Who Are Today's Poker Cheats?

You’re waiting for me to say “everyone and his mother,” right? Well, that’s not so. But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been hustling mothers guilty of cheating at poker. Grandmother’s too. Poker cheaters come from all dimensions of life. They come in all shapes and sizes, too. Often they’re people you’d least likely suspect to be cheats. Often they’re people even I’d least likely suspect as cheats. Believe me, that’s saying a lot. I have come into contact with hundreds of people who have employed dishonest techniques to win at gambling. I had thought I’d seen it all.
But in September 2003, I was thrown for a loop while reading an article on the sports page of my favorite newspaper. The headline read:

RUSSIAN GYMNAST BUSTED IN POKER CHEATING SCAM.
Underneath was a color photo of the beautiful Russian gymnast, Vera Shimanskaya. I couldn’t believe it! The diminutive dirty-blond, blue-eyed Russian knockout was a goddamn poker cheat! Not only was she an Olympic gymnast but she was also an Olympic gold-medal gymnast. That’s right, Vera won a gold medal at the 2000 Sydney Games. Later, unfortunately, the gold medals didn’t seem to satisfy her anymore. Vera wanted gold chips instead.
According to the article, Vera and her “Eastern European” boyfriend had taken to the Western European road as a he-and-she poker-cheating team. They were not at all of the nickel-and-dime bust-out variety. When Vera was arrested at a Spanish casino near Valencia, authorities claimed she and her partner had scammed poker players at that casino for $10,000. In one night! And that was only at the casino where she finally got caught. In the ensuing investigation, it was determined that the stylish duo ran up similar ill-gotten gains at six other casinos in Spain before their tainted luck ran out.
Imagine this, I thought putting down that newspaper. A graceful Olympic gold-medalist tumbling off her podium, spinning all the way down to the pits of poker cheating. What was the world coming to?
And then I wondered how they did it. The initial shock of who did it wore off, so I asked myself how an athlete such as Vera could go from Olympic sport queen to Madame Ripoff in so short a period of time. Was the boyfriend the real gaff artist and Vera just the sexy distraction? They must have done something banal to distract everyone in the whole goddamn casino. Something not unlike having Vera, dressed in a skimpy leather skirt with her leg muscles pumped up by stiletto heels, bend over in front of the poker table to pick up the lipstick she “dropped” on the floor while her comrade switched in a stacked deck. That would seem the most likely way it went down.
It wasn’t the case. It turned out that Vera had been playing poker regularly in several of London’s card clubs, though she had never been accused of cheating in one. But somewhere in her brief sojourn as a poker player, she learned how to mark cards. In doing so she would’ve had to put some time and concentration into it, and then a lot of practice. I am not saying that the dedication to training as a card-marker need be as stringent as what she’d given to gymnastics, though Vera would’ve had to perform similar nimble twirls with her fingers in order to bilk ten grand from a casino. The Spanish authorities refused to give details on the exact method she and her partner used, though journalists reported being told it was very advanced.
If Vera Shimanskaya could be implicated in a poker-cheating scam, could the same happen to virtually anyone? Well, I would not go that far out on a limb to say anyone, but it could happen to a lot more people than you think.
Take a look at me, for instance. Do you think that while growing up flipping baseball cards, at a time when all my peers entertained dreams of becoming major league ballplayers, I had aspirations of becoming a professional casino cheater? Hardly. In fact, I never had aspirations of becoming a professional casino cheater. It just happened within my natural evolution, and when it was happening I had no idea it was happening. It was just the result of the progression my life was taking. I started off as a gambler, blew off my bankroll, got stuck in Vegas without a place to sleep or food to eat, and after crawling out of the gutter and becoming a casino dealer, I evolved into a cheat.
Most poker cheaters take a similar bumpy route. They start off as honest though losing gamblers, then turn to cheating to either recover their losses or just to stay in action. Many of these ill at luck gamblers justify their actions, blaming other players for their misfortune and sometimes even wrongly believing that these opponents were cheating them. Thus a little revenge would be in order just to even the deck. Some losing players cross over the line from normal poker deception to cheating because they assume other players are cheating, without having particular players under suspicion. They merely rationalize the conception that if “I know how to cheat, then everyone else knows how to cheat, therefore someone must be cheating.”
Many different mindsets can induce people to experiment with cheating, though I would definitely say that a history of losing at gambling is a prerequisite for making a career of it. Every person I’ve worked with in my entire casino-cheating career had some part of his life marred by destructive gambling. Those few gamblers, poker players included, who have that rare talent of consistently beating the odds would have no reason to adopt cheating into their strategies. They’re enjoying themselves too much by doing what they like while making honest money at it. In conclusion, the vast majority of today’s poker cheaters are players who have not had success gambling legitimately and are on a mission to recover their losses the old fashion way: by cheating.
There are people, however, who cheat for reasons other than the recovery of gambling losses, though they clearly form the minority. Of these, most are adventurers and thrill-seekers. They are people who like to take risks beating the system and attain a tremendous high doing so. These are the kind of individuals who might be inclined to get involved in identity theft and credit fraud, or jump out of a plane with a faulty parachute. While sweeping in a big pot just won on the sly, they welcome the thought of casino security swooping down on them before they could stack their chips, though they believe it will never really happen.
Other people are motivated simply by their own egos to cheat. The vast majority in this category are college kids cheating poker games online. Most of them have never even been inside a real casino or cardroom. Instead of hitting their schoolbooks after classes, some of them invent computer programs that help them cheat the thousands of fish swimming within the expanding universe of online poker. Many will say they cheat simply for kicks, but when you have kids still suffering from acne risking prison to hack into online sites, you can readily believe it’s more about ego than anything else.
A final group of poker cheaters, the smallest, is made up of employees (or ex-employees) from the poker industry, mainly dealers and other personnel from live poker rooms who have grievances against the gambling establishments they work for. Unlike disgruntled postal employees known to go get their guns and rampage the facilities they work in, poker dealers take up cheating in collusion with players to exact compensation for whichever injustices they feel they suffered at the hands of their employers.

