Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters

[Lawrence Ng]

Taken from RGP,

Roy Cooke's post. (http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=1114181557.627137.133920% 40l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.gambling.poker)


I m mostly a lurker on rgp and I know some people resent that I don t post more.
As you probably know I have other forums I write for. And I have 3 jobs my
Internet job, my Real Estate business, and playing poker. Plus there s always a
book in the works. (My new Rule Book from ConJelCo should be out in June or
July, finally!). And I have a family with whom I love to spend time. Then there
s golf. Can t have life without golf. So I don t have time to post here often,
but I do stop into rgp from time-to-time to peruse the latest in flames :-)


Of all that I have read here over the years, perhaps the most interesting things
have been the GCA posts on cheating. I recently wrote two articles about
cheating in poker in a general way.
(http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/writers/view/name/Roy_Cooke). These
articles stirred a lot of conversation and mail. Fact is though, that there s
lots more I could have said, but for a variety of reasons, including space
limitations, I didn t.


The bottom line is that cheating exists, is probably less prevalent than most
players think, and the industry has a vested interest (these days things were
different in the old days) in keeping the games honest. Some of the things I
might have said have already been said by Russ.


I have been playing poker a long time, and I have known Russ Georgiev longer
than that. As a young teen I had visions of being a champion bowler. Russ was a
top bowler in the Pacific Northwest at that time, and I bowled against him in
pot games at Magic Lanes. (I lost.) Later when I started sneaking into poker
rooms at 15, Russ was there. And his reputation way back then was much what he
has told you all as a person who knew more than the average bear about
cheating, and reputedly wasn t bashful about using what he knew.


We were never friends but we knew each other in more than passing. I also ran
into him at the table from time-to-time over the last three decades in LA and
Vegas. Usually when he sat down I figured it was time to get up. Not that I knew
I d get cheated by him, but I suspected I might. I am sure of one thing though:
When Russ tells you he s an expert on cheating, he ain t lying.


Russ is by nature a fellow given to exaggeration and hyperbole. (I have a few
friends with the same tendencies.) He tends to overstate the case to make his
point. But that doesn t mean the case should be ignored.


I do not know that every detail of cheating described by Russ is true. When he
describes specific incidents, I wasn t there and I don t know though I have
heard some of the same stories Russ has told from other (more?) credible
sources. I would guess there is at least a kernel of truth in a lot of Russ s
accusations. The fact that when he names names he doesn t get sued is telling
to me, although I have been told by some the reason they don t sue is that they
could never collect.





Mind you, this is not a blanket endorsement of everything Russ says there s
lots I just don t have knowledge about. Further, there are differences among
what you think is true, what you know is true and what you can prove is true.
It concerns me some that Russ doesn t always differentiate these. He treats all
three with equal dignity; he doesn t distinguish between a fact and a belief
----- a belief which may or may not in truth be a fact, but which in either case
cannot be dispositively established. But the man does know his stuff on this
subject.


Also, to any person Russ has pointed a finger at I know that some of his
accusations are true, I believe some of his other accusations are true, and many
of his accusations I have no personal knowledge of. It s likely that in some
cases he s incorrect. I m not necessarily talking about YOU.


Here s the bottom line if you re playing $10-$20 or lower, to the extent there
are cheaters they tend to be incompetent and get little edge. As you play
higher, the likelihood of being effectively cheated grows with each level you
step up. If you play VERY high regularly (I m guessing most rgpers don t) it is
almost a certainty that you will eventually run into some form of cheating. In
tournaments, you want to know who is playing the same money and as with ring
play the higher the stakes, the more risk you have.


On the Internet, you really want to play sites with published procedures for
stopping cheats, especially if you play $15-$30 and higher. Don t just rely on
celebrity spokesmen affiliated with a site ask exactly how they protect you.
Also if you suspect collusion do yourself, the game and everybody else a favor
and report it right away with the players names and the hand number of the
suspicious hand.


