collusion is much more rampant on Paradise than other posters seem to think, and this can account for many of the 'strange' results. No defender of Paradise, I.
I have played a couple of hundred hours at Paradise, and my results there are way lower than what I'm used to seeing in live games. I pretty much broke even. In that time, I never saw anything remotely suspect about the hand distributions. It all seemed pretty normal to me. I'm not sure why my results were off, but I do know that I went through some very, very long 'dry' stretches, and had a few big rundowns (KK heads up against AA three times, etc). Again, nothing out of the ordinary. I've had longer dry spells in live games.
My main argument against the Paradise detractors is more of a statistical and logical nature. You are drawing conclusions based on your observations of a few thousand hands, which is pretty much statistically meaningless unless the distributions are grossly out of whack. For you to spot subtle differences would be extremely difficult in a short period of time.
Plus, I know something of the psychology of trying to draw conclusions from the personal observation of statistical information which leads me to believe that your 'evidence' is meaningless. One of the reasons bad poker players remain bad poker players is because they believe too much in the short-run results that they observe. I know lots of players who hate getting AA, because 'it's always getting cracked'. I know lots of others who have favorite hands they always play because they've been lucky with it. I've made a fair chunk of money on proposition bets against people who were so adamant about their observations they were willing to put money on the line (like the guy who believes that he wins more with TT than with AA, and was willing to play me heads-up with him starting with TT and me with AA to PROVE it.)
Sklansky's logical arguments also have some appeal. I'm not ready to say that management would never knowingly cheat, because as you pointed out some people do some pretty stupid things for greed. But certainly if they were cheating it wouldn't take the form of screwing around with hand distributions, because that becomes part of the public record and could sink them. There are other, smarter ways to cheat if they really wanted to.
Finally, there's another argument that I haven't brought up, and it's based on computer science. It is trivially easy to build a program to deal out cards and track hands. I wrote a commercial poker playing program in 1991 for public BBS systems that does exactly what Paradise does. However, writing 'cheating' algorithms that skew hand distributions to favor certain players is much more difficult. Orders of magnitude more difficult. Writing poker playing 'bots that can win is not easy, even if they can see all the cards, because they have to play believably. We're talking about an extremely complex system that requires more code than the entire Paradise 'legit' system, just to bilk customers out of a few extra percentage points. I don't buy it.
If you're a fan of logic, consider Occam's razor - You lost money playing poker online. What is the likely reason? Which one is the least hypothesis? Now bear in mind that accusing the company of the last one could damage them, and you'd better be damned sure. Your evidence is a small statistical sample, viewed with a bias. I consider that almost irrelevant. Your losses can be explained many other ways.
Of course, it's possible Paradise is cheating. But I would reserve that accusation until I had exhausted other possibilities, and once I had done that I would come up with a method for testing this (I gave several in other messages) before I ran around damaging the company's reputation.
You've claimed that I've been inflammatory and offensive by saying that the few 'fanatics' who are raging against Paradise will not accept Nolan Dalla's report if it comes up in favor of Paradise. In that case, I hope you are prepared to publically apologize to them and not say another word about cheating if in fact that is what happens. Otherwise, I stand by my comments.
This applies to the rest of the posters here who are libeling the company while hiding under anonymity.
Oh, and I guess I should state this once more for the record - I have no connection to Paradise, I don't know anyone who does, and I have nothing to gain from their success or failure. They don't advertise on my web page, and I don't currently play there. This is purely an interesting intellectual exercise for me.
You don't play there?Why? Could it be you have experienced the same results that Ed Hill, Nolan Dalla, Roy Cooke's friends etc. have?
Asking for regulation is slander? I don't think so. Even if I had "slandered" them, what are they going to do, sue me in court? I don't think so. They would have to admit the following : 1.who they are 2.they would have to defend their software in court, 3. they would have to open their entire operation to scrutiny which they obviously do not want. 4.They would lose. I think that I'd love them to sue me in US jurisdiction.
Of course if your statement that you better be 100% sure is meant as a threat, then I suppose you are corrrect. Free speech in asking for fair businss practices in that part of the world often results in a visit from the local death squad.
I don't know how you managed to find a threat in my message. I was speaking more of ethics. Before I accuse someone of something that will damage them, I make sure of my facts. It's that simple. People on your side throw accusations around like confetti. Sklansky must be in the employ of Paradise Poker, I'm a shill for the company, Paradise Poker cheats, etc.
This is one of the worst things about the internet. It's too easy for people to make accusations that they would never dream of making to someone's face. Notice that I use my real name, and post my E-mail address for all to see. This way, I won't say something that I don't want my name and reputation attached to. Every word I write becomes part of the public record, traceable back to me. And that's the way I want it. If something I type is embarrassing to me, I shouldn't have typed it.
I just said I had below-average results. Why? I'm not sure. I happen to know first-hand of several colluders that are spending their evenings online as a group connected through MSN messenger. If I know some here in my little backwoods of Canada, I can only assume that there are dozens of such teams prowling around Paradise and Planet Poker. I don't like that, and I don't like having to play against that.
The possibility of collusion screws up my card reading skills. Collusion can cause strange plays that may cause me to misread a situation and play poorly.
Like some others, I suspect that the quality of my play went down online, because of several factors. I also suspect that I rely on subconscious people skills more than I thought I did.
Finally, I don't discount the possibility of hacks, cheats, whatever. I just have no evidence of it.
Still, as a professional gambler you learn to invest your money wisely, in areas where you can have some confidence of your abilities, and in which you can define the situation and make intelligent plays. Online poker has too many unknowns for me to feel really comfortable at this point.
Still, I'm probably going start playing again, at least at the lower limits, simply because my curiousity has the best of me now. I may even find the time to write a statistical hand tracker that can run unattended and record hands all day long and do my own analysis.
.
If you write a program like that I would be intersted in buying it. Keep us posted.
I have already suggested that Paradise Poker is really headquartered in Sklansky's garage.
UFO fanatics may indeed be more likely to have a trace of otherworldly blood; however, the promotional photos clearly show David's right ear to be Human, not Vulcan, and to my knowledge he has not discussed his views on UFO's in writing. A UFO fanatic or a Vulcan would almost surely have done so by now.
n/t
n/t.
I am acquainted with Maven and he is not me.
nor am I he
There is no such thing as "my logic" and "your logic." Forgiving the pun, 2+2=4. Either you accept it or you don't. It's not "my" logic that says this. Logic is not a personal thing like an opinion. If it were, arguments would be nothing but subjective debates and no one would ever be "right." Logic is an objective, rigid, UNBIASED (that's how its correctly spelled) tool for assessing the validity of an argument.
Then why are you so illogical with your arguments?
Easy to say, difficult to support. Show me some evidence of my "illogical arguments."
Here is an other example of philosophy and logic (just to give hard time to David.... :-) You can't use logic in circumstances like someone has suspicion and you say where is the evidence (where obviously we just can't provide any) so where is ANY logic in discussing this ?? No place. That's what I meant to say in *my* logic versus *yours*. If all the facts are know - even then one can draw stupid conclusions - like the jury in OJ's verdict.
The comparison of OJ and Paradise meant to be an pun and a thought provoving parallel. I have no evidence against Paradise - I have played there 15-30 HE twice and lost. Will not do it again but I admit it's fun. I heed Ed Hill and he talks to a lot of players.. it's out of a bag now.
I did not kow when to quit, I played 600 up to 1400 and gave it all back....I felt there was nothing funny going ons however you never know these things. Imagine if you would see all cards and the flop. How would you play ?? I would go after big pots and let small ones go by. Even if the shuffle is right (I am 99% sure it is) if you play against a few guys who see everything it would be just moot. It's a temptation for anyone who has played a lot and lost a few - to play God. I am not condoning cheating just trying to imagine and project. While playing I saw nothing suspicious - but how could I, I mean we all played against miracle draws and supernatural calls. I suspect this is a sporatic, rogue employee making extra bucks at times, if there is anything going on at all
One major reason we are seeing quite a few complaints about "skewed distribution" is possibly that the internet forums naturally offer what may be akin to a survey of sorts. In live poker, we may run into the occasional player who is simply running incredibly badly or has just seen a series of incredible hands. But we are not going around asking people throughout the cardrooms about this.
Since the internet forums are a "gathering place" where such tropics are discussed, we hear from more people running badly than we would otherwise hear from. Since one major topic is the fairness or randomness of the distributions, we hear about this quite a bit more than we hear about people running equivalently badly or "strangely" in live poker. Since Paradise has by far the largest player base, the sample size of players there is larger. It is inevitable that amongst a large player base and 15 million hands that a relatively small number of players will see things they have never seen before. Perhaps we have just facilitated hearing about it more.
