Well known KLAS TV 8 reporter George Knapp, with whom I interviewed in the "Dirty Poker" series has written an article about the recent online poker scandals in the weekly magazine "Las Vegas City Life." Kanpp, like myself, took lots of heat for my controversial interviews that pissed off the poker world. But now the both of us, though not gloating, feel a sense of satisfaction or at least relief that my nefarious statements about cheating in online poker have now been proved true by someone other than me. Here's his article:
Knappster
Pro poker world draws two bad hands
BY GEORGE KNAPP
THE REPUTATION OF PROFESSIONAL POKER, which has been on quite a roll for the past few years, has taken two heavy punches to the gut in recent days. It will take time to recover from both shots.
The second gut punch to the sport might have even longer-range ramifications for poker. I'm talking about a spate of cheating scandals that have erupted in the online poker world.
Almost two years ago, Knappster wrote a series of news stories based on interviews with Richard Marcus, an author and admitted gambling "mechanic" who alleged that professional poker is rigged. Marcus claims there are still organized cheating rings that have infected some of the biggest tournaments and might even involve some well-known names.
More pointedly, he claimed that online poker was crooked, that certain players had figured out how to see the hole cards of others who were playing online. Marcus also claimed some individuals had programmed poker-playing robots to best the competition. When those stories came out, Marcus and yours truly took a lot of heat from poker players and poker bloggers who felt this was an unfair assault on the entire field.
Anyone check those blogs lately? Rumors of widespread cheating have now been confirmed in at least three separate incidents. The Absolute Poker online website, one of the biggest poker sites on the web, was nailed after players became suspicious. It now appears that a former officer of Absolute Poker had figured out a way to view the hole cards of opponents. As I understand it, the company agreed to repay $1.6 million in wagers to online players, but it appears the scandal isn't over yet.
Another scandal erupted at Full Tilt Poker, although fewer details have surfaced. Two entrants to online tourneys have been banned and a tournament result was changed after organizers uncovered "anomalies" in a million-dollar online tournament. Now, there's word that another site is suspected of being scammed by someone using a robot.
Cheating at cards isn't anything new. If there's a way to do it, someone will try. Even Marcus isn't likely to gloat over being proven right. Online poker is a huge industry, with millions of dollars being wagered every month. And, as we know, those online gamblers who get hooked on poker and convinced of their own skills often decide to try their luck in Las Vegas. The online sites should know that someone will always try to cheat, even insiders, and it's not an insult to raise the possibility. There should be less offense and umbrage taken when someone raises security concerns and more attention focused on keeping the contests honest.
FHM SPREAD NOW POSTED TO MAGAZINE ARTICLES PAGE!
Read this exciting FHM feature story on my Magazine Articles Page about my international cheating career. And what's funny about this, as you will see in the article, is that the writer, the well known Brit laddie Piers Hernu, got so juiced up by his subject (me) that he wanted to really be true to his readership and do a blackjack pastpost move himself!--so he could relay to three million readers how it felt to cheat the casino! I told him during our 2-day shoot in Vegas that I couldn't be involved in an actual cheating move with him, that if they caught me, I'd be sentenced to a 100 years in the scorching desert without water, and they might ship his ass back to London inside a folded-up blackjack table! So I left Piers, who stayed alone in Vegas for an entire weekend trying to muster the balls to do a blackjack move on his own. See the outcome in his article...But what's even funnier than this is that a few months later, Piers called to tell me he had invented a brand-new casino move on his own! He called it the Reverse Savannah, because it was an inverted version of my famous Savannah move (see that on my video page if you don't know the move). When I heard this I nearly dropped dead laughing. Here's how he explained it to me: Instead of hiding a $5,000 chip underneath a $5 chip and raking the even-money bet off the layout when it loses, hide a $5 chip underneath a black $100 chip to make the dealer think there are two black $100 chips there. Then hope that when it wins, the dealer mistakingly pays $200, two black chips, thinking that the red $5 chip hidden underneath is also a black chip. The beauty, he explained to me in an excited puff, is that you never have to rake off a losing bet and therefore are not really cheating when collecting the overpayment!
Well, I told Piers not to quit his day job, and he soon got himself barred from every casino in London!
NEW ONLINE CASINO AND ONLINE POKER REVIEW PAGE COMING!
Starting in a few days, I will begin reviewing popular online poker rooms and casinos. This will not only be about cheating. I will offer my opinion, in conjunction with several very knowledgeable associates who gamble frequently online, about which casinos and poker rooms offer the best odds and gimmicks for your money, as well as other pertinent information that should help with your decisions concerning where and when to play online.
FHM feature story
Friday, December 07, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Is Account Selling the New Rage of Online Poker Cheating?
It just may be. After the seemingly never-ending Absolute Poker debacle in November, now we start the last month of 2007 with the Full Tilt Poker account-selling scandal. For those of you who don't know exactly what that is, it can simply be defined as the practice of turning over an account late in a major online tournament to a potent, star online player. The practice has come to light only in recent months, after several account-selling incidents were discussed on major poker forums. It was quickly recognized that a star player taking over one of these accounts was gaining a significant edge over his remaining players, who would have no idea that a new tough player, perhaps with a radically different style, had suddenly assumed a seat at the table. The advantages of this scam are real. Not only does it bring in a better tournament player to that account but those playing against the new star player, who may have accurately gauged the previous player's style with its strengths and weaknesses, suddenly find themselves crossed up.
Chris Vaughn, the managing editor of Bluff Magazine (for whom I write poker articles) and Sorel Mizzi, the young online poker star and friend of Vaughn's, have given interviews on their alleged involvement in the latest major account-selling scam. Given my skepticism about online poker and the unbelievable amounts of cheating I've witnessed on it firsthand, it is very hard for me to give anyone accused of anything the benefit of the doubt, especially two people with the obvious knowledge and smarts that these guys have, but in this case I am keeping an open mind and am not yet quite sure who and what I believe. In any event, I will be doing some TV interviews in Las Vegas and elsewhere about this subject, so stay tuned. I will link you to those upcoming interviews.
Here is a summary of what happened and an interview that Vaughn and Mizzi gave to Pokernews.com:
Before Oct. 21st, Chris Vaughn was generally known in the poker world because of his work as Managing Editor for Bluff Magazine. On that night, Vaughn won the $1 Million Guaranteed on Full Tilt under his 'BluffMagCV' screen name. Not only had lightning struck, but it would soon seem to have struck twice, for a week later Vaughn virtually repeated the feat, capturing (as 'SlippyJacks') the Sunday Million on PokerStars. Other players dreamed about a similar breakthrough performance.
Except… rumors were quickly afoot that the first of the victories officially posted by Vaughn wasn't quite what it seemed, that in fact this might have been a case of account selling. The practice has come to light only in recent months, after several account-selling incidents were discussed on major poker forums. It was quickly recognized that a star player taking over one of these accounts was gaining a significant edge over his remaining players, who would have no idea that a new tough player, perhaps with a radically different style, had suddenly assumed a seat at the table.
Had that happened here? No one knew for sure, though speculation quickly focused on young online star Sorel 'Imper1um' Mizzi, a friend of Vaughn's. An investigation into the Oct. 21st Full Tilt tournament soon began, and unofficial word of Mizzi's role in the tourney began to spread.
However, it wasn't until the runner-up in the Oct. 21st event, Soren Kongsgaard, recently posted an e-mail he had received from Full Tilt that the rumored disqualification of Vaughn's account was confirmed. Kongsgaard had suffered a tough loss at that, being blinded out during heads-up play after a lengthy loss of his Internet connection. The letter, though, confirmed that Kongsgaard would be moved up to the winner's spot, with all other money finishers in the event bumped up one spot as well.
Faced with the evidence and growing outcry on poker forums, Vaughn and Mizzi contacted PokerNews about going public with the events of that night and related matters. Vaughn and Mizzi agreed to a lengthy interview which will be presented here in two parts, detailing the purchase of Vaughn's account and the practice of account selling in general.
John Caldwell: Chris, tell me a little bit about where you were during your Full Tilt win. At what stage you started receiving communications and how you reacted to them and basically what happened after that?
Chris Vaughn: Oh, I think there was something around... I think we were at three tables left. I want to say maybe there were 24 people. I was below average stack – I wasn't one of the shortest stacks – but definitely below average. I don't remember time, details like that. I just remember that I had definitely had - had just gotten to the point where I was starting to really look at first, second, third, like those big numbers, you know? Realistically, in a poker tournament, you have to get really deep to really start looking at those numbers and I guess I - I had gotten that deep, for sure. So, I was playing it... obviously the situation I was in financially as a 24-year-old journalist – the numbers got pretty big, you know? They were pretty effective, so this really led to – I guess me talking to Sorel about this.
JC: So Sorel called you at some stage ?
CV: No, no – no, what initially happened was – I guess everyone in the – half the field in the tournament had gotten disconnected at some point. I had started to lag, I guess is what they call it, a little bit. Which means, I wasn't timing out, but I was freezing a little bit, and I work like five minutes, literally from where I live. And so I was considering driving down to work. I'm more comfortable playing there, I play at work a lot – most of the time, on Sundays, and I was considering playing there and , he [Sorel] was one of the people that I would trust to play while I did it. And, you know we were on instant messenger and I sent him a message and, it pretty quickly led to a discussion about selling the account rather than just letting him play for a few minutes. The reason I sold the account had nothing to do with my connection. The reason I initially contacted him probably more so had to do with connection, but selling the account was completely a financial decision and was in no way anything else.
JC: And so it was a financial thing, so you guys came to a deal on the spot for Sorel to buy the account.
CV: Correct.
JC: There were about 24 people left in the tournament, and at that point you, I assume, logged off.
CV: I gave him my password and he logged in.
PN: Right, so you logged off the account, and Sorel logged in. Sorel, is this something you do a lot and is it part of the gameplan? Is this the first time you've done this?
Sorel Mizzi: No, I'm not a – I'm not a cheater; I'm not a multi-accounter. I acted fast without malice and didn't intend to hurt Chris and myself, opponents, or the entire poker community. This is something that was a one-time – it was a one-time thing and I clearly didn't give it much thought, which is exactly why I got caught, because... of actually logging into his account which would be traced. But, I want to make it clear that this is something that was an isolated incident and it's not something that I've done in the past.
JC: So this is the first time you've ever done this – you've never bought an account before online, late in a tournament?
SM: Never.
JC: ... and then taken it over?
SM: Right.
JC: So, are you aware though, the message boards and such would lead you to believe that there's sort of these 'associations,' for lack of a better word, of online players who do seek out players who are still in late in big Sunday tournaments and do buy the accounts or maybe ghost for a piece or something like that. And is that a common practice – have you ever participated in that sort of thing?
SM: Well, there's a lot of speculation happening on the forums – people want to believe what – want to believe the worst. The fact of the matter is that – yes, there's a lot of things going on where players are being ghosted in the middle or late – in the late stages of the tournament by a better player and this is – this is something that can never be regulated. And the fact that there is no one player per hand rule online really gives those people justification for doing this kind of thing. But, I know that it goes on in the high limits and in the low limits and there's absolutely nothing that can be done.
JC: So given that fact, which is something we hear a lot, that "there is no 'one player per hand' rule online and it's simply unenforceable," is this the kind of thing where you've done that type of stuff before, where you may have a guy who's down to eight players in a big tournament, and you'll sit behind him on Messenger and something and do that, or is that not your style?
