Internet Poker: (Un) Licensed to Steal

[McCamy Taylor]

Intro. Internet Gambling is “Recession Proof”

When people talk about public health threats, they think about diseased like influenza and cancer. Maybe they consider the environment. Global warming, air pollution. Often, they forget that some of the biggest threats to our health come from voluntary activities, like war, gun violence. And organized gambling.

I am writing about this topic in DU, because one of the few industries that has been able to thrive during the recession is internet gambling. You know, on-line poker, games like that. Here is an article about the amazing resilience of on-line gambling, even in the face of players who have less money to squander.

http://casino.bodoglife.com/casino-gambling-news/is-online-gambling-recession-proof-86068.html

Like you've seen a billion times on every single 24/7 news channel in the past few months, the United States has had trouble paying its bills lately. But surprisingly, according to a firm specializing in studying international gambling patterns, most people have been keeping their spirits up in an unexpected way - with online gaming.
Despite the U.S. and the world building debt like a teen with her first Visa, the worldwide take for online gambling in 2008 passed $20 billion for the first time ever.

People who run internet casinos probably think this is great news. The rest of us should be alarmed. This is like reading a report that says alcohol sales are up because of the recession or cigarette sales are up or more people are turning to drugs. Despite the fact that a handful of people make a living from gambling (mostly poker players), it is still a costly and potential addictive pastime for the rest of us.

Since poker is supposed to be the best bet for those who want to gamble---you play other people and not against a casino that stacks the odds in its favor---I am going to write about internet poker.

I. Yes, Virginia, Other Players CAN See Your Hidden Cards When You Play Poker Online

If you were holding that Ace seven in the example illustrated above, you would like to know about the guy with the seven ten full house. It might mean to difference between losing your shirt and getting out in time. If you held the seven ten, you might want to know that two of your opponents have hands that are so good that they will match whatever crazy bet you make, increasing your winnings.

Back in 2005, Jonathon M. Katz at Slate wrote:

Some players allege there are software hacks that allow you to see your opponent's cards. But that's almost certainly a myth. "If it were really possible, online poker wouldn't last very much longer," said Matthew Hilger, a poker writer who runs the magazine site InternetTexasHoldEm.com.

http://www.slate.com/id/2112213/

Wrong and wrong again. From a November, 2008 Washington Post story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901679_5.html?sid=ST2008112902159

In 2007 and 2008, internet gamblers proved that some players can see their opponent’s hidden cards—giving them complete control of the popular game Texas Hold’em, in which everyone is dealt two face down cards with which they try to put together a winning hand using five face up communal cards. In the first case, at Absolute Poker, a former owner and current employee rigged the software so he was able to learn what his opponents were playing. His take? Estimated at $1.6 million, all scammed from other players. In the second case, at Ultimate Bet, a sister site of Absolute Poker, a group of former employees had left behind “back doors”---deliberate flaws in the site’s security---which they exploited to steal $20 million from unsuspecting players.

Scary? Yes. Here is something that is even scarier. Absolute Poker paid back the $1.6 million to the players who had been cheated, but it refused to press charges against the former owner/current employee who had committed the fraud. No one was prosecuted for the Ultimate Bet cheating either.

Now, in the gambling world, casinos typically prosecute cheaters to the fullest extent of the law. This serves two purposes. It discourages scam artists from trying to take advantage of the gambling houses. And it is a public relations measure designed to give all the non-cheating players the impression that the site is safe and that management is doing everything possible to keep the gaming fair.

In the wake of the proven insider scam, Absolute Poker’s situation was a public relation’s disaster. If people thought that the site’s creators had rigged the system so that they could steal from people who played there, who would keep playing at Absolute Poker? It was essential that the new owners of the business prove to the world that they did not approve of the scam by prosecuting, prosecuting and prosecuting. But they did not do it. Instead,

Unbeknown to the players, AbsolutePoker had already cut a secret deal with the cheater, whom it characterized as a "consultant with managerial responsibilities." The company agreed not to release his name in return for a "full and detailed explanation" of how he cheated, according to company officials and other interviews. AbsolutePoker also agreed not to sue the cheater or turn him over to Costa Rican authorities, company officials told The Post.

Now, why would AbsolutePoker let someone get away with this, knowing that their lack of action would make them look complicit? The most likely explanation is that the “consultant with managerial responsibilities” had information that would turn this public relation’s disaster into a public relations nightmare of epic proportions. He knew something about AbsolutePoker that would make it even harder for the site to win the trust of internet gamblers.

The rest of this journal will discuss what the “consultant with managerial responsibilities” (if you want to find out his name, Google. Lots of other sites identify him.) might have known that earned him a Get Out of Jail Free card.

II. Internet Gambling Is Addictive

Before I go any farther, I want to remind folks that gambling is an addiction . Just like heroin abuse. Just like alcoholism. You get a high or rush before you bet, as you anticipate your winnings and how absolutely fabulous you will feel. If you win, the rush is even greater. When you lose instead, you experience a rapid come down that is exactly like the feelings of withdrawal that make junkies take a second hit or send drinkers back to the bottle. The only way to relieve this negative feeling is to cast another bet, and the cycle starts all over again.

