Ultimate Poker is closer to Ultimatebet than you think! Guess who provides their ID verification?

[delaware]

THIS IS WHY DRUFF IS THE MILLION DOLLOR MAN. HAVE HIM APPROVE THE SITE YOU GOT THE WORLD.

[elevengrover]

They did, they stopped using Iovation when this broke a couple months ago, and the terminate order seems to have come from UP. The statement was late (I saw a chance to ask him when discussing a different topic) but it's logical and to the point imo. He could have brushed the question off or done a "no-comment" which he did on other questions, but instead he answered it in a pretty straightforward way.

Wait a second. If you are saying CAMS has dropped iovation, then I stand corrected but I have seen nothing to suggest that is the case. I may have it wrong, but my understanding is that CAMS took UP's request and removed iovation from the smorgasboard of services UP contracted for, NOT that CAMS would not offer iovation to other customers. If CAMS has indeed walked totally from iovation, that is newsworthy imo. My gut tells me if you follow the Verifi trail, you might be surprised.

As to the red herrings, all I'm saying is that folks paying attention to the case knew/know what iovation does and it isn't account verification. To take some poker journo's mistake and turn it into a false dichotomy that somehow ID verification from iovation would be terrible while checking up on devices is OK is weird.

[Steve-O]

They did, they stopped using Iovation when this broke a couple months ago, and the terminate order seems to have come from UP. The statement was late (I saw a chance to ask him when discussing a different topic) but it's logical and to the point imo. He could have brushed the question off or done a "no-comment" which he did on other questions, but instead he answered it in a pretty straightforward way.

Wait a second. If you are saying CAMS has dropped iovation, then I stand corrected but I have seen nothing to suggest that is the case. I may have it wrong, but my understanding is that CAMS took UP's request and removed iovation from the smorgasboard of services UP contracted for, NOT that CAMS would not offer iovation to other customers. If CAMS has indeed walked totally from iovation, that is newsworthy imo. My gut tells me if you follow the Verifi trail, you might be surprised.

As to the red herrings, all I'm saying is that folks paying attention to the case knew/know what iovation does and it isn't account verification. To take some poker journo's mistake and turn it into a false dichotomy that somehow ID verification from iovation would be terrible while checking up on devices is OK is weird.

Not what I said, I said "not that Iovation tracking your smartphone is a good thing" I'm just making the point that the original version would have been a lot worse. Also, the original reporting wasn't a mistake, it was what John reasoned the situation to be based on the evidence at hand, and everyone else ran with it that they were subcontracting out Player Verifications to Iovation.

As to whether they use Iovation for other customers I wouldn't know. To be honest, I have no idea of Iovation's reputation other than what it is in the poker world. Iovation works with Experian and Equifax after all, so why wouldn't other companies do business with them? I'm asking this sincerely as there is obviously a history with poker players, but do you know if Iovation itself is shady, or if they've engaged in anything shady? If they have I would be interested in hearing about it as they portray themselves like any other reputable company on the surface.

[elevengrover]

do you know if Iovation itself is shady, or if they've engaged in anything shady?

There was a mistake in reportage based on Dax comments. Plenty of folks know what iovation does, so perhaps more follow up was warranted.

Whether iovation is shady isn't the benchmark. It might be, had the founder come out publicly after the scandals and taken full responsibility for cleaning up the mess but he scurried under the refrigerator and never said anything. So, lets recap.

Pierson approved technology after UltimateBet was a functioning poker site to view player holecards.

iovation stems from technology built inside UltimateBet to identify fraudulent activity. It should have red flagged devices committing fraud internally by using the above exploit, but did not. iovation is built primarily from ongoing revenues, not outside investment which comes later.

Fraud was allowed for years and through several shell corp makeovers.

When discovered, Pierson's first goal was to minimize repayments to players, a goal he was successful at even if not to the insane level he aggressively sought.

Pierson nearly always obfuscates he had access to account information at least at UltimateBet and possibly at Full Tilt.

Today, the question arises over whether iovation is shady. Isn't the question more do you want Greg Pierson making decisions on what Internet sites you can participate, play, purchase and otherwise enjoy? Usually to be forgiven, you have to at least apologize (or be convicted, an action prevented by the KGC).

As for vendors like Experian, et al using iovation, it's partially because people have been far too quick to give the Portland angle-shooters a pass. If my project doesn't kill me first, I hope to clearly show it is unwarranted.

[Steve-O]

do you know if Iovation itself is shady, or if they've engaged in anything shady?