In all, these eclectic cheaters will always be part of and siphon a fair share of money from the poker world.

New Poker Movie is a Bad Deal!

The poker film "Deal" starring Burt Reynolds needs to shuffle up and re-deal. After the roaring success of the blackjack film "21" and the buzz surrounding the poker comedy "The Grand," the time seems ripe for yet another poker film...but I think it's a little overripe now. Dramatic poker films since the Cincinnati Kid and Rounders have all been losers, especially "Lucky You," which may have been the worst of them all. The same held true for ESPN's dramatic poker series "Tilt," which thankfully tilted off the air.

In Deal, Burt Reynolds, Shannon Elizabeth, and Bret Harrison give us the usual overplayed deal of friendship and competition. Alex Stillman (Bret Harrison) is a cocky young poker-playing student from Yale University who meets retired poker legend Tommy Vinson, played by Burt Reynolds. (I think the word "legend" following "poker" is itself a little overdealt.) Vinson immediately takes Stillman under his wing and teaches him about the game and all its nuances, paving Stillman's way down the road to becoming a winning poker pro.

In the process, of course, Vinson regains his enthusiasm for poker, and the duo predictably dominate the poker scene, until Stillman falls for, Michelle, a Las Vegas call girl (why couldn't it be a non-hooker for once?) played by Shannon Elizabeth, and their friendship begins to crumble. Stillman and Vinson eventually go their separate ways, only to meet up again as opponents at the World Series of Poker (who wouldn't have guessed this!), where they compete against each other fiercely.

The movie includes appearances by professional poker players Antonio Esfandiari, Phil Laak, Chris Moneymaker, and Joe Hachem, and also Scott Lazar, a poker pro who produced the film.

I think you might skip this deal!

Was Stu Ungar a Blackjack Cheat?