It might be helpful to compare gambling to another, much more familiar addiction, Cigarettes are habit forming not because they are so fun to smoke. It is the withdrawal that keeps people buying them, even as the price has climbed to over four dollars a pack. People will do all kinds of foolish things---like shell out their hard earned money and put themselves at risk for lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema and make their clothes all stinky---to prevent the short term discomfort associated with withdrawal. Since tobacco withdrawal is physiologically worse in African-Americans (their livers clear nicotine more rapidly, and it is the slope of the rise and decline of a drug in the blood that determines how bad the withdrawal will be) they have an especially difficult time quitting, even though they experience greater social pressures to stop. Plus, cigarette manufacturers manipulate their product to make the withdrawal phase worse, in order to get people to smoke, because cigarette addiction gets them more customers and more money. (Links at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/393075.stm and http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0154.pdf )


The exact same principle can be exploited by those who make money from gamblers. Rapid rise in pleasure from betting and winning. Rapid fall in pleasure from losing. Changes in pulse and blood pressure. Alterations in body hormone levels that can make people start acting irrationally. (Here is a link about rise in salivary cortisol among gamblers http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000632230000888X ) And internet poker, which is located in other countries and which is completely unregulated and which can be accessed by a click of the mouse has even more opportunity than a Vegas Casino to set up a system that will increase the rate of addiction.

Here is an American Psychiatric Association discussion of the risks of internet gambling along with the signs of problem gambling:

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/980804285.html

Internet gambling can be more dangerous than other forms of gambling since there are few - if any - regulations as to fairness, and most of the operators are outside the US. These operations are not regulated by state or federal statutes, so there is no control over the types of games available or the ages of the participants. Hackers can manipulate the games, and can gain access to credit card numbers and funds.

The part about no control over the age of participants is important. Young people are more likely to become hooked on gambling, the same way they are more likely to become addicted to cigarettes.

Here is another link which describes internet poker as the most addictive internet application (and you thought that was political forums like DU.)

http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,49286979,00.htm

Now, just as cigarette companies can manipulate their products to deliver a lot of nicotine quickly and then lower blood levels fast, creating the withdrawal that makes smokers light up again and again, it is possible for the designers of internet poker sites to make their product more addicting by designing their software to simulate something other than completely random play. And, given the level of mathematical sophistication employed by those who profit from gambling, if it is possible to increase profit margins by attracting more dedicated gamblers, you can bet that the internet poker sites have thought about it…and maybe even done it.


III. Software Designed to Feed the Gambling Addiction

Internet gambling sites make money by keeping a small percentage of the winnings---their “rake”. They also generate revenue through advertising. Higher volume means more money. If everyone is going to your opponent’s internet gambling site, then your business will suffer.

There are ways that a site can increase its traffic. Sponsoring tournaments with great cash prizes is one. Giving people bonuses for playing more, is another. However, these incentives cost money, and they are mainly going to appeal to the “pros” or semi-pros---the people who have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the big money in a tournament.

If you want to design an internet poker site that rakes in the customers---and cash---your best bet is to exploit the fact that you are dealing with a game that is potentially addicting. Rather than getting a hundred million people to visit once, you get a million people to visit every day for three or four years. That is a billion “visits”. According to the CNET link above, average players at one site spent over 10 hours online a month, or the equivalent of one work day with overtime. Most people would not work an extra day (with overtime) for no pay. But they will sit at a computer for hours playing poker just to break even.

And even more people will spend more hours in this fruitless pursuit, if the game is made more addicting.

Here is what I would do if I were an unscrupulous internet gambling site developer. First, I would study the psychology of addicted gamblers. Take this article entitled Lessons from the Grey Area: A Closer Inspection of At-risk Gamblers.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r6100m67752n7t1k/

Furthermore, gambling problems in the family, beginners luck and misconceptions about winning chances significantly increased the odds for at-risk gambling.

Bingo! Design your internet gambling software to give new players better chances at winning----lots of paired face cards and aces, lots of flushes, full houses and straights. Convince them that they have what it takes to make big money at poker by giving them a small taste of victory when they first start. People being what they are, they will attribute their initial “winnings” to skill, and if their winnings turn to losses later, they will blame that on luck.

Second, you can design the software to periodically feed the craving of addicted gamblers. No one likes to lose. If they lose forever, they may give up. Gambling only works if people occasionally taste the thrill of victory. Then, they will chase the cards, looking for that same thrill again. And the pleasure is increased if they win big several times in a row. That gives the impression that they are (finally) doing something right. Behavioral psychology has shown that people are more likely to repeat certain tasks if they believe that they are in control of the result---the principle of self efficacy. Intermittent rewards also increase the frequency with which a behavior is practiced. Reward a monkey for pushing a button every time, and he gets bored. Reward him occasionally, and he will soon become an addicted button pusher.

So, design the software to give players small, discrete units of improbably good luck. They will win four or five hands in a row with flushes, full houses, paired cards that turn into trips on the river etc. Better yet, give the opponents of designated lucky players some halfway decent hands at the same time, so that they bet big, increasing the “lucky” player’s winnings.