There was a mistake in reportage based on Dax comments. Plenty of folks know what iovation does, so perhaps more follow up was warranted.

Whether iovation is shady isn't the benchmark. It might be, had the founder come out publicly after the scandals and taken full responsibility for cleaning up the mess but he scurried under the refrigerator and never said anything. So, lets recap.

Pierson approved technology after UltimateBet was a functioning poker site to view player holecards.

iovation stems from technology built inside UltimateBet to identify fraudulent activity. It should have red flagged devices committing fraud internally by using the above exploit, but did not. iovation is built primarily from ongoing revenues, not outside investment which comes later.

Fraud was allowed for years and through several shell corp makeovers.

When discovered, Pierson's first goal was to minimize repayments to players, a goal he was successful at even if not to the insane level he aggressively sought.

Pierson nearly always obfuscates he had access to account information at least at UltimateBet and possibly at Full Tilt.

Today, the question arises over whether iovation is shady. Isn't the question more do you want Greg Pierson making decisions on what Internet sites you can participate, play, purchase and otherwise enjoy? Usually to be forgiven, you have to at least apologize (or be convicted, an action prevented by the KGC).

As for vendors like Experian, et al using iovation, it's partially because people have been far too quick to give the Portland angle-shooters a pass. If my project doesn't kill me first, I hope to clearly show it is unwarranted.

Appreciate the responses Scott,

The only action I see that can be construed as provable to his involvement complicity is:

When discovered, Pierson's first goal was to minimize repayments to players, a goal he was successful at even if not to the insane level he aggressively sought.

I think the rest of the stuff is all red flag worthy, but not really evidence of anything. I guess my question would be, barring any uproar from the community itself, just based on its own merits and track record: could Iovation get licensed in say Nevada or new jersey?

[Sandwich]

barring any uproar from the community itself

This makes your question an outlandish hypothetical, imo.

[Steve-O]

barring any uproar from the community itself

This makes your question an outlandish hypothetical, imo.

Why? there is a difference between a company capable of being licensed and one where public backlash would interfere with the decision.

[Sandwich]

... because I can't imagine a situation where the public would not be outraged at Iovation attempting to become licensed to offer services to online poker companies.

[Steve-O]

... because I can't imagine a situation where the public would not be outraged at Iovation attempting to become licensed to offer services to online poker companies.

Have you ever seen the outcry over abortion rights or union rights? Public outcry doesn't determine policy. The reason I made that caveat was to keep it from becoming a matter of conjecture. I'm looking simply at the merits of Iovation in the eyes of potential regulators

[elevengrover]

I think the rest of the stuff is all red flag worthy, but not really evidence of anything.

I mean, as investigators we have spent a lot of time looking for the data smoking gun to put Pierson in a chair heads up against Mahatma. We aren't going to find that, he had control of all legacy data at the site. But it doesn't matter, iovation tools were in place and he knew/blessed a tool that could be used for miscreant behavior. In fact, he is on email tags sending copies of the tool to Makar to distribute to the field. You aren't giving a case of matches to a cub scout troop and not checking in from time to time to make sure they haven't incinerated everything.

He has a fiduciary responsibility to his company and legal responsibility to ensure the games were not rigged as the CEO of UB and the CEO of iovation. He can't say he didn't know the fraud existed, then hope to monetize the technology that showed it occurring. And since he knew the fraud existed, he is on the hook for misrepresenting the software and financials that Ryan used on the London Stock Exchange. When discovered, Pierson attempted to remediate the above not by admitting culpability/responsibility but by changing perceptions of how much was actually stolen. And that doesn't even get into ripping off the shareholders to repay instead of getting the money from the crimesters.

Financial crimes often hinge on negligence and circumstantial evidence, its one reason why prosecutors don't pursue them so hard because the perps can usually afford to outlawyer them. There is so much to this thing, someone should make a movi...

In any case, we as a community should not set the bar so low as to give the guy the benefit of doubt until he once again proves up he is an asshole. If Katz and Verifi want to play with fire, that's on them but there is more than enough evidence to realize making Pierson the recipient/arbiter of important online financial decisions is pure gambling.

[Steve-O]

I think the rest of the stuff is all red flag worthy, but not really evidence of anything.

I mean, as investigators we have spent a lot of time looking for the data smoking gun to put Pierson in a chair heads up against Mahatma. We aren't going to find that, he had control of all legacy data at the site. But it doesn't matter, iovation tools were in place and he knew/blessed a tool that could be used for miscreant behavior. In fact, he is on email tags sending copies of the tool to Makar to distribute to the field. You aren't giving a case of matches to a cub scout troop and not checking in from time to time to make sure they haven't incinerated everything.