SM: No, this isn't something – like I said – I mean, this isn't something I regularly do. You know, sometimes people ask me after the hand what they should've done in a situation and I gladly respond to that, but this isn't something I regularly do. You know, a lot of the reason I did what I did is because, not just because of the obvious monetary reward, but also because of the thrill of being deep in a tournament and I still get that – that... {pauses}. I don't get deep in Sunday majors often and, when I have the opportunity to actually play deep in a tournament - it's a very... exciting thing for me, because and it's not just because of the money, it's because I love playing deep in a tournament. It's just a passion for - for playing poker, basically. But, to get back to your question, I haven't done this before in the past and I know that there are people who do this regularly and you know, like that's – I mean I know it's not against the rules – whether or not it's ethical or unethical is another question and that's for each individual person to decide for themselves, but, I mean....
JC: But let's specify that you're talking about ghosting here, as opposed to buying accounts.
SM: Right.
JC: It is against the rules if you buy an account.
SM: It is against the rules if you log into the computer, but as far as I know, I mean out of the five or six years that online poker has been – has been going, no one's been penalized for this kind of activity. So, with that in mind, I never – I didn't give it much thought and I didn't think what I was doing would cause this kind of – the kind of uproar and the kind of....
JC: Drama?
SM: Yeah, that - that exact, that happened and it – it was just all a shock to me, but, with that being said I still think what I did was wrong and I – I feel disgusted at myself and I really… I don't like the fact that it's been really hard for me to cope with it.
JC: When the scuttlebutt started coming out, obviously you spend a lot of time on message boards as well, so you're very familiar with that culture. But when the scuttlebutt on the message boards came out, hey "I hear this," "I hear that," whatever, were you concerned at that point that this would become an issue and if so, why didn't you take action then?
SM: So you're saying, when the first forum thread came out?
JC: Right, when the first forum thread came out, "We hear that CVBluffMag {Vaughn's Full Tilt account} was taken over by Sorel," or someone - anyone for that matter, and you knew it was yourself obviously, how did that make you feel and what did you do at that time and how do you feel about what you did?
SM: Well, I didn't really do anything. I kind of, I actually remember the night that I saw the post and the point that I was actually leaving to go on a flight the next morning to Vegas and I think I left looking at the post with like 70 or 80 responses and I kind of just let it evolve – I kind of just let people speak about the issue rather than me talk about what I did or what happened. And I think it's not a very good environment, you know, the public forums – to basically talk about this kind of issue because there's just way too much, {pauses} – I mean, you've seen it – there's just way too much hatred and it's just not pretty, so this is why I wanted to do this with PokerNews to basically address everyone's concerns in a professional manner in a professional atmosphere and I... I think that my initial reaction was just not to make a comment. I had planned on making a comment the very night after, but, I actually was scheduled to come to Vegas at twelve o'clock and my flight got overbooked, so I ended up coming late at night because I had to go to Phoenix first, so I actually saw the thread progress a day after – a day after all the – all the posts were made, so I didn't actually see what was going on until after. So I had decided initially not to make a response and then once I saw all the threads being made about it, I basically… I didn't really know what to say – I wanted to come out with an apology and basically tell the truth, but I was advised that I should do it in a more professional manner and not – not resort to the forums, so….
JC: Chris, you did respond, online. The perception I got from reading the threads was that you had responded at some point.
CV: Yeah, I think the one response I remember making was – I responded once on TwoPlusTwo saying that someone else had no involvement in this and my other post was to say that the interview would not be done with Bluff Magazine – I think those are the only two times I ever posted on it.
JC: And you went on the 'BigPokerSundays' internet radio show on ThePokerRoad.com, and responded. I re-listened to that interview again last night.
CV: OK
PN: Do you regret what you said on there – do you think Haralabos and Huff's assessment of what you said on there is fair?
CV: The question – for one – the question threw me off guard. I absolutely knew what they were talking about - I mean, obviously, I'm not stupid. It caught me off guard – I didn't think they would ask it. I probably wouldn't have done the show, you know. It was… I wasn't ready to be asked a question about this. You have to understand anytime either of us got asked anything about this. We're not talking about other people that have been in solo incidents. We're both involved in this and it's really difficult to answer questions like this when someone else is directly affected by what you say. But that being said, it threw me off guard and I just lied.
PN: And do you now regret that?
CV: Oh yeah, of course I do. I mean, it's – I regretted it the second I got off the air, I was like – oh, that's bad, that was – that was bad what I just did – I knew it was bad when I was saying it, I knew it was – I mean it was just, it was my instinct to lie, I got caught off guard. It's just like when you, when this happened with the account, it was like – is what I'm doing wrong? I know it's wrong, I absolutely know it's wrong. Even if I don't think I can get in trouble for it. Even if I'm not sure if it's against the rules. I know what I'm doing is wrong. I know it's unfair. It's just like when they asked me the question on the show, I panicked and I lied. You know, I – I had the chance to apologize to Scott Huff – one of the hosts of the show who's, who's really nice about all this. I just, I'd love to go back on the show and apologize. I hate that I lied about it. I wish that I could take it back and I wish I could go back right now and at least say no comment and wait for a better spot, you know, but – yeah, I mean, absolutely I lied. I think everyone knows that now.
JC: So, now, let's talk about the process of Full Tilt discovering that this had gone on. What was the first piece of communication you received and when did you know it was going to be a real issue?
CV: I guess someone contacted them and asked for an Pokerstars investigation. I assume they did this to PokerStars and Full Tilt both. Full Tilt found reason to believe that we were in violation of their rules. They temporarily suspended our accounts to investigate and the correspondence began. They had questions, and they had to use their technology to investigate what they thought happened and it took a couple weeks of just going back and forth. Their questions were pretty cut and dried, as in: What happened? Did you disconnect? That kind of thing.
JC: And so in the meantime your account was frozen?
CV: Correct.
JC: The money – you couldn't cash out?
CV: Correct.
JC: And so that money is now on to Soren Kongsgaard? (Kongsgaard was the runner-up in the Full Tilt tournament in question.)
CV: Yes.
JC: Have you been officially told that your account has been closed at Full Tilt?
CV: Correct.
JC: So, is there any type of statement that says you're not welcome to open another account with them?
CV: Correct, yes there is.
JC: So, Sorel – On to you. As an Internet pro, I assume not being able to play at Full Tilt is like a baseball player being told he can't play in the American League. How has this, and the surrounding attention, affected you?
Sorel Mizzi: The attention that I've received has been astronomical, both positive and negative. On the extreme side, the physical threats that I've received have been tough on me mentally, even if I don't believe them to be credible. And my goal in 2007 was to win the online player of the year. I was locked in and I felt my chances were very good. However, the inability to accumulate the necessary points by eliminating a huge resource in Full Tilt Poker has thrown these strong chances away. I am now limited as an online pro. I have lost good friends and my credibility.
JC: So, what can you say about this experience?
SM: Well, first of all I'd like to come out with an apology, because I know that what I did was wrong. The more I think about it, the more I believe what I did was wrong and it's something that I want the poker community to know that I would never do again. And my primary focus, like I said, was to be a contender for the online player of the year and because of all these things that have happened, my resource from Full Tilt has been cut off and I can no longer play on there, so I think I'm more inclined to focus on the live tournament arena and sort of move more away from online as the year ends. Hopefully people can forgive me for what I've done and I can move forward with my life and not be known as someone who cheats or someone who multi-accounts, rather, known for my achievements online and my achievements live. That's kind of what I'm hoping from the situation.
JC: You brought up something I think is interesting. You said that there's good elements and bad that have been reacted to positively and negatively. Tell me a little bit about the positive reaction. I assume this is from people from the culture of online poker who don't see this as problematic?
SM: There have been a lot of people – and a lot of the PMs (personal messages) have been very positive, that I've gotten. There's a lot of people that don't think what I did was a huge issue and those people, instead of posting on the forums and getting lynched, they decided to PM me directly and tell me how they felt about the situation. And the truth of the matter is, the whole thing has been blown severely out of proportion and I think that I've suffered enough, to be honest. I mean, the fact that I can no longer make a run at the online player of the year, my account is closed on Full Tilt for good, I lost the good amount of money that would've been helpful and I've also lost a lot of people, or a lot of friends and a lot of fan base because of the issue. But the positive from it is like a lot of the players have come up to me personally and a lot of players have PM'ed me, like I said, and told me that they're still friends with me and they still believe in me and they still have trust for me and everything like that and I really appreciate those comments. Although there's a lot of people who seem to think that, this is not a big issue, the more and more I think about it, the more I realize that it is a big issue.
The support that I have received from both my family and close inner circle of friends has truly helped me cope with this disastrous situation. Even upon arriving to Las Vegas this week to play the Venetian and Five Diamond, having other big known pros pull me aside and offer support has helped me pick up a little bit. I have been advised as to my course of action and hope that everyone was able to see I felt a need to express myself in a professional and sincere manner. Most importantly, making light of the story in a setting that is both professional and appropriate. But, so yeah, I've received a lot of support from people that I know in the community and people who have said that they still think that I have a lot of potential for the future and that this situation shouldn't really affect me as much. A lot of people are optimistic that my reputation will be recovered and I'll have the credibility that I once did have and a lot of people have told me that this will all pass over – which I'm really looking forward to happening.
JC: Chris, do you feel it's fair that you be held to a different standard because you are a member of the poker media?
CV: Separately from working in poker, I think that anyone who enters a poker tournament should be held to all of the same standards. I feel that any random player that plays the Sunday Million should have the same ethical standards that a poker journalist should have. That's not to say that poker journalists should have more standards than the average player – or less. It's something that, maybe because of my opportunity to work in the poker media that I might understand better than some others, because I understand the history of online poker – stuff like this – and I understand the kind of trouble that can be gotten into by doing things like this, because I work for a major poker magazine. I obviously should've behaved myself in a much different manner, for sure.
JC: So, how have the people at Bluff reacted to you?
CV: They've treated this as a poor decision that I made, on my own, in my personal life. They've been very supportive of me. You know, the people I work with have been some of the people that have been most supportive through all this. I've had people that have had my back that have really helped me a lot – that have offered me continued and pretty unconditional support, so, I'm very proud to be working there. They, I think, have shown a lot of character throughout this, when, I put them in a spot where they didn't necessarily even need to be. [Editor's Note – Bluff Media sent us a statement when they heard we would be conducting this interview. Their statement runs at the end of this interview.]
JC: As Chris Vaughn, online poker player, how does it make you feel that there are going to be people out there, especially poker media people, who are going to say you're affiliated with something that was really, really bad for poker? How are you going to deal with that personally going forward and how do you deal with those people?
CV: I'm angry at myself and I expect other people to be angry at me. I wish there was something I could do. I can't. I think I just have to listen to their concerns and address them. I don't think there's any real response that I can give anyone at this point that's really going to change anything that we did. I can apologize, I apologize on behalf of myself, and on behalf of the magazine I work for. You know, it's embarrassing – I'm embarrassed of myself.
JC: Chris, Let's talk about the Sunday Million tournament you won on October 28th. You and I have spoken a few times throughout this process. You have always maintained that you sat at your own computer, and played that tournament with absolutely no assistance from any other player, is that correct?
CV: Correct.