This strategy will give your players the wrong impression about the chances of certain hands being dealt. They may start playing even crap starting hands, because they have been taught that the cards they need to create a winning hand will always show up. Most important, the strategy provides the intermittent positive reinforcement that will keep them pushing that button like a dutiful little monkey. Even though each push of the button is costing them time and money.

IV. I Go Gambling

As far as I can tell from my Googling, no one has done a statistical analysis of the game play at internet poker sites to see if these software strategies are being employed. So, I will have to present anecdotal evidence, which is as unscientific as hell, but please read on. Many proven scientific findings got their start as anecdotal reports.

Because I have a close friend who plays internet poker, I decided to check it out. I am not a gambler by nature. I do not buy lottery tickets. When I go to Vegas with gamblers, I shop. The way I look at it, I would rather flush my money down the toilet. However, I have played a number of card games like Magic, Pokemon and YuGiOh, so I understand the mathematics behind card play that combines a random factor with a player controlled factor. And the basic psychology of card players is the same regardless of the game they are playing. There are bluffers, control freaks, players who rely on luck or hunches, players who deliberately alter their style of play to fool their opponents, players who distract their opponents with mindless chatter (me, me, me), players who rush their opponents, players who deliberately try to antagonize their opponents in order to throw off their game, players who are too “nice” to beat.

When I started playing for cash, I noticed that it was incredibly easy to make money---at first. Anything I touched turned to gold. Since I have never read a poker book, played real poker and was not always sure which hands beat other hands (“Is a straight better than three of a kind?”), this beginner’s luck was very suspicious. It soon disappeared, and I began to win pots at about the same rate that everyone else did.

Now, chaotic play which opponent’s can not read is a winning strategy in some card games. So, I can not be certain that my initial wins did not derive from that effect. However, I am not the only person who has wondered whether internet sites try to addict new players with phony beginner’s luck.

http://www.tightpoker.com/partypoker/

Some people think that the sites purposely give new players "beginner's luck" which causes them to win more. The idea is that the new player won't lose immediately and become discouraged and quit. Most of the serious players think this is really is nonsense, myself included.

http://www.tightpoker.com/partypoker/

Sorry, but I can not take the opinion of an addicted gambler (and in my opinion, all people who make a living off poker are addicts) as proof that the game to which he is addicted is safe. Everyone wants to believe that their own personal obsession is a good one.

From the same site.

There's been a lot of heated arguments that online poker is rigged and that there is cheating in online poker. Usually the argument is that the sites offer 'action flops', which means that it deals good hands to each person, giving all of them more reason to stay in the pot and bet more. In theory, this would make more money for the poker sites, but in reality, the online poker sites usually cap the rake at a certain amount. In this case, there is no benefit for the poker sites from having action flops.

Here, the author completely misses the point. Internet sites would not toss out an unusual number of good hands to raise their rake. They would do it, because they understand the behavioral psychology which I described above. More positive reinforcement means more addicted players. That equals higher profits.

Here is what I observed. Players seem to get quantum units of unreasonably good “luck”. The same player will get paired kings, paired aces, a straight, a flush, two pair all in a row. And then, a new player at the table will get the “luck”. I have never observed this phenomenon in the ten years that I have been playing other cards games that are not played for money, like Magic and Pokemon. There, the draw is always random—and when it isn’t, it is because someone did not let the opponent cut a (stacked) deck (especially common in games played by younger kids, like Pokemon).

This passing of the luck around the table pattern in online poker eventually allowed me to predict which cards people would be dealt and who would win the pots just by observing the hands that had come before. If someone had the artificial luck, I learned to avoid a confrontation with that player---until the luck got passed to me, and then I would find myself able to predict with uncanny accuracy that the cards needed to complete a straight were going to come up (“The next card will be an eight. The next card will be a ten.”) Now, since I am not the Amazing Kreskin, if I find myself predicting what the next card is going to be over and over again, it means that I must have detected a pattern. We recognize patterns subconsciously at first, and alter our actions even before we notice them consciously.

Now, how on earth could there be a pattern to cards that are supposed to be dealt with a state of the art random number generator? Either the site uses a crappy program to deal the cards---and that has happened before. One site's random number generator was deciphered by players who used the info to cheat---or the cards are being dealt in a non random way.

Addicted gamblers will point out that anything is possible if you observe enough random play, even three of four royal flushes in a row. And a roomful of monkeys with typewriters will eventually type Hamlet if you give them until the end of time. However, this does not explain my new, incredible "psychic" powers. You can not predict with absolute confidence (the kind that lets you make a wild and crazy bet, secure in the knowledge that it will pay off) what a turn card will be, unless something other than chance is determining what that turn card will be.

If you watch poker games on television, you will soon notice that you can predict the out come. That is because the television program is staged. They select hands for their drama, meaning that the viewer soon learns to anticipate that the most exciting outcome is the one he or she is about to witness. Online poker play has that same choreographed feel.

I would really love to see someone do a statistical analysis of game play on one of these sites. The ideal way to do it would be to fill up the table with researchers, play every hand to the river (the last card) or every x hand to the river where x is generated in some way that the folks running the site would not be able to predict, and see what happens. Since the wins and losses would be occurring within the same group, the cost of this kind of study would be negligible. As the study progresses, add “new” players and see what hands they get dealt.

