Originally Posted by
Dan Druff
I wrote this analysis about online poker cheating in 2009. Obviously it's a bit dated, with my statements about still playing on Full Tilt, but most of the points still remain valid...
-------------------------------------------------------------
When I appeared on "60 Minutes" in November, many twoplustwo forum nerds were quite angry at me for my final statement in the segment. That statment involved my opinion that the AP/UB "superuser" scandal could just be one of many instances of online poker cheating, and that other, more cleverly concealed forms of cheating might also still be occurring.
At first, as a result of the ensuing outrage, I apologized for making such a statement due to the potential harm it could do online poker. After thinking about it a bit more, I took back the apology. What I said was indeed unpleasant, but it had to be said. Online poker is an unregulated environment that exists under virtually no legal jurisdiction. It is extremely foolish to place complete trust in any such entity. Our long-term solution should be a push for regulation and legalization in the US (something else I said right after my controversial statement on "60 Minutes" that was unfortunately cut). However, in the absence of such legalization, it is important to not blindly trust the online poker operators' claims of honesty and legitimacy. There indeed needs to be some sort of third-party regulation, even if it exists outside the U.S.
We need a regulatory body to take and aggressively investigate our complaints, and one that is not influenced by the online poker industry in any way. Such a solution is more of a pipe dream than anything else, as these private businesses are unlikely to ever want to take steps to be regulated, scrutinized, or sanctioned by another organization. However, as players we should demand this, or at the very least some degree of transparency regarding what is really going on behind the scenes.
This brings me to my next point, and it's a question that I have to answer very often these days:
"Druff, if you are so critical of online poker and scared of its potential future scandals, why are you still one of the most active players on Pokerstars?"
It's a valid question. It's not like I'm an anti-online-poker crusader who has sworn off play on all sites. While I have actively boycotted AP and UB for their scandal and subsequent mishandling that exists to this day, I still play on sites such as Pokerstars and Full Tilt. So does this mean that I trust Pokerstars and Full Tilt, and am sure that they are conducting honest business? Yes and no.
I believe enough in the integrity of certain sites to continue playing on them. These include 3 of the "Big 4" networks that currently allow US Players -- Pokerstars, Full Tilt, and the Cake Network. However, the simple truth is that these sites have no oversight and nobody to answer to. They could be cheating you, and you might very well never know it. Remeber, the cheaters at AP and UB were not caught because it's impossible to cheat at online poker and get away with it. They were caught because they were incredibly reckless and stupid. You cannot simply assume that other cheating scandals would also exist to the same degree of recklessness and blatant disregard for getting found out. For example, if I were given a Superuser account on Pokerstars, I could easily cheat with it cleverly enough to where I could never get caught. So could any other experienced poker player who could get his greed under control. That's the scary part here. Cheating could easily be occurring, and we have no way to ever know it.
So, again, why I am still playing on Pokerstars? It's a judgment call. Simply, there is no current evidence of wrongdoing, and if I had to guess, I would guess on the side that they are NOT cheating. This is what I do for a living, and to give up playing all online poker would substantially hurt my bottom line. While I am happy to do that in regards to a network known for dishonesty (AP/UB/Cereus), I am not ready to give up simply because a site COULD be dishonest. But it's still a concern, nonetheless, and something we need to be aware of.
To determine the actual risk of playing in a dishonest game, I feel it is useful to discuss the possible forms of cheating, and their likelihood to be occurring. Everyone has their own theories as to why online poker is or isn't dishonest, but unfortunately some of them are based on rather flimsy premises (on both sides of the argument). It is important to narrow down how cheating could be taking place, and how much of a danger each form of cheating really is. This will be broken down below...
Cheating Form #1: Superusers
Description: The cheater can see all hole cards of all players. They CANNOT predict the future cards to come, however. Superusers can lose if really unlucky (such as getting drawn out on), but will destroy any game they play in a very short time.