JC: Ok, and every piece of evidence out there seems to indicate that that is exactly what happened. Anything to say about Stars? Has Stars been in touch with you at all?
CV: No, not at all.
JC: And your account is still open and active?
CV: Sure. I play on it all the time.
JC: Last question for you both, let's start with you, Chris. Who do you feel personally the worst for in this entire situation?
CV: We've both been through a lot in this. We've taken a lot of heat. We've taken a lot of heat in different ways. It's hard to say. You said "feel bad." The best way to put it is I feel sorry for myself. It's difficult to wake up and think about this everyday for sure. Do we deserve it? Probably. You know, it's a hard lesson learned. You deal with it everyday – you wake up, you try not to read the posts, you read them. It's ruined a lot of days, it's ruined a month, but you just have to deal with it one day at a time and yes, it's real easy to feel sorry for yourself. But I think you have to accept blame and as far as feeling bad, I think you have to feel bad for the players that were involved in the tournament where you cheated them out of their money. All of a sudden they're playing a world-class player. It was me and now all of a sudden, you were putting –
JC: A world-class player in your seat?
CV: Sure, right, and of course once you realize what's happened, you start to accept that and you really start to feel bad for everyone else that was involved. It's hard not to feel bad for Sorel too because he's gonna feel this a lot more than I will. It sucks for everyone.
JC: Sorel, same question for you. Who do you feel the worst for in this situation?
SM: I feel equally bad for me, as I do for Chris, as I do for the players involved in this. To be perfectly honest, at the time, I didn't think of how it would affect the players as much as the financial gain and playing the tournament. I think I had a really bad Sunday that time, so it was a new opportunity for me and I was excited about it. But, I think that we all have equally suffered from this. The poker sites have probably suffered a little bit, and we have suffered. To have that amount of money taken away from us, and the suspension of the accounts and Chris being a respected member of the media. It's just been a really terrible situation for everyone and it's something that should've never happened and I think that we all, equally, have suffered. I think that Chris and I have suffered the same amount as the players have suffered. I really hope that everyone can move forward and forget about the situation. I have had a clean track record online for over two years and nothing like this has ever happened and I hope that people will respect me like they once did and look at me as ambassador of the game, because that's what I want to be. I want to be an ambassador for the game because I love poker and I love everything about it and it's something I see myself doing for a very long time.
JC: Sorel, when someone sees you on the tournament floor – what do you want them to know?
SM: I want them to think of a young, naïve 21-year-old who made a mistake and is trying to put it all behind him and move forward. I think I've grown through this situation and I've realized that a lot of my morals and beliefs have changed about the situation and I want them to think that I am working on a better me and I'm trying. I want them to think that I've gained maturity throughout this whole situation and that it's something that I never see myself doing again and it's something that I look down upon.
End of interview.
Statement from Bluff Media on the Chris Vaughn situation:
"Bluff Media in no way, shape, or form condones the actions of Chris Vaughn. We were extremely unhappy, and disappointed. However we feel that Chris has always acted in a professional manner at BLUFF in the past, and we have no plans for terminating his employment with the company. He has been given a warning, and is on probation. We hope that we can all move past this, and learn from it."
Chris Vaughn, the managing editor of Bluff Magazine (for whom I write poker articles) and Sorel Mizzi, the young online poker star and friend of Vaughn's, have given interviews on their alleged involvement in the latest major account-selling scam. Given my skepticism about online poker and the unbelievable amounts of cheating I've witnessed on it firsthand, it is very hard for me to give anyone accused of anything the benefit of the doubt, especially two people with the obvious knowledge and smarts that these guys have, but in this case I am keeping an open mind and am not yet quite sure who and what I believe. In any event, I will be doing some TV interviews in Las Vegas and elsewhere about this subject, so stay tuned. I will link you to those upcoming interviews.
Here is a summary of what happened and an interview that Vaughn and Mizzi gave to Pokernews.com:
Before Oct. 21st, Chris Vaughn was generally known in the poker world because of his work as Managing Editor for Bluff Magazine. On that night, Vaughn won the $1 Million Guaranteed on Full Tilt under his 'BluffMagCV' screen name. Not only had lightning struck, but it would soon seem to have struck twice, for a week later Vaughn virtually repeated the feat, capturing (as 'SlippyJacks') the Sunday Million on PokerStars. Other players dreamed about a similar breakthrough performance.
Except… rumors were quickly afoot that the first of the victories officially posted by Vaughn wasn't quite what it seemed, that in fact this might have been a case of account selling. The practice has come to light only in recent months, after several account-selling incidents were discussed on major poker forums. It was quickly recognized that a star player taking over one of these accounts was gaining a significant edge over his remaining players, who would have no idea that a new tough player, perhaps with a radically different style, had suddenly assumed a seat at the table.
Had that happened here? No one knew for sure, though speculation quickly focused on young online star Sorel 'Imper1um' Mizzi, a friend of Vaughn's. An investigation into the Oct. 21st Full Tilt tournament soon began, and unofficial word of Mizzi's role in the tourney began to spread.
However, it wasn't until the runner-up in the Oct. 21st event, Soren Kongsgaard, recently posted an e-mail he had received from Full Tilt that the rumored disqualification of Vaughn's account was confirmed. Kongsgaard had suffered a tough loss at that, being blinded out during heads-up play after a lengthy loss of his Internet connection. The letter, though, confirmed that Kongsgaard would be moved up to the winner's spot, with all other money finishers in the event bumped up one spot as well.
Faced with the evidence and growing outcry on poker forums, Vaughn and Mizzi contacted PokerNews about going public with the events of that night and related matters. Vaughn and Mizzi agreed to a lengthy interview which will be presented here in two parts, detailing the purchase of Vaughn's account and the practice of account selling in general.
John Caldwell: Chris, tell me a little bit about where you were during your Full Tilt win. At what stage you started receiving communications and how you reacted to them and basically what happened after that?
Chris Vaughn: Oh, I think there was something around... I think we were at three tables left. I want to say maybe there were 24 people. I was below average stack – I wasn't one of the shortest stacks – but definitely below average. I don't remember time, details like that. I just remember that I had definitely had - had just gotten to the point where I was starting to really look at first, second, third, like those big numbers, you know? Realistically, in a poker tournament, you have to get really deep to really start looking at those numbers and I guess I - I had gotten that deep, for sure. So, I was playing it... obviously the situation I was in financially as a 24-year-old journalist – the numbers got pretty big, you know? They were pretty effective, so this really led to – I guess me talking to Sorel about this.
JC: So Sorel called you at some stage ?
CV: No, no – no, what initially happened was – I guess everyone in the – half the field in the tournament had gotten disconnected at some point. I had started to lag, I guess is what they call it, a little bit. Which means, I wasn't timing out, but I was freezing a little bit, and I work like five minutes, literally from where I live. And so I was considering driving down to work. I'm more comfortable playing there, I play at work a lot – most of the time, on Sundays, and I was considering playing there and , he [Sorel] was one of the people that I would trust to play while I did it. And, you know we were on instant messenger and I sent him a message and, it pretty quickly led to a discussion about selling the account rather than just letting him play for a few minutes. The reason I sold the account had nothing to do with my connection. The reason I initially contacted him probably more so had to do with connection, but selling the account was completely a financial decision and was in no way anything else.
JC: And so it was a financial thing, so you guys came to a deal on the spot for Sorel to buy the account.
CV: Correct.
JC: There were about 24 people left in the tournament, and at that point you, I assume, logged off.
CV: I gave him my password and he logged in.
PN: Right, so you logged off the account, and Sorel logged in. Sorel, is this something you do a lot and is it part of the gameplan? Is this the first time you've done this?
Sorel Mizzi: No, I'm not a – I'm not a cheater; I'm not a multi-accounter. I acted fast without malice and didn't intend to hurt Chris and myself, opponents, or the entire poker community. This is something that was a one-time – it was a one-time thing and I clearly didn't give it much thought, which is exactly why I got caught, because... of actually logging into his account which would be traced. But, I want to make it clear that this is something that was an isolated incident and it's not something that I've done in the past.
JC: So this is the first time you've ever done this – you've never bought an account before online, late in a tournament?
SM: Never.
JC: ... and then taken it over?
SM: Right.
JC: So, are you aware though, the message boards and such would lead you to believe that there's sort of these 'associations,' for lack of a better word, of online players who do seek out players who are still in late in big Sunday tournaments and do buy the accounts or maybe ghost for a piece or something like that. And is that a common practice – have you ever participated in that sort of thing?
SM: Well, there's a lot of speculation happening on the forums – people want to believe what – want to believe the worst. The fact of the matter is that – yes, there's a lot of things going on where players are being ghosted in the middle or late – in the late stages of the tournament by a better player and this is – this is something that can never be regulated. And the fact that there is no one player per hand rule online really gives those people justification for doing this kind of thing. But, I know that it goes on in the high limits and in the low limits and there's absolutely nothing that can be done.
JC: So given that fact, which is something we hear a lot, that "there is no 'one player per hand' rule online and it's simply unenforceable," is this the kind of thing where you've done that type of stuff before, where you may have a guy who's down to eight players in a big tournament, and you'll sit behind him on Messenger and something and do that, or is that not your style?
SM: No, this isn't something – like I said – I mean, this isn't something I regularly do. You know, sometimes people ask me after the hand what they should've done in a situation and I gladly respond to that, but this isn't something I regularly do. You know, a lot of the reason I did what I did is because, not just because of the obvious monetary reward, but also because of the thrill of being deep in a tournament and I still get that – that... {pauses}. I don't get deep in Sunday majors often and, when I have the opportunity to actually play deep in a tournament - it's a very... exciting thing for me, because and it's not just because of the money, it's because I love playing deep in a tournament. It's just a passion for - for playing poker, basically. But, to get back to your question, I haven't done this before in the past and I know that there are people who do this regularly and you know, like that's – I mean I know it's not against the rules – whether or not it's ethical or unethical is another question and that's for each individual person to decide for themselves, but, I mean....
JC: But let's specify that you're talking about ghosting here, as opposed to buying accounts.
SM: Right.
JC: It is against the rules if you buy an account.
SM: It is against the rules if you log into the computer, but as far as I know, I mean out of the five or six years that online poker has been – has been going, no one's been penalized for this kind of activity. So, with that in mind, I never – I didn't give it much thought and I didn't think what I was doing would cause this kind of – the kind of uproar and the kind of....
JC: Drama?
SM: Yeah, that - that exact, that happened and it – it was just all a shock to me, but, with that being said I still think what I did was wrong and I – I feel disgusted at myself and I really… I don't like the fact that it's been really hard for me to cope with it.
JC: When the scuttlebutt started coming out, obviously you spend a lot of time on message boards as well, so you're very familiar with that culture. But when the scuttlebutt on the message boards came out, hey "I hear this," "I hear that," whatever, were you concerned at that point that this would become an issue and if so, why didn't you take action then?
SM: So you're saying, when the first forum thread came out?
JC: Right, when the first forum thread came out, "We hear that CVBluffMag {Vaughn's Full Tilt account} was taken over by Sorel," or someone - anyone for that matter, and you knew it was yourself obviously, how did that make you feel and what did you do at that time and how do you feel about what you did?