I think the results would surprise some poker players. Or maybe not. Savvy players could make a bundle off a rigged system like the one I describe above. In that case, they would be the loudest to scream It is all fair!

IV. Guilty Until Proven Innocent

People who swear by the absolute integrity of online poker sites will say that the above scenario is impossible. The risks are too great if the sites are ever caught. The problem with this often repeated argument , the sites have already been caught cheating . Employees and ex-employees scammed millions from customers, no one was ever prosecuted and play on these sites continues.

Moral: cheating on internet poker pays.

As far as we know, the folks who can see the hidden cards are still out there. As one expert pointed out, if the cheating players had simply lost a few hands occasionally instead of winning every single time, no one would have been able to catch them. If they had played at the lower level tables where there are no pros and things are more anonymous, they would have not been caught either. Anyone who has played one of the on-line multiplayer games like Final Fantasy XI knows that there are people (often in poor countries like Vietnam) who will play those games full time just to accumulate fake game money that they can sell online for small amounts of real dollars. The same people who camped monsters for hours on-line for meager real world profits could make a killing if they had a hack or a back door that let them see the opponent’s cards in Texas Hold’em. And they would take care not to get caught, since this would be their livelihood.

I have nothing against poker. It is probably the only sensible casino game. However, if folks want to play poker, they should look for a live game, where real cards are shuffled and dealt. Given what we have witnessed in recent years from bankers and Wall Street investors who have been willing to scam their customers, despite the terrible risks they face if they are caught, who can doubt that internet poker game operators and players will use every cheat possible to increase their profit? Particularly now that they have seen that getting caught cheating has no negative repercussions for then at all.

As the film The Magic Christian showed, people nowadays will do almost anything for money.

[itsrobert]

1. Not to mention

That someone can be playing more than one hand via multi-connections. Or they could have friends sitting in with other hands.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. I did not even get into all the player cheats. But yes, those are easy as pie, too.

Everyone knows about the players who work as teams, either to drive up the bets or to feed each other information about what cards have already been dealt. For instance, if you have Ace King and one of your buddies has a king and the other has an ace, your hand just became much less valuable. Or if someone just bet as if they have paired the jack and you have a pair of queens, knowing that a third jack is in your friend's hand will allow you to take the hand to the river more safely, which increases the amount that you will win.

[JackDragna]

9. This post is very silly.

Firstly, the statistical advantage, in many cases, gained from knowing a single hole card is miniscule. The amount you'll win in the long haul is small over not having the information. Secondly, the number of times the cards your "buddy" will tell you that will help out will be small. Lastly, poker sites are a lot better than you think at catching collusion, particularly in tournaments.

[D-Lee]

38. Compulsive addictive behavior is increased by some drugs (link)

Internet gambling compulsions can be increased by certain drugs. See this Mayo Clinic report:


Medicines Trigger Compulsive Behaviors

Some drugs used to treat Parkinson's disease may trigger uncontrollable urges to gamble, but this complication is considered extremely rare. But a small Mayo Clinic study suggests that as many as one in five patients taking dopamine agonist drugs such as Mirapex or Requip develop compulsive behaviors around gambling or sexuality at therapeutic doses. Reducing the dose or changing to a different drug resolved the behavior issues, though a few patients had gotten extensive psychiatric treatment before the link to the Parkinson's drug was uncovered.

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/84/4/310

[LuvNewcastle]

3. I've known a lot of people who

play poker for a living. They all play in home games or casinos. None of them would think about playing online. Great post -- a lot of good info in there.

[Old and In the Way]

4. I've banked $300,000 playing Texas Hold 'Em

Unfortunately, it's only for fun. Still, I enjoy the game and I doubt anyone hacks thegame to win fake money.

[Greyskye]

27. dupe delete

hic-up

[Greyskye]

28. I've made over $2,000,000.00 at one online poker site

But as in your case, it's all play money. Ah well.

[Lucky Luciano]

5. Nice post....

I have always wanted to parlay my poker skills in real life to the internet, but have been afraid to do so because of all the things you say. As such, I have to play home games and go to Atlantic City when I have time....lately I have no time! I love the gamke very much though and have a pretty good edge.

[JackDragna]

8. You have little to fear.

The games, by and large, are fair. Most of the criticisms leveled here are unwarranted.

[JackDragna]

6. There's pretty exhausitve research done on poker sites..

..by many of the players. Most full-time players keep logs of all their hands (if possible) and share their data with others. As I recall, the Absolute Poker cheater was caught, in part, to people noticing a certain betting pattern by a particular player based on their hand histories. It's possible to win good money playing online. It's not without risk, but the bigger sites are, for the most part, fairly run.

I'm also rather disturbed by your need to dismiss the words of those with whom you take umbrage by taking shots at their character. Just because someone does something for a living does not make them "addicted" any more that my teaching makes me "addicted" to teaching. Furthermore, that you had beginner's luck is not indicative the sites are trying to bait you. It makes no sense, for the same reason the sites try awfully hard to prevent cheating: you're not competing against the house. The house has a vested interest in keeping games going, not promoting individual players. In addition, your experience ultimately is anecdotal. I play internet poker, and have at a number of sites. Sometimes, I do very well, initially. Sometimes, I get housed.