There are certainly other factors at work as well; I am just suggesting that this is perhaps one primary reason we have heard so much about it on these forums. If we could conduct an equivalent widespead long-term "survey" about odd results and running badly in live poker, I wonder if the responses might not be distributed similarly. I for one have had "incredible" bad runs, and strange runs, at live poker over the years and I have heard about others experiencing this as well. But ordinary conversation does not provide nearly the opportunity for so many to weigh in on one topic. Add to this the fact that internet poker is a "hot topic" and one which lends itself easily to theories about any number of dubious practices. There are many other factors at work here, but I suspect that the "survey" nature of these forums in themselves, and the large sample size drawn from, may have much to do with the reports we are hearing. It is inevitable that quite a few individuals will experience the most extraordinary results, and since this is internet poker, many of them probably read these forums. Anyone experiencing wild results online and reading these forums would in turn be fairly likely to post as well.
Maybe you are correct. Nevertheless, casino poker is regulated. Some form of self regulation is not an outlandish request. Ray Zee published in response to the surveys that he is amazed that Paradise hasn't done something along the lines of analysis to dispell the commotion. That's really all it would take. Nolan Dalla's trip should prove interesting.
I agree that some form of self-regulation would be good, and the more the internet poker sites do to inform the public of their operations, where feasible, the better.
Better for whom?
They're making millions. That's why they went into business, to make millions. When they're no longer making millions you'll see action. Until then, grin and bear it.
It is a common fallacy that making millions cannot be improved upon, or that increase would not be desirable. I hear this all the time at Foxwoods regarding the various inefficiencies apparent throughout the operation and in the Poker room as well. The common argument goes like this: They're making so much money they don't care or it doesn't matter. I cannot envision many top CEO's thinking this way. Nor can I envision many entrepreneurs thinking this way. For those without millions, it all may seem about the same, and comparatively speaking, it may be so from a utility standpoint. But once a person, or company, has/is making millions, they are usually keenly aware of how much more they could do with more.
If Paradise could further increase their customer base, at a growth rate they can handle, it would be foolish of them not to take steps to do so. Doing things to increase the public's level of confidence probably falls into this category.
As for me personally, "grin and bear it" is entirely unapplicable. I do not really care much one way or the other -- there are plenty of good games in Connecticut, and I play at Paradise on occasion primarily for variety and convenience, and I am comfortably ahead. I have, however, found this topic and related issues interesting.
My "grin and beat it" was not meant to be taken from me to you personally. I appreciate your well thought out posts and agree with much of what you say. "Grin and bear it" encapsulates my view of the futility of trying to get Paradise to do anything to increase the confidence level when they're business is growing practically exponentially.
I believe if you could marshall all the posters here and on rgp who want detailed information about their system to stop playing at paradise for 6 months they'd hardly notice the difference. The bulk of their patronage are just happy to have a way to play at home.
Most of the posters here think it's a small chance that there even is a problem, so why should Paradise come clean when few really think they're doing anything dirty?
They won't convince their detractors under any circumstances so why fix what ain't broke?
This isn't limited to just poker - the fact that fringe elements have such a large voice in the world of the Internet has a skewing effect in the perception of every industry.
Years ago, I went through some training for retail management. One of the first things we learned was "The Rule of 500". The idea is that the average person has a circle of influence of about 500 people, including friends, family, co-workers, friends of co-workers, etc. If you piss someone off badly enough, most or all 500 people will hear about it. But if you satisfy them, no one will hear about it, because it's not noteworthy when someone gets a package on time, gets friendly service, buys a product that does what it should, etc.
Therefore, the feedback mechanism is heavily skewed towards the negative individuals, whether they are negative because of personality or because the product or service really was bad. This gives companies great incentive to do the best job they can - it's not enough to make half the people happy, or even one in a hundred. You better not piss off more than one person in 500, or your public perception will suffer.
Well, the internet makes this much, much worse. Now a disgruntled customer has a voice that can reach millions. This is having a chilling effect on some forms of commerce.
For example, the Ford Windstar is an excellent Minivan, with a five-star front and side collision rating, high quality construction, etc.
However, a couple of years ago a customer got a lemon, or went through several failures due to statistical flukes. If you sell several million vehicles, at least a few of them have to be outlyers and suffer below-average failure rates. Anyway, this guy set up a web page called something like, 'Windstar Sucks', promoted the hell out of it, and probably caused the company millions of dollars in lost revenue. Everything he said was true, so it wasn't libelous. However, the statistical context was lost in the shuffle.
The web page even made the national news. In the pre-internet era, this guy might have ranted to his family and friends, and maybe written a letter to an editor somewhere. The impact would have been negligible.
Now look at Internet Poker, where most people who play have to lose money. The environment is somewhat random, which is going to cause some strange streaks to appear. 2.5% of the players there are going to have results worse than 2 standard deviations, due to luck. Multiply that by thousands of players, and you've got a huge collection of disgruntled people who saw bad beat after bad beat, and have a worldwide forum to express their displeasure.
Given all this, I would have been shocked if there WEREN'T complaints of this nature surfacing all over the place. It was inevitable, and may be the main problem with online poker as a business model - the losers are going to raise bloody hell.
nt
There have been a lot of allegations and name calling concerning Paradise Poker. Both sides in this discussion have made logical and reasonable arguments. The only consensus seems to be that there is potential for abuse and cheating. I am proposing that both sides in this discussion combine their efforts and specifically identify the potential problems and possible solutions. I look forward to hearing from both sides in this discussion.
Dealing, Shuffling, & Random Number Generation (RNG) - 1)Numerous players have complained about too many quads and too many bad beats at Paradise Poker while claiming these problems don’t exist at Planet Poker. 2)Paradise created their own random number generator. Random number generation seems fairly straight forward, but is actually an advanced topic in computer science. The only way to validate the effectiveness and distribution characteristics of a random number generator is through extensive testing and analysis. The problem is that Paradise’s random number generator is based in part on mouse and keyboard movements from players. How do you perform extensive testing and analysis when the results are based on player interaction? You could attempt to simulate player activity, but this adds a level of uncertainty to the results. See http://www.paradisepoker.com/rng.html for more information. 3)Planet Poker does not use external factors like mouse and keyboard movements in their random number generators. 4)Dealing & Shuffling is relatively straightforward and not likely to be a problem, but needs to be checked. 5)Problems with the random number generator or dealing & shuffling algorithms could explain some of the alleged problems with hand distributions.
Direct Server Hacking - 1)Should be a very minimal threat at any online poker site. 2)The game server should be completely separate from the development and support systems. The game server and its terminals should be in a separate controlled work area. This may seem extreme, but is essential to prevent back door access to the game server by rogue employees. 3)The game server firewall should restrict all non-client traffic. 4)There should be no connections behind the game server’s firewall. 5)There should be no backdoors for remote programmer access.
Collusion Detection - 1)In-house employees can handle the routine monitoring and detection of collusion. 2)There must be an independent review conducted by a qualified expert. 3)The independent expert will be looking for ALL suspicious activity. The expert will be looking for any activity that would indicate that the system has been compromised. The expert will be able to identify collusion, hacking from internal or external sources, or intentional management abuse. 4)The expert must operate independently and secretly from the internal staff. 5)The expert must have unrestricted access to the system. 6)The expert needs to be more than just an expert poker player. 7)This person is essential for creating a system of checks and balances. 8)It is clearly in management’s best interest to implement such a system.
Source Code Control - 1)There must be an audit trail of all software changes. 2)There must be an archive of ALL previous versions of ALL source code, objects, and executables. 3)Checksums should be recorded and verified for ALL source code, objects, and executables. 4)Document and verify what software changes where made by which programmers.
Source Code - 1)How does Paradise Poker or Planet Poker test their software modifications? Custom tools and special coding in the system created for testing purposes could leave vulnerable back doors. 2)Examination of the client software by an experienced hacker should yield no useful information to the hacker. 3)The source code should be reviewed by a qualified independent software developer.
Viruses - 1)Viruses could infect server or client applications. 2)Viruses could steal player hole cards or account information and passwords. 3)This is a minimal threat and is only included for completeness.
SSL Encryption - 1)Paradise Poker uses OpenSSL encryption. See http://www.openssl.org/ for more details. 2)SSL provides commercial-grade encryption for software applications. Decryption of an intercepted packet by brute force decryption is far beyond the capabilities of most individuals and most governments. 3)SSL is extremely reliable and is widely used in e-commerce applications on the web. 4)Online poker is different from most e-commerce applications. SSL by itself does not address all the issues. a)Traffic Analysis – The fact that a client sent a packet to the server can be significant and useful information even when the packet is encrypted and unreadable. For example, do you use the betting action buttons? I use the check/fold button constantly. Someone monitoring my packet traffic could be 90% sure that I will fold if there is a bet. b)The information exchanged between the server and its clients is highly repetitive. The transmission of small highly repetitive packets that can be correlated against actual play is a potential problem.