Russ s pokermafia site is the only place in the world I know of that regularly
posts information about cheats and protecting against cheats. And though he
certainly has a history as a slimeball (which is a big part of why he is so
credible on this subject), and though he is prone to exaggeration the higher
you play the more you need to pay attention to much of what he has to say.


Russ, I ain t particularly interested in being friends but when you re right
you re right. And since I m sort of launching my own attack on cheaters I
figured you deserved the courtesy of me saying so. You said it publicly first
and loudest.


I won t be posting again on this thread, though I will stop in from time-to-time
to see what y all have to say. In between my three jobs and occasional
websurfing, including stops at pokermafia.com to help keep me on top of
protecting myself against being cheated. And of course, golf.


Life is Good :-)


Roy Cooke

I am sometimes still in awe shock at the how rampant cheating is at poker, but when respected figures like Cooke and Caro speak up against the grain, I can't help but nod my head.

Surprisingly enough, I often find that higher level forms ofcheating does not get discussed often enough here on 2+2.

Lawrence

[trying2learn]

i've wondered the same thing. i've also wondered why ethics aren't discussed more here as well. an occasional post for sure, but the grey areas that exist in and around this game are fascinating, and it's hard to have discussions about them without threads turning into flame wars.

[slickpoppa]

Are we sure that this is actually Roy Cooke?

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we sure that this is actually Roy Cooke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we sure you are slickpoppa?

Lawrence

[TStoneMBD]

For those that care, I'm pretty sure I am me right now.

[JohnG]

It's been confirmed on rgp that it is Roy Cooke.

[Smoothcall]

Yes this was a very interesting post by Roy C. He sounds as he's basically saying that Russ G.(the guy everybody called a liar on rgp) is telling the truth for the most part about his claims. That is some major credibility to Russ. As he has always been slammed but now a prominent perosn in the poker world has come out and said you should listen to him. I always wonderd if he was giving truthful claims of many of the big name poker players. I guess this means some of his claims may be true. Roy C. doesn't say which he knows to be true. That would be very interesting.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I recently wrote two articles about cheating in poker in a general way.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might help him prove his articles on cheating are worth something and keep his job if he can show that Cheating is rampant. Who better to help with that than the self proclaimed grand poobah of cheaters.


[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that cheating exists

[/ QUOTE ]

That ain't a bottom line. The bottom line is "I have proof that cheating exists and this is it".

[ QUOTE ]
When Russ tells you he s an expert on cheating, he ain t lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that he never provides any proof that Russ is a cheater. He evens says that he didn't play poker with him. So how is he so sure of Russ's prowess?

[ QUOTE ]
He tends to overstate the case to make his point. But that doesn t mean the case should be ignored.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this point is open for debate. I disagree with Mr. Cooke.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not know that every detail of cheating described by Russ is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K so what details do you know are true? Which details can you verify from first hand knowledge and not hearsay?

[ QUOTE ]
When he describes specific incidents, I wasn t there and I don t know though I have heard some of the same stories Russ has told from other (more?) credible
sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Russ is not credible? Or am I imgining he is saying that?


[ QUOTE ]
I would guess there is at least a kernel of truth in a lot of Russ s accusations

[/ QUOTE ]

A kernal of truth! "I guess"! Wow is he for real?

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that when he names names he doesn t get sued is telling to me, although I have been told by some the reason they don t sue is that they could never collect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Telling? Look, not only might these fellows not collect they might find it very expensive and time consuming to sue. They might find that jurors might not be very sympathetic towards professional gamblers. Give me a break.

[ QUOTE ]
Mind you, this is not a blanket endorsement of everything Russ says there s lots I just don t have knowledge about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just what is it an endoresment of? Russ says a lot of industry people are cheating. Is Cooke confirming this? Just what is he confirming? Nothing that I can tell.