As far as your claim that you can "predict" when cards will show up, I ask this very simple question: why do poker players who log a significant amount of hours online not report this? If it's so obvious, why do they keep spending their money? If the game is rigged to promote certain outcomes, why do players with lots of money at stake, many of whom track all their hands, keep at it? Internet poker players aren't dumb. When you can produce some data suggesting your claims, the poker community will read it eagerly. Until then, you're not really making any salient points.

[Truth2Tell]

7. You can't seem to make up your mind in this post

whether you oppose internet gambling on principle, or if you just oppose cheating at online gambling.

If it's the former then I suggest getting off of your high horse and sticking your moralizing...

If it's just the later, well, you sure used a lot of words to say it.

No Rec.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Poker is a good game. Internet poker right now is a sucker's game.

It's the equivalent of handing out your social security number and credit card number to strangers who ask for it on-line, IMO. Something most of us do not do.

Plus, you lose your biggest edge when you can not see your opponent's face to read his hand and whether or not he is bluffing. I hated Magic on-line for the same reason. And any internet game be it Magic, Go whatever breeds cheaters who exploit the limitations of the vehicle----the internet---even if there is no money involved. I had to stop playing internet Go, because so many people used stupid cheats (like leaving the table in a no time limit game if they were losing so that the opponent would get tired and forfeit) that there was no real playing going on.

[aikoaiko]

10. Quick thoughts.

1. People cheating at poker is as old as poker. Poker players expect it. These things happen.

2. "Gambling is an addiction" is way too strong. It is for some, but not for most. Many people drink and use drugs recreationally and all is well.

3. Software designed to feed addition? Thats a lot of speculation there. There's nothing wrong with providing an interesting fun experience.

4. You went gambling and had some luck and then it went away. This is common. It happens at tables too. It happened to me. If the scam you described is true, all you would have to do is open new accounts every week to beat the system.

5. Innocent until proven guilty: Really, all you have is speculation and evidence of a few cheats, but I think its important for folks to play with their eyes open and make good choices.

[madeline_con]

12. so what

[BobTheSubgenius]

13. I know this is just one anecdote in an ocean of anecdotes, but it seemed pretty suspicious to me.

A friend of mine is a VERY good player and wins a lot more than he loses at "live" games. He has virtually stopped playing online because of a number of incidents that he considered more than suspicious. This one is the one that stuck in my mind, though.

He had pocket 4's, and the pre-flop betting wasn't too heavy, so he called. The flop comes, and there are the other two 4's. Naturally, he can hardly believe his luck.....although the larger bets are kind of odd. The flopped 4's are good to no one but him, and if the third card was a help to someone else, they'd have to keep the thought of one of the others having a 4. I'm sure no one would think there was a pair of them out there.

Anyway.....the turn and the river are both 6's, which REALLY helped the player who had the other two. My friend LOSES with 4-of-a-kind! After the flop, but before the turn, he must have been AT LEAST the 98% favourite. (I dunno, I slept through statistics courses. Actually, that's a lie. I never even went to them.)

First....what are the odds of this happening? Sure, if it CAN happen, it eventually will, but it's still an incredible long shot.

Second.....with no help at all on the flop, a pair of 6's doesn't look that great. The heavy bets MUST have told him that someone had a 4, or at least a pair of overcards, yet he called.

I know. This could happen in an honest game, but it's very peculiar.

[wysimdnwyg]

20. The situation you describe is rare, but not THAT rare

Whether it is four of a kind, a straight flush or whatever, the odds of hitting the exact two cards you need on the turn and river are the same: 0.1%, or 1 in 1000.

Now, sure, this seems like some pretty long odds, and it is. But consider two things:
1. How many hands does your friend play? For the average internet player, it's roughly 60-100 hands per hour, per table (many online players will have two, five, many tables going at once). Now, assuming only one table at a time, and 4 hours of play per day, it will take roughly a month for your friend to play not 1,000 hands, but 10,000. Multiply that by four tables and 2-3 times as much time played in that month, and the number of hands just went WAY up. Instead of 10,000 hands in a month, your friend may be playing 100,000 hands in a month, which is very common for online pros.

2. What stakes does your friend play? Does he play micro stakes (10c/25c or less), medium (25c/50c - 3/6) or big stakes (higher than 3/6)? If he's playing micro or medium stakes, you can rule out player cheating. It happens at medium stakes, and even at micro, but it's typically not organized like the Absolute and Ultimate Bet situations in the OP. At those levels, it's usually just two or three people who know each other, playing at the same table and sharing their hole card information. (For those who claim that makes no difference, I will tell you flat out that you are wrong. Some of the most common cheating in live games is when a player catches sight of another player's cards - even if the victim folds, that's information the cheater can use.)

Now, situation 2 is not strictly an argument against the OP's premise that the sites rig the games to feed an addiction. Perhaps the winner of your example hand is new and this outcome results in an increased interest in their continued play. But you could make the argument that a hand that extreme feeds the view that the game is rigged, and therefore increases the chances your friend will STOP playing. And for every player who spends more money for online gambling because they win hands like this, there are 10 who start talking about how the game is rigged and the poker sites risk losing not just those 10, but the 100 to whom they talk.