Financials - 1)What protection is there on the money in player accounts? a)Is the money insured against theft by an employee or principal of the company? b)Is the money insured against a bank failure? 2)Is the site financially sound or in danger of bankruptcy? 3)How is the money managed? Does the money get invested in the stock market? 4)This will become a bigger issue as the stakes continue to increase and the dollar values in players account increase.
Certification of Online Poker sites - 1)Certification of online poker sites by an aggressive independent watchdog group is clearly in the best interest of ALL legitimate sites. If any poker site is caught doing the things Paradise has been accused of it will clearly hurt the entire industry. 2)The watchdog group must be independently managed and operated. A group formed by the industry to monitor itself would only be a rubber stamp approval of existing operations. 3)The watchdog group should implement a system allowing customers to directly complain about problems.
Conclusion - Theoretically online poker can be safer and cleaner than live games. 1)No angle plays 2)No dealer mistakes 3)No marked cards 4)No stacked decks 5)No muggings 6)Collusion is a problem.
thecat wrote:
"Collusion Detection - 1)In-house employees can handle the routine monitoring and detection of collusion. 2)There must be an independent review conducted by a qualified expert. 3)The independent expert will be looking for ALL suspicious activity. The expert will be looking for any activity that would indicate that the system has been compromised. The expert will be able to identify collusion, hacking from internal or external sources, or intentional management abuse. 4)The expert must operate independently and secretly from the internal staff. 5)The expert must have unrestricted access to the system. 6)The expert needs to be more than just an expert poker player. 7)This person is essential for creating a system of checks and balances. 8)It is clearly in management’s best interest to implement such a system."
My questions is who is watching the watchers?
"Collusion Detection - 1)In-house employees can handle the routine monitoring and detection of collusion. 2)There must be an independent review conducted by a qualified expert. 3)The independent expert will be looking for ALL suspicious activity. The expert will be looking for any activity that would indicate that the system has been compromised. The expert will be able to identify collusion, hacking from internal or external sources, or intentional management abuse. 4)The expert must operate independently and secretly from the internal staff. 5)The expert must have unrestricted access to the system. 6)The expert needs to be more than just an expert poker player. 7)This person is essential for creating a system of checks and balances. 8)It is clearly in management’s best interest to implement such a system."
Clearly if you have worked in Corporate IT as long as I have you could have a better perspective of in-house staff running amock. The statement that production and development must be separate is true. Password protection is often relaxed and production passwords are not protected and changed at all. If there are production problems or needs of monitoring staff has to access all production servers. Once you have such access (and you clearly have to give it out) anyone connected can telenet on the production server, turn logging on and access logs. To prevent this the house would have to have some very ellaborate in-house security to monitor all involved. Clearly it's not impossible, but very improbable. I would wager to say that the Casino only has a network firewall and a lazy security officer who scatches his butt all day. Anyone in the know who either works there or has a buddy there can potentially get on the system once on the premises. I am speculating here but since nobody knows the House security measures and procedures I would not be surprised I was very 'on the nose' in this. I want to make it clear - these statements are not allegations but my personal experinces in IT security for twenty odd years in the US. I would say that Costa Rica may not have more security that the often lose US, but less ??? Shit, we have nuclear secrets stolen from New Mexico, we have holes in most major US companies and the spend millions on this. Think about it !! More I consider this less I want to play on-line unless I know exactly the measures the Casino is taking. We don't know anything about their procedures at all !!! is this right David ?
If there were this rogue employee(s) out scandalizing the games and looting the unsuspecting public, would he or she not be wiser to haunt the heads up area? Knowing the cards, you could quickly empty someones pockets heads up. Just an idea...
I think it would be far more effective to empty 9 pockets at a time as opposed to one. (or play two games at once and double your pleasure).
Today in my dealings with my so called mob connections in Costa Rica I found out some stuff on Paradise that I thought I would share. Hell half of you all won't believe anything I say but I dont give a... I was talking with the "line manager" as his title says at a fairly big sports operation there. He was nice enough to hire a past girlfriend as his director of information systems, so if you want to think I get my connections from the mob, I am sorry disappoint you with this news. It was quiet today so he agreed to talk to me for awhile about what goes on and I told him I would tell people what he said on this board. He said everyone knows everyone else in the industry in San Jose, they even have a basketball league that all the books put teams in. Everyone is competitive, but yet everyone knows who is involved in what, but they keep it to themselves. He said think of it like the TV networks. They all are competing against one another, but in the end they all have somewhat similar goals and interests. They all know where the money is and they all know who is involved, but they all do things a little differently in search of becoming the most successful company in a competitive field.
All the sports guys though think the poker guys are crazy since the poker customer is far more demanding than anyone in the online gaming business. Most online standard casinos are out catering to very small players who come online very rarely. The sports guys have players who come and go, most needing very little service since after all its just a line and the sports betting game is pretty well defined. The poker player however is a pain in the ass requiring constant attention and ugrades to his game. The poker players don't have many legitimate choices since they need a critical mass of having players around just to have a game so the whole name of the game is getting customers. When I asked him about cheating he said that if someone was cheating down there he is pretty sure word would have gotten out. News spreads very fast as there are only two zones where almost all the systems of the offshore books are handled and people who work at one operation that isn't doing so well get hired by another before they are out of work a day. I asked him about an employee doing the cheating and he said it could happen, but the security is fairly tight and in his operation as in most bigger shops, the people in marketing and accounting don't have access to the betting systems and vice versa. I told him that I think they should spread them out to different countries and he said he thought Paradise was doing that, but not certain about it. The only people that could probably do the cheating would be very high level people, but all these operations are run by a mix of owners so its very hard to do. Paradise would quite literally have to be a den of thieves, so if you all want to think that, I guess I can't change your minds.
When I pressed the ownership issue that so many are concerned about, he said that ownership is one thing that no one really gives out for a couple of reasons. First of all, there are liability concerns as courts there don't always accept the principle of limited liability. If the owners never mention in documents their actual names, then they can generally avoid this hassle. Second is that some do fear becoming another Jay Cohen, arrested for a crime that never really happened. None of them have ever personally taken a bet on American soil for their current operations yet the Justice Department and our congress seems to think just being an American taking a bet even on foreign soil should be a crime. Lastly he just said it really seems to serve no purpose. The owners are just financial guys. Even guys that are suposedly starting up a book do it mostly with other people's backing. The wisest minds are just bit owners in the operations and brought in for thier expertise. He pointed out that Gary Bowman is well known for his sports operation yet he has sold off just about all of it to investors. He said if Nolan Dalla asks who the owners when he goes down there, they might even tell him but the names are just that, names that won't mean anything to anyone. If you are involved in the community down there you would know them, but to Americans they have no real significants. He ran off the name of one guy he knows down there that he is pretty sure is a good sized owner of Paradise, and to me it just sounded like a typical Jewish-American name. After all what do you guys want these names so you can harass them and claim they must be members of the mob???
Overall I pretty much heard mostly what I knew or had figured was going on down there. These operations have no reason to cheat. Yeah you can say its there and its tempation, but don't you all know how many bookies I have met in my lifetime that said I got rich off 11/10? How about the online casino? For the price of about 5 slot machines, they can buy a complete casino package. Then they need about 1/10 the employees of a real casino and of course no expensive overhead and no food or beverage department either. The costs of four security guards covers their technology costs every month. They pay amongst the highest wages of any business in San Jose and yet that is still about half what a Vegas casino has to pay a cashier. Their staff totals are about the same size as the staff of cocktail servers in a regular casino. To top it off they pay the taxes of any regular operating office business in San Jose, which compares incredibly favorably to the 7% of gross profit tax Nevada gets from casinos and the even higher amounts other states extract from their casinos. Regular casinos are already cash cows, but these things are incredible. They totally lay sports and poker sites to waste in terms of margin, but fortunately for us, most people don't have any desire to play slots or roulette online. Otherwise we would face the same fate regarding poker and sports betting as we are seeing in Nevada these days. If you still want to think there is cheating, go ahead, but I know I will never see a reason to agree with you.
I've been playing poker for about 9 months. I learned to play and began on-line. As a mater of fact, I'd never played live until recently. Many people talk about the transition from live to online play and how online seems tougher, adjustments need to be made etc. I am one of the rare people who is now starting to play live every now and then. Since my transistion is different than most, how do you think I would fair offline? I am a constant winner online, have received several checks from Paradise over the last 6 months. It took me about 4 months to become profitable. Anyway, your comment on how the "new breed" of poker player wandering into live games having been "trained" online will fair??
Bryan
First of all I believe the lack of diversions, surfing the web, TV, computer games, chatting on-line, the refrigerator, will make the less patient OTP (Online Trained Players) play too many hands out of sheer boredom.
Second, the tendency to jump up and down and say "Yippeee" when you pull your miracle card will not help disguising your hand whe playing live. Also, it's hard to control the smirk on your face when you're holding rockets and there are three raises to you pre flop.