He has a fiduciary responsibility to his company and legal responsibility to ensure the games were not rigged as the CEO of UB and the CEO of iovation. He can't say he didn't know the fraud existed, then hope to monetize the technology that showed it occurring. And since he knew the fraud existed, he is on the hook for misrepresenting the software and financials that Ryan used on the London Stock Exchange. When discovered, Pierson attempted to remediate the above not by admitting culpability/responsibility but by changing perceptions of how much was actually stolen. And that doesn't even get into ripping off the shareholders to repay instead of getting the money from the crimesters.

Financial crimes often hinge on negligence and circumstantial evidence, its one reason why prosecutors don't pursue them so hard because the perps can usually afford to outlawyer them. There is so much to this thing, someone should make a movi...

In any case, we as a community should not set the bar so low as to give the guy the benefit of doubt until he once again proves up he is an asshole. If Katz and Verifi want to play with fire, that's on them but there is more than enough evidence to realize making Pierson the recipient/arbiter of important online financial decisions is pure gambling.

I definitely agree with you about Pierson and UB and I think there is enough smoke for this to be brought to light, but (there is always a but isn't there) he can always claim "I was told the godmode was for detecting cheating blah blah blah", and the difference to the NGC or CAMS is between an allegation and a conviction.

[Dan Druff]

I'm still unclear who CAMS is using now.

If they dropped Iovation for Ultimate Poker, who has replaced them?

[Steve-O]

I'm still unclear who CAMS is using now.

If they dropped Iovation for Ultimate Poker, who has replaced them?

Nobody, they do it in-house. I'm unclear why they ever needed them in the first-place unless Iovation has the market cornered on device id checks. If I had to guess device ID checks was a redundant part of the checks. Katz told me they have 11 different variables they can use, so if Device ID is just one of these, they still have 10

[elevengrover]

Actually their site shows Kount and Threatmetrix as device fingerprinting vendors. Kount sued iovation and lost on patent. iovation strength is based on having the Full Tilt database for years.

[elevengrover]

I definitely agree with you about Pierson and UB and I think there is enough smoke for this to be brought to light, but (there is always a but isn't there) he can always claim "I was told the godmode was for detecting cheating blah blah blah", and the difference to the NGC or CAMS is between an allegation and a conviction.

I understand and apologies for putting you in a position to defend their position. Courts of law have high bars and rightly so. Gaming commissions have a lot more flexibility, also rightly so. While simple allegations should not disqualify someone as a bad actor, the above argument should.

Pierson "I was told the godmode was for detecting cheating blah blah blah"
Regulator "But you are the CEO, buck stops here, blah blah blah. Even if you thought the tool was to be used for positive purposes, your engineers have stated in public they disapproved of the tool, such tools have been quickly recognized as not effective in detecting cheating and you maintained a close hand in the distribution and permission set of who used the tool. You also had responsibility to monitor large financial transactions on the site in case of money laundering, tax evasion and other miscreant uses. Yet, Hamilton and his confederates appear to have been able to transfer and withdraw millions from accounts owned by fictitious individuals. Any one of these might be oversight, but combined they show you were at best negligent and at worst, involved."
Pierson "But we're the fraud fighters?"
Regulator "Not in Nevada, you aren't"

[Steve-O]

Actually their site shows Kount and Threatmetrix as device fingerprinting vendors. Kount sued iovation and lost on patent. iovation strength is based on having the Full Tilt database for years.

Do you know if it ever showed Iovation in the partners list?

[elevengrover]

Actually their site shows Kount and Threatmetrix as device fingerprinting vendors. Kount sued iovation and lost on patent. iovation strength is based on having the Full Tilt database for years.

Do you know if it ever showed Iovation in the partners list?

http://www.verifi.com/news/in-the-ne...lligence-Suite

http://www.centralams.com/integrated...ity-solutions/
Actually still on the CAMS site

[Steve-O]

Do you know if it ever showed Iovation in the partners list?

http://www.verifi.com/news/in-the-ne...lligence-Suite

http://www.centralams.com/integrated...ity-solutions/
Actually still on the CAMS site

Thanks Scott, I couldn't see Iovation in the listed partners.

And to clarify, this is what Iovation does correct:

Device information and reputation scoring, deep packet inspection and additional proxy piercing capabilities expose the fingerprint and personality of the true device submitting the transaction.

So if I have this straight, Iovation was a single piece of the puzzle in the greater KYC check they were running.