The late legendary poker player Stu Ungar was many things, including a terrific blackjack card counter, but was he also a cheat? I, for one, had never heard about Ungar's 1982 run-in with the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. That is until yesterday when I stumbled across the information on the Internet. Ungar was accused by an unnamed Atlantic City Casino of either "capping" a bet, which is adding chips to a bet at a point the cheat knows his hand has a high probability of winning, or outright pastposting, which is adding or switching chips after the bet has already won. Whichever the case, Ungar refused to admit to any gambling infraction and take a plea, which would have amounted to nothing more than a $500 fine.

But Stu Ungar would never admit to cheating. He insisted he was only a card counter whose memory and card counting skills were as good as his poker skills and he never needed to cheat or break casino blackjack rules in any way. He hired a top attorney and beat the case in court, which cost him $50,000 in legal and travel expenses back and forth from Las Vegas. In his biography, Ungar wrote that he was so wiped-out from travel and court proceedings that he was unable to defend his WSOP championship title that year.

Besides this alleged cheating incident, Stu Ungar was so feared as a blackjack player by casinos that he was often banned from playing in them. He often expressed frustration that he was unable to ply his blackjack acumen in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the world.

If anyone has more information about Stu Unger being involved in any form of poker or casino cheating, please let me know.

Best Poker Cheats Hand Of All-Time

Who's the best poker cheat of all-time?...Lancey Howard, no doubt about it! Who's Lancey Howard? He's the guy that beat Steve McQueen in the movie "The Cincinnati Kid." If you remember the classic 5-card stud final hand, Howard, played by the great Edward G. Robinson, beat the kid's full house with a straight flush and sent McQueen to the poker graveyard.

BUT HE CHEATED! How do I know? Well, I explained it in my book Dirty Poker, but if you never read it, read this:

I’ve been a dirty poker player ever since I was old enough to hold cards and count chips. Before I reached that age, though, I learned a very valuable lesson from my grandfather. I’ll never forget it. I was nine years old and I was with grandpa at the movies watching The Cincinnati Kid with Steve McQueen. I’m sure that if you’re a poker player or fan, or a cheat, there’s a very good chance you’ve seen it. Some of you veterans of poker may have had the pleasure of seeing it in the theater, as I’ve had. But I’m not mentioning this because I want to tell you how sexy Ann Margaret was or that the rebel McQueen was my first childhood hero. I just want to bring the film’s final scene back to life because in a way it shaped my own life, and had it not been shot I probably would have never been a casino cheat or written about poker cheats.

Remember that classic last hand, perhaps the greatest hand in the annals of poker anywhere? The one that was more amazing than any hand you’ve ever seen in a real poker room or on a TV poker tournament or even in front of your computer screen logged on to PokerStars.com. The one that even surpassed those doozie hands you’ll never forget from the home games you played in your basement while growing up.

Of course I’m talking about those fatal cards Lady Fingers dealt to the Kid and his nemesis, Lancey Howard. The Kid had been in command of their grueling heads-up fight to the finish, which had been going nonstop for two days. The elder Lancey looked haggard and ready to crumble, and the Kid was about to deliver the knockout blow. When the fifth and last card was dealt to the Kid, he was looking better than ever. That because he received an ace, giving him a full house of aces over tens, a monster, a virtual lock winning hand in five-card stud. After all, how hard is it to get that same hand in seven-card stud? I know most of you don’t play that game either anymore, but you still know exactly what I’m talking about.

Well, Lancey Howard wasn’t that impressed. His fifth card staring up from the table was the nine of diamonds. His three other up cards were also diamonds and, as we were reminded by Lady Fingers’ gravelly voice, in range of a “possible straight flush.” After the Kid bet out his two pair of aces and tens on board and got raised by Lancey, and then had the gall to raise again, to which Lancey coolly responded by re-raising, my grandfather turned to me and said without whispering, “Richard, there’s a cheating scam in the works.”

“What do you mean, grandpa?” I asked him wide-eyed but with a little less innocence than most of my nine-year-old peers had.