OTOH as long as you cut your teeth on the lower limits and don't try to overpower the 30-60 at the Bellagio with no "at the table" skills, you won't get hurt too much by the lack of face to face experience.
Why bother is what I say. I started in poker rooms and play online mostly now. You will get to the rooms and realize there are some nice people, but a whole lot of people that are absolute boors, others that shoot at every angle ever thought of, and still more that seem to think being an ass to the dealer is acceptable. Top it off with the toxic air that you can't always see through and management that gives lip service to customer care but really doesn't give a damn...well you get the picture. I am rarely tempted to play offline anymore. About one time out of five going to a table will I even meet an interesting person, but then again with me being under 30 and the average age in a card room closer to 60 thats not terribly surprising. I would guess though the online players are probably much closer to my age than the age of the cardroom regulars, so they might find the same thing. All in all I only suggest card room play if you are a good people person and get a feel from being at a table with them. Otherwise I think its a waste and I laugh when I hear all these people saying online poker will help the poker rooms, I pretty much think its the other way around, especially in Vegas where poker is relatively insignificant anyways. Poker rooms will eventually be like the race track, a bunch of old people that play everyday scrapping over $20 pots with the exception of maybe one or two higher limit rooms for the pros and the sophisticated wealthy who are loathe to play a mindless game like slots or roulette.
I start play online before i played in card rooms and I am twice your age. I played card rooms in LA and Las Vegas. Did not care for either. To slow, very poor service. ie water or pop. and the rake was just as high. plus on line i can change table as is wish. and no travel. I usually play at planet and find some very interesting people, I will not go out of my wasy to play live at lower limits. Have a nice night ron
i must say i am shocked as a newbie card player the best experiences i have are in cardrooms where i can use my skills of reading players and how they play their hands. online is totally different from that in the casino. and if you dont think so you'll be in for a shock when you make your hand or dont. your face will tell the world. although the fish on paradise leave me happy everynight
I've been playing on and off at Paradise Poker since they first opened. Playing 3-6 and 2-4, I have on 3 occasions been down 1k but have managed to get even every time. Everytime I got down 1k, I would quit for a month or two out of frustration but would eventually go back. I would then catch great cards and get back even. I dont feel that my style of play has really changed but what I do notice is that when I'm on a losing streak, my pocket pairs (AA,KK,QQ)dont hold up and when I'm on my comeback streak they hold up. I've read on this forum and rgp that at Paradise the long shot draws get there too often. I dont know if there are any facts to support this but my experiences tend to give credence to this idea. If Im a bad player than in the long run I should lose and If Im a good player than the converse that I would win should be true. But at Paradise, it seems that I'm a bad player for the first 1k but a good player after.
So, let me get this straight. When your premium starting hands hold up you win, and when they cracked you lose.
Sounds suspicious to me.
Could you post your hours/results on ParaPoke and your hours/results in live play?
Sorry, meant this for steve.
Having aces cracked is not suspicious. What seem odd is that when I'm on my comeback string they hold up but as soon as I get even they then get cracked.
Maybe that's because post flop, you don't know when to lay your hand down and invest $ you shouldn't even though you know that you're beat!!!
Thats because paradise wants the money to circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulatecirculate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate circulate.......................means lots of rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake rake
...out of a pot that is when I clicked on the wrong spot and folded accidently.
I just signed up for Paradise since I feel so secure now thanks to the recent surveys (yeah right!). I chatted with quite a few people about cheating and other stuff at our big limit 2-4 game and all of them said, "oh well". A couple pointed out they play at home games since there are no legal games around and those surely are more susceptible to cheating than Paradise and I had to agree. Everyone seemed to be having fun and I would think the most fun is had by those unlucky enough to be far from legal rooms.
Playing there it just dawned on me. Maybe all the critics on here are just mad we get to go out and have fun playing poker! They because of their fears have to sit at home and write up scary tales of what lurks at Paradise. Seems like that element on this board are dour types that find things to fear in everything. They turn their skeptical eye on the game and forget that its just a game and to have fun with it. I can't think too many people on here are like Ed Hill trying to make a living off the game, so next time you do something during your recreational time, be sure to smile and enjoy it because it sure beats working.
All the critics do is remind me of our wonderful congress people that feel they have an obligation to make sure we don't get the opportunity to lose our money. They probably don't want us having fun either. I just can't understand why you can't leave the people who choose to play online alone. If we are suckers and are getting cheated, well thats our problem and certainly not yours (our money too!). We are well aware of your beliefs and purported stories, but despite it all, we still play online and take our chances. Don't we deserve respect for that?
Wildbil doesn't do favors for the online community posting here. The moe you mention your US banned Costan Rican syndicate friends, the more you add to the impression that online poker is a scam.
Oh so people would be angels if I didn't mention them...out of sight out of mind is that the idea here? And since when does it mean if you work in Costa Rica you must be with the syndicate? I am still trying to figure that logic out.
by the way, the names were in alphabetic order ;]
have any of you played poker for real money online? on paradise? do you do it on at least a semi-regular basis?
I've played a little, just fooling around. The 20-40 holdem is usually pretty tough, there may be mild collusion but I've seen nothing flagrant, and I have never seen crazy bad beats or anything that looks non random. I suppose that is because they put in their "on the square" program when I am playing. I would prefer that they put in their cold deck program that they used against Ed Hill with me being on the winning end. But I think they are too busy setting that up for wild bill.
what's your handle?
i think its funny that the authors who claim to derive most of their income from playing, aren't playing online on a very regular basis. You can keep your identity a secret, you can see twice as many hands per hour and play at home. Why wouldn't the worlds leading authority play?
Since there isn't cheating etc., what would be the draw back??????????????????????
Believe me, I'll play if they ever offer 50-100 or maybe even 30-60 and stingent collusion catching methods are put in place.
"Believe me, I'll play if they ever offer 50-100 or maybe even 30-60 and stingent collusion catching methods are put in place."
This means never.
How could they ? I can get on a cell phone that has world coverage or just use Yahoo messenger or whatever that tools called. Have an alias different from Pradise alias and have the Internet be the last frontier. No man can ever devise a control mechanism against this. They allow 15 seconds for responses but that's enough I think to collude.
All that would have to be done is to discourage potential colluders enough that the extra money that they could make by colluding wouldn't be worth the risk of getting caught.
It has been shown to me that colluders need to be great players in the first place to make extra money by using collution so why would a great player who can make half a big bet an hour in a 50/100 game want to risk the hassle of getting caught(if there was a high potential of being caught),and having to find an other person to bank them on a seperate account.
A big problem is that it has yet to be proven that online poker sites can catch good colluders.
CV
If I saw everyone's hand I could catch anything significant. I could train others to as well. Of course it would be after the fact but the job would eventually get done.
Unless it took place after the hand, the existence of the ability to observe the hands face-up might increase the facility with which employees (or insiders) could cheat. A machine to access face up hands real-time shouldn't be developed.
Yes, but they have dealt 16 million hands since they have opened. How many are you going to look at?
If I were a professional colluder, I'd treat it like high-stakes blackjack. I'd maintain several user accounts, I wouldn't stay in one game with the same partner for any real length of time, and if I got involved in a 'fishy' play I'd retire that userID for a while. That way, it will be hard to spot a pattern, and any single play can almost always be overlooked, no matter how bizarre it is.
If I maintain 5 accounts and so do my friends, then we can have 25 different combinations of accounts to collude with per pair. And the hands that we are colluding in might wind up being a handful a week per combination, out of hundreds of thousands of dealt hands.
The problem is similar to spotting card counters. If you hired me to spot card counters, once I started watching a specific person I could tell you within a couple of shoes exactly what kind of player he was. But to do that I first have to start watching him, and there are hundreds of players at any given time. So I have to have a two-step system - a coarse filter (the floor personnel) who learn to look for flagrant things, followed by a close scrutiny of players that security is pointed to by the floor. This process allows players to fall through the cracks.
The only way to stop it is with punishment. Card counters continue to populate casinos because the risk/reward ratio is high. All they risk is a barring, and they are no worse off than if they hadn't played at all. If card counting were a crime, or if the casino had the power to randomly search players and take all of their money on mere suspicion of counting, then the casino's countermeasures would be much more of a threat.
This would be why Paradise is confiscating money (this is the second case I've heard of). They realize that without some consequences it does no good to search for colluders, because they'll just come back under a different alias anyway. If their collusion-spotting is inefficient, then the lag time between opening an account and being barred represents the profit window. If the profit to be made is greater than the hassle of setting up a mail drop and opening a phony account, then the colluders will just keep returning.