[ QUOTE ]
As you play higher, the likelihood of being effectively cheated grows with each level you
step up. If you play VERY high regularly (I m guessing most rgpers don t) it is almost a certainty that you will eventually run into some form of cheating

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! Is he saying that the 4-8k game at Bellagio is a cheaters game. He never plays higher than 30-60. How does he know that there is cheating at the higher limits. Sklansky plays the higher limits all the time. Not once has he written about cheting in his games.


That's enough for now. I don't know if Roy Cooke really wrote this. If he did and I were posting on RGP I'd reply "Hey how about being a little more specific. Give us some reason (proof) to believe that you know what you are talking about". Show me the money!

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I always wonderd if he was giving truthful claims of many of the big name poker players

[/ QUOTE ]

There it is, the problem! Guys like smoothcall that want to believe these accusations against big name poker players will take Cooke's endorsement of Georgiev as confirmation that these players are indeed cheats. Hey, Roy, is that what you are saying? Are the top professional players that Russ has acused of cheating indeed cheats? You've convinced Smoothcall. Me, I want to hear it form your own lips! And I also want to know how you intend to prove it. Oh, I get it. We take your word and the not so credible (your intimation in your post) Russ Gerogiev. Wow, this is getting good!

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Here's the way I see it. Russ G essentially called everyone a cheater with usually no evidence to back it up. Cooke should know better than to write anything that appears to endorse him in any way.

Below is an article that originally appeared in Poker Digest that is now in my book Poker Essays, Volume III. It is the position that both David Sklansky and I take on this issue.

Best wishes,
Mason

Comments on Collusion


At a recent BARGE gathering here in Las Vegas, David Sklansky and I gave a one hour question and answer session. One of the questions we were asked had to do with cheating, and collusion in particular. David gave a detailed answer which I thought would interest everyone, so I am going to summarize it here.

Before I start, a little background should be given. Over the past few years there have been many posts on the Internet concerning this topic. This includes not only the user group rec.gambling.poker, but also our web page forums at www.twoplustwo.com. (http://www.twoplustwo.com.) Needless to say, there are many different opinions on the subject, and many players, particularly those relatively new to poker, are quite anxious regarding possible cheating problems.

Specifically, the form of cheating that most poker players fear the most is collusion. This is when two or more players get together, and through a predetermined set of signals, play their hands differently from the way they normally would in an attempt to increase their profits. What follows is a short recap of David’s comments on this subject.

First you need to understand that two people colluding is not that strong. This is because one needs to help the other, and there just aren’t enough times when both players will be in a position to do that. So for collusion to work well you need a team of three or four people.

Second, you can’t do anything real obvious. Experienced players will quickly pick up on any hands that are not played normally, or in which something unusual happens. The idea of putting a player in the middle and trapping him for many raises will be quickly identified by other players at the table and cannot last for any reasonable length of time.

Therefore, unless the cheaters are very good players, they will still lose because colluding can only add a small amount to their profits. Also, they would have to trust each other for the rest of their lives to remain silent.

Another point is that they would be forced to constantly play in bad games since they can’t all change to the better game, and they would make less money scamming a bad game than they would make on their own with the freedom to move around. And finally, you as a player would normally be avoiding games with them anyway, because with so many good players at the same table you would usually be choosing a different game.

Now none of this is proof that collusion is not going on somewhere, but it does imply that if you are an unscrupulous person, you are probably making a mistake by joining a partnership. And, since it would be a mistake to join a partnership (even if you are unscrupulous), you have to assume that other good players wouldn’t make that mistake either.

Again, I want to point out that this doesn’t apply as much when there is only one game in town because now it doesn’t look as funny when the same players are always at the table. Furthermore, a mild scam can never be caught because it virtually never involves putting someone in the middle. If you are an excellent player, any extra edge will only add to your profits, but putting someone in the middle is too obvious and an excellent player would understand this and rarely try it.