He pointed an accusing finger at the silver screen. “Lancey’s got the jack of diamonds in the hole.”

I looked again at the hand but the camera angle shifted back to Lancey’s face as he puffed his cigar. Suddenly he didn’t look so beat up anymore. Then the camera panned the Kid’s face. McQueen was sweating. First thing I thought upon seeing those rivulets drip off his forehead was that the Kid understood what my grandfather was saying. I on the other hand wasn’t yet the sultan of cheating I was destined to become.

But I did figure out, the next time Lancey’s cards were in view, that my grandfather was alluding to the possibility of his having a straight flush.

“McQueen’s got an ace in the hole, Richard. You can bet your sweet little arse on that.”

As I processed it all, some petty guy two rows behind us had the audacity to tell my poor, little old grandfather to shut his mouth. I wanted to verbally accost the guy and throw my popcorn in his face, but I was too intrigued by what everyone else in the theater seemed to take for granted, or just didn’t want to have verbalized.

“The dealer’s in on it,” grandpa continued. “Lady whatever-her-name-is fixed the damn cards. She dealt McQueen a full house, all right, only so Lancey could bust him out with a straight flush.”

I was now hungrier than ever for the action on the screen. If there were one person on the planet in whose words I had faith in, it would be my grandfather. To this day, so many years after his passing, I still have never valued anyone’s words the way I did his. When the hand played out exactly as grandpa had predicted, the Kid and Lancey re-raising each other until the Kid was all-in and in debt, followed by the dramatic flipping over of Lancey’s hole card to reveal the straight flush which beat the Kid’s aces-full boat, I realized that my life had changed forever and that I would always beware of the rampant dishonesty prevalent in poker, as it is in every facet of life pertaining to money.

Yes, I know I’m confusing you, but you are reading me correctly. I still believe to this day—and I am widely considered to be the greatest professional casino cheat of all-time, which if one thing does not make me an idiot—that the famous final hand in The Cincinnati Kid was fixed and that Lady Fingers, Lacey Howard, and even Karl Malden, who was portrayed somewhat in the film as the Kid’s confidant, were all involved in collusion to have Lancey wipe the floor with the Kid’s ass and cut up his money as soon as he was out the door. As a matter of fact, I’m sure of it.

How could I be wrong? I mean, just take a look at the hand: aces-full against a straight flush in a five-card game with no wild cards! I will not bother you with meaningless odds calculations. I will only say simply, Come on, if you believe that hand was on the up and up, then you’ve probably been a victim a lot more than once to the flocks of cheaters that swarm poker in all its vicinities. And you’re probably the prince or princess of their prey.

Does the Film "21" Rate a Blackjack?

ARE SPACEY'S 21 CARD COUNTING SCENES REAL?

I am still receiving a ton of e-mails asking me about the MIT Blackjack Team film “21.” But the latest batch have not been asking my opinion whether I thought the film was good or bad, but rather whether or not I thought it was accurate. In other words, was the cinematic version of team-play at card counting worthy of the real thing?

The answer is yes and no. “Yes” because the basic portrayal of how cards are counted and big bets put into play was more accurate than not. There have been some specific questions about the role of “spotters” in real-life blackjack card counting. One is: do card counting teams really call spotters “spotters?” well, I don’t know what the MIT crew actually called theirs but I would say more professional teams call their spotters “counters” rather than “spotters.” If this is confusing you, don’t worry. Call them whatever the heck you like!

The second question concerns what the spotters’ role is after the big player is signalled into a hot shoe. In the film, the spotters remained at the game while the big player made the big bets. Several people asked me if that’s the proper case scenario in real-world big-time blackjack card counting. Sometimes it is, depending on particular situations. If the spotters keep jumping out of the game each time the big player arrives at the table, some of the casino bosses might pick up on this suspicious version of “musical blackjack chairs!” On the other hand, if the spotter needs to cede his place to let the big player into the game, then he’s got no choice. In European and Caribbean casinos, secondary blackjack players can bet behind the original player in the same betting circle, so in those casinos the issue of whether the spotter remains at the table becomes a matter of choice.