[guardian]

33. It is called a "bad beat"

It happens more than you might know--at online games, casinos, and home games. As someone who has played poker regularly for 25 years this doesn't sound particularly peculiar. Especially in the light that online poker players are notoriously aggressive and frequently take wild chances.

You will frequently get "rivered" especially in lower stakes games.

Best rule of thumb--don't gamble more than you can afford to lose.

[TXRAT2]

39. First....what are the odds of this happening?

More often than you would think most poker rooms have a Bad Beat prize (usually money) thats given to the loser and sometimes shared with the winner. I had 4 Jacks get beat by 4 Kings in a 1-2 No-Limit game in Ruidosa NM. I lost 238 dollars in the hand but I won 1620 dollars for the Bad Beat hand. In poker there will always be chasers and sometimes they win, thats why I rarely let a hand get to the river, it's safer that way.

[barbtries]

14. i come from generations of card players

in CA i played at the casino once a week. never got rich, never lost the farm. now i am in NC. there is no live poker in this state. i play online daily, usually for just about a half hour. $25 lasts me three to six months because i only play the freerolls and small tables.

i have never been ripped off by a poker site to my knowledge - there was a glitch once and they corrected it. chat is turned off during hands.

there are gambling addicts and not just for cards: horses, sports, roulette, craps. these are games are not going away regardless.

i also watch poker on TV; i actually enjoy it. online players are going live after making tons of money playing poker. but year after year we see the same faces and that says to me that the cream does rise to the top. they can't just be lucky they must also be good.

the thing about internet gambling is if you're addicted and bound to lose, that won't be the way you go. you can't go pawn your wedding ring and turn it into an online game very easily.

this issue is a non-starter in my book. i love poker. i'm much, much more concerned about my addiction to cigarettes because that will actually kill me. and alcohol in my experience has been the most destructive of substances (alcoholic mother growing up, daughter killed by drunk).

[renie408]

15. Do you have to tell people that GAMBLING is stupid and most likely rigged?

Seriously. Gambling is like drugs. The people doing drugs are not under the mistaken impression that the drugs are GOOD for them. They like the feeling of doing them. Gamblers like gambling. In some freaky trick of human nature, they probably LIKE losing almost as much as winning. It isn't exactly a well thought out plan or anything...

[cabbage08]

16. Excellent Post

:applause:

[closeupready]

17. Bumping for later comment.

n/t

[localroger]

18. You seriously fail to understand how this works

First, "temporary runs of luck," both good and bad, are normal. In fact, if you never see such "suspicious" runs it's evidence that the game is not random. (As Knuth once wrote about computer random number generators, if your RNG can't pump out a string of twenty zeroes it's not random -- that result is just as likely as any other sequence of 20 numbers.) It is the fact that we tend to notice and seize on these temporary runs and draw unwarranted conclusions from them that keeps casinos open.

Second, there are a lot of pro players out there who log every single hand they ever play. There is custom software for this which is constantly updated to maintain compatibility with the ever evolving proprietary casino software. And with the amount of data these people collect, any systemic cheating either by players or the casino quickly becomes obvious. In fact this is exactly how the Absolute Poker situation was uncovered, and I can assure you that if the same situation were ever to occur anywhere else it would quickly be uncovered there too.

Casino sites have nothing to gain by cheating. They make as much money as they can haul off by being as completely open and honest as possible, so that people will trust them and play their games. If you have a license to print twenty dollar bills, you'd be a complete fool to risk losing it by printing hundreds instead.

Gambling can be destructive, and very definitely is destructive to some people. That's a valid argument and one can argue that computer driven games are more addictive than old-school tables and slots, because of the animations and speed. This is a particular problem with video poker, aka the "crack cocaine of gambling." But you spoil your argument by singling out one corner of the industry, ignoring the rest, and accusing them of cheating based on a few anecdotes and an historical fraud that was caught by its very own victims with simple pervasive technology.

[slay]

22. Agreed - also the Absolute Poker story is old news to the poker community as well

The original post is indeed seriously flawed. Yes it could be technically be possible (but not likely) for other people to see your cards and you should only play where you think you are safe. As with all gambling, you take your chances - but you can be educated about it.

And to say that playing poker online is addictive as a reason not to have it is just plain silly. Lots of things are addictive to some, yet not at all to others. Seems unfair to punish all. I know gambling addiction is real - but that is something for an addicted player to deal with - the solution is not to ban online poker - many people play with no problems.

This reminds me of the republican crusade against video games years back (or rap music) which were causing everything from the columbine shooting to women being raped. A person is responsible for his or her own activities and decisions IMO. Sigh..

[closeupready]

25. 'nothing to gain by cheating' - unfortunately, this has been demonstrated to be false.

People continue to play on Absolute and Ultimate Bet despite the scandals, so as it turns out, the publicity from such scandals can hurt, but doesn't seem to destroy a site in the long-term.