Finally, I’d like to add some thoughts of my own. I have been playing poker consistently since the early eighties and I don’t believe that I have ever run into this type of collusion problem. (This includes the old player dealt games in Gardena, California). I’m not saying that it never happens, but I do believe that it is very rare, especially at the middle limits where I have spent most of my time.

I do believe that if you were playing in high limit games twenty-five years ago you probably would have run into problems. But fortunately those days are over.

Part of the reason for this is that cardroom management has learned that once their room gets a cheating reputation, whether it is deserved or not, it is only a matter of time before their business is doomed. This is one of the reasons that I have recommended to cardrooms not to spread pot limit or no limit games on a regular basis. In a game where someone can and will occasionally lose all their money on the turn of a card, it is inevitable that cheating accusations will materialize.

Another reason why cheating is not widespread as some of the claims represent, is that the players “police the game.” I’m an experienced player, and I’m usually in a game with several other experienced players. If something “funny” were to happen, one of us would quickly pick it up.

So, this essay should almost bring a halt to the fears that some of you have. However, I do advise that you remain forever vigilant. When playing poker you should always be paying attention. This is not only good for your game in that it will help you make strategy decisions better, but it is good for everyone’s game since it helps to assure that the poker games are “squeaky clean,” and well run in every aspect.

[stigmata]

Mason

Interesting & somewhat reassuring comments. However, I have to believe that the presence of the interent changes everything.

I have looked at the Russ Georgiev website, and whilst it is mostly hyperbole, he does give some pretty heavy hints at how online collusion can be achieved. Essentially you would need to set up multipe accounts (with different name/bank details etc.) with the major poker sites. You would then set up a "boiler-room" using proxy servers to convince the Poker site that your computers were physically distant. You would change accounts often, so that 2 colluding accounts rarely played at the same time.

Playing high-stakes online poker, you will often be in a short-handed situation of a team of 3 or 4 colluders (in the same room, or the same person) against one honest player.

All of the above is well within the means and expertise of certain East European and Russian hacker/mafia groups. I
guess the question is how much extra EV a talented team will achieve? I do not feel qualified to answer this question, but would anyone like to hazard a guess? If the reward is big enough, it is only a matter of time...

[David Sklansky]

Non obvious collusion is only profitable if the colluders are playing a tough game aside from the cheating. Thus if you stick to good games you are probably also avoiding scammed games.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
If Russ is given to hyperbole, Roy Cooke -- a guy I've known for years -- isn't. Roy measures his words carefully, and when he makes a statement of fact, or even offers an opinion, I'm prone to take a very serious look at it

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! another endorsement, though indirect, of Georgiev. Are these guys nuts!

Vince

[Jedster]

Thank you both (Mason and David) for following up with the original post on this thread. You both make a compelling logical case that collusion is not (and really could not be) prevalent in major cardrooms for ring games. Some people will always suspect that a two-outer was the result of a mechanic, not random chance, and hopefully the spread of automatic shufflers will reassure those folks.

I'm wondering if it would be harder or easier to collude in a major tournament? I assume that it would be harder in the sense that colluders would have no control over whether they appear at the same table or not. But let's take the case of a 400 person tournament where 10 players have been backed by a single source and two of them reach the final table with average stack sizes. Or is that not the right place to be looking for cheating/collusion in tournaments? Have either of you written at all on this topic?

Thanks,
Jed

[andyfox]

Guys involved with poker, it would seem to me, would be very hesitant to name names in public. Based on their writings, I give credence to what Roy Cooke and David Sklansky say about poker. The fact that Cooke has never played with Russ or in the $4K-$8K game doesn't mean he doesn't know something about them. And, IIRC, I believe an email from David to Russ posted by Russ in his RGP heyday said that David knew some of the things Russ said to be true. Mike Caro must also have at least suspected some of the things to be true; thus his initial cooperation with Russ.