One important element of card counting that the film did not portray at all was the need to camouflage blackjack card counting big players as high-rolling roulette, craps, and baccarat (punto-banco) players in casinos they attack. Big players should show some big action at these games before appearing at blackjack tables in order to give the impression to casino bosses that they’re all-around big players, not just blackjack big players! This charade will cut into the bankroll a bit, but these losses will be more than offset by way of increasing hours of blackjack play with a counting edge without taking heat. Remember, the key is to play for as long as possible with the least amount of card counting exposure. And when card counting teams win, those with good casino savvy will show some more action on those craps and roulette tables before cashing out their blackjack winnings.

UK Governing bodies seek Anti-Cheating Action on high-risk bets

Cheating scandals in the world of sport have become so prevalent, especially in Europe, that even the pub game of darts has been victimized by cheating scams! Now a network of governing and regulatory bodies has begun to speak out against the cheats orchestrating these major cheating scandals afflicting sports competition. According to the UK Independent, almost every sport offers a multitude of cheating opportunities for individual cheat plays that don't even effect the outcome of matches.

A coalition of every major sports governing body in Britain, including the Football Association and the Premier League, has accused the government of being "complacent" about the "very serious threat" of corruption and cheating that arises through the provision of certain "high-risk" markets by the gambling industry.

The governing bodies want some bet types banned or strictly regulated, as well as more passing of information from bookmakers to governing bodies and funding to police the integrity of sport. Only government can legislate on this, via the Gambling Commission, and despite the coalition "consistently warning" the Gambling Commission about the easy potential for cheating, it believes not enough has been done to stop it.

Earlier this month, the revelation that a UK footballer had colluded with a bookmaker for profit by getting himself benched is one example of a high-risk betting market making corruption and cheating simple. It is possible to bet, for example, on whether there will be a red card (penalties) in a match, and also on tallies of red cards, via spread betting.

In tennis it is possible to bet on double faults and in cricket on whether the first ball of a match will be a wide. These and other examples show sports' constant vulnerability to cheating as a result of certain specialist bets that sport has no control over. One football governing body said: "We know there's a door open to corruption, we know measures could be taken to make corruption harder. But we are powerless to shut the door. That needs legislation."

Tim Payton, a spokes-man on behalf of the coalition--which includes the FA, the Premier League, the RFU and RFL (rugby union and league), the LTA (tennis), the BHA (horse racing), the ECB (cricket) and the BDO (darts)--said: "The sports bodies take the cheating threat from betting very seriously.

"The sports have consistently warned the Gambling Commission that the growth in sports betting threatens their integrity. The sports want stricter regulation of high-risk bets and the right to receive more information on the type of bets being placed.

"The Government cannot afford to be complacent on this issue. The sports have presented them with detailed proposals... that need implementing as soon as possible."

Around $75 billion is spent each year on sports betting in Britain and the coalition members want around $10 million collectively to "police the integrity" of all members. This would pay to monitor betting, collate intelligence on cheating scams, set up legal and disciplinary measures and provide education. At the moment the sports do this individually. Aside from a horse racing levy of around $4 million, the gambling industry pays nothing towards this.

The UK Gambling Commission is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A DCMS spokesperson said: "The Government is aware that a number of sports bodies are in discussion with the betting industry and supports the efforts they are making to forge voluntary arrangements to address this issue. The Gambling Commission continues to regulate gambling in this country and has extensive powers. The Government will continue to monitor this issue."

When asked why high-risk bets are not banned or more strictly regulated the spokesperson said: "The Gambling Commission are best placed to answer this."

The Gambling Commission's position is that "bookmakers already risk-assess all bets offered and scrutinize all bets that pose any form of risk." The Commission says "it would not be be appropriate to restrict the categories of betting opportunity".

