I've found a lot of the reactions out and about in the blogsphere to the ZeeJustin and JJProdigy situation pretty interesting. Especially in regards to the possible repercussions it might have as far as the timing of the cheating coming to light, with efforts in the US to ban Internet gambling once again rearing their ugly heads.
I've never cheated at poker. I've created second accounts for rakeback deals, but I've always abandoned the original account, and played only on the second account. I've never discussed my play with others while playing in a MTT. I've never shared an account with others. I've never intentionally soft-played anyone, for any reason, whether they be stranger or friend.
If it's not clear from the above, I don't condone cheating, never have cheated, and feel pretty strongly that we should all be allowed to sling chips on an equal playing field.
All that said, cheating is inevitable in online poker. It just is. It's been happening for years and it's happening right now, as I type this. And the sad, awful truth is that there's nothing that can be done to prevent it, unless sites pretty dramatically change certain basic structures of the current online game.
Poker's growing worldwide popularity is also, ironically, likely a prime factor that encourages cheating at online poker. Organizing a well-oiled team that works together to net $3.75/hr for each team member by colluding in Party $10+$1 SnGs isn't an appealing activity for most bored teenagers in the US, but it's a much more attractive option for enterprising Madagascaran teens, where the average daily wage is $1. Just do a Google search on "click fraud India" if you'd like to see a real world example of the same concept in action.
Yes, in its blatant, idiotic forms (see ZeeJustin and JJProdigy), it can be unearthed and dealt with. Those cases should be unearthed and dealt with, and the poker sites of the world should definitely take notice and step up their own efforts to do so. Proactively, not reactively. As other people have pointed out, don't fall over yourself thanking Party and PokerStars for their actions in these recent cases, as all of the initial "investigative" work was done for them by others. Your security efforts shouldn't depend heavily on the propensity for young kids to act like dumb, young kids, and to tell other people about it.
If you have the ability to isolate multiple accounts playing from the same IP/MAC address (and you obviously do), then do it. Publish the results every week, as far as the multiple accounts you unearthed, investigated, and closed down. Include the total sum of money seized, and how you re-destributed that, either by bumping up winners in MTTs or by offering it as freeroll prize money. Make your security and policing efforts transparent. Players would love you for it and be more inclined to play on your site.
Honestly, though, while that's a good start, it's only going to address the most blatant and dumb forms of cheating. The very nature of online poker is always going to attract cheaters, as the potential payoff is high enough to encourage very smart, organized groups to basically pillage higher stakes games at will. And there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it, if you want to be truly and brutally honest, unless you change the current way in which players sit at tables online.
How many players, working together, do you think you'd need to ensure a healthy profit for the team playing the $200+15's or $500+30's SnGs on Party? It's definitely debateable, but I'd guess as few as 3 players colluding via IM could guarantee a substantial profit, with all 3 constantly playing at the same SnG table. You wouldn't collectively profit every SnG you enter, and would have some complete washouts where your cheating efforts were all for naught, but overall I have to think you'd make a very healthy collective profit over time.
And they could easily practice it to the point that even a hand by hand analysis couldn't prove they were colluding, as they'd be good enough to avoid leaving obvious signs. Find 15 or so people willing to engage in the above activity, randomize the playing order so that different team members are in the same SnG together, and you've basically got a license to print money.
The same can be done in cash games, although it's a little harder, due to rake and the lessened ability to squeeze non-colluding players out of hands. Still very possible, though, and virtually undetectable, if done skillfully.
And if you don't think people aren't currently doing all of the above, right now, think again. If the potential to profit is there, people will abuse the systems. And they'll do so constantly and creatively, with a level of organization and sophistication that'd likely amaze you.
One glimmer of hope, though, is that sites could actually address a lot of the above pitfalls, if they're willing to re-think a few things, and take the time to educate players as to why they should accept what on the surface appears to be unpleasant change.
Ignoring cheating done by an individual creating multiple accounts (which can currently be policed and unearthed and requires no real change in operating procedure), nearly every other form of cheating involves collusion between players working together at a table. As long as you allow players to choose where they sit (and a window of opportunity for colluding players to sit at the same table), some degree of cheating is always going to occur. If done skillfully, this cheating is also unfortunately almost impossible to detect and eliminate.