SM: Well, I didn't really do anything. I kind of, I actually remember the night that I saw the post and the point that I was actually leaving to go on a flight the next morning to Vegas and I think I left looking at the post with like 70 or 80 responses and I kind of just let it evolve – I kind of just let people speak about the issue rather than me talk about what I did or what happened. And I think it's not a very good environment, you know, the public forums – to basically talk about this kind of issue because there's just way too much, {pauses} – I mean, you've seen it – there's just way too much hatred and it's just not pretty, so this is why I wanted to do this with PokerNews to basically address everyone's concerns in a professional manner in a professional atmosphere and I... I think that my initial reaction was just not to make a comment. I had planned on making a comment the very night after, but, I actually was scheduled to come to Vegas at twelve o'clock and my flight got overbooked, so I ended up coming late at night because I had to go to Phoenix first, so I actually saw the thread progress a day after – a day after all the – all the posts were made, so I didn't actually see what was going on until after. So I had decided initially not to make a response and then once I saw all the threads being made about it, I basically… I didn't really know what to say – I wanted to come out with an apology and basically tell the truth, but I was advised that I should do it in a more professional manner and not – not resort to the forums, so….
JC: Chris, you did respond, online. The perception I got from reading the threads was that you had responded at some point.
CV: Yeah, I think the one response I remember making was – I responded once on TwoPlusTwo saying that someone else had no involvement in this and my other post was to say that the interview would not be done with Bluff Magazine – I think those are the only two times I ever posted on it.
JC: And you went on the 'BigPokerSundays' internet radio show on ThePokerRoad.com, and responded. I re-listened to that interview again last night.
CV: OK
PN: Do you regret what you said on there – do you think Haralabos and Huff's assessment of what you said on there is fair?
CV: The question – for one – the question threw me off guard. I absolutely knew what they were talking about - I mean, obviously, I'm not stupid. It caught me off guard – I didn't think they would ask it. I probably wouldn't have done the show, you know. It was… I wasn't ready to be asked a question about this. You have to understand anytime either of us got asked anything about this. We're not talking about other people that have been in solo incidents. We're both involved in this and it's really difficult to answer questions like this when someone else is directly affected by what you say. But that being said, it threw me off guard and I just lied.
PN: And do you now regret that?
CV: Oh yeah, of course I do. I mean, it's – I regretted it the second I got off the air, I was like – oh, that's bad, that was – that was bad what I just did – I knew it was bad when I was saying it, I knew it was – I mean it was just, it was my instinct to lie, I got caught off guard. It's just like when you, when this happened with the account, it was like – is what I'm doing wrong? I know it's wrong, I absolutely know it's wrong. Even if I don't think I can get in trouble for it. Even if I'm not sure if it's against the rules. I know what I'm doing is wrong. I know it's unfair. It's just like when they asked me the question on the show, I panicked and I lied. You know, I – I had the chance to apologize to Scott Huff – one of the hosts of the show who's, who's really nice about all this. I just, I'd love to go back on the show and apologize. I hate that I lied about it. I wish that I could take it back and I wish I could go back right now and at least say no comment and wait for a better spot, you know, but – yeah, I mean, absolutely I lied. I think everyone knows that now.
JC: So, now, let's talk about the process of Full Tilt discovering that this had gone on. What was the first piece of communication you received and when did you know it was going to be a real issue?
CV: I guess someone contacted them and asked for an Pokerstars investigation. I assume they did this to PokerStars and Full Tilt both. Full Tilt found reason to believe that we were in violation of their rules. They temporarily suspended our accounts to investigate and the correspondence began. They had questions, and they had to use their technology to investigate what they thought happened and it took a couple weeks of just going back and forth. Their questions were pretty cut and dried, as in: What happened? Did you disconnect? That kind of thing.
JC: And so in the meantime your account was frozen?
CV: Correct.
JC: The money – you couldn't cash out?
CV: Correct.
JC: And so that money is now on to Soren Kongsgaard? (Kongsgaard was the runner-up in the Full Tilt tournament in question.)
CV: Yes.
JC: Have you been officially told that your account has been closed at Full Tilt?
CV: Correct.
JC: So, is there any type of statement that says you're not welcome to open another account with them?
CV: Correct, yes there is.
JC: So, Sorel – On to you. As an Internet pro, I assume not being able to play at Full Tilt is like a baseball player being told he can't play in the American League. How has this, and the surrounding attention, affected you?
Sorel Mizzi: The attention that I've received has been astronomical, both positive and negative. On the extreme side, the physical threats that I've received have been tough on me mentally, even if I don't believe them to be credible. And my goal in 2007 was to win the online player of the year. I was locked in and I felt my chances were very good. However, the inability to accumulate the necessary points by eliminating a huge resource in Full Tilt Poker has thrown these strong chances away. I am now limited as an online pro. I have lost good friends and my credibility.
JC: So, what can you say about this experience?
SM: Well, first of all I'd like to come out with an apology, because I know that what I did was wrong. The more I think about it, the more I believe what I did was wrong and it's something that I want the poker community to know that I would never do again. And my primary focus, like I said, was to be a contender for the online player of the year and because of all these things that have happened, my resource from Full Tilt has been cut off and I can no longer play on there, so I think I'm more inclined to focus on the live tournament arena and sort of move more away from online as the year ends. Hopefully people can forgive me for what I've done and I can move forward with my life and not be known as someone who cheats or someone who multi-accounts, rather, known for my achievements online and my achievements live. That's kind of what I'm hoping from the situation.
JC: You brought up something I think is interesting. You said that there's good elements and bad that have been reacted to positively and negatively. Tell me a little bit about the positive reaction. I assume this is from people from the culture of online poker who don't see this as problematic?
SM: There have been a lot of people – and a lot of the PMs (personal messages) have been very positive, that I've gotten. There's a lot of people that don't think what I did was a huge issue and those people, instead of posting on the forums and getting lynched, they decided to PM me directly and tell me how they felt about the situation. And the truth of the matter is, the whole thing has been blown severely out of proportion and I think that I've suffered enough, to be honest. I mean, the fact that I can no longer make a run at the online player of the year, my account is closed on Full Tilt for good, I lost the good amount of money that would've been helpful and I've also lost a lot of people, or a lot of friends and a lot of fan base because of the issue. But the positive from it is like a lot of the players have come up to me personally and a lot of players have PM'ed me, like I said, and told me that they're still friends with me and they still believe in me and they still have trust for me and everything like that and I really appreciate those comments. Although there's a lot of people who seem to think that, this is not a big issue, the more and more I think about it, the more I realize that it is a big issue.
The support that I have received from both my family and close inner circle of friends has truly helped me cope with this disastrous situation. Even upon arriving to Las Vegas this week to play the Venetian and Five Diamond, having other big known pros pull me aside and offer support has helped me pick up a little bit. I have been advised as to my course of action and hope that everyone was able to see I felt a need to express myself in a professional and sincere manner. Most importantly, making light of the story in a setting that is both professional and appropriate. But, so yeah, I've received a lot of support from people that I know in the community and people who have said that they still think that I have a lot of potential for the future and that this situation shouldn't really affect me as much. A lot of people are optimistic that my reputation will be recovered and I'll have the credibility that I once did have and a lot of people have told me that this will all pass over – which I'm really looking forward to happening.
JC: Chris, do you feel it's fair that you be held to a different standard because you are a member of the poker media?
CV: Separately from working in poker, I think that anyone who enters a poker tournament should be held to all of the same standards. I feel that any random player that plays the Sunday Million should have the same ethical standards that a poker journalist should have. That's not to say that poker journalists should have more standards than the average player – or less. It's something that, maybe because of my opportunity to work in the poker media that I might understand better than some others, because I understand the history of online poker – stuff like this – and I understand the kind of trouble that can be gotten into by doing things like this, because I work for a major poker magazine. I obviously should've behaved myself in a much different manner, for sure.
JC: So, how have the people at Bluff reacted to you?
CV: They've treated this as a poor decision that I made, on my own, in my personal life. They've been very supportive of me. You know, the people I work with have been some of the people that have been most supportive through all this. I've had people that have had my back that have really helped me a lot – that have offered me continued and pretty unconditional support, so, I'm very proud to be working there. They, I think, have shown a lot of character throughout this, when, I put them in a spot where they didn't necessarily even need to be. [Editor's Note – Bluff Media sent us a statement when they heard we would be conducting this interview. Their statement runs at the end of this interview.]
JC: As Chris Vaughn, online poker player, how does it make you feel that there are going to be people out there, especially poker media people, who are going to say you're affiliated with something that was really, really bad for poker? How are you going to deal with that personally going forward and how do you deal with those people?
CV: I'm angry at myself and I expect other people to be angry at me. I wish there was something I could do. I can't. I think I just have to listen to their concerns and address them. I don't think there's any real response that I can give anyone at this point that's really going to change anything that we did. I can apologize, I apologize on behalf of myself, and on behalf of the magazine I work for. You know, it's embarrassing – I'm embarrassed of myself.
JC: Chris, Let's talk about the Sunday Million tournament you won on October 28th. You and I have spoken a few times throughout this process. You have always maintained that you sat at your own computer, and played that tournament with absolutely no assistance from any other player, is that correct?
CV: Correct.
JC: Ok, and every piece of evidence out there seems to indicate that that is exactly what happened. Anything to say about Stars? Has Stars been in touch with you at all?
CV: No, not at all.
JC: And your account is still open and active?
CV: Sure. I play on it all the time.
JC: Last question for you both, let's start with you, Chris. Who do you feel personally the worst for in this entire situation?
CV: We've both been through a lot in this. We've taken a lot of heat. We've taken a lot of heat in different ways. It's hard to say. You said "feel bad." The best way to put it is I feel sorry for myself. It's difficult to wake up and think about this everyday for sure. Do we deserve it? Probably. You know, it's a hard lesson learned. You deal with it everyday – you wake up, you try not to read the posts, you read them. It's ruined a lot of days, it's ruined a month, but you just have to deal with it one day at a time and yes, it's real easy to feel sorry for yourself. But I think you have to accept blame and as far as feeling bad, I think you have to feel bad for the players that were involved in the tournament where you cheated them out of their money. All of a sudden they're playing a world-class player. It was me and now all of a sudden, you were putting –
JC: A world-class player in your seat?
CV: Sure, right, and of course once you realize what's happened, you start to accept that and you really start to feel bad for everyone else that was involved. It's hard not to feel bad for Sorel too because he's gonna feel this a lot more than I will. It sucks for everyone.
JC: Sorel, same question for you. Who do you feel the worst for in this situation?
SM: I feel equally bad for me, as I do for Chris, as I do for the players involved in this. To be perfectly honest, at the time, I didn't think of how it would affect the players as much as the financial gain and playing the tournament. I think I had a really bad Sunday that time, so it was a new opportunity for me and I was excited about it. But, I think that we all have equally suffered from this. The poker sites have probably suffered a little bit, and we have suffered. To have that amount of money taken away from us, and the suspension of the accounts and Chris being a respected member of the media. It's just been a really terrible situation for everyone and it's something that should've never happened and I think that we all, equally, have suffered. I think that Chris and I have suffered the same amount as the players have suffered. I really hope that everyone can move forward and forget about the situation. I have had a clean track record online for over two years and nothing like this has ever happened and I hope that people will respect me like they once did and look at me as ambassador of the game, because that's what I want to be. I want to be an ambassador for the game because I love poker and I love everything about it and it's something I see myself doing for a very long time.