One problem for the government in seeking to impose stricter legislation is the fear that gambling firms will move offshore. This creates two problems: first that the industry moves out of the jurisdiction of legislation and second that the government risks losing lucrative revenue streams.

In a report sent to the Gambling Commission last August, the coalition warned the government against complacency. It cited examples of scandals few believed would happen, including examples in cricket (Hansie Cronje) and Italian football (the Serie A scandal).

The coalition said: "It is complacent to assume that incidents that have occurred overseas will not be replicated in the UK... we must remain vigilant to ensure similar incidents of this scale do not attack British sport."

Betfair Demands Action to Curb Sports Betting Cheating

A new relationship is needed between the sports and betting industries if the fight against corruption and cheating is to be won, one of the world’s leading internet betting operators has said recently.

Betfair, the giant online sports betting company, called on sport everywhere to use all the tools that are being provided for it by the legal and regulated betting industry, and to recognize that using those tools alongside better education of participants and stronger sanctions against cheats is the most effective solution to rooting out any problem.

Making the keynote speech at the Global Leaders in Sport conference in Auckland, New Zealand, Mark Davies, managing director at Betfair, said when it comes to issues of corruption, sport is often looking at the wrong target: only participants can rig events, and focusing on the growth in betting, or the growth in the number of people betting, is futile. He encouraged sports regulators to work with any betting operator which was prepared to share information relating to the names of people whose bets are suspicious.

He said: “Sports regulators today should expect information on what betting is taking place on their product, and – and I cannot over-emphasize this enough – by whom, in order to allow them to fulfill their role of policing sport.

“The only way to know whether players are being corrupted is to have the names of the people behind the bets. Any attempts to look at the betting quantum and make judgments on it are absolutely doomed to failure. Sport needs to put itself in a position where it has access to named information, wherever it can get it. If it is not doing that, it is not using the tools available. I find it amazing that any sporting body would turn down named information from a betting operator willing to provide it with no strings attached, and yet there are plenty which do.”

While emphasizing Betfair’s belief that corruption and cheating in sport is far more limited than recent speculation has suggested, Davies suggested that the reluctance of sport to accept that the legal and regulated market offers solutions rather than posing problems is limiting the ability of both to deal with what problems may exist. He said that betting scandals traditionally have emanated from illegal, unregulated markets.

Speaking to 200 delegates from four continents, Davies pointed out the perils of opaque and illegal markets, and suggested that embracing the transparent and regulated market was the best way to counteract problems of match-fixing.

He said: “Imagine a world where bookmaking is illegal. Take Betfair, and Ladbrokes, and William Hill, and everyone else you care to mention which is governed by proper regulation, and close them all down. What happens to sport’s [betting] problem then? Does it go away, stay the same, or get bigger? Clearly, it gets bigger. The Hansie Cronje story shows you that.”

Davies reiterated Betfair’s commitment to pay sports bodies a percentage of the profits achieved on betting on events run under their jurisdiction, but resisted the idea that any payment should be linked to integrity.

“The regulated betting industry today is not some backwater of corruption in smoke-filled rooms, but a modern leisure industry which engages its customers and allows them to get involved on a participatory level that enhances their enjoyment. It harnesses those customers, and wants to do so in partnership with sport rather than at the expense of sport. The legal and regulated betting companies around the world want to work with sport, not against it. But they need sports bodies to recognise that it isn’t betting that causes problems, but corruption.”

Is Gambling911.com calling Doyle Brunson a Porn Star?

I am not a fan of the oft irreverent Gambling911.com betting media site but this article about Doyle Brunson certainly caught my attention, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Now...I have read various accounts about Brunson, some calling him a cheat, others a Wall Street crook (there was an SEC investigation into Brunson's offer to buy WPT Enterprises), but never until now a porn actor! Well, okay, perhaps we can all take this with a grain of salt, but in my opinion someone should spill the whole shaker over Gambling911.com!

Here is their article on Doyle Brunson's so called porn escapades:

DOYLE BRUNSON PORN...OH MY!