There's a pretty simple answer to that problem, though. Implement a queue system that prevents players from choosing their seat, either in SnGs or at ring games. If you want to play a $200+15 SnG, you click a button to say so and are entered into a queue. When 30 players (or 50, or 100, or whatever number) are in the queue, players are then randomly assigned to one of 3 tables (or 5 tables, or 10, or whatever). If you want to play $10/20 limit, you get in the queue and are assigned to the first spot open.
On the surface, that sounds pretty drastic, especially for ring games. Proper table selection is obviously +EV, so robbing a skilled player of the chance to select his or her tablemates online will definitely impact their bottom line. It'd also likely lead to more churn, as some players would keep rolling the dice, getting in the queue, getting a seat, leaving when the table doesn't look juicy, re-entering the queue, getting a new seat hoping for better, and on and on and on.
Bottom line, though, it wouldn't be all that painful. And, ironically, it'd basically mirror what happens in brick and mortar rooms when you want to play poker. You get on a list and take the first available seat. If you decide you don't like it, you request a table change. You don't get to analyze 50 different tables minutely and choose the absolute most perfect one. You take what's available and, if you don't like it, take a shot on another table being better. Basically you'd just force everyone to take the approach that the lazy currently do, as far as clicking on "First available seat" at certain levels, and do away with the ability to get on waiting lists for particular tables.
Could you end up at the same table with a team member eventually, by persisently re-entering the queue? Yeah, you could. But it'd definitely be more difficult, and even when accomplished you wouldn't necessarily have the correct positioning to truly maximize your cheating efforts.
It also wouldn't address collusion at the highest stakes, where there's often rarely a waiting list for games and always open seats. Not sure what you do about that, other than tell yourself that someone playing 100/200 or above is a big boy or girl and can take care of themselves, if they're playing that level.
It seems more of a no-brainer for SnGs, though, as far as randomly assigning seats to entrants, instead of opening a table for anyone to sit down, and starting when the table is full. While it would be hard for low traffic sites to implement (you can't just assign players in the queue to a new table when 10 sign up, as colluding players would just sign up simultaneously, go into the queue at the same time, and be assigned to the same table in the end anyway), the bigger sites have enough interest that they could wait until 30 players had signed up before randomly filling tables, with no one waiting too long to play.
It's far from perfect, though, as you encounter problems at higher limits, where it's naturally slower to get new tables filled and started. And those higher limits are exactly where, by most accounts, you're most likely to encounter organized cheating. In the end, though, players might accept a 20 minute wait to play a SnG, if they knew it came with most assurance possible that they were playing in a fair game. I know I would, if I was playing that high.
Which, in the end, is just a whole lot of unsolicited babbling from me. I think the real lurking issue is that if online sites want to get serious about addressing cheating, they need to do more than simply comb through their data, looking for multiple accounts. There are some pretty fundamental, exploitable flaws in the very nature of how most sites offer games today that also need to be addressed, even if changes to them might initially cause some players to squawk loudly. Given the current structure of online poker, cheating is only going to get worse and more prevalent before it gets better.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
You People Are All Very Cool
Many thanks for putting up with all the rat talk (and pictures) the last few days, and for all of the supportive words. Hopefully all will continue to remain well in Rat Land and I can go back to babbling about poker.
February has been an odd poker month. I've played a bit more full ring than last month, mostly 15/30 at Pacific, as well as a ton of 5/10 and 10/20 shorthanded. I've also played a decent amount at 20/40 short, mostly at Doyle's. For the sake of being complete, I also sat for about an orbit at 50/100 at Doyle's.
The results have been a little head-scratching. Overall, it's been a pretty good month, as I'm looking at a profit of about $5,000 on the month. So yay for bottom lines.
But it's really not a case of Yay overall, as the results are a little misleading. I pretty much consistently got drilled at 5/10 short, where I played the bulk of my hands. A lot of those hands were heads-up/3 handed, and I think I just have to throw in the towel and admit defeat there. Not the best heads-up player. It's been good experience, especially for future SnG and MTT play when I get heads-up, but it's not where my strength lies. I ended up about -$2,500 in the hole, from a little north of 20,000 hands at 5/10.
