Internet sites: rigged vs. skimming [Archive]

Pirc Defense

09-04-2004, 12:35 AM

LOL, because I never thought I'd enter this inane argument, which more resembles arguments over religion or politics, in that whatever your position is, you're stickin' to it, come hell or high water.

I don't believe that internet poker sites' software is "rigged" in anyway to have certain cards behave in certain ways. It's easily possible, but not probable because there are easier ways to cheat your customers if you own an online poker site.

As the owner you almost certainly have the ability to see everyone's hole cards, in real time. It'd be silly to design poker software without this ability, as it can help with collusion detection.

And if you're sitting there at a "command center" of sorts, watching all sorts of money getting whipped around a table, and it's just right there for the taking, and no one would be the wiser, and it's just in front of you begging to be taken, well, you're gonna take it.

It's so simple. Create an account, sit in a $40/$80 game, see everyone's hole cards, win a BB/hr, and nobody CAN BE the wiser. You don't need to know what cards or coming, nor do the cards need to be manipulated.

At a site as large as Party, almost any arbitrary number of "insiders" can do this with near, and practical, impunity.

Let me deflect one of the most prominent arguments against skimming: they are making money already, why do they need to cheat to make more?

My answer: are you freaking kidding me? If you are under the age of four and you make that argument, you're forgiven. Otherwise, my estimation of your mental faculties has dropped appreciably.

So: it's highly probable that at least some skimming, in some form, is happening because 1) it's easy, 2) it's lucrative, and 3) it's human nature.

All differing viewpoints and arguments welcome, aside from the "they have enough money and don't need anymore" trash. Leave that horrible, horrible arugment out of this debate. Horrible.

Rhone

09-04-2004, 01:21 AM

The main argument against your point isn't that they already have enough money and don't need more, it's that the $ damage associated with the risk of being caught outweighs what $ they can make by skimming. It's that simple. The real bogus argument is that they could never be caught. Of course they could. Happy insiders become outsiders with grudges all the time, just look around. Most scandals that come to light do so because of former insiders. And if word ever leaked out, people would flee the online casinos in droves.

Rhone.

Big O

09-04-2004, 01:50 AM

I couldnt agree more. The site will get money no matter what. The more credible the site, the more people they will get and therfore more money.

Big O

random

09-04-2004, 05:53 AM

I'm pretty sure, at least Party, does not give anyone the ability to see all the cards at a table at any time. The only things that need to see the hands are you and the computer. And the computer can be trusted... hopefully /images/graemlins/wink.gif. Their software also has collusion detection tools, and if those don't work, it's not like they can't review each hand being played with a one hand delay.

mmcd

09-04-2004, 06:48 AM

Quick question for someone who knows computers. Someone I knew in college used to be able to break into peoples computers if they were online. He could see everything they saw on the screen w/o them knowing he was there, and he could also take control of their computer if he wanted to. I assume that the actual sites are at least fairly secure, but what about people just hacking in to your computer and seeing your hole cards. Would this be possible? I'm pretty damn sure this doesn't go on often because I think I'd be able to tell, but every once in a while I'll run across a player that is playing super-loose (i.e. cold-calling almost all of my raises) and always seems to guess right. If I have a 2nd best hand, they'll get maximmum value. If I miss and am bluffing/semi-bluffing they'll raise me off my hand. If I flop good, they'll fold for 1 bet, etc. I've played against players like this for hours and never saw them show down a loser. I've played a fair amount of mid-limit online poker, and have probably run across this situation maybe 6 or 7 times total, (like I said, not too often) but I definately got the feeling someone could see my hole cards on a few occasions.

Pirc Defense

09-04-2004, 09:08 AM

I probably shouldn't have posted because without proof, no one is changing sides in this argument.

Skimming is relatively unlikey at the major sites (Party, Paradise) because they do have a great thing going. Skimming is very highly probable at the lesser known, struggling to stay alive sites.