[localroger]

31. And why should it?

They corrected the problem. It's widely known that they corrected the problem. Anybody who was aware of the problem knows it was corrected, and it's sensible PR not to spread knowledge of your negatives to people who weren't already aware of them. That's not bad casino behavior, that's general behavior of all industries. The industry itself has gone to great lengths, in one case even publishing source code (which turned out to be good news/bad news because it had a vulnerability, so they had to quickly correct it, but then that's considered a good thing in open source circles). The fact is it's a large industry and apart from a couple of examples which are obviously neither systemic nor corporate policy, you are trying to imply that all these corporations are out to cheat you, which is very obviously untrue to anyone remotely familiar with the industry.

This isn't to say they aren't out to get your money and that they don't have very effective, perhaps overly effective, ways of doing that. But violating their own rules of play and terms of service are not necessary and it cheapens your legitimate gripe to claim that they are doing such things.

[closeupready]

32. To my knowledge, they did not correct the problem.

Did they release all account names of those who were suspected of cheating, which would be salient to anyone who, for example, keeps hand histories? From what I understand, no. And this scandal is now past 14 months old. If I am wrong and you have such a list, please provide it or a link thereto.

Did they continue using the same program computer code which was faulty to begin with which is what led to these superuser accounts in the first place? As far as I know, yes. Ph.D.'s who have actually written these computer poker programs have stated that without trashing the existing program and re-writing the program code FROM SCRATCH, FROM THE GROUND UP, there can be no assurance made that the software is secure from superusers, esp. since the prior presence of superusers has already been established.

They did make restitution to SOME players who were cheated, I'll give you that. But many others claim that the sites are stonewalling, and that they are out many thousands for which they have not been compensated.

That said, I do not think they are all this way at all. To repeat, many of the top players are rocket scientists and engineers and just brilliant people who deal with numbers for a living, and numbers have been compiled and analyzed over and over on basically all the sites, and as far as I know, this was the only such scandal to have been discovered, and so, it probably is the only one, at this point.

[localroger]

34. None of what you ask is either reasonable nor necessary

Releasing account names could be the source of much legal misery which any business would sensibly avoid. What is required from a gambler's perspective is that they made further cheating impossible. The real measure of that is that the pros monitoring this with their software detect no irregularities. None have been forthcoming. They have, as they said, eliminated the problem. The problem of what to do with the suspected cheaters is not related to this; it would be nice to have them in stocks so we could throw tomatos at them, but the laws do not always permit this.

"As far as I know" NASA is still using FORTRAN 77 code that landed a Venus probe in the wrong ... oops. Again, the ultimate arbiter of whether the casinos have fixed their shit is their customers. Their customers are much more pervasive and have much more computing power than the casinos do, and they analyze EVERYTHING. You simply do not get it. A cheating casino could not stay in business more than a month. It would be found out, the details disseminated over the internet, and if it did not somehow correct and correct quickly, it would have only n00bs for customers, mostly with no money. Casinos want people with money.

That they did not impale themselves upon swords to your specification upon the discovery that their employees had cheated is not an indictment of their individual businesses or their industry. They promptly corrected the software flaw and reimbursed those people who claimed a tort. You cannot ask for more than that, unless you want to dismantle the entire legal framework that exists for every industry in existence. Those are the rules we live under, EXXON and PartyPoker alike. If you don't like them, don't complain about the online poker industry, complain about the rules, because that's the real problem. Frankly I am much more bothered by EXXON than by PartyPoker.

[NNN0LHI]

19. We used to have a poster here who claimed he made his living off Internet gambling

Silverhead or silverhair or something like that.

Haven't heard from him for years. Might have had a bad run?

Don

[wysimdnwyg]

21. This is why internet gambling should be legalized...

AND REGULATED. That last bit is the part those against internet gambling always seem to leave out. 99% of the people who advocate for the legalization of internet gambling in the U.S. want it legalized not so that we can play - we'll play regardless. We want it legalized and regulated to help prevent the situations like you describe at Absolute and Ultimate Bet. A well-regulated system, with strong oversight and enforcement, is the only answer to that problem. And a well-regulated system will also prevent the situations you suggest lead to an increase in addiction, namely "favoring the beginner".


As for your opinion that "all people who make a living off poker are addicts", that's patently absurd. Are there a number of professonal gamblers who are addicted? I'm quite sure there are. But to claim that 100% of them are addicts is ridiculous.

[pokercat999]

23. Bingo ! The only sensible solution is to legalize and

regulate. Our modern history as a country suggests we will continue to do the opposite.

[Jim Lane]

26. Yes, the U.S. government should stop its jihad against online gambling

The U.S. government has on occasion asserted that people engaging in online gambling are violating the law, but it has actually prosecuted only site operators, AFAIK.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was tucked into an anti-terrorism bill, and added only in the conference committee report the day before the final vote, so that it could be railroaded through without debate. It restricts financial institutions so that U.S. players have more difficulty funding their online gambling accounts.

Many of the issues raised in the OP could be addressed if there were online gambling sites operated by the big domestic casino corporations. They could be regulated, and they would have a whole lot to lose if any funny business with their online operations imperiled their right to run their brick-and-mortar casinos in Las Vegas and elsewhere. An online poker site run by a well-known casino company based in the United States and subject to U.S. government regulation would have a big advantage over the Advantage Pokers of the world (comparatively small operations based in small Caribbean countries). This approach would be the most effect way to drive out fly-by-night operators.

