Felicia's post on cheating at the Razz 4 Queens Tourney

[whiskeytown]

if it was anomynous or one of the trolls, I'd just sorta dismiss it

But this is Felicia's account - pretty heavy stuff -

if you spot any of these guys in Vegas - better notify the tourney director - this sorta blows that it still happens.

http://www.felicialee.net/blog/2004/09/razz_cheating_a.html#more

RB

[Sponger15SB]

Wow that is crazy. I would have gone insane if I was the guy at the final table with them.

[Rushmore]

I'm telling you honestly, I would have lost my freakin mind.

I am a generally quiet guy at the table, and you don't hear much from me (contrary to my extreme chattiness and general verbosity here), but I would have stood up and announced, at the top of my lungs, what was going on.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would employ a TD, new, trainee, or otherwise, who could be so totally inept.

Man, I got pissed just reading the account by Felicia. I can certainly understand her agitation.

[La Brujita]

I read it as well and I would have been ballistic. Great report Felicia; I am disgusted they didn't do more to remedy the situation.

[MEbenhoe]

absolutely ridiculous that that was allowed. On a side note, there are some honest young razz players out there Felicia. I'm 19 and play razz anytime I get the chance. Its not on the level that you play, but I have won a few online tourneys.

[FeliciaLee]

LOL, somehow people have gotten my surprise at young Razz players, and cheating, mixed up.

I'm young, I don't cheat. Nor have any Razz players I've ever played against, outside of these two.

I just thought it was amazing (in a good way), that so much of our table was young. After I got moved there, that made six of the eight players in the 35 year old range or younger. I thought it was worth mentioning as being something strange (in a good way).

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
absolutely ridiculous that that was allowed. On a side note, there are some honest young razz players out there Felicia. I'm 19 and play razz anytime I get the chance. Its not on the level that you play, but I have won a few online tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MEbenhoe]

Alright good to know.

I think you'll continue to see a nice rise in the number of young players due to the exposure of the game on the wsop this year. The numbers in the weekly razz tourney I used to play in online over doubled the week after the wsop tourney showed and has stayed steadily high since then. I've enjoyed it as most of the newer players don't know the game well and will bet when they're obviously beat, such as the brit did in your article.

[frank_iii]

I'm new to this so I plead ignorance. But when I first read the word "cheating", I thought there would be artificially raised pots, shared card info through signals, etc. To me, this does not seem like cheating, just weak play. If they're bad players they're going to lose whether or not they bet into each other. Right?

How can you force someone to try hard against someone else? Would you rather that they make fake bets into each other to make it look like they're trying?

What if you're down to 3 players: you, an idiot, and a star. If you'd rather go heads up versus the idiot and you don't try to knock him out, is that considered cheating since you're not betting into the idiot? Let's not argue as to whether or not the strategy is valid...

PS: I am only referring to the Razz situation. The others mentioned later are obviously cheating.

[FeliciaLee]

Upon reflection, I think I am going to go back to my journal and change the way I described the "young" table. I have seen confusion both here and on RGP, and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever.

I am extremely happy to see young people playing Razz, and I hope more major tournaments add a Razz event.

This had nothing to do with what went on at my final Razz table with those two young men. Yes, they were friends, yes, they were cheating and admitted it, but I don't want there to be any confusion between being young, and being a cheat.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif
www.felicialee.net (http://www.felicialee.net)

[ThaSaltCracka]

they were dumping chips, that is cheating.

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
they were dumping chips, that is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were not dumping chips under Felicia's watch. She only heard about that later on.

My questions only apply to what Felicia actually saw at her table...that is, the checkdowns and unwillingness to bet into each other.

The chip dumping and hand announcing are obviously cheating. But I don't understand how you can force someone to bet into another player.

[Easy E]

From the journal entry:
<font color="blue">"I guess perhaps the moral of this story is that people need to speak out. Until I arrived at the table, no one had said a thing. They had been playing together for hours, but never spoke up. Once I made the initial effort, almost every player at the table asserted that these two had been cheating from the first moment the tournament started. All of them were appalled and adamant that this was happening, but were too shy to say anything until I pointed it out" </font>

You're in a tournament and you know someone is cheating, affecting your chances.... and you don't scream bloody murder???

Must be nice to be playing just for fun....

[FeliciaLee]

I think you have some very valid questions and concerns. I will do my best to address them. I will use both practical applications and analogies when I can, although I don't promise they will be great /images/graemlins/grin.gif

When a tournament uses TDA rules, any break of those rules could be considered "cheating." Rule #7 says:

[ QUOTE ]
#7--Penalties A penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, if a card(s) goes off the table, if soft-play occurs, or similar incidents take place. Penalties WILL be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in this instance, soft-play was obvious. Jason admitted as much openly in my presence, the entire table, the dealer and Roland Waters, the TD of that particular tournament.

Rule #33 says:

[ QUOTE ]
#33--Penalties Penalties available for use by the TD are verbal warnings, 10, 20, 30, and 40 minutes away from the table and may be used with discretion. These may be utilized up to and including disqualification. A player who is disqualified shall have his chips removed from play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this was never enforced.

So that concludes the "iron clad" rules that were clearly broken.

As you have said, the second-hand accounts are of no matter in this situation, as I can only be certain of what I actually witnessed.