If you are a fan of the poker world the way we are, perhaps you've noticed an interesting trend of late: Celebrity Poker Players who have appeared in porn flicks. There was magician David Williams in "Granny Loving Foot Lovers". Then are 70's porn icons Ron Jeremy and Jamie Gillis who have also dabbled in some poker tournaments. If we really want to stretch it, we could say that Dancing With the Stars contestant and poker pro Shannon Elizabeth starred in a porn flick as there are those who probably consider American Pie just that. We won't even touch the Gambling911.com reporter Jenny Woo porn video, which has successfully been removed from circulation.

So we knew it wouldn't be long until the Texas dolly, hundred something year old Viagra popping Doyle Brunson would eventually jump into the fray.

"Here I am Dusting Off My Texas Size Willy" gets four stars from our own Payton O'Brien.

"That's because we don't see Doyle naked and there is no real sex. Eeegad!" O'Brien said.

It seems Doyle has been getting a little frisky these days watching sexy bikini clad girls engage in one on one.....beer ponging.

Doyle gets into a little sadomasochistic torture himself....as cowboy hat wearing guys target his you-know-what for a little "ball pleasure"....

Watch below to see poker pro Doyle take on these thrusting cow pokers (there's a video on their site if you have to see it). Never have we seen Doyle so stiff. Doyle watches listlessly as his balls get wet.

Okay, I guess we have.

So shocking, so disturbing....we are going to regret showing this on Gambling911.com.

But we'll do it anyway because we are....well.....Gambling911.com

Is Soft Playing in Tournaments Cheating?

Almost everyone will say that soft-playing in poker is downright cheating, at least at first take. But upon further delving into the definition of what it means to cheat at poker, there are still those who believe that the practice of soft-playing one's friends or family is perfectly acceptable in poker, since it takes place because of personal beliefs and emotions that are just as legitimate as the ethical values of players who would refuse to soft-play anyone. Is this hogwash?

One argument that supports the allowance of soft playing in poker is that poker's uniqueness as a gambling game in itself deems soft play allowable. Their stance is that since poker is a game of multiple betting rounds, and the position of strength and weakness varies with each round and turn of a new card or cards, players should be allowed "varying" strategy tactics and that soft play is nothing but a combined tactic that ultimately becomes individual strategy at the end, when one or more soft players at the table no longer participate in soft playing. With blackjack, craps and other casino games, they argue, you make one bet on one decisive outcome, either win or lose, while second, third and fourth bets are optional and not intrinsic to the first. Only in poker does the amount of money at risk to each player accumulate with the deal of each round, therefore, those people who are not overly bothered by soft play feel that two or even more players involved in a pot have the right to "blanket the hostilities" at a certain point. Since any pair, set or group of players can do this, they claim, and that soft playing is not open or "active" cheating, they take the stance that soft playing should even be tolerated.

I, as certainly an "active" cheater (to say the least!) wholeheartedly disagree.

When soft-playing players have an ongoing agreement not to bet into each other once the action becomes heads up or reaches a certain point, they are tearing the innate competitive threads of the game. Whatever the reason, this arrangement amounts to a private deal that is more than just an ethical violation of the game. It not only gives those making it the chance to curb losses at several key junctures of play but also negatively impacts those not involved in it. In tournament play, soft playing can make or break the final table, leaving one player who might have been eliminated in honest, non-collusion play with just enough chips to survive and eventually go on to win the tournament. What soft play is, no matter how you cut the cake, is collusion, and, in my opinion, no less form of collusion than outright collusion players signalling the values of their hole cards and whipsawing opponents at the table. The fact is that these actions give those who are soft-playing in tournaments the edge over those who are not.