Unfortunately, the fundies are hostile to gambling. Republicans who want to curry favor with them won't go along with rescinding UIGEA. The other side doesn't care as much. Barney Frank has been a leader in trying to get a more rational policy, and poker players have done some minimal organizing in support of his efforts, but it's just not a high-profile issue.

[closeupready]

24. A number of issues which would need to discussed -

1) Anyone who is going to play seriously online needs account for Bankroll Management principles, which is, basically, a way of accounting for the variance which is inherent in a game like this, while, at the same time, accounting for skill such that, the bankroll grows, rather than diminishes.
2) There are ongoing studies being performed on hand histories and data by those who play online poker for a living, mostly examining the biggest sites, looking at win rates and statistical deviations from what would be expected in a normal game. This data examination is essentially how the Absolute scandal was discovered - the cheater had a win rate which was so far off what would be expected, that I think the claim was that it was about 1 in 3 trillion or something likelihood that anyone could be that good. From what I understand, no other such statistical anomalies have yet been identified.
3) Hold em is definitely vulnerable to collusion between players. I don't play it anymore, because of this.

[Willo]

29. I call.

Poker is most often played in either ring games or tournaments.

Ring games are basically where you bring as much money (to a table of 6-10 players) as you want, as often as you want and play as long or short a period as you want.

In tournaments, which oftentimes are not really sponsored, each player contributes the same amount to the overall prizepool. Each player receives the same amount of chips to start with. The amount a player loses is limited to the cost of the buy-in or entry fee.

Tournaments take hours from start to finish. A 200 player tournament with 15 minute blinds can take 5 hours to the reach the final 9-10 players and an additional hour or two to complete. A tournament with several thousand players can easily run 9 hours or more.
Generally only professionals have the cash and discipline to remain in a ring game for hours on end. It is a grind, hence the term “Grinders”

Poker, particularly the popular games like Holdem, Stud, Omaha and Razz are debated as to whether they should be classified as gambling on the level as slots, roulette etc. I think Poker is more like Bridge, Spades and other such strategic type card games.

There are so many poker TV shows today. In general they are heavily edited because poker is generally boring for viewers. Most hands are not exciting, dramatic or won with large pots. Watching a player fold for an hour straight then finally win a small pot with an uncontested raise is not TV worthy.

Collusion and multi-playing is more of a problem than rigged sites, but can be managed.

The poker community exposed Absolute Poker, not the media. Unreported is the damage to a poker site's reputation that is not trusted by the players. It can cause sites to shut down.

“I would really love to see someone do a statistical analysis of game play on one of these sites. The ideal way to do it would be to fill up the table with researchers, play every hand to the river (the last card) or every x hand to the river where x is generated in some way that the folks running the site would not be able to predict, and see what happens. Since the wins and losses would be occurring within the same group, the cost of this kind of study would be negligible. As the study progresses, add “new” players and see what hands they get dealt.”

The main problem with this statement is a flaw I find throughout your OP.. you leave out the element of the other players.

Poker is not about the cards, but how you play the player(s). Dealing every hand to the river to determine anything is unrealistic because the other players won’t allow it. That’s like me saying I’m going to catch 10 passes in a row and run 50 yards each time for a TD, to see how fast I am. Really? And, just what will the other team be doing? If there is any valid statistical analysis done you will probably find it on 2+2 or Pocketfives.

Unlicensed to steal. A threat to your health. Internet poker is thriving during a recession.

There are poker regulations, just not by the U.S. The stock market is more rigged and unregulated now (with our government involved) than online poker has ever been. Xbox 360 and Playstation games are expensive and addictive as hell and intentionally target kids and teens. I say this not to defend poker’s problems but to point out that the (scary) arguments against poker are not exactly valid.

Internet poker was heavily marketed in the European countries starting in 2005. Part of that 20 billion success today is attributable to that marketing growth.

I support poker playing (obviously), online and in brick and mortar establishments. There need to be more regulation and oversight but I disagree with the same old arguments about gamblers, addiction, teen access and fraud being used as public service ads to discredit the game and its success.

[backscatter712]

30. I'd much rather play in person.

There's the whole dynamic of watching each other's body language, looking for tells, trash-talking at the table, using your own body language to work your bluffs, and so on that you don't really get online.

[wysimdnwyg]

35. I think most would prefer to play in person

Unfortunately, many of us live far away from places where we can legally play poker. Despite the growing proliferation of casinos and card rooms, most places in America are still 2+ hours away from the nearest place to play. Therefore, we take what we can get and play online.

[backscatter712]

36. I just do private games with friends.

Mostly, it's the occasional poker game with friends and coworkers - go to someone's house toss in $20, play a No-Limit Hold'em tournament.

Maybe it's illegal, but who's gonna catch us?

[GillesDeleuze]

37. Heads up.

You seem like the type of person where i could do a line by line response as to how and why you are wrong, but, even though im not a poker professional or even play it for fun (i organize poker players, however), you would just say im addicted.



kind of like the Drug Warriors.