My account on Paradise was blocked on Saturday. I sent them an e-amil asking for the reason and here is what I got:
"We have determined that several players (namely VIOLA,boyuk, and lkaer) were transferring funds into your account. These players machines have been unequivocally connected to your machine. Your account is being permanently closed.We have attached the various hands for your consideration, which clearly show these accounts dumping moeny into your account fraudulently. This matter is closed. No funds in your account will be sent to you. Paradise Poker is terminating this relationship and in addition all correspondence."
I am totally confused by this. First, the hand histories that they attached have only "lkaer" - no "viola" or "boyuk". They show that I lost about half of the time, that everytime lkaer lost to me I either had the best hand or he had one pair or worse and folded on the river, that I lost to lkaer several times, that he lost to other players as well. But this is not my biggest concern. I realize that mistakes happen. I am surprized by Paradise refusal to even discuss the issue or ask me what I know about it. And, of course, refusal of returning money from my account is just plain stealing. There is about $2500 on the account. I am outraged by this theft. What do you think I should do? If they were in the USA I would have sued but how to get my money back from Costa Rica??? I e-mailed to them but got no reply.
Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, can you help? You place advertizements of a site that refuses to return money placed in good faith and refuses even to prove their case. This could happen to any player at any time.
If anyone is interested, I can forward to you the hand histories. My nick is "Aslan"
a, did these other players transfer money into your account?
b, did Paradise give any indication as to what they plan on doing with the cash in your account?
a. No. Paradise did not ask me a single question.
b. I have quoted the only message I received from paradise. They do not reply to further e-mails.
Do you know VIOLA, boyuk and ikaer?
What do you make of the allegation that all three players were "unequivocally connected" to your machine? How could confusion about this arise?
You've been hoodwinked. Even if you are guilty of anything, they should have to prove it in court to justify taking your money. What's to stop Paradise from screwing up credit card transactions and overbilliing? This is another form of risk. Isn't it interesting that Mr.Alger doesn't say that he reccomends his contacts will look into it. He just sides with the "outfit."
What language do you speak, Matt? It obviously is not the same language as Chris and Dan!! You can never seem to translate what they say into your native tongue without getting confused. What you probably need is a good English to Lunatic/ Lunatic to English dictionary.
This is another example of extremely offensive posting that goes unpoliced by Twoplustwo.
Matt, he has a point - I was just about to post exactly the same message as Chris and I am sure many others. It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Your response to Chris's post was ridiclous.
NOt so. A pattern exists with Mr.Alger. He shows up everytime to take the side of Paradise Poker anytime any one has dispute with them. YOu online lackeys have a double standard.
Matt,
This is not an attack, just a request. Could you please copy and paste those parts of Mr. Alger's post that convince you he is siding with the "outfit". I have read his post several times and from my perspective he asked three questions and didn't state anything.
I don't know any of them, except for the fact that I played with them on paradise.
I have no idea what they meant by "unequivocally connected" I asked for clarification but got no reply. It is not even logical: if they were transferring money to my account they would have to do it from another machine.
Then your option is to sue them in a small claims or similar court in the United States and domesticating the judgment in Costa Rica. Calling an English-speaking attorney in San Jose to find out what this entails shouldn't be too difficult. In any event, litigation could at least reopen communication. It should certainly come as a surprise to Paradise if they're confident of their position. It sounds as if Paradise thinks you're involved in a credit card fraud, so that suing them would open you up to criminal prosecution here.
I just spoke to a lawyer from my "Prepaid Legal Plan". In his opinion cost of this lawsuit will be more than $2500 plus there is no guarantee of collection. I don't know what to do.
At the very least, they should provide you with their logical reasoning, rather than just say "The evidence is unequivocable". And they have to give you the ability to rebut in some way.
This is why I think catching online colluders is dicey. You need to have very strong proof before you should confiscate someone's money. If they were in the U.S., you could sue them and they would have to spend legal fees justifying their case. They'd probably also have to get signed agreements that you would abide by their regulations, fully knowing that confiscation of funds could result if you violate the agreement.
Being in Costa Rica, you don't have many 'outs'. If you paid by credit card, you can go to the credit card company and file a dispute. Credit card companies generally take the stance that the customer is always right. They'll give Paradise a chance to dispute your claim, and if Paradise doesn't do it to their satisfaction they'll refund your money and put a mark on the Paradise's corporate credit account. Enough of these disputes, and Paradise will have their merchant status revoked. If they go through a 3rd party credit card merchant, that company will come under fire from the credit card company and raise the discount rate to Paradise or cut them off completely.
I don't know if you engaged in collusion or funds transfer or not. I don't know what evidence Paradise has. But they MUST be willing to give you some sort of hearing. And that will be the big limiter on their fight against collusion - either they will behave arbitrarily like this, or the cost of collecting evidence and providing a hearing of some sort will make them much less likely to punish someone.
In the meantime, I strongly suggest that if anyone plays at Paradise poker or any other online poker site, keep a minimum amount of funds in your account. It doesn't cost anything to buy in again if you have to, so keep a very small bankroll stored with them.
Shit - it costs about 5.5% each time you buy !!!!!!
I don't quite understand what is being said here. I will email my contact at Paradise right now and ask him to post an explanation. As of now we don't even know if the story is true.
Thank you, David
I would appreciate anything that would make Paradise talk in the open and return my money. If I give you access to my e-mail account so you can read their messages yourself would you be satisfied that my story is true?
Aslan
For some strange reason I feel as if John Wayne just pushed open the swinging doors of a saloon and said, "Don't you worry, Pilgrim. I'll take it from here."
This should be quite interesting.
yeah, right David, he just totally made this up out of the blue. He may not be as innocent as he claims, but something is going on here. Will be interestd to see if your "contact" posts a reply...
The fee is credited back to you in full after you've played a number of hands. Anyone who's at the point where they have to worry about leaving too much in the Paradise account will have played that many hands.
>>At the very least, they should provide you with their logical reasoning, rather than just say "The evidence is unequivocable". And they have to give you the ability to rebut in some way. This is why I think catching online colluders is dicey. You need to have very strong proof before you should confiscate someone's money.<<
They didn't mentioned any collusion. They seem to accuse me of being on receiving end of money transfer. They didn't even say what was fraudulent about it. I fully agree that they should show some evidence, etc. But they don't seem to care about rights or ethics. They just want money.
>>If you paid by credit card, you can go to the credit card company and file a dispute. Credit card companies generally take the stance that the customer is always right.<<
Almost all of the money on the account (except $200) were winnings so credit card cannot help me much.
>>Enough of these disputes, and Paradise will have their merchant status revoked. If they go through a 3rd party credit card merchant, that company will come under fire from the credit card company and raise the discount rate to Paradise or cut them off completely. <<
Paradise changes credit card merchants about every 2 months. Perhaps that is the reason?
>> But they MUST be willing to give you some sort of hearing.<<
Why don't you and others who read it send them an e-mail. May be it will get their attention. I promise to post all their messages here.
>>In the meantime, I strongly suggest that if anyone plays at Paradise poker or any other online poker site, keep a minimum amount of funds in your account. It doesn't cost anything to buy in again if you have to, so keep a very small bankroll stored with them. <<
You are right. I realize that most people will not stop playing there until it hits them personally but I might recommend to look at planetpoker - at least, they give their phone number and they are in Canada, not Costa Rica.
Planet Poker is located in the very same area of San Jose as Paradise. They have an administrative office that does marketing and writes the checks in Alberta, but if you look closely at their web site they will tell you all playing activities are considered to occur in Costa Rica and are subject to the laws and regulations of Costa Rica.
Here is their reply verbatim:
"We didn't expect that you would admit to any wrongdoing. However, the fact that your machine is tied to these machines through our access logs is unequivocal. Your failure to provide any explanation for this, or address this question in any form whatsoever, has led us to the same conclusion. We always have an ear for our client's perspective, but you have not helped us to shed any new light on this particular situation."
It did not get any less cryptic. I would gladly answer any question but there were no questions. I will gladly provide an explanation if I only knew what situation to explain. Below is my reply to Paradise:
"I would gladly explain you everything you want to know if you tell me what the situation is. Why do you think think that my machine is tied to other people machines? You only said that 3 people were transferring money into my account, sent me some histories that prove rather the opposite. Now you are saying that money were fradulently taken from credit cards (I presume by those 3 people?). Why don't you stop throwing accusations and we have a calm discussion as we should have before your jumping to conclusions.
I know that I did not do anything wrong. I also understand that, in your opinion I would have said that in any case. So, please, explain calmly, as you would explain to a third party or in court:
1. Explain in details what actually happened. 2. What makes you think credit card transactions were fraudulent? Did their owners dispute them? Did these cards/accounts actually belonged to one person or there are three different people? What makes you think that some loser(s) did not lose money and then disputed cc transaction? 3. What links my machine to other machines? Were they ever connected from my machine or I from theirs? Can you post records showing that? 4. Is the fradulent amount consistent with my winnings?