The Insider Factor: Superusers will almost always have to be established first on the inside. This is because a modification would have to be made to the server side of the poker network to send ALL hands to certain players, rather than just the player's hand. Even if such an account exists for testing purposes, a hacker would likely not know which account he needs to access in order to get this ability.
Likelihood that this has happened before: Certain. This is what went on at Absolute Poker and Ultimatebet.
Likelihood that this could still be happening: Moderate. The AP/UB superusers were stupid and greedy, and thus got caught. However, someone intelligent and subtle could steal millions from fellow players with a superuser account, and never get caught. Data mining companies such as Poker Table Ratings could assist in identifying future superusers, but someone smart behind a superuser scandal would use multiple accounts to steal, therefore making it difficult to identify superusers with data mining tools. There is a lot of money to be made by superusing, and unlike the AP/UB scandal, the criminal trail doesn't have to lead to the top. Sneaky programmers could easily stick in such malicious code and steal millions of dollars easily. Even if caught, unless already publicly accused by fellow players, the sites would almost surely keep it quiet for fear of a severely harmed reputation.
Is this a high-limit, low-limit, or all-limit problem? The AP/UB scandals taught us something about human greed. When you get a way to steal money from everyone, human nature is to go directly for the big guys. It appears that, aside from some cases of tournament cheating, all victims in the AP/UB scandal were cheated at the highest games the sites had to offer. While low and middle limit players could have been stolen from, they weren't. This makes sense from both a practical and human nature standpoint. If you had a superuser account, would you grind out wins at $5/$10 when you could easily get away with it at $100/$200 for 20 times the money? Low limit players fearing they are up against superusers need to reassess the situation and realize they are in little danger.
Cheating Form #2: Clairvoyance
Description: Cheaters know both the holecards of opponents AND the upcoming flop, turn, and river. With such information, it is possible to literally never see a flop and lose the hand. For example, if you hold pocket aces but can see your opponent with 66 will likely play the hand and outflop you, you can simply fold the aces pre-flop and never lose the hand. It is literally impossible to beat an opponent with clairvoyance, whether in the short or long term. The term "clairvoyance" implies some sort of supernatural ability to know the future, but in terms of online poker cheating, it simply refers to knowing the contents of the entire deck before it is dealt. In online poker, this occurs when the random number generator has been cracked, or alternatively if a tool is written into the software to broadcast this information to the cheaters prior to the hand being dealt.
The Insider Factor: Moderate. While this could be easily set up as a malicious piece of code on the side on the poker server, it is also possible for hackers to crack the random number generator to accomplish the same. However, Pokerstars claims they have invented a random number generation process that is impossible to crack. If true, then the insider factor here is almost 100%.
Likelihood that this has happened before: Certain, but it was a long time ago. In 2001, some academics set out to crack Planet Poker's random number generator, and successfully did so. However, they did this as an intellectual project, and did not attempt to make money from it. Instead, they immediately notified Planet Poker and subsequently wrote a paper about it after it was fixed.
Likelihood that this is still happening: Low to moderate. A very consistent and high level of ill-gotten profit can be obtained by simply creating a typical Superuser account, so going this extra step is less likely for insiders. Can hackers still crack random number generators on poker sites? Probably not. While it is never possible to create an "unhackable" random number generator, it is possible to make one sophisticated enough to where it would be very difficult to break, even if you know how it works. The Planet Poker randon number generator was very simple and poorly designed. The generators on modern sites are likely much, much, better. This primarily leaves the danger in the hands of insiders. This might be occurring, but again a simple Superuser account is more likely than this.
Is this a high-limit, low-limit, or all-limit problem? High-limit only, for the same reasons given above in the Superuser case.
Cheating Form #3: Kill Switches
Description: Players known to be willing to deposit money are forced to lose, thereby bringing more money into the site. Alternatively, players known to be big winners are forced to lose in order to prevent them from withdrawing.
The Insider Factor: This would have to be an inside job, and it would have to be dictated from the top. This is because no particular individual would gain from this being done, and it would only help the site as a whole.