Wahoo91

09-04-2004, 09:40 AM

The main argument against your point is that they already have enough money and don't need more

This is quite simply the most naive statement I have heard in a long time. All of human history has proven that one thing reigns above all else, greed and the desire for more.

Every single day the news is filled to the brim with people's greed. People always want more. The list of recent examples is staggering (e.g. Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Xerox, Coke, Cendant, Adelphia, Charter, Computer Associates, and on and on and on.

If companies with the reputations of those above can fall prey to greed, what makes you think some bullsh/images/graemlins/spade.gift company out of Costa Rica would not do something inappropriate.

I quite simply am sick of hearing this argument (e.g. "they have so much money! They would never jeapordize it!) becuase it is utterly lacking in any understanding of human nature whatsoever.

Please just stop.

Pirc Defense

09-04-2004, 09:46 AM

Rhone

09-04-2004, 09:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The main argument against your point is that they already have enough money and don't need more

This is quite simply the most naive statement I have heard in a long time. All of human history has proven that one thing reigns above all else, greed and the desire for more.

Every single day the news is filled to the brim with people's greed. People always want more. The list of recent examples is staggering (e.g. Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Xerox, Coke, Cendant, Adelphia, Charter, Computer Associates, and on and on and on.

If companies with the reputations of those above can fall prey to greed, what makes you think some bullsh/images/graemlins/spade.gift company out of Costa Rica would not do something inappropriate.

I quite simply am sick of hearing this argument (e.g. "they have so much money! They would never jeapordize it!) becuase it is utterly lacking in any understanding of human nature whatsoever.

Please just stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm...slight misquote here? I assume you're trying to be funny, but if not, here's what I actually said:

"The main argument against your point isn't that they already have enough money and don't need more, it's that the $ damage associated with the risk of being caught outweighs what $ they can make by skimming. "

Human nature, and specifically greed is precisely the motivation I believe prevents the skimming the OP mentioned.

Rhone.

Paluka

09-04-2004, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's so simple. Create an account, sit in a $40/$80 game, see everyone's hole cards, win a BB/hr, and nobody CAN BE the wiser. You don't need to know what cards or coming, nor do the cards need to be manipulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skimming 1bb/hr isn't very significant. It is pretty similar to having the person skimming just learn how to play poker instead.

rigoletto

09-04-2004, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The main argument against your point is that they already have enough money and don't need more

This is quite simply the most naive statement I have heard in a long time. All of human history has proven that one thing reigns above all else, greed and the desire for more.

Every single day the news is filled to the brim with people's greed. People always want more. The list of recent examples is staggering (e.g. Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Xerox, Coke, Cendant, Adelphia, Charter, Computer Associates, and on and on and on.

If companies with the reputations of those above can fall prey to greed, what makes you think some bullsh/images/graemlins/spade.gift company out of Costa Rica would not do something inappropriate.

I quite simply am sick of hearing this argument (e.g. "they have so much money! They would never jeapordize it!) becuase it is utterly lacking in any understanding of human nature whatsoever.

Please just stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you got it wrong here: whenever a buisness systematically cheats, it's usually because they are in financial trouble (i.e. Enron, Worldcom). In other cases it's usually a rouge employe.

Buisnesses spend a lot of money to protect their integrity through audits and other control procedures. The reason is exactly what RHone stated: integrity makes you money if your buisness is profitable to begin with. This has been true every place I've worked but one, and that one was not profitable but a shceme to take money out of a company that was headed for bancrupcy.

What concerns me even more is the outlook on life your post indicates. The implication is that you can never trust anybody and allways have to look over your back. I personally prefer to put trust in people and institutions until they prove unworthy of my trust. Sure I get disappointed sometimes, but more often than not I find that trust rewarded by good service, returned trust and even friendship.

MrDannimal

09-04-2004, 02:57 PM

So did you actually watch the friend do this? It's not exactly a trivial procedure. You need to be able to get the remote part of the software onto the target computer (usually via a trojan, or malicious website), then hope that the target doesn't run any virus/malware programs, and aren't behind a firewall so your info can get back to you.