10/20 short was a bit better, if you can call breaking even better. I didn't have as many wild and crazy swings as in the past, and basically stayed within a few thousands dollars of either side of even for the month. I played about 8,000 hands at 10/20.
15/30 full ring results were pretty solid, kicking in about $1,500 in profits over 5,000 hands or so. The games at Pacific can be really, really good at times, with fewer maniacs and more loose passives, and I felt pretty solid and in my element, as far as getting good reads and following through, and generally knowing where I stood in hands.
20/40 short results were ridiculously good. I fell into the habit (mayhap bad) at times of bashing my head against the 5/10 windmill, losing money, and, at the end of the session, sitting for a half hour or so at 20/40 short, in an attempt to recoup losses. I know, I know. I've warned against it myself here, and I know chasing losses can have disastrous effects. But I'm far from perfect, so there you go. When running well, I also sat for longer, "normal" sessions at 20/40 short. Overall, I ended up about with about $3,000 in profits at 20/40 short, over 3,000 hands.
50/100 was, umm, exciting. I'd never played that high and just wanted to say I'd done it, expecting to fold for an orbit. Didn't really plan on getting AKs and AA and heavy, heavy action, with both eventually holding up. So I played a grand total of 12 hands at 50/100, for a profit of just over $3,000. Too bad I can't maintain that BB/100.
For all intents and purposes, it should have been a losing month, and it definitely felt like one. The net result is nice and happy, but it's skewed by results at 20/40 and 50/100 that aren't based on enough hands to be indicative of anything.
Digging way back into the PokerTracker archives, it's a little interesting that every level from .50/1 to 20/40 is solidly green, with decent sample sizes at every level, except for 5/10, which is solidly red (and was even before this months 5/10 debacle). I've tried to concoct reasons to explain that, but can't come up with any that really hold water.
Long story short, I'll take the final result, even if it was due to my being a luckbox this month, more than anything. As far as March, I think it's time to bid farewell to the shorthanded tables, and get back to full ring play. I'll also likely mix in some more SnGs, if I want to play and there are a lack of juicy full ring tables to hop on.
February has been an odd poker month. I've played a bit more full ring than last month, mostly 15/30 at Pacific, as well as a ton of 5/10 and 10/20 shorthanded. I've also played a decent amount at 20/40 short, mostly at Doyle's. For the sake of being complete, I also sat for about an orbit at 50/100 at Doyle's.
The results have been a little head-scratching. Overall, it's been a pretty good month, as I'm looking at a profit of about $5,000 on the month. So yay for bottom lines.
But it's really not a case of Yay overall, as the results are a little misleading. I pretty much consistently got drilled at 5/10 short, where I played the bulk of my hands. A lot of those hands were heads-up/3 handed, and I think I just have to throw in the towel and admit defeat there. Not the best heads-up player. It's been good experience, especially for future SnG and MTT play when I get heads-up, but it's not where my strength lies. I ended up about -$2,500 in the hole, from a little north of 20,000 hands at 5/10.
10/20 short was a bit better, if you can call breaking even better. I didn't have as many wild and crazy swings as in the past, and basically stayed within a few thousands dollars of either side of even for the month. I played about 8,000 hands at 10/20.
15/30 full ring results were pretty solid, kicking in about $1,500 in profits over 5,000 hands or so. The games at Pacific can be really, really good at times, with fewer maniacs and more loose passives, and I felt pretty solid and in my element, as far as getting good reads and following through, and generally knowing where I stood in hands.
20/40 short results were ridiculously good. I fell into the habit (mayhap bad) at times of bashing my head against the 5/10 windmill, losing money, and, at the end of the session, sitting for a half hour or so at 20/40 short, in an attempt to recoup losses. I know, I know. I've warned against it myself here, and I know chasing losses can have disastrous effects. But I'm far from perfect, so there you go. When running well, I also sat for longer, "normal" sessions at 20/40 short. Overall, I ended up about with about $3,000 in profits at 20/40 short, over 3,000 hands.
50/100 was, umm, exciting. I'd never played that high and just wanted to say I'd done it, expecting to fold for an orbit. Didn't really plan on getting AKs and AA and heavy, heavy action, with both eventually holding up. So I played a grand total of 12 hands at 50/100, for a profit of just over $3,000. Too bad I can't maintain that BB/100.