Likelihood that this has happened before: Low. There are no credible reports of kill switches existing. While this is indeed possible and would be a great way for poker sites to make extra money, the concept of kill-switching only exists in theory, and has never been proven to have actually occurred.
Likehood that this is still happening: Low. However, since this has never before been caught, it would still be going on if it has occurred in the past.
Is this a high-limit, low-limit, or all-limit problem? This would be a concern for players at all limits, though again it would be something to be more concerned about at higher limits. This is because most lower limit players lose anyway, and don't need a kill switch to either stop them from withdrawing or forcing them to deposit more money. That happens on its own! Winning low limit players tend to move up to middle and high limit games. However, it is possible that the lower limit games could also be targeted, and that $3/$6 nits grinding out a moderate profit every month could be kill-switched. The greastest danger of this exists at high limits for two reasons. First, high limit players are the most likely to withdraw from the site, and when they do, they take out large sums of money. It is never good for a poker site's economy to have a large withdrawal made. Second, if a player has shown a willingness to deposit after busting, that is a huge BOOST to the site's economy. Therefore, it would be advantageous to force the player to lose. Again, though, while great in theory, there is no known occurrence of kill-switching in online poker.
Cheating Form #4: Computer Assistance
Description: This is the opposite of kill-switching. Various bad players, known to bring action to the site but also being certain to quickly lose their money, are given miracle cards in order to keep them in action. This would serve to keep games running longer, and thus bring more rake to the site. It would also keep the better players from winning too much and withdrawing.
The Insider Factor: This would have to be an inside job.
Likelihood that this has happened before: Very low. In the many billions of hands dealt online, there are no known reports of really bad players surviving for an unusually long time. In most cases, winning or break-even players judged as "bad" are just playing an unconventional style that manages to work surprisingly well. Furthermore, assisting bad players to survive would prevent them from redepositing, which is essential to a site's survival.
Likelihood that this is still happening: Also very low, for reasons stated above.
Is this a high-limit, low-limit, or all-limit problem? This would be a problem at all limits if it would be occurring. This would actually be best if done at high limits, as those games will tend to break if there is no live-one around to donate money. However, it is assumed that this would not be a smart move for poker sites, as these same players would have less of a need to deposit if not losing. The high limit games also do not generate a high percentage of overall rake for the site, and more serve as eye candy for lower limit players to aspire to join one day. Increasing game length for more rake would not bring a lot of extra money at higher limits. The bigger reason to computer-assist there would to keep the winning players from making too much and withdrawing. Overall, this is not a likely problem to worry about.
Cheating Form #5: Pot Juicing
Description: Cards are intentionally dealt to players to bring on a high level of post-flop action. For example, if you deal one player 9-T, another player 88, and another player JJ, and the flop comes J-8-7, that could be accused of being a juiced pot. Reasons for doing this include increasing the rake per hand, as well as providing a more fun, action-packed game for players.
The Insider Factor: This would have to be an inside job.
Likelihood that this has happened before: Extremely low. There is little overall benefit to the site from doing this. Even if the rake per hand is higher, it will also result in an uneven distribution of money. Certain players will win too much, others will lose too quickly, and fewer games will go, resulting in reduced rake in the long run. As long as withdrawals don't occur, the site is happy to see everyone grinding their money away to the rake over the long term, provided that a certain degree of new money flows in through deposits. Also, contrary to popular belief, players DO NOT like juiced pots. While it's great to be on the winning end of them, flopping top set and losing is extremely unnerving, and will often evoke suspicion of the site's legitimacy, and perhaps cause that player to reconsider ever depositing again. There is not enough gain to be had here to where juicing pots would ever be worth it.
Likelihood that this is still occurring: Extremely low, for reasons mentioned above.
Is this a high-limit, low-limit, or all limit problem? Low limit only. The maximum rake is always reached anyway at high limit tables, and players there are smart enough to know when the pot average is only high because of certain action pots. There would be ZERO gain from doing this at a high limit tables. This could theoretically get more short-term rake at low-limit tables, but for reasons stated above, I do not believe this has ever actually happened.
Reply With Quote