I will answer you message and we can come to the truth in the way of civilized people."
What could this statement "However, the fact that your machine is tied to these machines through our access logs is unequivocal" mean?
It probablt means that the machines are on a local area network. This means that the most likely complaint is colluding.
The implication is that these guys are on the same network. (Microsoft has a thingy Virtual Private Network) or just simly the machines are connected via frame relay TCP/IP. How they can say this ?By looking at the machines network foot prints. However I am very puzzled and disturbed by this post. Assume Paradise is right and states facts, why than this guy would make this post if he WAS doing this ??? I am confused but this is just one more reason for me to stay away.
Generally, it would mean that three computers are sharing the same IP address, or at least one in the same domain. The access logs for a web server will show the IP address of the machines requesting HTTP packets. If you are using three computers under the same proxy server, it will look like all requests are coming from the same IP address. That would be the case if, for instance, you were using the Microsoft Internet Connection Sharing in Win98 SE to put several computers on the same Cable or ADSL Modem.
That's exactly what I was thinking. 4 computers in my apartment use a NAT software called Sygate, very similar to proxy, to share a cable modem. If any of my roomates decided to play online at the same place at the same time as I did, this could be a serious problem.
Paradise should have been more specific about how the 3 computers were "connected". Very unprofessional on their part. This scares the hell out of me. In fact, I'm closing my Paradise account as we speak. Their refusal to give you details, along with obscure accusations is unacceptable to me.
I guess it's Planet Poker for me.
It does open a larger question as to what they consider grounds for confiscation. It's entirely possible that every computer in a college dormitory shares the same IP address. Certainly the computers in many small companies do, since the standard way for smaller companies to connect to the internet is to share a gateway using MS Proxy Server or something similar. There can be hunreds of PC's that look like they are 'connected', when the people using them don't even know the other people.
For that matter, I don't even know how my machine is presented to the internet, since I connect through the Shaw @home service. My computer is assigned an internal IP address from their DHCP server, but the address that my machine presents to the outside world comes from the other side of their firewall. I don't know if my machine shares IP addresses with others on the same router or what.
This is just one more difficulty in truly spotting online collusion.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by this. It has been a long time in coming. I would like to make a couple of comments.
First of all, assuming that this story is true, I have no doubt that Aslan was up to some funny business and got caught. In that respect I can't say that I'm sorry for Aslan.
On the other hand, Paradise was totally out of order for stealing Aslan's money. There is no excuse for what has been done. Paradise has stolen your money, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
I think we can safely upgrade the % chance that Paradise is dishonest to 100%.
Also note that this can happen to any one of you at any time. You have been warned.
AF
If this is all true, then it is disturbing that Paradise would confiscate funds rather than simply barring someone. The summary e-mail Aslan posted as Paradise's explanation did not seem to explain the situation clearly or in sufficient detail. It is also disturbing that Paradise would apparently shut the door at first on further contact or discussion.
*
How can PP barr any one from playing when they can change their handle and maybe computer and credit card and keep on playing.
It's a flip side of the coin. Avocado et al whine about you can't chase them down for your money they are in costa Rica. They can't press charges against you in the US and or have you banned from other casinos. If they didn't take the money, why wouldn't you just collude until you got caught, split with your profits, change IP address and mailing address and do it again? They only true deterent is that you waste all the time because they bag your account- ill got gains and any legitimate deposited dollars. More power to them. Cheaters are the lowest life form on earth that they must defraud other to maintain there pathetic existance. W
I have to point out that confiscating funds is the only real deterrant that Paradise has. I mentioned this in a message a while ago: If all Paradise can do is kick out people who are caught cheating, then there is in essence no deterrant at all, and people will cheat at will. This is the situation casinos face against card counters (who are not cheats, but the same principle applies). Since card counters can only be expelled, the casinos are full of them even though they spend millions on countermeasures.
Paradise knows this, so I guess they feel that their weapon against collusion is the confiscation of funds. The problem with this is that they really have no moral or ethical right to do so. They are a biased party, and should not have the power to unilaterally take such actions unless the patrons sign an explicit contract that allows for this. I can't remember if such a disclaimer was embedded in the original agreement I clicked on when I signed up, but I doubt it would hold up in court anyway.
In any event, even if it's all legal, clients of Paradise Poker should recognize the added risk that they will be incorrectly marked as colluders and have their property taken from them.
I can see your point about it being the only real deterrent available to Paradise; however, it is still disturbing since it is unilateral action and there may be no practical recourse for the party whose funds have been "confiscated." In addition, there is no apparent verification needed from a neutral third-party who could perhaps assess whether fraud or collusion were involved. Lastly, while it would be foolish for Paradise to steal players' monies this way, the fact that they stand to benefit financially from doing so may create a "conflict of interest" of sorts, and just might induce someone at Paradise to do so on less than iron-clad evidence. This may be somewhat akin to abuses of seizure laws on occasion by various government agencies.
Perhaps their intention is to return the money to the credit card company. ???
That could well be; I am not suggesting that they have other than good reasons for seizing it. I am merely observing that such unilateral seizures could potentially lead to possible abuses.
Exactly, which is what I meant when I said that Paradise is a biased observer.
At the very least, they should attempt to compensate whoever suffered damages from the collusion, if there was in fact collusion. If the credit cards used were stolen, of course the money should go back to credit card company. If not, then put the remainder of the money into a bad-beat jackpot available to all players, but even that benefits Paradise. But at least the money wouldn't just vanish.
For Paradise to reply on this forum? It is possible that they are reluctant to do so otherwise. (Again however, it is idiotic to think that they are doing this because they are merely greedy. Same argument as before.)
Doesn't matter whether they are doing it to be greedy. Like I said I am sure that Aslan has done something naughty. But it is still grossly dishonest for PP do do this without proof or due process.
I also have no doubt that the message from PP is authentic. It doesn't take a linguist to notice the vast differences in writing style between PP's message to Aslan and Aslan's writing. I seriously doubt that Aslan wrote both.
Think about it this way. If you went to the Bellagio to play, and they suspected you of collusion, would they just take all your chips away and send you packing? No they would not. They couldn't.
Finally we see that Paradise Poker is undeniably dishonest. 100% proof. What happened to all those 1 in 10000 estimates? I really wish someone had accepted my 5000 to 1 odds. Oh well.
AF
If one gets caught colluding in the Bellagio it's very often just a suspicion. When you catch a guy acting with others the prof is the pudding so to speak. The network footprint and records of credit card deposits allegedly from other players cards. This is much different from barring you from a casino where you never have any evidence like this against you. Also in cultural imperialism (my favorite PC word) we should not assume our right to impose our F-d up judicial system. Nobody is going to Hague to the world court over this. I admit it's a bit strong move but this is by no means theft. If this guy was colluding that I think we are pointing the finger to the wrong direction. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, He is the guilty party. I would however be intersted to know if they are building a fund for pro players who have extened loses at PP ? (Funds, much akin to California jackpots. <:{}
It is stealing - what other name would YOU call it? The money is in Aslan's account. They decided to close the account and keep all of the proceeds. They did it because they can and they know that Aslan has no recourse. None of the rest of you would be able to do anything about it either.
If you are a player who regularly plays 20-40 online, you must have a pretty big bankroll there. I would be VERY careful.
AF
I would say it's over-reaction and I don't condone it. However If do something shady in the stockmarket they also keep profits at the brokers office. I mean I free ride and can't put up margin, they CAN keep the profits Enough said ??? I mean it's his money, his ill gotten gains - if he colluded Any old network guy can prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt if he did it. I predict they will furnish you proof !!!!! Also I suspect they have some rules that they have posted on the site that says they can and will do this. Check 'em out. I don't want to defend them but collusion may be against their rules. (As mine)
What are they supposed to do when they catch somebody cheating? Kick them off the site? The cheaters should have their money ripped off, they are willing to rip others off for their money. This is the only punishment they have the capability of enforcing.
I do have some questions: Did the other people that you supposedly colluded with get their money confiscated? What does Paradise plan on doing with the money?
Since Paradise has the ability to go back and check out previous hands, this would be the only way that they could catch colluders. Then obviously, they can figure out all the people that were cheated and award each of them a percentage of the cheaters money until it is all dispersed.
I do not believe that it is right to keep the money. That statement goes for the cheaters and Paradise alike.
What you propose, Ed, is exactly what Planet Poker did when they found the cheaters there early on. They refunded monies to those that had been cheated.
If investigation by a poker site operator shows compelling evidence of collusion or any means by which players have been defrauded by one or more individuals, then, and ONLY then should any players' account be seized, and ONLY for the purpose of reimbursing those players who were defrauded.For any poker site operator to confiscate accounts for their own enrichment while insisting that they do so becuase they have " proof " that clients have been cheated, is unethical and creates an obvious conflict of interest. Without suitable candidates for reimbursement, where is the compelling evidence for fraud? If the evidence is there and no compensation for the victims of fraud...where is the integrity? As players we want a strong policy to deal with and discourage cheating online, but we can all shudder at the thought of even the possibility of having our accounts mistakenly seized with no recourse to appeal or adress the evidence.We do need some disclosure on this issue.