Now, as far as poker against friends, family, spouses and other people we know, we are being subjective, that is the truth. There is no way we can be so completely unbiased in any situation. However, this works in many ways. This works in the situation of players we have played against many times before, or witnessed on other occasions.

For instance, if I know 'rock-bob' will only come into a pot with AK, JJ or QQ, will only raise with KK or AA, and fold everything else, is it cheating that I always fold to his raises unless I have AA? Or is that smart play? After all, if I would reraise 'loose-larry' in that same spot, why wouldn't I reraise Bob? Well, because of my past experiences with him, my bias.

Say I know my husband well, so I would fold to a 10x BB raise when he makes it, because I know he is making that play with QQ, KK, AA or AKs. He doesn't mind a reraise all-in, so he is going to make that play. He would perhaps go all-in first with AKo or JJ, not really wanting a call, but not minding too much either. So I fold everything but AA to him when he raises 10x BB, and I reraise JJ or better when he goes all-in. Does that mean I'm colluding with my husband and/or softplaying him? Or does it mean I have information about him which would affect my play against him?

As far as trying to keep an idiot in, so that you can get HU against him versus a solid player, isn't that just good poker playing? You take the information that you have on these players, and play accordingly. Sure, you're not going to check down a monster against the idiot to help eliminate the solid all-in player, but you aren't going to bluff into a dry sidepot either!

Against friends and family, we can use the information we have about them to our advantage, yes, just like we would any other player we knew well. But we cannot use it to avoid eliminating the player, when we would do it against another player of the SAME CALIBER.

In professional baseball, I have seen pitchers refuse to pitch to a homerun hitter. They give him a walk. Are they cheating? Are they using the information they have about that particular player, at that particular time, to their advantage in order to win the game? I don't know much about baseball, but I have seen this strategy used in games.

As far as cheating goes, in general, I think that using the information you have on players and making decisions according to that information is GOOD PLAY.

I believe that taking the information you have on players and purposely not playing against them, not betting into them, not playing according to the information you have on them to make sure that they reach a higher place in the money, win the tourney, get the chip lead, when you would make the correct decision against another player of the SAME CALIBER is cheating.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I'm new to this so I plead ignorance. But when I first read the word "cheating", I thought there would be artificially raised pots, shared card info through signals, etc. To me, this does not seem like cheating, just weak play. If they're bad players they're going to lose whether or not they bet into each other. Right?

How can you force someone to try hard against someone else? Would you rather that they make fake bets into each other to make it look like they're trying?

What if you're down to 3 players: you, an idiot, and a star. If you'd rather go heads up versus the idiot and you don't try to knock him out, is that considered cheating since you're not betting into the idiot? Let's not argue as to whether or not the strategy is valid...

PS: I am only referring to the Razz situation. The others mentioned later are obviously cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Easy E]

You can't "force" someone to bet... but if they are betting into everyone ELSE, then there's a problem

Look at it this way- giving the same number of chips and ability, is it harder for you to beat ONE person or TWO?

So, if two are colluding to make it harder for you to win, but easier for each other.... ?

Everytime one of them enters a pot, he can expect some "help" by the probably presence of the other, cutting his risk somewhat (if not in half). Everytime YOU decide to enter the pot, you have to think that you'll have two extra callers, or none, increasing the likelyhood that you will be beaten.

That is why soft-playing is against the rules in my opinion.

[frank_iii]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I most definitely see your point and agree completely. However, I still feel that soft-playing is a difficult issue to legislate. If these two players had been at all intelligent about the way they handled themselves and hid their intentions more cleverly then it would not have been so clear cut a decision.

I'm glad I play online where nobody ever cheats!!

[zuluking]

You are my hero. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
You are my hero. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, thanks.

But seriously, guys, I am a woman. I know that I have no evidence to back it up, other than the firsthand claims of my husband Glenn (Domit), but I truly am a woman. I don't necessarily look like one, I won't challenge that. I don't really act like one either, but I have the parts, honestly!

Hehehe,

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[zuluking]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a woman. I truly am a woman. I don't necessarily look like one, I won't challenge that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you kidding me? I'm waiting for you in the next "Girls of Poker" pictorial in Playboy!

[FeliciaLee]

I have just heard from both Jason and Greg via e-mail comments to my website.

I cannot verify that either of these e-mails is from the actual cheating team at the Four Queens, as that is 1) impossible and 2) contained e-mail addresses that included words like "blow me" and "f--- you."

Both are asserting that they did, in fact, cheat during this tournament. Some of the comments include:

1) You are a worthless wh--- and you think you can play poker and tell opthers how to play.
2) Me and my friend do not bet each other at all
3) AT THE FINAL TABLE JASON DUMPED HIS CHIPS TO JOYCE AND TIM

I am obviously leaving out the personal assaults, except in the context of the first point, which is necessary.

I have no idea what #3 really means. Obviously Jason would not be dumping chips to help Joyce and Tim, purposely, so I think Greg perhaps did not phrase this in the correct manner.

Like I said, I have no way of knowing if these guys are the real Greg and Jason, but I did want to let the group know that I have received correspondence.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[whiskeytown]

aw....poor babies... - life ain't like the movie Rounders, is it... - shame to see their dreams shattered -

poster children for abortion - esp. if it isn't really them but is just some troll....

RB

[MrDannimal]

Yeah, it can be done such that it's harder to spot. But the one guy just flat out admitted they were doing it, and in fact refused to do anything other than softplay his buddy. So, pretty easy case this time.