JC: Sorel, when someone sees you on the tournament floor – what do you want them to know?
SM: I want them to think of a young, naïve 21-year-old who made a mistake and is trying to put it all behind him and move forward. I think I've grown through this situation and I've realized that a lot of my morals and beliefs have changed about the situation and I want them to think that I am working on a better me and I'm trying. I want them to think that I've gained maturity throughout this whole situation and that it's something that I never see myself doing again and it's something that I look down upon.
End of interview.
Statement from Bluff Media on the Chris Vaughn situation:
"Bluff Media in no way, shape, or form condones the actions of Chris Vaughn. We were extremely unhappy, and disappointed. However we feel that Chris has always acted in a professional manner at BLUFF in the past, and we have no plans for terminating his employment with the company. He has been given a warning, and is on probation. We hope that we can all move past this, and learn from it."
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
I Agree With This Guy, Do You?/Chip Reese
Here's another thoughtful guy who's got the right idea. What do you think?
Could We Get Some Positive Poker News for Once Please?
king is wondering if the poker industry can get some positive news Over the past 20 months or so, the news flow for online poker has been almost completely negative. If it's not the government interfering with our game, it's some of the best and brightest poker players in the game doing immeasurable damage to the game that we all love.
The first bad news for the industry was the entire "JJProdigy" situation, which really brought the entire issue of multi-accounting to the forefront. Then, right after the "JJProdigy" revelation, Justin "Zeejustin" Bonomo was busted for the exact same thing. Two of the brightest minds in online poker, both being busted for multi-accounting.
Second it was the UIGEA being snuck into the SAFE Port act, which resulted in some of our favorite online poker rooms pulling out of the US market. For all of their faults, Party Poker and Paradise Poker were both great places to play.
Then we had the Neteller fiasco, which resulted in thousands of people having their funds frozen for months and months. The worst part of the Neteller situation was not knowing when there would be a resolution. There was so much false hope. There were so many delays. In the end, all of the funds were returned, but it was certainly a negative event for the industry. Not only that, but the most popular method of depositing and withdrawing to online poker sites was eliminated for people in the United States. Considering the US makes up the biggest slice of the online poker population, this was a huge problem.
Many e-wallet companies closed their doors to the US market as well. Again, a big problem because if Americans have a hard time getting money online, the entire industry suffers.
Then we had possibly the two worst WSOP champions in history in terms of promoting the game; Jamie Gold and Jerry Yang. Jamie Gold was possibly the most despised WSOP champion in history - so despised and unpopular that Bodog actually severed their ties with him. Then Jerry Yang won the WSOP, made some disparaging comments about online poker, and basically just disappeared. The online poker industry counts a great deal on the WSOP to generate interest in poker, and these two champions did nothing to help, IMO.
Then we had the major "bot" bust on Full Tilt Poker.
Then we got the one-two punch of Pokerstars disqualifying "TheV0id" for allegedly cheating in the WCOOP main event plus the entire Absolute Poker fiasco. First you get the embarrassment of the biggest online poker room announcing that the winner of their biggest tournament had been disqualified, but then you have the revelation that employees of Absolute Poker had been able to view hole cards and were using this to enrich themselves. Two incidents that further shook the entire foundation of the online poker industry.
Now we have the news that Sorel "Imper1um" Mizzi, a major name in the poker world, has been banned from Full Tilt Poker for taking over an account late in a major tournament. Allegedly Mizzi took over the account of Chris "BluffMagCV" Vaughn and won the Full Tilt Million tournament about a month ago.
This news makes you have to ask the question: how much of this is going on undetected? How many people are being cheated on a daily basis?
These people are injuring the very industry that made them rich and somewhat famous in the first place. For all of their smarts on the poker table, they are idiots off of it, and are just looking to bank as much as they can, at whatever cost.
Mizzi has said that he will be making a statement to a major poker publication. I'm not sure what he is planning on saying, but let's hope that it's better than the "My Grandma was playing and I decided to take over when she was deep.."
So is there any hope for some positive news in the future?
Rumors continue to swirl that Party Poker is actively seeking a buyer. We can only hope that a buyer takes Party Poker private, delists from the LSE and they decide to return to the US market.
Also, I believe that momentum continues to grow when it comes to eventually regulating online poker in the United States. I would be surprised if online poker is not regulated in the next 2-3 years. This would obviously be a big positive for the industry.
There of course could be more negative news. More scandals, more people cheating.
One thing is for sure - the online poker industry is extremely resilient, and has taken a beating over the past year and a half and is still standing. Could we finally get some positive news though? I know that I wouldn't mind.
CHIP REESE:
As you all know by now, the poker world lost one of its legends yesterday, one of the greatest cash games players of all-time, Chip Reese. I have received some e-mails asking me if Chip Reese was ever involved in the collusion rackets at the high-stakes cash games at the Bellagio or anywhere else during his great career. Although I know that many famous players were indeed part of these nefarious collusion teams, to the best of my knowledge, Chip Reese was not. And, which certainly is no coincidence, if you know how I feel about the integrity of GSN's High Stakes Poker TV show, Chip was not a participant in these so called "ultra high stakes cash games."
Could We Get Some Positive Poker News for Once Please?
king is wondering if the poker industry can get some positive news Over the past 20 months or so, the news flow for online poker has been almost completely negative. If it's not the government interfering with our game, it's some of the best and brightest poker players in the game doing immeasurable damage to the game that we all love.
The first bad news for the industry was the entire "JJProdigy" situation, which really brought the entire issue of multi-accounting to the forefront. Then, right after the "JJProdigy" revelation, Justin "Zeejustin" Bonomo was busted for the exact same thing. Two of the brightest minds in online poker, both being busted for multi-accounting.
Second it was the UIGEA being snuck into the SAFE Port act, which resulted in some of our favorite online poker rooms pulling out of the US market. For all of their faults, Party Poker and Paradise Poker were both great places to play.
Then we had the Neteller fiasco, which resulted in thousands of people having their funds frozen for months and months. The worst part of the Neteller situation was not knowing when there would be a resolution. There was so much false hope. There were so many delays. In the end, all of the funds were returned, but it was certainly a negative event for the industry. Not only that, but the most popular method of depositing and withdrawing to online poker sites was eliminated for people in the United States. Considering the US makes up the biggest slice of the online poker population, this was a huge problem.
Many e-wallet companies closed their doors to the US market as well. Again, a big problem because if Americans have a hard time getting money online, the entire industry suffers.
Then we had possibly the two worst WSOP champions in history in terms of promoting the game; Jamie Gold and Jerry Yang. Jamie Gold was possibly the most despised WSOP champion in history - so despised and unpopular that Bodog actually severed their ties with him. Then Jerry Yang won the WSOP, made some disparaging comments about online poker, and basically just disappeared. The online poker industry counts a great deal on the WSOP to generate interest in poker, and these two champions did nothing to help, IMO.
Then we had the major "bot" bust on Full Tilt Poker.
Then we got the one-two punch of Pokerstars disqualifying "TheV0id" for allegedly cheating in the WCOOP main event plus the entire Absolute Poker fiasco. First you get the embarrassment of the biggest online poker room announcing that the winner of their biggest tournament had been disqualified, but then you have the revelation that employees of Absolute Poker had been able to view hole cards and were using this to enrich themselves. Two incidents that further shook the entire foundation of the online poker industry.
Now we have the news that Sorel "Imper1um" Mizzi, a major name in the poker world, has been banned from Full Tilt Poker for taking over an account late in a major tournament. Allegedly Mizzi took over the account of Chris "BluffMagCV" Vaughn and won the Full Tilt Million tournament about a month ago.
This news makes you have to ask the question: how much of this is going on undetected? How many people are being cheated on a daily basis?
These people are injuring the very industry that made them rich and somewhat famous in the first place. For all of their smarts on the poker table, they are idiots off of it, and are just looking to bank as much as they can, at whatever cost.
Mizzi has said that he will be making a statement to a major poker publication. I'm not sure what he is planning on saying, but let's hope that it's better than the "My Grandma was playing and I decided to take over when she was deep.."
So is there any hope for some positive news in the future?
Rumors continue to swirl that Party Poker is actively seeking a buyer. We can only hope that a buyer takes Party Poker private, delists from the LSE and they decide to return to the US market.
Also, I believe that momentum continues to grow when it comes to eventually regulating online poker in the United States. I would be surprised if online poker is not regulated in the next 2-3 years. This would obviously be a big positive for the industry.
There of course could be more negative news. More scandals, more people cheating.
One thing is for sure - the online poker industry is extremely resilient, and has taken a beating over the past year and a half and is still standing. Could we finally get some positive news though? I know that I wouldn't mind.
CHIP REESE:
As you all know by now, the poker world lost one of its legends yesterday, one of the greatest cash games players of all-time, Chip Reese. I have received some e-mails asking me if Chip Reese was ever involved in the collusion rackets at the high-stakes cash games at the Bellagio or anywhere else during his great career. Although I know that many famous players were indeed part of these nefarious collusion teams, to the best of my knowledge, Chip Reese was not. And, which certainly is no coincidence, if you know how I feel about the integrity of GSN's High Stakes Poker TV show, Chip was not a participant in these so called "ultra high stakes cash games."
Monday, December 03, 2007
Some Thoughtful Stuff on Online Poker Cheating
Ever since I have been preaching changes that need to be made in order to make online poker less vulnerable to cheating, I've found it difficult to find people who are willing to take their fight to the front lines against the armies of cheaters invading the games. Most people writing or speaking on the subject have done nothing but espouse support for online poker sites' security departments and offer their convictions how safe it is to play online, making typical statements like "Online sites make billions so why should they scrimp on security matters and protecting their clientele?" Well, recently we have seen all too many security breaches on major online sites, and finally some people other than me are talking about it. Here's what I found in the grapevine:
Online Poker Rooms Need to Drastically Change the Way that they Deal with Cheaters
king talking about all the cheating going on in poker rooms Online poker rooms need to realize that there just isn't enough currently done to deter people from cheating. We are living in a very materialistic society where money is everything, and the rewards for cheating online are just too great compared to the current risk. In most cases of online poker cheating, we are dealing with young men who are blinded by greed, and there is just not enough of a deterrent to stop them from cheating.
This needs to change. Online poker rooms need to start co-operating with each other and really start bringing the hammer down on people that are caught cheating on their sites.
There are a few ways that I think that online poker rooms might be able to at least partially deter any would-be cheaters:
1. Start naming names. I've said this before - why are we protecting the privacy of people who have been caught cheating and subsequently banned from a site?
If you are caught insider trading in the United States and are subsequently found guilty, your name and the nature of your crime is posted on the SEC.gov web site. I think that the online poker rooms should jointly develop a site in which the details of every cheating infraction are posted, along with the real name of the perpetrator. Cheaters need to start being publicly shamed, instead of having their names protected by the poker rooms. Try emailing a poker room and asking them why a certain player was banned, and you will be told that such details can not be divulged due to privacy concerns. This is wrong, IMO. A player was banned for cheating on a site that I play on, why shouldn't I know about this?