Results so far: 1 vote for guilty.
GUILTY AND JUST TRYING TO CAUSE UNREST... SEE MY OTHER POST.
Guilty
My thoughts exactly!
It should also be noted that we are not taking any money from anyone and in fact are sure to lose additional money in this fraud as some of the funds lost by the fraudulent players went to other players as the fraudulent accounts pathetically attempted to disguise their actions. The $2,500 in question will be returned to the credit cards that made the original purchases.
In conjunction to the technical proof, the Hand Histories below are clearly show the obvious intentional losing of the fraudulent accounts to their related party Aslan. We have included samples from each of the three players.
1. Please note the BLATANT folding of better hands even when the hand is checked to ensure Aslan wins the pot. 2. Please note the BLATANT raise, raise, call of hands that are visibly and guaranteed beaten (exposed cards in stud). 3. Please note how in each case with each player no matter the time they played, or the tables they played at, Aslan was sitting there at the exact same table even moving with them to different tables during the same session.
David, we appreciate your concerns since this fraudulent act has been made a public ordeal. When blatant cheating is committed we must act and in this case we have. Having responded to your request we wonder if you may do us the courtesy of posting something based on the evidence we have provided, if you wish to post our email in its entirety you have our permission.
If you have any further questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
Winston Paradise Poker Security
lkaer - Aslan hands (this is an administrator hand history which shows the players hole cards in the summary - these are being published based on the fact the hands were engaged in fraud):
Sounds like the little bastard has a nice little collusion scam going on for himself.
I hope he gets a public lynching like any good poker thief deserves.
Game #15576707 - $4/$8 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-19:42:15 (CST) Table "St. Lucia" [1016] (real money) Seat # 3: [$001075df] Aslan ($28.50 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079de] lkaer ($568.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($0.50) lkaer : Ante ($0.50) Dealt to Aslan [ Qh ] Dealt to lkaer [ 3c ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to lkaer [ 3h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] Dealt to lkaer [ 8h ] Aslan : Bring-in ($2) lkaer : Raise ($4) Aslan : Call ($2) Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Dealt to lkaer [ Qd ] lkaer : Bet ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) Dealt to Aslan [ 9h ] Dealt to lkaer [ 5h ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] Dealt to lkaer [ Ah ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to lkaer [ Jh ] lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $48 | Rake: $1 Aslan bet $24.50, collected $48, net +$23.50 [ Qh As 6c 5s 9h Ac 3s ] (a pair of aces) lkaer lost $24.50 (folded) [ 3c 3h 8h Qd 5h Ah Jh ] (a flush, ace high) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15578283 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-19:56:56 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" [1018] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($426.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001026fd] sweet lou ($262.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$0010000a] QuadAces ($556.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($362.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00100fa1] JoeFi ($398.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00104358] ezed. ($487.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($122.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102497] 10JQKA ($173.00 in chips) -- sitting out lkaer : Ante ($1) sweet lou: Ante ($1) QuadAces: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) JoeFi : Ante ($1) ezed. : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ 9d ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 9c ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 2c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 3d ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 6s ] Dealt to ezed. [ Tc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] Dealt to lkaer [ 5c ] Dealt to sweet lou [ Kc ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 7d ] Dealt to Phil King [ 8h ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 9s ] Dealt to ezed. [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8c ] Dealt to lkaer [ Qh ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 5s ] Dealt to QuadAces [ Qd ] Dealt to Phil King [ 6d ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 8d ] Dealt to ezed. [ 2s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7h ] ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) lkaer : Raise ($16) sweet lou: Fold QuadAces: Fold Phil King: Fold JoeFi : Call ($16) ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Force All-in Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ Ks ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 5d ] Dealt to ezed. [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ] lkaer : Bet ($8) JoeFi : Call ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Raise ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 6c ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 3c ] Dealt to ezed. [ 7c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kd ] lkaer : Bet ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 6h ] Dealt to JoeFi [ Qs ] Dealt to ezed. [ 8s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kh ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Call ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 4s ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 4h ] Dealt to ezed. [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Raise ($32) JoeFi : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Call ($16) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $23 | Side pot 1: $297 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $121 [ 9d 5c Qh Ks 6c 6h 4s ] (a pair of sixes) sweet lou lost $1 (folded) [ 9c Kc 5s ] QuadAces lost $1 (folded) [ 2c 7d Qd ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ 3d 8h 6d ] JoeFi lost $73 (folded) [ 6s 9s 8d 5d 3c Qs 4h ] (high card queen) ezed. bet $5, collected $23, net +$18 (showed hand) [ Tc Js 2s Jd 7c 8s Jh ] (three of a kind, jacks) Aslan bet $121, collected $297, net +$176 (showed hand) [ 4d 8c 7h 3h Kd Kh Ac ] (a pair of kings) 10JQKA didn't bet ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15579074 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-20:05:25 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" [1018] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($439.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001026fd] sweet lou ($235.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$0010000a] QuadAces ($593.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($358.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00100fa1] JoeFi ($310.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00104358] ezed. ($502.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($167.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102497] 10JQKA ($170.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) sweet lou: Ante ($1) QuadAces: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) JoeFi : Ante ($1) ezed. : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) 10JQKA : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ 3d ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 3s ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 6h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Kh ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 2s ] Dealt to ezed. [ 5c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] Dealt to 10JQKA [ Ah ] Dealt to lkaer [ 7h ] Dealt to sweet lou [ Ad ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 9c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 4s ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 9h ] Dealt to ezed. [ 8h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Td ] Dealt to 10JQKA [ 4h ] Dealt to lkaer [ Qd ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 9s ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 3h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qs ] Dealt to JoeFi [ Th ] Dealt to ezed. [ 3c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jh ] Dealt to 10JQKA [ 7c ] ezed. : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) 10JQKA : Fold lkaer : Raise ($16) sweet lou: Fold QuadAces: Fold Phil King: Fold JoeFi : Fold ezed. : Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 5h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8d ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 5s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Ts ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5d ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Jc ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] lkaer : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $217 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $105 (folded) [ 3d 7h Qd 5h 5s Ts Jc ] (a pair of fives) sweet lou lost $1 (folded) [ 3s Ad 9s ] QuadAces lost $1 (folded) [ 6h 9c 3h ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Kh 4s Qs ] JoeFi lost $1 (folded) [ 2s 9h Th ] ezed. lost $5 (folded) [ 5c 8h 3c ] Aslan bet $121, collected $233, net +$112 [ 4d Td Jh 8d 6c 5d Ac ] (high card ace) 10JQKA lost $1 (folded) [ Ah 4h 7c ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15693589 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-21:49:10 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($356.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00101f47] all gone ($727.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00103f10] MAKEaRUN ($302.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 4: [$00102457] antics ($2,187.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($431.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$001075df] Aslan ($234.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($387.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($844.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) all gone: Ante ($1) antics : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ Ad ] Dealt to all gone [ Tc ] Dealt to antics [ Kh ] Dealt to BarryB [ Qd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9h ] Dealt to last try [ 5s ] Dealt to slex2 [ 6c ] Dealt to lkaer [ 9d ] Dealt to all gone [ Jh ] Dealt to antics [ 7c ] Dealt to BarryB [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] Dealt to last try [ 5d ] Dealt to slex2 [ 4c ] Dealt to lkaer [ 8h ] Dealt to all gone [ Qh ] Dealt to antics [ Kd ] Dealt to BarryB [ 4d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6d ] Dealt to last try [ 8d ] Dealt to slex2 [ 2c ] slex2 : Bring-in ($4) lkaer : Raise ($8) all gone: Call ($8) antics : Raise ($16) BarryB : Fold Aslan : Call ($16) last try: Fold slex2 : Call ($12) lkaer : Call ($8) all gone: Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 3d ] Dealt to all gone [ 2h ] Dealt to antics [ 6s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to slex2 [ Th ] antics : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) slex2 : Call ($8) lkaer : Call ($8) all gone: Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ Ah ] Dealt to all gone [ Td ] Dealt to antics [ 9c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qs ] Dealt to slex2 [ 8c ] lkaer : Bet ($16) all gone: Call ($16) antics : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Call ($32) lkaer : Raise ($32) all gone: Call ($32) antics : Call ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) slex2 : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 8s ] Dealt to all gone [ 2d ] Dealt to antics [ 6h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] Dealt to slex2 [ As ] lkaer : Bet ($16) all gone: Call ($16) antics : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Fold lkaer : Call ($16) all gone: Call ($16) antics : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 4s ] Dealt to all gone [ 7d ] Dealt to antics [ 4h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] lkaer : Check all gone: Check antics : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Raise ($32) all gone: Fold antics : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $556 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $137 (folded) [ Ad 9d 8h 3d Ah 8s 4s ] (two pair, aces and eights) all gone lost $105 (folded) [ Tc Jh Qh 2h Td 2d 7d ] (two pair, tens and twos) MAKEaRUN didn't bet antics lost $105 (folded) [ Kh 7c Kd 6s 9c 6h 4h ] (two pair, kings and sixes) BarryB lost $1 (folded) [ Qd Jd 4d ] Aslan bet $153, collected $572, net +$419 [ 9h Ks 6d 2s Qs 9s Qc ] (two pair, queens and nines) last try lost $1 (folded) [ 5s 5d 8d ] slex2 lost $73 (folded) [ 6c 4c 2c Th 8c As ] (high card ace) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15694631 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-21:59:23 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($293.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($200.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 3: [$00103f10] MAKEaRUN ($302.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00102457] antics ($2,002.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($453.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$001075df] Aslan ($532.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($504.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($750.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) MAKEaRUN: Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ 2c ] Dealt to MAKEaRUN [ 6s ] Dealt to BarryB [ 4s ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to last try [ Th ] Dealt to slex2 [ 8d ] Dealt to lkaer [ 5h ] Dealt to MAKEaRUN [ 4d ] Dealt to BarryB [ 6h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Js ] Dealt to last try [ Qc ] Dealt to slex2 [ Jd ] Dealt to lkaer [ Kd ] Dealt to MAKEaRUN [ Kh ] Dealt to BarryB [ 2d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2h ] Dealt to last try [ 7c ] Dealt to slex2 [ 8h ] BarryB : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) last try: Fold slex2 : Call ($4) lkaer : Raise ($8) MAKEaRUN: Fold BarryB : Call ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) slex2 : Call ($4) Dealt to lkaer [ 8s ] Dealt to BarryB [ 6d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] Dealt to slex2 [ 6c ] Aslan : Check slex2 : Check lkaer : Bet ($8) BarryB : Call ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) slex2 : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 3h ] Dealt to BarryB [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4h ] Dealt to slex2 [ Ad ] slex2 : Check lkaer : Bet ($16) BarryB : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Fold lkaer : Raise ($32) BarryB : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Ts ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7s ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $243 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $97 (folded) [ 2c 5h Kd 8s 3h Ts Jh ] (high card king) celtics didn't bet MAKEaRUN lost $1 (folded) [ 6s 4d Kh ] antics didn't bet BarryB lost $33 (folded) [ 4s 6h 2d 6d 9h ] (a pair of sixes) Aslan bet $113, collected $259, net +$146 [ As Js 2h Ac 4h 8c 7s ] (a pair of aces) last try lost $1 (folded) [ Th Qc 7c ] slex2 lost $17 (folded) [ 8d Jd 8h 6c Ad ] (a pair of eights) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15695212 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-22:04:47 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($165.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($197.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00103f10] MAKEaRUN ($294.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00102457] antics ($1,999.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($590.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$001075df] Aslan ($635.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($420.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($726.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) celtics : Ante ($1) MAKEaRUN: Ante ($1) antics : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1)