For all intents and purposes, it should have been a losing month, and it definitely felt like one. The net result is nice and happy, but it's skewed by results at 20/40 and 50/100 that aren't based on enough hands to be indicative of anything.
Digging way back into the PokerTracker archives, it's a little interesting that every level from .50/1 to 20/40 is solidly green, with decent sample sizes at every level, except for 5/10, which is solidly red (and was even before this months 5/10 debacle). I've tried to concoct reasons to explain that, but can't come up with any that really hold water.
Long story short, I'll take the final result, even if it was due to my being a luckbox this month, more than anything. As far as March, I think it's time to bid farewell to the shorthanded tables, and get back to full ring play. I'll also likely mix in some more SnGs, if I want to play and there are a lack of juicy full ring tables to hop on.
Monday, February 27, 2006
My Overactive Imagination is Why I Don't Need to Have Kids
Well, shit. Belay most of my doom and gloom rat talk. There's still a slight chance that something more serious may be wrong with him, but according to vet type people, all signs point to a bad combination of stress, not eating, cold houses, and possibly being irritated by allergens and/or dust from changing out his cage, which in turn led to him stressing and not eating at all and getting sluggish and shaky.
Which spiralled further into suckitude when we hauled him to the vet and his already empty gas tank couldn't deal with the added stress, so he basically shut down and went into shock.
Opposite of props to the emergency clinic, for not immediately forcing some fluids and nutrition into him. Way to almost kill our otherwise apparently okay rat. Too bad he's a stubborn little mofo and hung around long enough for ScurvyWife and I to finally try squeezing some food in him, as a last ditch effort
And just to ensure that Felicia never, ever reads my blog again, here are some pictures of Sherman. Only thing worse than useless baby pictures on a poker blog are pictures of a damn rat on a poker blog:
Which spiralled further into suckitude when we hauled him to the vet and his already empty gas tank couldn't deal with the added stress, so he basically shut down and went into shock.
Opposite of props to the emergency clinic, for not immediately forcing some fluids and nutrition into him. Way to almost kill our otherwise apparently okay rat. Too bad he's a stubborn little mofo and hung around long enough for ScurvyWife and I to finally try squeezing some food in him, as a last ditch effort
And just to ensure that Felicia never, ever reads my blog again, here are some pictures of Sherman. Only thing worse than useless baby pictures on a poker blog are pictures of a damn rat on a poker blog:
Oh Poker, Why Doth Thou Hate Me?
So I bit the bullet yesterday, rolled the bones, and entered a WSOP qualifier at Martinspoker, forking over €400. Which likely wasn't the best decision, given my general mindset and concentration level, but it was hard to pass up.
Martinspoker is running monthly WSOP qualifiers for a full package to the Main Event, with 10 packages guaranteed for each qualifier. I forget the exact number, but the first monthly qualifier was yesterday, and only got 140 or so entrants. So Martinspoker ended up ponying up about €50,000 of their own money to guarantee the 10 packages. Mmm, overlay...
You start with 7,500 chips, starting blinds of 15/25, and 12 minute levels. Probably 90% of the entrants were Swedish, with only a few US players in the entire field.
I was feeling pretty good, chipped up slightly to 8,500 or so, and people in general were playing pretty cautiously. Half an hour in and we'd only lost a couple of players.
Blinds were 100/200 when the following hand occured. It folds to me in MP, where I have A10c. A10 has been my MTT nemesis of late, so I'm not entirely thrilled to see it, but figure I can pick up the blinds pretty easily, given how passive people have been. It's still early enough that I can just fold if someone gets too jiggy. I still have 8,500 or so, and raise to 600. Folds to BB, who calls. BB also has me slightly covered, chip-wise. I don't have a read on the BB at all, as he's barely been involved in any pots.
Flop is Ad As 8d. I'm obviously feeling pretty good about that. Pot is 1,300 or so, BB checks, and I bet 900. BB calls. Hmm.