2. Create an "enforcement committee" which will be funded by the poker rooms. In the States, the SEC is paid in "transaction fees", which are used to fund the operation of the Securities and Exchange Commission. A very small % of the total rake of each hand would go a long ways towards establishing a legitimate organization that could police online poker. This committee will review the details of each cheating infraction. If a player is banned from one room, then the committee could recommend that the player be banned from every site that participates. So, if you are banned from Full Tilt Poker, you could also be banned from Party Poker, Pokerstars, etc. This would be a real deterrent. The SEC has the power to ban a person from working in the securities industry, no matter which company it is. This "committee" would have the power to ban a player from each poker site that is a member of this "committee".
3. Stop allowing player to player transfers. A drastic step, but it would make it much harder to takeover an account late in a tournament, or "purchase" a dormant account for the purposes of multi-accounting.
There have to be some major changes made at this point. The overall health of online poker has to be put above the privacy of a cheating player or the inconvenience of not having player to player transfers. Online poker needs to be cleaned up, starting right now.
If anyone has any further suggestions, e-mail me and I will post them.
Online Poker Rooms Need to Drastically Change the Way that they Deal with Cheaters
king talking about all the cheating going on in poker rooms Online poker rooms need to realize that there just isn't enough currently done to deter people from cheating. We are living in a very materialistic society where money is everything, and the rewards for cheating online are just too great compared to the current risk. In most cases of online poker cheating, we are dealing with young men who are blinded by greed, and there is just not enough of a deterrent to stop them from cheating.
This needs to change. Online poker rooms need to start co-operating with each other and really start bringing the hammer down on people that are caught cheating on their sites.
There are a few ways that I think that online poker rooms might be able to at least partially deter any would-be cheaters:
1. Start naming names. I've said this before - why are we protecting the privacy of people who have been caught cheating and subsequently banned from a site?
If you are caught insider trading in the United States and are subsequently found guilty, your name and the nature of your crime is posted on the SEC.gov web site. I think that the online poker rooms should jointly develop a site in which the details of every cheating infraction are posted, along with the real name of the perpetrator. Cheaters need to start being publicly shamed, instead of having their names protected by the poker rooms. Try emailing a poker room and asking them why a certain player was banned, and you will be told that such details can not be divulged due to privacy concerns. This is wrong, IMO. A player was banned for cheating on a site that I play on, why shouldn't I know about this?
2. Create an "enforcement committee" which will be funded by the poker rooms. In the States, the SEC is paid in "transaction fees", which are used to fund the operation of the Securities and Exchange Commission. A very small % of the total rake of each hand would go a long ways towards establishing a legitimate organization that could police online poker. This committee will review the details of each cheating infraction. If a player is banned from one room, then the committee could recommend that the player be banned from every site that participates. So, if you are banned from Full Tilt Poker, you could also be banned from Party Poker, Pokerstars, etc. This would be a real deterrent. The SEC has the power to ban a person from working in the securities industry, no matter which company it is. This "committee" would have the power to ban a player from each poker site that is a member of this "committee".
3. Stop allowing player to player transfers. A drastic step, but it would make it much harder to takeover an account late in a tournament, or "purchase" a dormant account for the purposes of multi-accounting.
There have to be some major changes made at this point. The overall health of online poker has to be put above the privacy of a cheating player or the inconvenience of not having player to player transfers. Online poker needs to be cleaned up, starting right now.
If anyone has any further suggestions, e-mail me and I will post them.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Another Online Poker Scandal! Not Again!
Yep, it's true, and I am really thinking about writing "Dirty Poker 2." I said it in "Dirty Poker" and I'll say it again: The cheating population in online poker is rising at pandemic rates! Many people thought I was nuts when I announced two years ago that in a decade more than 90% of people playing online poker would be cheating in one form or another, many simply succumbing to the eventual reality that "everyone else is cheating, I might as well too."
Last month, the incident occurred at Absolute Poker, now it's Full Tilt. Read all about it:
Full Tilt Poker - Another Alledged Online Poker Cheater Busted and Banned
November 30th, 2007 Written by Cathy "LadyHoldem" Roberts
Once again in the online poker world we have allegations of cheating. It would seem that here real soon, online poker is going to be the cleanest industry out there, though we do wonder just a bit if we will see the same big names still offering their up online poker tables to the masses. Will these online poker rooms where cheaters have run rampant, security leaks have been found, and poker players have been frankly - screwed - be able to grab hold of their tarnished reputations, wipe them clean and stay in business?
Just before the Absolute Poker Saga we read of quite a few poker rooms where online poker bots were present, for the most part, the bots can’t beat the people and are just there to generate rake on rake back deals, so they didn’t get a whole lot of press, they might have gotten a little more time, if it hadn’t been for the major online poker cheating explosion at Absolute Poker following the 2+2 fact finding mission that uncovered that whole thing.
Just before that saga broke out however, a little tiny tournament incident came up at PokerStars, the story involved theVOid finishing a tournament on his sisters account, after having already busted out with his own username. This wasn’t the OH MY GOD sort of cheating like we heard about with Absolute, more just a shame on him! He lost the money, I believe he got banned, maybe even just a suspension, but it was handled, it was timely, and the Absolute Poker news definitely out shined.
Now here we are just weeks later, the poker world is getting back to normal. Absolute Poker is cleaning up that mess they have going on over there, dealing with audits, and we’re all waiting to hear final outcomes, repayments, etc. When today, Pokerati a major online news source’s headline reads “Tiz the season for Cheating” following talk of cheating, in a big way, at Full Tilt Poker.
The current accusations involve Bluff Magazines managing editor Chris Vaughn and a couple of tournaments - high stakes poker tournaments, that played out about a month ago. The claim is that Vaughn won the Million Dollar Guaranteed tourney played at Full Tilt Poker, scooping $197,984.00. Then just one week later he took down the Poker Stars Sunday Million scraping in $240,633.00.
Now here’s where the story starts getting good… #2 in the final finishers of the Full Tilt Poker tournament “Soren ‘Kongsgaard’ Kongsgaard says he got a letter from Full Tilt via his email that said Bluff Magazines Managing Editor Chris Vaughn or “BluffMagCV” had been disqualified from the tournament. “Kongsgaard” was now the winner, and was awarded the prize money.
What happens next, or what Pokerati describes as unconfirmed seems to parallel a story brought to us by the PokerKing not to long ago, allegedly Chris was backed by “Imer1um” Mizzi who took control of the computer, and therefore the tournament somewhere during the tournament, finishing the game for Chris. As a result, but Sorel Mizzi (Imper1um) and Chris Vaughn (BluffMagCV) have been banned at least temporarily, pending investigation by Full Tilt.
There is someone’s side of the story posted on Sorel’s blog. Pokerati also brings up a valid point, Chris from Bluff Magazine was just interviewed back on November 18th by Scott Huff and Haralabos Voulgaris on Big Poker Sundays, a radio show that you can tune into on PokerRoad.com. Haralabos asked Chris if he’d ever been accused of ghosting, meaning the staked players backer steps in and finishes up a game. Chris’ response was yeah “I’ve been accused of that. I think it’s going to come with the territory when someone relatively unknown wins two in a row.” In response to the truth in the question Chris says “But as far as having someone take over for me, that’s ridiculous”
We don’t have any word yet on how the alleged tag teaming came to Full Tilts attention, but this is an important event, people will always try to cheat, however, as online poker undergoes closer scrutiny, and in turn becomes more secure, they will get away with it less and less.
We spoke to Bluff Magazine’s editor in Chief Mathew Parvis, who tells us that Chris Vaughn (BluffMagCV) “will not be commenting at this time.”
Kudos to Full Tilt for being on the ball.
Last month, the incident occurred at Absolute Poker, now it's Full Tilt. Read all about it:
Full Tilt Poker - Another Alledged Online Poker Cheater Busted and Banned
November 30th, 2007 Written by Cathy "LadyHoldem" Roberts
Once again in the online poker world we have allegations of cheating. It would seem that here real soon, online poker is going to be the cleanest industry out there, though we do wonder just a bit if we will see the same big names still offering their up online poker tables to the masses. Will these online poker rooms where cheaters have run rampant, security leaks have been found, and poker players have been frankly - screwed - be able to grab hold of their tarnished reputations, wipe them clean and stay in business?
Just before the Absolute Poker Saga we read of quite a few poker rooms where online poker bots were present, for the most part, the bots can’t beat the people and are just there to generate rake on rake back deals, so they didn’t get a whole lot of press, they might have gotten a little more time, if it hadn’t been for the major online poker cheating explosion at Absolute Poker following the 2+2 fact finding mission that uncovered that whole thing.
Just before that saga broke out however, a little tiny tournament incident came up at PokerStars, the story involved theVOid finishing a tournament on his sisters account, after having already busted out with his own username. This wasn’t the OH MY GOD sort of cheating like we heard about with Absolute, more just a shame on him! He lost the money, I believe he got banned, maybe even just a suspension, but it was handled, it was timely, and the Absolute Poker news definitely out shined.
Now here we are just weeks later, the poker world is getting back to normal. Absolute Poker is cleaning up that mess they have going on over there, dealing with audits, and we’re all waiting to hear final outcomes, repayments, etc. When today, Pokerati a major online news source’s headline reads “Tiz the season for Cheating” following talk of cheating, in a big way, at Full Tilt Poker.
The current accusations involve Bluff Magazines managing editor Chris Vaughn and a couple of tournaments - high stakes poker tournaments, that played out about a month ago. The claim is that Vaughn won the Million Dollar Guaranteed tourney played at Full Tilt Poker, scooping $197,984.00. Then just one week later he took down the Poker Stars Sunday Million scraping in $240,633.00.
Now here’s where the story starts getting good… #2 in the final finishers of the Full Tilt Poker tournament “Soren ‘Kongsgaard’ Kongsgaard says he got a letter from Full Tilt via his email that said Bluff Magazines Managing Editor Chris Vaughn or “BluffMagCV” had been disqualified from the tournament. “Kongsgaard” was now the winner, and was awarded the prize money.
What happens next, or what Pokerati describes as unconfirmed seems to parallel a story brought to us by the PokerKing not to long ago, allegedly Chris was backed by “Imer1um” Mizzi who took control of the computer, and therefore the tournament somewhere during the tournament, finishing the game for Chris. As a result, but Sorel Mizzi (Imper1um) and Chris Vaughn (BluffMagCV) have been banned at least temporarily, pending investigation by Full Tilt.
There is someone’s side of the story posted on Sorel’s blog. Pokerati also brings up a valid point, Chris from Bluff Magazine was just interviewed back on November 18th by Scott Huff and Haralabos Voulgaris on Big Poker Sundays, a radio show that you can tune into on PokerRoad.com. Haralabos asked Chris if he’d ever been accused of ghosting, meaning the staked players backer steps in and finishes up a game. Chris’ response was yeah “I’ve been accused of that. I think it’s going to come with the territory when someone relatively unknown wins two in a row.” In response to the truth in the question Chris says “But as far as having someone take over for me, that’s ridiculous”
We don’t have any word yet on how the alleged tag teaming came to Full Tilts attention, but this is an important event, people will always try to cheat, however, as online poker undergoes closer scrutiny, and in turn becomes more secure, they will get away with it less and less.
We spoke to Bluff Magazine’s editor in Chief Mathew Parvis, who tells us that Chris Vaughn (BluffMagCV) “will not be commenting at this time.”
Kudos to Full Tilt for being on the ball.