Is there any doubt?......
Guilty as sin.
If we try him as an adult (which this fool hardly is), we might be able to get the death penalty.
Internet Gambling
Posted by: edwin scrieber
Posted on: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 10:44 a.m.
Posted by: Adam (checkraise@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 6:58 a.m.
Posted by: pp player
Posted on: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Al
Posted on: Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: gary
Posted on: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: pp player
Posted on: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 2:59 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 10:10 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 1:11 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 3:47 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 4:18 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 1:20 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: hoosierdaddy (trentaustin61@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 10:59 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 8:09 a.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 5:14 a.m.
Posted by: gary
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 9:52 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: John (non@none.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 9:59 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 9:05 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: thecat (thecat_08021@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: thecat (thecat_08021@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: a voice of reason in the wildrness
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: You can post here
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 1:53 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: maven's friend
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: M..whoever that is(Mason?) is correct
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 8:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Some truthful analysis by Mark
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Maven read my posts...Ha Ha
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: Darren
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jonas L (hadiraja@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 July 2000, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: don't celebrate yet.
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: 243 IS A CONSESUS
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: gary
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: clinton has said he would sign
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 9:33 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: I never said Costa Rica has no extradition
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 9:43 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: Josey Wales
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: Doc Holiday
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: Willy888 (bmboy888@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 3:45 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Willy888 (bmboy888@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dr Feelgood
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 9:51 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 9:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:19 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:30 a.m.
Posted by: Wrong Fourm Man
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: John Rowan (rowanj@hawaii.rr.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:31 a.m.
Posted by: Old Pro
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 3:54 a.m.
Posted by: Ed HIll (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: Hren (w@qew.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 9:45 a.m.
Posted by: 75k a year on planet poker?
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 10:01 a.m.
Posted by: Hren (w@qew.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 10:29 a.m.
Posted by: gary
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 9:52 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:56 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 9:59 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 12:02 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: i make typing mistakes all the time
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: Willy888 (bmboy888@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 1:37 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Darren
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 5:26 a.m.
Posted by: gary
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:14 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: John Rowan (rowanj@hawaii.rr.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:49 a.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Incognito (jtf9@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: dale (poloman99@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:02 a.m.
Posted by: stud player (none@m.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Spargur (arturo@keynet.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:47 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:02 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: gary
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: p.s. gary teitelman
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Malik Salaam (loyalty@2die4.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Mullen (dwmullen@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: pp player
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: THE LIGHT
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: QBobSr (qbob@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Z.
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Z.
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: oscar (obrianmc@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: PSM
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankersteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: Chuck
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:11 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:19 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 12:41 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: thecat (thecat_08021@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: PR (prosenkrands@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:59 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: Mit (nose_hair@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Big_Al (nobody@special.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: Adam (checkraise@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Darren
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
Posted by: Raffles
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 5:58 a.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:39 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: thecat (thecat_08021@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: PR (prosenkrands@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: pp player
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:29 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:55 a.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 9:03 a.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: PSM
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Mit (nose_hair@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankensteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Darren
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: QBobSr (qbob@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 12:17 a.m.
Posted by: Raffles
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:12 a.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 5:31 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: Bryan
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Zorro (holdemzorro@icqmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:05 a.m.
Posted by: Raffles
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:28 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado fat free
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: gen (chiplead@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Raffles
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:44 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: Avocado fat free
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:29 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: Ed I
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:19 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 5:18 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 6:06 a.m.
Posted by: Raffles
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 7:43 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 8:33 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:13 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: RS
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: RS
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Pedantic Police (pedantic@picayune.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: Pedantic Police (pedantic@picayune.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Adam (checkraise@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 9:59 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 2:24 a.m.
Posted by: Paul R. Pudaite
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Hrothgar
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Tom D (tomdv@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: Avocado fat free
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:51 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: Gary
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado fat free
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fat Free
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 1:35 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankersteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Player (none@m.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 9:43 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankersteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Player (none@m.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Player (none@m.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:02 a.m.
Posted by: Wiseguy
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Nolan Dalla (nolandalla@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 10:12 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "The Options Maven" (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "The Options Maven"
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 8:23 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@acm.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 11:24 a.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 1:38 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: John M (jumpsetter@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 1:00 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: wahnfried
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: wahnfried
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Malik Salaam
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: dk
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: dk (Davidked@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 5:09 a.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 3:20 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:12 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 11:10 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: ray sringfield
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: ray sringfield
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: asd
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: dk (davidked@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: asd
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Adam (checkraise@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 5:13 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: asd
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: asd
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 1:13 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (Winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: anonymous
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (Winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (Winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Mullen (dwmullen@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: PR (pokerpete@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankersteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 2:59 a.m.
Posted by: PR (pokerpete@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 7:25 a.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Deep-throat
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 6:29 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: ray sringfield
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Maven and M, the same person?
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Deep-throat
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: thecat (thecat_08021@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 July 2000, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: Deep-throat
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Bryan
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 2:17 a.m.
Posted by: Bryan
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: ron (ronbeardslee@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: HAWKIN
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: steve (steveylee@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 July 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: steve (steveylee@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: admit u r an addict
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 3:54 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 9:45 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: Justin Honold (jhonold@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: player
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 8:49 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 July 2000, at 9:30 p.m.
Posted by: Deep-throat
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 2:22 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:48 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Wiseguy
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Wiseguy
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: CB (cwb124@psu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Coyote (kanscoyote@webtv.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: Wankers
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Uneasy (aplayer@dont.cheatham.tc)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 8:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Deep-throat
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:39 p.m.
Posted by: Deep-throat
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: WHAT ??
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: Wankers
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Mullen (dwmullen@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Mullen (dwmullen@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:59 p.m.
July 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo