'Mad Genius' Mike Caro on Internet Poker Cheating

[3ozBacardi]

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...otection-12658

This article has stimulated some debate on other forums and might just be a heads up about things to come.

[garrett]

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...otection-12658

This article has stimulated some debate on other forums and might just be a heads up about things to come.

It's the right man for the job. Really want to hear all the rest.

The plot thickens...

[Dan Druff]

Sorry, but much of this sounds like BS.

I think Mike Caro is either exaggerating in order to sell his "cheating detection system", or is suffering from a situation of false positives.

In my 12+ years of playing online poker, I never noticed collusion to be a major problem. It existed to some degree, but never to where it was a widespread problem. In fact, most colluders tended to be terrible and were easy to beat despite their collusion attempts.

The biggest cheating threats to online poker in recent years came from superusing and multiaccounting (the latter obviously being much less serious than the former).

[Steve-O]

Sorry, but much of this sounds like BS.

I think Mike Caro is either exaggerating in order to sell his "cheating detection system", or is suffering from a situation of false positives.

In my 12+ years of playing online poker, I never noticed collusion to be a major problem. It existed to some degree, but never to where it was a widespread problem. In fact, most colluders tended to be terrible and were easy to beat despite their collusion attempts.

The biggest cheating threats to online poker in recent years came from superusing and multiaccounting (the latter obviously being much less serious than the former).

You realize that when collusion is done correctly you wouldn't be able to detect it, even with hand histories? Look at StoxTrader; guy was caught redhanded but you still couldn't prove it because they colluded (*allegedly*) in a way that would minimally increase expectation as opposed to flat out fleecing people. The only thing I will say is that collusion is harder to pull off online than live because there is a paper trail.

Unlike a superuser, a group of three or four poker pros colluding (not by signaling their hands, but by forming strategies beforehand for certain situations) wouldn't cause you to lose, it would simply cut into your hourly expectation. You could be getting cheated every session by this group and still be a winning player

[Dan Druff]

Sorry, but much of this sounds like BS.

I think Mike Caro is either exaggerating in order to sell his "cheating detection system", or is suffering from a situation of false positives.

In my 12+ years of playing online poker, I never noticed collusion to be a major problem. It existed to some degree, but never to where it was a widespread problem. In fact, most colluders tended to be terrible and were easy to beat despite their collusion attempts.

The biggest cheating threats to online poker in recent years came from superusing and multiaccounting (the latter obviously being much less serious than the former).

You realize that when collusion is done correctly you wouldn't be able to detect it, even with hand histories? Look at StoxTrader; guy was caught redhanded but you still couldn't prove it because they colluded (*allegedly*) in a way that would minimally increase expectation as opposed to flat out fleecing people. The only thing I will say is that collusion is harder to pull off online than live because there is a paper trail.

Unlike a superuser, a group of three or four poker pros colluding (not by signaling their hands, but by forming strategies beforehand for certain situations) wouldn't cause you to lose, it would simply cut into your hourly expectation. You could be getting cheated every session by this group and still be a winning player

I didn't say that collusion doesn't occur online.

I'm saying that it's not a major problem.

Mike Caro's report paints a picture of the sky falling.

BTW, there is plenty of collusion live, and a lot of it isn't even hidden. For example, how often have you seen two friends agree to check it down after all of the other opponents fold?

[Steve-O]

You realize that when collusion is done correctly you wouldn't be able to detect it, even with hand histories? Look at StoxTrader; guy was caught redhanded but you still couldn't prove it because they colluded (*allegedly*) in a way that would minimally increase expectation as opposed to flat out fleecing people. The only thing I will say is that collusion is harder to pull off online than live because there is a paper trail.

Unlike a superuser, a group of three or four poker pros colluding (not by signaling their hands, but by forming strategies beforehand for certain situations) wouldn't cause you to lose, it would simply cut into your hourly expectation. You could be getting cheated every session by this group and still be a winning player

I didn't say that collusion doesn't occur online.

I'm saying that it's not a major problem.

Mike Caro's report paints a picture of the sky falling.

BTW, there is plenty of collusion live, and a lot of it isn't even hidden. For example, how often have you seen two friends agree to check it down after all of the other opponents fold?

No doubt, but it's a bigger problem than you are making it out to be, and if it goes unchecked and unfettered it's only going to get worse.

[3ozBacardi]

I got the impression he is alluding to something nefarious that only a few inside Pokersite people (maybe the software coders) know about.

But then Caro's not above hyping a book or other product so I guess we'll have to wait and see.