After that, response time on most remote management software isn't great. You're sending a lot of data (at least, when you're dealing with screen changes that involve frequent change or change on large areas of the screen), and it creates delay.

Then there's the issue of being able to do this to multiple people at a target table so you can get info on more than one set of hole cards.

The last one is really the kicker. You have no real easy way of knowing not only who will be at a given table, but also what their IP addresses are. So you can't get the remote software onto their machines, and thus can't see their screens.

I'm dubious of the original claim, but there's almost no practical way to apply it to cheating at poker. And there's no reason to go to all that trouble when you can get 3 friends to sit at a single table with you and an IM chat room and share hole cards that way easily.

jwvdcw

09-04-2004, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

All differing viewpoints and arguments welcome, aside from the "they have enough money and don't need anymore" trash. Leave that horrible, horrible arugment out of this debate. Horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats a bad argument at all though. I realize that they obviously wouldn't mind more money, but its not worth the risk.

Lets say they make $10-$30 million/year. Doing this they could make an extra $166,400/year assuming your $80/hr example and 40hrs/week. If they only have a 1%chance of getting caught, its still clearly not worth it at all. In essence, they're risking $30million/year for the rest of their lives fr too little.

MMMMMM

09-04-2004, 06:21 PM

Wahoo91

09-04-2004, 09:17 PM

Buisnesses spend a lot of money to protect their integrity through audits and other control procedures. The reason is exactly what RHone stated: integrity makes you money if your buisness is profitable to begin with. This has been true every place I've worked but one, and that one was not profitable but a shceme to take money out of a company that was headed for bancrupcy.

hi rigoletto-
I appreciate your insights, and a lot of companies cheat b/c they are in financial trouble. A lot cheat regardless. Many companies get away with "small cheats" and simply get fined (e.g. the entire financial district over the past two years, e.g. Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, etc., in addition to the entire mutual fund industry).

An example of a company in great health:
"Coke did admit that its employees had rigged a marketing test in order to increase Coke sales at Burger King. Coke apologised to Burger King for faking the research and agreed to pay $21m in compensation."

21 MILLION for cheating from Coke of all places! They apologised though, that maybe makes it ok...

Companies (and people) take every edge and convince themselves "they deserve" whatever it is they have taken or done wrong. I wish that I could believe that people were good in their hearts, but it simply is not true (not even with me). It is particularly not true with good gamblers, who are by definition cut-throat and ruthless.

If your premise is that only financially troubled companies do this (which is not true) then a good question is, how do we know how healthy these on-line sites are? Everyone seems to assume that they "have millions", but everyone assumed Enron "had billions". No one learned different until it was far too late.

How would we know if Party was in trouble right now and had begun skimming to try and get back into profitablity? Just becuase someone has a lot of customers is no guarantee of sucess (see previous list of Companies that had billions in sales and still went under).

Pirc Defense

09-04-2004, 10:46 PM

It seems the position one takes in this debate is aligned with the position one takes regarding human nature: if you believe human nature is essentially good, you'll argue vehemently and without any proof whatsoever that online poker sites are not cheating, and you'll argue conversely if you believe human nature is not essentially good.

So much like a religious or political argument.

What I would be interested in knowing is why some defend so vigorously the idea that an online site is not cheating them. It seems you're defending the fact that you're playing there. In other words, if you buy a lemon, you'll find some convincing arguments as to why your new lemon is actually a pretty good car.

I haven't the slightest clue whether online sites are cheating or not. I'm reasonable sure that it hasn't happened to me, and if it has, I don't think the damage would be significant.

But I do believe that it is happening in some form on some sites. So sue me.

Some appear hellbent on defending against this position, but I don't understand why. What's your stake in the whole thing? But I'm pretty sure you would have argued even more vehemently that, say, MCI wasn't cheating you. Or Enron. Why would they cheat?