Turn is 7d. BB checks. Pot is 3,100. I don't like the diamond and I don't like all the smooth calls. But I also have to fire again, as he could literally have anything, even something as crappy as a big diamond. I bet 2,000, telling myself that's it, that I'll fold if he comes over the top of me, and live to fight another day with my 5,000 remaining chips. BB calls the 2,000.
River is 3c. BB insta-pushes all-in, covering me by about 500 chips.
I go into the tank, trying to find a reason to call. I have to call 5,000 to win a pot of nearly 13,000. I have trip aces, 10 kicker. Diamond flush on the board.
I finally throw up in my mouth a little and convince myself to fold, as I can't see any reasonable hand he'd play that way that I can beat, other than a slow-played big pair or something like A9, A6, A5, etc. But even that's hard to imagine, with the push on the river, as I'd shown strength the whole hand, so even if BB thought his Ax was good, you'd think he'd check again to me on the river, hoping for a free showdown.
Thoughts? Too weak?
Got blinded down a bit from there to 4,000 or so, biding my time, until I pick up KK on the button, with blinds of 200/400. UTG+1 (who's playing pretty terribly but somehow acquired a big stack) raises to 1,000, everyone folds to me, I push, and UTG+1 insta-calls with K9s. My happy dance gets cut off prematurely when a 9 appears on the flop, and another 9 on the river. Umm, thanks a pantload, poker.
Shortly after I busted also out of the Poker4ever $50,000 grand opening freeroll, 12 spots from the money, when QQ ran down my AA. See above note regarding pantloads, poker.
Can't say I feel too horribly about my play, despite the entry for the Martinspoker tournament being the largest I've ever forked over for the right to get sucked out on. I guess I'm still a little flummoxed by the A10 hand, but other than that, them's the break sometimes. I'll probably run the Martinspoker qualifier again next month, assuming it still offers a decent overlay, as I budgeted myself $1,000 or so to take a few shots at qualifying for the Main Event this year.
Added: Many thanks for all the responses so far.
(And, for the record BSN, the turn did bring the three-flush on the board, which greatly influenced my thinking. I don't think I can lay that hand down if there aren't 3 diamonds on the board.)
If we decide that I should bet the flop harder, what should I bet there? This hand was hard for me, as it's almost perfectly in-between my comfort zone in hands like this.
If my kicker were a bit stronger (or if the possible flush wasn't on the board), I'm inclined to bet slightly less than I did, like 600 or so, wanting a call.
If my hand were a bit weaker, I'd be inclined to push harder on the flop, betting the pot, trying to just take it down right there. But the pot isn't all that huge, on the flop, so my inclination was to lean in the direction of wanting a call, at that point, before the board puts three to a flush up there.
If I should bet the flop harder, how hard would you bet it? Pot it? More?
A second question, sparked by an email response, is do people think it's bad to make what looks like an obvious continuation bet on the flop? I hadn't thought of this before, but there is something to be said for avoiding what looks like obvious continuation bets on the flop/turn when you have strong but vulnerable hands. Yeah, I'm getting enough money in their to puncture the odds of most drawing hands, but I'm also potentially opening myself up to a river play, as happened in the hand.
By making standard sized continuation bets on the flop/turn, I'm not signalling that I have a really strong hand, encouraging people to make a play at me when my real intention is to take the pot down, then and there.
Another way of posing the question is whether a continuation bet is a continuation bet, if you have an actual hand, or is that a value bet? If you have a good hand you want to showdown but don't want to encourage heavy action, are you better off making either smaller or larger sized bets, to avoid the appearance of simply following through after a whiff with a continuation bet?
Martinspoker is running monthly WSOP qualifiers for a full package to the Main Event, with 10 packages guaranteed for each qualifier. I forget the exact number, but the first monthly qualifier was yesterday, and only got 140 or so entrants. So Martinspoker ended up ponying up about €50,000 of their own money to guarantee the 10 packages. Mmm, overlay...
You start with 7,500 chips, starting blinds of 15/25, and 12 minute levels. Probably 90% of the entrants were Swedish, with only a few US players in the entire field.
I was feeling pretty good, chipped up slightly to 8,500 or so, and people in general were playing pretty cautiously. Half an hour in and we'd only lost a couple of players.