To illustrate the point, imagine that you're in a seven-card stud game, and you're the low-card bring-in on third street. Two soft-playing partners, A and B, enter the pot on either side of a fourth player who completes the bet. You call, player A raises, and you, Player B and the fourth player all call. Fourth street brings overcards for everyone, and gives you a split pair to go with your three-card flush. Player A bets and the fourth player folds, leaving just you and the soft-playing partners A and B. Now Player B raises. Your pair is smaller than their fourth-street cards, and since you don't like the odds you're getting for your draw, you fold. The moment you do, Players A and B proceed to check on fifth, sixth, and seventh streets. It's pretty obvious just how advantageous this arrangement is for them. By fourth street, they had locked up eight bets, half of it strange money, plus the antes. But the problem isn't only the pact to eliminate risk on betting rounds five, six and seven; it is the looming prospect of it that appears on round four, which offers incentive for two players who are soft-playing to bet a third player off his hand. By doing so, they are acting as a collusion team, converting the already invested chips of the uninvolved player into dead money. Clearly, this puts players who don't have soft-playing partners at the table at a distinct disadvantage against those who do.

Soft playing at poker is nothing short of cheating.

PokerStars Responds to Jennifer Newell's Security Cheat Inquiry

Well-known poker writer Jennifer Newell, who has covered the subject of cheating in online poker quite thoroughly these days, claims that she sent questionnaires to the security staffs of all the major online poker sites that accept US players. According to Newell, only PokerStars responded, which doesn't at all surprise me as they have been at the forefront of the fight against online poker cheats. Here are the questions and answers between Newell and PokerStars:

Q: What company or individual(s) own your site?

A: PokerStars is owned by Rational Entertainment Enterprises Limited, a privately held Isle of Man company.

Q: What company or organization holds your gaming license?

A: There is a misconception about offshore companies being unlicensed and unregulated. PokerStars holds its license with the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission. More information can be found at www.PokerStars. com/IOM.

Q: What is your site's stance on multi-accounting and seat-selling practices?

A: With trivial exceptions, a player may play on only one (his) account during a tournament and may not "hand off" his seat mid-event to a different player. Violation of this rule may result in penalties including disqualification from the tournament, with full forfeiture of winnings (which will be distributed to other players) and barring from PokerStars. Further clarification, including examples of what is acceptable and unacceptable activity can be found under Rule 21 at www.PokerStars.com/Poker/Tournaments/Rules.

Q: What security measures does your site employ to prevent cheating?

A: PokerStars employs a large number of experienced poker players who review any suspicious activity at the tables. These reviews are initiated from three main sources: 1) player complaints, 2) automated alerts of unusual activity, and 3) standard scheduled reviews of accounts. These reviews involve examining both account activity and the hands played by the player in question for any suspicious activity. In addition, we have a Games Security department whose only goal is to protect players from inappropriate activity by other players.

Q: How can you assure players that their money is safe and the games are fair?

A: Regarding money, all PokerStars player balances are held in a segregated account of a major European bank and are never used for any sort of operating expense. PokerStars was the first major site to establish a segregated account of this nature. If every player on the site wished to cash out their full balance tomorrow, there would be absolutely no problem handling all of the requests. No player has ever failed to receive a cash-out on our site in over six years of operation.

Regarding games, as indicated above, we engage in both reactive and proactive reviews of the play between players on our site. In terms of receiving a fair deal, we have undertaken great lengths to develop truly random shuffle, safe from any hacking or manipulation. Our random number generator was submitted and verified by multiple auditing agencies. More details can be found at www.PokerStars.com/Poker/Room/Features/Security.

Finally, we have a standing offer with every real money player on our site to send them every real money hand that they have ever played for review... Many players have taken advantage of this service, and often publish their results, all of which always indicate that our shuffle is completely random.

Q: What separates you from other online poker sites with regard to safety and security?

A: Several of the measures outlined above are unique to PokerStars (segregated account balances, offer to send all hand histories). However, the biggest way that we separate ourselves is by the company culture that has customer focus as the main company value. That focus is what brought us the reputation of having the best support in the industry. PokerStars was founded by businessmen and technology professionals who were also passionate recreational poker players viewing poker as both challenging and entertaining. Much of senior management is still heavily comprised of people who love poker and who are committed to providing a great poker experience for all our players.