Rhone

09-04-2004, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems the position one takes in this debate is aligned with the position one takes regarding human nature: if you believe human nature is essentially good, you'll argue vehemently and without any proof whatsoever that online poker sites are not cheating, and you'll argue conversely if you believe human nature is not essentially good.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if I had known before I posted my first reply that this argument essentially boiled down to people just talking past one another, I probably wouldn't have bothered. But here are my (last) 2 cents on this issue, not that I think anyone's mind is going to be changed:

A rational, self-interested, profit-maximizing casino should not be skimming money. You don't have to make ANY assumptions about inherent goodness or anything to make this argument.

Now, whether rational, self-interested, profit-maximizing individuals working for that casino might try to cheat, without the organization's knowledge, that's a different subject that as far as I can see hasn't been the isuse at hand here.

Rhone.

Usul

09-04-2004, 11:18 PM

Here's the funny thing about poker and human nature; Poker is a unique form of gambling in that it requires a certain amount of skill to be consistently successful. Human nature (and this is especially true of gamblers) is to think oneself to be better at a certain task that one, in reality, is. Example; have you ever been to a kareoke bar? So in poker, a player will often think themselves to be a level or two better than they actually are. This allows a player to blame any losses on things other than a lack of skill. These things include bad cards, bad beats, collusion, rigged software and employee skimming. This is not accusing anyone here of doing this, it is simply a fact that losing players will blame anything but thier lack of skill.

This brings me to my next point.

Gentlemen, we live in a golden age. Glorious days of fish beyond measure. I, as a 20 year old male will probably never have to work a "real" job until I graduate or the pond dries up, and even then, if I'm good enough I could, with a little effort and luck, play cards for money until the end of my days. Why o why o why o why, in this glorious time do we waste each other's time talking about collusion and skimming? I'm all about ethics in business, but instead of spending a ounch of energy worrying about it (yes, I know, the irony of this post, blah, blah), I get myself a couple hundred bucks, go sit at the Party 25nl tables and enjoy my free money.

This is my take on the whole subject. Feel free to flame or heed my advice, or better yet, do both.

Justin A

09-05-2004, 04:38 AM

I really doubt an actual poker company would do this, but what about an employee? Some software engineer has a special version made up for himself so that he can go home and wreck the games for some extra money.

Justin A

random

09-05-2004, 06:31 AM

Yeah, when I first read the post, I thought no way would any company do that. The people who own PP are probably not at PP headquarters trying to stop people from colluding and watching every hand in a 30/60 game. And for them to have the lower employees doing something like that is extremely risky.

I do, indeed, though, think that an employee could quite easily, from a moral standpoint, do this, if given the resources, which I already stated earlier that I'm pretty sure they do not have them. Shoot, I can't say if I knew I wasn't going to get caught, that I wouldn't do it myself in that position. I mean, say the job pays eight bucks an hour... that's... crap.

The_Tracker

09-05-2004, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I really doubt an actual poker company would do this, but what about an employee? Some software engineer has a special version made up for himself so that he can go home and wreck the games for some extra money.

Justin A

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems very likley.

Boopotts

09-06-2004, 01:13 AM

I've won almost exactly what I would expect to win from online poker sites, so I have no reason to believe they're rigged. But, anyone who doesn't think an online card room doesn't have a very real financial incentive to rig the games has never run a game before.

The absolute best thing that can happen in a game, at least from the house's perspective, is that nobody wins big and nobody loses big. Instead, you'd just like to have all the money swirling around the table, and eventually ending up in the alligator box. The 'perfect' game for a gamerunner is one where everyone plays for eight hours and all end up exactly 85$ down.

No, I don't think online poker is rigged. But it wouldn't be hard to rig it, and one of these days a site is going to decided that the finanical rewards that can be reaped from tweaking the software are simply too big to ignore. My guess is that it will happen by giving habitual losers pocket A's and K's once every 150 hands each, or altering the odds for their flush draws coming in. Something small, and subtle, that will keep the fish from breaking.