New Videos of Savannah/Cheating Tip of the Day/Scam of the Month
Okay folks, December 1st has arrived and my new website is almost done! The video clips of my famous/infamous Savannah move are now up as is my two-part "Dirty Poker" interview with KLAS-TV 8 investigative reporter George Knapp in Las Vegas. Also today begins my new daily "Cheating Tip of the Day" column as well as my "Scam of the Month" page, which will feature a new major casino/poker cheating scam each month. Check out my Magazine Articles page, where articles written by or about me appear and will be added to frequently. I am currently awaiting an FHM Magazine spread on me that featured in its May, 2005 edition. Para la gente que hablan espagnol, ahora hay videos en espagnol y tambien habra pronto articulos en espagnol! Don't forget to e-mail me with your poker and casino cheating tips. If I post them, you will receive an autographed copy of "The World's Greatest Gambling Scams."
Friday, November 30, 2007
More Online Poker Controversy/Online Card-Counting?
As you all know, the online cheating world has been dominated by the Absolute Poker scandal the last month, but other stuff has been going on despite its lack of press, Here is some of it:
The Absolute Poker scandal should have been enough. It remains unresolved, though most of the details of the cheating have been made clear, and the poker public still awaits the conclusion of the audit.
Back in early October, there was another mini-scandal on PokerStars. The winner of the WCOOP main event was disqualified, and “TheV0id” was stripped of his title and $1,378,311 in winnings.
And we have another.
This time it revolves around Bluff Magazine’s managing editor Chris Vaughn. On 10/21, he took down the $1 Million Guarantee tournament on Full Tilt Poker for $197,984. The following Sunday, he won the Sunday Million tournament on PokerStars for $240,633. Well, it seems the first one didn’t stick.
According to the second place finisher in the Full Tilt event, Soren “Kongsgaard” Kongsgaard, he received an e-mail from FTP stating that Chris - screen name “BluffMagCV” - had been disqualified and “Kongsgaard” was awarded first place money.
Reportedly, though unconfirmed at this point, Chris’ backer, Sorel “Imper1um” Mizzi, took over at some point in the tournament and played the remainder of it for him. Chris and Sorel have now been banned from Full Tilt. More details can be found on Sorel’s blog, though it’s not clear who is writing the blogs.
Ironically, Chris was just interviewed on 11/18 by Scott Huff and Haralabos Voulgaris on Big Poker Sundays, a radio show on PokerRoad.com. Haralabos asked him if he’s ever been accused of ghosting, where a person’s backer plays for them, and Chris said, “I’ve been accused of that. I think it’s going to come with the territory when someone relatively unknown wins two in a row… But as far as having someone take over, that’s ridiculous.”
Online Card-counting at Blackjack...Is it possible?
Well, of course it's possible, but is it profitable? Firstly, deck-penetration in online games is bad. It ranges from shuffling every hand to 50% or so. At best this is really token penetration. Technically you can get an advantage at these games by card counting but the fluctuations are enormous. You would need a huge bankroll, maybe a million bucks, and you'd have to be prepared to suffer interminable losing streaks, perhaps periods of months if you play every day. I've heard that Global Player, one of the most popular online casinos, does have a slightly more attractive game. It offers a "Baden-Baden" 2-deck game with bog-standard European rules. They deal out only a third of the cards, which normally is a bad game, but unlike a real-world casino you can exit the game and re-enter with a fresh virtual shuffle. That means you can shuffle away negative decks without any noticeable loss of time. But this still will not do much to give you any significant online true counts, so my advice is to hurry back into your local brick and mortar casino and try to find some good blackjack games with real cards and real penetration.
The Absolute Poker scandal should have been enough. It remains unresolved, though most of the details of the cheating have been made clear, and the poker public still awaits the conclusion of the audit.
Back in early October, there was another mini-scandal on PokerStars. The winner of the WCOOP main event was disqualified, and “TheV0id” was stripped of his title and $1,378,311 in winnings.
And we have another.
This time it revolves around Bluff Magazine’s managing editor Chris Vaughn. On 10/21, he took down the $1 Million Guarantee tournament on Full Tilt Poker for $197,984. The following Sunday, he won the Sunday Million tournament on PokerStars for $240,633. Well, it seems the first one didn’t stick.
According to the second place finisher in the Full Tilt event, Soren “Kongsgaard” Kongsgaard, he received an e-mail from FTP stating that Chris - screen name “BluffMagCV” - had been disqualified and “Kongsgaard” was awarded first place money.
Reportedly, though unconfirmed at this point, Chris’ backer, Sorel “Imper1um” Mizzi, took over at some point in the tournament and played the remainder of it for him. Chris and Sorel have now been banned from Full Tilt. More details can be found on Sorel’s blog, though it’s not clear who is writing the blogs.
Ironically, Chris was just interviewed on 11/18 by Scott Huff and Haralabos Voulgaris on Big Poker Sundays, a radio show on PokerRoad.com. Haralabos asked him if he’s ever been accused of ghosting, where a person’s backer plays for them, and Chris said, “I’ve been accused of that. I think it’s going to come with the territory when someone relatively unknown wins two in a row… But as far as having someone take over, that’s ridiculous.”
Online Card-counting at Blackjack...Is it possible?
Well, of course it's possible, but is it profitable? Firstly, deck-penetration in online games is bad. It ranges from shuffling every hand to 50% or so. At best this is really token penetration. Technically you can get an advantage at these games by card counting but the fluctuations are enormous. You would need a huge bankroll, maybe a million bucks, and you'd have to be prepared to suffer interminable losing streaks, perhaps periods of months if you play every day. I've heard that Global Player, one of the most popular online casinos, does have a slightly more attractive game. It offers a "Baden-Baden" 2-deck game with bog-standard European rules. They deal out only a third of the cards, which normally is a bad game, but unlike a real-world casino you can exit the game and re-enter with a fresh virtual shuffle. That means you can shuffle away negative decks without any noticeable loss of time. But this still will not do much to give you any significant online true counts, so my advice is to hurry back into your local brick and mortar casino and try to find some good blackjack games with real cards and real penetration.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Link between Tennis Scandals and Casino Cheating?
So what's with these tennis gambling scandals involving Russian tennis players? The latest one implicating Russia's Nikolay Davydenko, a top-ranked player, has us wondering about many questions, one of which surely is "If he's really tanking a match, why on heaven's earth would he do so?" After all, money can't be a problem for a top-ranked international tennis star, can it?
This recalls another alleged cheating incident involving yet another Russian athlete if not a tennis player, the 2000 gold-medal winning gymnast Vera Shimanskaya who was busted in a Spanish casino in 2003 for involvement in a poker card-marking scheme. The same questions abounded after this shocking news: Why would someone with her fame, success and big-money-earning potential be involved in a scam such as this?
Well, very often if not nearly always, people participating in gambling cheating scams, whether famous or ordinary, rich or broke, are usually involved because of a degenerating gambling problem of their own. In fact, had I not been a bust-out gambler during my teen years and early adulthood, I never would have become a casino cheater, so I speak about this with lots of experience. If these athletes are problem gamblers and have lost fortunes, the natural bail-out avenue for some is to gamble on outcomes of sporting events related to their own sport and maybe their own team if their sport is not a team sport...and maybe even fixing the outcomes. We all know the stories about Art Schlichter, Paul Hornung, Alex Karras, Pete Rose and many others. But this is old news. What about once great athletes in one sport becoming cheaters in another sport? Poker is now considered a sport, isn't it? I mean we see it on ESPN and on sports pages across the nation.
For those of you who don't know, there have been several Russian ex-athletes who have become "professional" poker players during the last decade, even before poker exploded into the mainstream. The most notable of these is of course Yevgeny Kafelnikov, who was also a subject of a tennis-fixing scam back in 2003, when he lost in straight sets to Fernando Vicente, an unheralded player, who hadn't won in months before this match. At the outset, Kafelnikov was a 5 to 1 favorite, but before the match began the odds shifted dramatically, making Vicente the odds-on favorite. There was a big stink over this and Kafelnikov soon disappeared into the poker world.
A year or so later, I got the first of several e-mails accusing Kafelnikov of being part of professional poker-cheating teams. Players swore that he was involved in collusion rackets at the very least. Although I had no specific evidence to support their claims, I did have my own suspicions about ex-athletes implicated in gambling scams suddenly appearing in the poker world, especially in the years at the dawn of the poker explosion. I have also been made aware that some of these Russian pro athletes and those from other countries as well have accounts with online poker rooms and betting sites, and the natural question is whether some of them may also be involved in cheating at online poker, which would be easier if they are capable, because they could hide their identities. In any event, this possible connection is troubling to both professional sports and the poker world, and it is my opinion that this nefarious link does indeed exist.
This recalls another alleged cheating incident involving yet another Russian athlete if not a tennis player, the 2000 gold-medal winning gymnast Vera Shimanskaya who was busted in a Spanish casino in 2003 for involvement in a poker card-marking scheme. The same questions abounded after this shocking news: Why would someone with her fame, success and big-money-earning potential be involved in a scam such as this?
Well, very often if not nearly always, people participating in gambling cheating scams, whether famous or ordinary, rich or broke, are usually involved because of a degenerating gambling problem of their own. In fact, had I not been a bust-out gambler during my teen years and early adulthood, I never would have become a casino cheater, so I speak about this with lots of experience. If these athletes are problem gamblers and have lost fortunes, the natural bail-out avenue for some is to gamble on outcomes of sporting events related to their own sport and maybe their own team if their sport is not a team sport...and maybe even fixing the outcomes. We all know the stories about Art Schlichter, Paul Hornung, Alex Karras, Pete Rose and many others. But this is old news. What about once great athletes in one sport becoming cheaters in another sport? Poker is now considered a sport, isn't it? I mean we see it on ESPN and on sports pages across the nation.
For those of you who don't know, there have been several Russian ex-athletes who have become "professional" poker players during the last decade, even before poker exploded into the mainstream. The most notable of these is of course Yevgeny Kafelnikov, who was also a subject of a tennis-fixing scam back in 2003, when he lost in straight sets to Fernando Vicente, an unheralded player, who hadn't won in months before this match. At the outset, Kafelnikov was a 5 to 1 favorite, but before the match began the odds shifted dramatically, making Vicente the odds-on favorite. There was a big stink over this and Kafelnikov soon disappeared into the poker world.
A year or so later, I got the first of several e-mails accusing Kafelnikov of being part of professional poker-cheating teams. Players swore that he was involved in collusion rackets at the very least. Although I had no specific evidence to support their claims, I did have my own suspicions about ex-athletes implicated in gambling scams suddenly appearing in the poker world, especially in the years at the dawn of the poker explosion. I have also been made aware that some of these Russian pro athletes and those from other countries as well have accounts with online poker rooms and betting sites, and the natural question is whether some of them may also be involved in cheating at online poker, which would be easier if they are capable, because they could hide their identities. In any event, this possible connection is troubling to both professional sports and the poker world, and it is my opinion that this nefarious link does indeed exist.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
More Mini-Baccarat Cheating Exposed
But this time it wasn't the usual false shuffling scam. It was removing and holding out a single card from the night before and then using that card as the key card for switching cards in and out of the game during a run of 27 hands. Here's the related news article. Wow! It just seems that mini-baccarat has become the rave of casino cheating. And I can sure understand it, as it is without a doubt the easiest casino game to cheat when you have the dealer in on the scam. Actually, mini-baccarat was the first game I ever cheated in a casino...and I was the dealer. You can check out that chapter in my book American Roulette or Great Casino Heist in Europe.