Blinds were 100/200 when the following hand occured. It folds to me in MP, where I have A10c. A10 has been my MTT nemesis of late, so I'm not entirely thrilled to see it, but figure I can pick up the blinds pretty easily, given how passive people have been. It's still early enough that I can just fold if someone gets too jiggy. I still have 8,500 or so, and raise to 600. Folds to BB, who calls. BB also has me slightly covered, chip-wise. I don't have a read on the BB at all, as he's barely been involved in any pots.
Flop is Ad As 8d. I'm obviously feeling pretty good about that. Pot is 1,300 or so, BB checks, and I bet 900. BB calls. Hmm.
Turn is 7d. BB checks. Pot is 3,100. I don't like the diamond and I don't like all the smooth calls. But I also have to fire again, as he could literally have anything, even something as crappy as a big diamond. I bet 2,000, telling myself that's it, that I'll fold if he comes over the top of me, and live to fight another day with my 5,000 remaining chips. BB calls the 2,000.
River is 3c. BB insta-pushes all-in, covering me by about 500 chips.
I go into the tank, trying to find a reason to call. I have to call 5,000 to win a pot of nearly 13,000. I have trip aces, 10 kicker. Diamond flush on the board.
I finally throw up in my mouth a little and convince myself to fold, as I can't see any reasonable hand he'd play that way that I can beat, other than a slow-played big pair or something like A9, A6, A5, etc. But even that's hard to imagine, with the push on the river, as I'd shown strength the whole hand, so even if BB thought his Ax was good, you'd think he'd check again to me on the river, hoping for a free showdown.
Thoughts? Too weak?
Got blinded down a bit from there to 4,000 or so, biding my time, until I pick up KK on the button, with blinds of 200/400. UTG+1 (who's playing pretty terribly but somehow acquired a big stack) raises to 1,000, everyone folds to me, I push, and UTG+1 insta-calls with K9s. My happy dance gets cut off prematurely when a 9 appears on the flop, and another 9 on the river. Umm, thanks a pantload, poker.
Shortly after I busted also out of the Poker4ever $50,000 grand opening freeroll, 12 spots from the money, when QQ ran down my AA. See above note regarding pantloads, poker.
Can't say I feel too horribly about my play, despite the entry for the Martinspoker tournament being the largest I've ever forked over for the right to get sucked out on. I guess I'm still a little flummoxed by the A10 hand, but other than that, them's the break sometimes. I'll probably run the Martinspoker qualifier again next month, assuming it still offers a decent overlay, as I budgeted myself $1,000 or so to take a few shots at qualifying for the Main Event this year.
Added: Many thanks for all the responses so far.
(And, for the record BSN, the turn did bring the three-flush on the board, which greatly influenced my thinking. I don't think I can lay that hand down if there aren't 3 diamonds on the board.)
If we decide that I should bet the flop harder, what should I bet there? This hand was hard for me, as it's almost perfectly in-between my comfort zone in hands like this.
If my kicker were a bit stronger (or if the possible flush wasn't on the board), I'm inclined to bet slightly less than I did, like 600 or so, wanting a call.
If my hand were a bit weaker, I'd be inclined to push harder on the flop, betting the pot, trying to just take it down right there. But the pot isn't all that huge, on the flop, so my inclination was to lean in the direction of wanting a call, at that point, before the board puts three to a flush up there.
If I should bet the flop harder, how hard would you bet it? Pot it? More?
A second question, sparked by an email response, is do people think it's bad to make what looks like an obvious continuation bet on the flop? I hadn't thought of this before, but there is something to be said for avoiding what looks like obvious continuation bets on the flop/turn when you have strong but vulnerable hands. Yeah, I'm getting enough money in their to puncture the odds of most drawing hands, but I'm also potentially opening myself up to a river play, as happened in the hand.
By making standard sized continuation bets on the flop/turn, I'm not signalling that I have a really strong hand, encouraging people to make a play at me when my real intention is to take the pot down, then and there.
Another way of posing the question is whether a continuation bet is a continuation bet, if you have an actual hand, or is that a value bet? If you have a good hand you want to showdown but don't want to encourage heavy action, are you better off making either smaller or larger sized bets, to avoid the appearance of simply following through after a whiff with a continuation bet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)