The fact is that a lot of people are just getting murdered playing online, and I don't see how that can continue. You factor in the rake, plus the fact that 2-4 and 3-6 players are making upwards of 30$ an hour mulit-tabling, and it's obvious that there are some real feeders in these games. For now the ponds are naturally restocked often enough so that the games can procede without any intervention on the part of the owner's. But once this hold em explosion dies down, and all these card room owner's who have gotten fat on huge profit margins start seeing their bottom lines decrease, don't be surprised if some nasty facts start to surface.

Mikey

09-06-2004, 01:42 AM

some Poker sites such as Party don't offer anything higher than 30-60 hold'em, now if there were sites that offerred something like $500-$1000 hold'em for real money then it would be worth the time and effort for a hacker or for an employee of the site to crack into it and get one BB per day.

WillMagic

09-06-2004, 02:31 AM

Do you really think some guy in the command center is making 60 dollars an hour? I don't think so. Heck, even a complete nitwit could make 1 BB/hr if he saw every other player's cards...and don't think doubling your salary wouldn't be worth it. So I don't buy the "the money big enough" argument, at least in regard to individual employees of Party.

But I don't think that skimming is happening. One thing that you fail to take into account is that Party will do everything in their power to keep the games as squeaky clean as possible - not because it's the "right thing to do," but because it is in their best interest to do so. The online poker business is a highly competitive economic market, and there is very little differentiation between the various poker sites. If even the slightest evidence of rigging/skimming were to come out, I would not be surprised to see Party (or whoever) lose half their customer base overnight. That is a lot of money. Thus, Party will do everything they can to maintain squeaky-clean games, which means not only detecting collusion and not rigging their games, but also being very strict and observant in regard to employees who can see all the hands and potentially profit from it.

Also, there is a good reason to stay at the biggest poker sites - they have a lot more to lose if they are shown to be rigged or skimmed. For a smaller site, this doesn't apply nearly as much.

Will

coffeecrazy1

09-07-2004, 03:09 AM

Look...who really cares? If you win playing online, then play online. If not, don't.

Whatever the reason, do what you should.

Philuva

09-07-2004, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How would we know if Party was in trouble right now and had begun skimming to try and get back into profitablity? Just becuase someone has a lot of customers is no guarantee of sucess (see previous list of Companies that had billions in sales and still went under).

[/ QUOTE ]

What?? you went to UVA too. It is not hard to calculate, with some fairly conservative assumptions, how much Party is rolling in each month. They just simply make too much money for management or ownership to jeopardize that future income. Now, it is entirely possible some lower level programmer would have a huge incentive to cheat. Hopefully, ownership has put in very good controls to prevent this.

Wake up CALL

09-07-2004, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that a lot of people are just getting murdered playing online, and I don't see how that can continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should take a trip to Vegas and look at all the casinos. Then perhaps you will understand how it can continue.

ihaterivers

09-08-2004, 06:45 AM

People keep saying that the sites wouldn't risk their business to skim more money. First off who is their to protect us from this happening and secondly it doesnt have to be the higher ups of the company involved. It could be some guys that work in tech support doing it. The point is there is no one out their looking out for us because their is nothing they can do. Who's going to prove it one way or the other?

Boopotts

09-08-2004, 02:23 PM

I don't think it can continue at it's current rate. The game has never been more popular, and that's not going to last forever. When card rooms that are currently grossing 'X' per day start only grossing 'x-$20,000' per day I think we'll begin to see a few improprieties surface, for reasons explained in my original post.

bpb

09-08-2004, 05:01 PM

Boopotts

09-09-2004, 01:23 AM

20,000 was a number I threw up there for the purposes of completing the post. Obviously, what I'm saying is that eventually the poker explosion will die down and profits for online card rooms will significantly dwindle.