American Roulette
Great Casino Heist
Here's the article:
$750,000 Jupiters Casino sting
Melanie Pilling
27Nov07
IT took 55 minutes for a Chinese woman allegedly to help swindle more than $750,000 at the mini baccarat table in the high rollers room at Conrad Jupiters Casino on the Gold Coast.
Southport District Court was told yesterday that Wei Shan Liu was one of six people who concocted and carried out a scam at Club Conrad on May 17, 2005.
It is alleged an accomplice of Ms Liu, 42, took a casino card from the mini baccarat table the night before, then later used the card to deliberately manipulate the game. The court was told the accomplice hid the extra card in his left hand and secretly traded it with a card he was dealt during 27 hands 'to increase the likelihood of losing'.
Crown prosecutor Judy Geary said Ms Liu's role in the scam was to deliberately bet the opposite to her accomplice.
Ms Geary said that Ms Liu knew about the scam and was therefore able to bet 'confidently' against her accomplice and in large amounts.
It is alleged her bets ranged from $7000 to $40,000.
"There is certainly nothing illegal about winning at a casino," said Ms Geary, "but ... in this case the money was not won but obtained dishonestly."
The court was told that Ms Liu won $400,000 of the group's $750,000 swindle and won 21 of the 27 hands where the extra card was used.
Ms Liu and her accomplices were arrested at Coolangatta Airport later that afternoon.
Ms Liu, 41, pleaded not guilty to one count of fraud to the value of $5000 or more.
In the opening address of the trial against Ms Liu yesterday Ms Geary told the court there were obvious differences in the mannerisms of Ms Liu's accomplice before and after he had the extra card in his possession.
Ms Geary said the accomplice could be seen moving his hands around the table and playing with chips before the alleged cheating.
But after he had the extra card, she said he kept his left hand face down on the table for the hour that the six players gambled.
She showed the jury surveillance footage of the card allegedly being stolen and then later used during several hands of baccarat.
"Clearly there are two different styles of play and the differences are significant," she said.
Ms Geary said the jury would hear testimony from experts that would show how and when the cards were swapped on the video tape, but there were no witnesses who saw the cards being swapped or concealed.
The trial, described by Ms Geary as a 'giant jigsaw puzzle', is expected to last three weeks.
American Roulette
Great Casino Heist
Here's the article:
$750,000 Jupiters Casino sting
Melanie Pilling
27Nov07
IT took 55 minutes for a Chinese woman allegedly to help swindle more than $750,000 at the mini baccarat table in the high rollers room at Conrad Jupiters Casino on the Gold Coast.
Southport District Court was told yesterday that Wei Shan Liu was one of six people who concocted and carried out a scam at Club Conrad on May 17, 2005.
It is alleged an accomplice of Ms Liu, 42, took a casino card from the mini baccarat table the night before, then later used the card to deliberately manipulate the game. The court was told the accomplice hid the extra card in his left hand and secretly traded it with a card he was dealt during 27 hands 'to increase the likelihood of losing'.
Crown prosecutor Judy Geary said Ms Liu's role in the scam was to deliberately bet the opposite to her accomplice.
Ms Geary said that Ms Liu knew about the scam and was therefore able to bet 'confidently' against her accomplice and in large amounts.
It is alleged her bets ranged from $7000 to $40,000.
"There is certainly nothing illegal about winning at a casino," said Ms Geary, "but ... in this case the money was not won but obtained dishonestly."
The court was told that Ms Liu won $400,000 of the group's $750,000 swindle and won 21 of the 27 hands where the extra card was used.
Ms Liu and her accomplices were arrested at Coolangatta Airport later that afternoon.
Ms Liu, 41, pleaded not guilty to one count of fraud to the value of $5000 or more.
In the opening address of the trial against Ms Liu yesterday Ms Geary told the court there were obvious differences in the mannerisms of Ms Liu's accomplice before and after he had the extra card in his possession.
Ms Geary said the accomplice could be seen moving his hands around the table and playing with chips before the alleged cheating.
But after he had the extra card, she said he kept his left hand face down on the table for the hour that the six players gambled.
She showed the jury surveillance footage of the card allegedly being stolen and then later used during several hands of baccarat.
"Clearly there are two different styles of play and the differences are significant," she said.
Ms Geary said the jury would hear testimony from experts that would show how and when the cards were swapped on the video tape, but there were no witnesses who saw the cards being swapped or concealed.
The trial, described by Ms Geary as a 'giant jigsaw puzzle', is expected to last three weeks.
Poker Bots Continue Their Forward March
Back in November 2005, in an interview with MSN, I stated that within 10 years there might not be any human beings left playing online poker. What I meant is that with the rapid development of highly efficient poker bots and their invasion of online poker sites and infiltration into their games, it would only be a matter of time before honest human players realized that it would be in their best interests to fight bots with bots. Well, according to the latest news about this, my timeline may have been off, erring to the side of too much sooner. Now I'm afraid that my observation in that interview was too farsighted! Here's an article on this out of Australia:
Warning: your next poker partner may be a bot
Asher Moses
November 13, 2007 - 12:44PM
Photo: Rob Homer
Advertisement
The lucrative world of online poker has been put on notice as researchers edge closer to developing software that can outplay even the most skillful humans.
The research poses a significant threat to the multi-billion dollar online poker industry and players, who down the track risk being fleeced by legions of robot-aided scammers.
Computer programs can already beat most humans at checkers, backgammon, scrabble, bridge and connect four. A decade ago, an IBM super computer famously beat the former World Chess Champion, Garry Kasparov, in a six-game duel.
But the huge amount of money changing hands in online poker games - $US60 billion in 2005, according to some estimates - gives hackers a particular incentive to cheat the system.
In an opinion column for The New York Times, Ian Ayres, an economist and lawyer at Yale, said that, in the very near future, "online poker may become a suckers' game that humans won't have a chance to win".
In July this year, two of the world's best poker players only narrowly beat a computer program at Texas Hold 'Em during the first Man-Machine Poker Championship in Vancouver, Canada.
The program, Polaris, was developed over 16 years by the computer poker research group at the University of Alberta. It incorporates a number of fixed strategies but can also adapt based on moves and mistakes made by the opponent.
"We won, not by a significant amount, and the bots are closing in," one of the world champion players, Phil Laak, told The Guardian after the match.
Other poker-playing computer bots, such as Bluffbot and WinHoldem, can already be downloaded from the internet but their accuracy and effectiveness when put up against the world's best players has been questioned.
Professor Jonathan Schaeffer, who co-founded the Alberta university's poker research group, said the team was already working on programs that could take on multiple players in both limit and no-limit games.
His group had already "solved" checkers earlier this year, developing a computer program that knew the best move to make in any possible position.
"All games lead to a draw, unless one side makes a mistake," Dr Schaeffer said.
Polaris is today only strong at two-player Texas Hold 'Em games that have a limit on the amount players can bet.
"Building a program that plays on par with the top human players in this domain is something that will happen fairly soon, perhaps even next year," he said.
The goal of the poker research group, as outlined on its website, is to "produce a poker program that is stronger than all human players".
But despite the rapid progress, Dr Schaeffer stressed it could be a while before computer programs could seriously challenge the top humans in no-limit games and games with three or more people at a table.
He denied the university's research posed a significant threat to online poker sites, saying the sites would "do everything in their power" to block players from using software programs to play for them.
"All these sites have programs that look for evidence that a computer is playing instead of a human," Dr Schaeffer.
But Dr Ayres said computer bots such as Polaris were "quite-scaleable", and it would be virtually impossible to prohibit computer-assisted playing. He said bots could randomise their moves to make them harder to detect.
Australian laws prohibit companies from offering online casino-style gambling services here, but the laws have done nothing to stop swarms of Australians from betting through sites based overseas.
This year, an employee of one site, AbsolutePoker.com, was caught cheating.
According to reports, he exploited a security breach in the site that allowed him to see other players' cards and reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The site has since patched up the security hole and, like all online poker sites, is in a constant battle with hackers. The main sites have so far been reasonably successful at blocking third-party bot software, however, this will become increasingly difficult as the bots become smarter and more random.
Warning: your next poker partner may be a bot
Asher Moses
November 13, 2007 - 12:44PM
Photo: Rob Homer
Advertisement
The lucrative world of online poker has been put on notice as researchers edge closer to developing software that can outplay even the most skillful humans.
The research poses a significant threat to the multi-billion dollar online poker industry and players, who down the track risk being fleeced by legions of robot-aided scammers.
Computer programs can already beat most humans at checkers, backgammon, scrabble, bridge and connect four. A decade ago, an IBM super computer famously beat the former World Chess Champion, Garry Kasparov, in a six-game duel.
But the huge amount of money changing hands in online poker games - $US60 billion in 2005, according to some estimates - gives hackers a particular incentive to cheat the system.
In an opinion column for The New York Times, Ian Ayres, an economist and lawyer at Yale, said that, in the very near future, "online poker may become a suckers' game that humans won't have a chance to win".
In July this year, two of the world's best poker players only narrowly beat a computer program at Texas Hold 'Em during the first Man-Machine Poker Championship in Vancouver, Canada.
The program, Polaris, was developed over 16 years by the computer poker research group at the University of Alberta. It incorporates a number of fixed strategies but can also adapt based on moves and mistakes made by the opponent.
"We won, not by a significant amount, and the bots are closing in," one of the world champion players, Phil Laak, told The Guardian after the match.
Other poker-playing computer bots, such as Bluffbot and WinHoldem, can already be downloaded from the internet but their accuracy and effectiveness when put up against the world's best players has been questioned.
Professor Jonathan Schaeffer, who co-founded the Alberta university's poker research group, said the team was already working on programs that could take on multiple players in both limit and no-limit games.
His group had already "solved" checkers earlier this year, developing a computer program that knew the best move to make in any possible position.
"All games lead to a draw, unless one side makes a mistake," Dr Schaeffer said.
Polaris is today only strong at two-player Texas Hold 'Em games that have a limit on the amount players can bet.
"Building a program that plays on par with the top human players in this domain is something that will happen fairly soon, perhaps even next year," he said.
The goal of the poker research group, as outlined on its website, is to "produce a poker program that is stronger than all human players".
But despite the rapid progress, Dr Schaeffer stressed it could be a while before computer programs could seriously challenge the top humans in no-limit games and games with three or more people at a table.
He denied the university's research posed a significant threat to online poker sites, saying the sites would "do everything in their power" to block players from using software programs to play for them.
"All these sites have programs that look for evidence that a computer is playing instead of a human," Dr Schaeffer.
But Dr Ayres said computer bots such as Polaris were "quite-scaleable", and it would be virtually impossible to prohibit computer-assisted playing. He said bots could randomise their moves to make them harder to detect.
Australian laws prohibit companies from offering online casino-style gambling services here, but the laws have done nothing to stop swarms of Australians from betting through sites based overseas.
This year, an employee of one site, AbsolutePoker.com, was caught cheating.
According to reports, he exploited a security breach in the site that allowed him to see other players' cards and reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The site has since patched up the security hole and, like all online poker sites, is in a constant battle with hackers. The main sites have so far been reasonably successful at blocking third-party bot software, however, this will become increasingly difficult as the bots become smarter and more random.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