Duke

09-09-2004, 08:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, what I'm saying is that eventually the poker explosion will die down and profits for online card rooms will significantly dwindle.

[/ QUOTE ]

People will get sick of gambling too, since they can't ever win long term.

Vegas is doomed.

~D

Wake up CALL

09-09-2004, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it can continue at it's current rate. The game has never been more popular, and that's not going to last forever. When card rooms that are currently grossing 'X' per day start only grossing 'x-$20,000' per day I think we'll begin to see a few improprieties surface, for reasons explained in my original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I refer you to Las Vegas. Do you think they just built all those casinos in the last three years? No, they started many decades ago and everytime someone like you came around saying, "It can't last, we cannot support another Mega-Resort, we'll never fill all the hotel rooms already available", do you know what happened? Well thay built another Mega-Resort, they added more hotel roooms and more slot machines and they still make money from all the losers.

culs2004

09-18-2004, 06:31 PM

I learned early in life that you can trust a bookie more than a priest. The bookie can't afford to be dishonest.

tpir90036

09-20-2004, 10:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that you fail to take into account is that Party will do everything in their power to keep the games as squeaky clean as possible - not because it's the "right thing to do," but because it is in their best interest to do so. The online poker business is a highly competitive economic market, and there is very little differentiation between the various poker sites. If even the slightest evidence of rigging/skimming were to come out, I would not be surprised to see Party (or whoever) lose half their customer base overnight. That is a lot of money. Thus, Party will do everything they can to maintain squeaky-clean games, which means not only detecting collusion and not rigging their games, but also being very strict and observant in regard to employees who can see all the hands and potentially profit from it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Why don't casinos cheat people with rigged decks and loaded dice? Because they don't have to. And if it ever got out that they cheated for even one night the amount of businsess they would lose when the gaming commission shut them down for a week for auditing would be crippling. Is there a gaming commission that looks after the poker sites? No. But the commission of word of mouth/public opinion goes a long way.

Are all of the things the original poster proposed possible? Of course they are. Are they at all likely? No way. Are there some people cheating on-line? Of course. Is there a room full of people who can see all of the hole cards crushing the game for 10BB/min? I doubt it. The site being what it proports to be is the likely conclusion... IMHO the burden of proof falls on those who think otherwise.

tolbiny

09-20-2004, 12:51 PM

The 'perfect' game for a gamerunner is one where everyone plays for eight hours and all end up exactly 85$ down.

This is not the 'perfect' game for a gamerunner, it doesnt take into acount the speed of the rake, the cost to run the game, and the ability to keep the game going for a long period of time.
Slots are nearly perfect for casinos because after the initial layout for the machine you only need maintenece and a faily small electric supply. Also one person can sit and play by themselves, not having to wait for a full table, and the game can be played extremely quickly.
If everyone sat down at a poker table and lost 85$ every time, very few people would gamble.

But it wouldn't be hard to rig it, and one of these days a site is going to decided that the finanical rewards that can be reaped from tweaking the software are simply too big to ignore. My guess is that it will happen by giving habitual losers pocket A's and K's once every 150 hands each, or altering the odds for their flush draws coming in. Something small, and subtle, that will keep the fish from breaking.

Keeping the fish from breaking doesnt make a difference to a casino, simply because the fish are not intelligant gamblers and will relaod from their day job anyway. You seem worried that at some point the number of people who will quit playing poker online will exceed the number of new players. This wont happen for a hell of a long time since very few people actually quit once they have spent a lot of time playing. Sure they may feduce their hours, or quit for a few months, but just look at all of the people on this site alone who bitch about collusion and the software being rigged. How many of them have actually quit playing? And these people are convinced that they are being cheated!
Poker is becoming part of the national consciousness. It wont suddenly fade out, people are creatures of habit and they will continue to funnel large amounts of money into the system. Yes were rae currnetly living in a boom which is unlikely to be replicated- but to think that the growth will stop, and then reverse itself- not to likely imo.