What turned Mike off, and a lot of others (most especially you, as I recall), is that Russ practically accused everybody everywhere of cheating. And, so, of course this (along with his poor writing and combative style) put a negative light on everything he said. So whatever truth there may have been in some of the things was drowned in the flood of poorly written accusations.

I do especially agree with one thing, though: to just say, as Cooke says, that some of what Russ says should be listened to, can be a disservice without specifics. Russ accused a lot of big names of being a cheater. To just say that some of what Russ said is true lends credence to those accusations and that's a sin if the accusations are untrue. So which specific accusations Cooke believes to be true, and why he so believes, would be, for me, a welcome revelation.

But, as I say, I don't think you'll never see such a revelation.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
What turned Mike off, and a lot of others (most especially you, as I recall), is that Russ practically accused everybody everywhere of cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of numerous people he didn't accuse, and numerous people he has mentioned as being honest.

[ QUOTE ]
I do especially agree with one thing, though: to just say, as Cooke says, that some of what Russ says should be listened to, can be a disservice without specifics. Russ accused a lot of big names of being a cheater. To just say that some of what Russ said is true lends credence to those accusations and that's a sin if the accusations are untrue. So which specific accusations Cooke believes to be true, and why he so believes, would be, for me, a welcome revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roy Cooke is not stupid, and a lot of thought would have gone in to what he posted. He would have known exactly what people would read into it.

[andyfox]

"I can think of numerous people he didn't accuse, and numerous people he has mentioned as being honest."

I said "practically." There were a lot of names on his "cheater" list, and some very famous ones. Obviously, he didn't accuse "everybody," but he did accuse enough so that his accusations began to ring hollow.

"Roy Cooke is not stupid, and a lot of thought would have gone in to what he posted. He would have known exactly what people would read into it."

I agree; I said I respect what Cooke writes. But by saying that some of what Russ writes is so, it causes me to wonder exactly what. And since Russ named names, it lends credence to suspicion of those names.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you both (Mason and David) for following up with the original post on this thread. You both make a compelling logical case that collusion is not (and really could not be) prevalent in major cardrooms for ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower levels.

What I read into Sklanksy words is that collusion makes a lot of sense for world class players playing at very high limits where games are scarce. Basically, implying the same thing as Roy Cooke, but these guys hide it behind the creative use of language.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if it would be harder or easier to collude in a major tournament? I assume that it would be harder in the sense that colluders would have no control over whether they appear at the same table or not. But let's take the case of a 400 person tournament where 10 players have been backed by a single source and two of them reach the final table with average stack sizes. Or is that not the right place to be looking for cheating/collusion in tournaments? Have either of you written at all on this topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tournament cheating is nothing new. Whether the very large fields nowadays affects things, I don't know. I don't think it makes much difference.

I recommend you google search Russ G's posts on the methods. Daniel negreanu made a post about it a few years back too, concerning men the master. Maybe Sklansky posted in one of those threads.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
And since Russ named names, it lends credence to suspicion of those names.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Cooke knows that. In fact, he outright supports what Russ says about those names, albeit using language tricks to disguise it. Anyone that reads between the lines can see what Cooke is saying. But a lot of them just don't want to believe it, so they find ways to avoid facing it.

If what Cooke has said has any major impact, I expect him to post a follow up explaining he didn't mean to give the wrong impression about certain names. He will then go on to clear them. Not because they are honest, but because pressure has been applied. If he truly thought they were honest (the very major names at the top of the pile that everyone remembers has been accused), he would have made sure to mention them in his original article to avoid any misunderstanding. Hopefully, he holds firm if pressure is applied.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys involved with poker, it would seem to me, would be very hesitant to name names in public.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what would they do instead?

Either never comment, outright lie, or tell the truth in a disguised way. Cooke chose the former for a number of years, and now the latter. I believe Sklansky has usually chosen the latter also, if pressed.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
And since Russ named names, it lends credence to suspicion of those names.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that it is wrong (unethical and... I can't find the word or description)) to accuse someone of something as serious as cheating without offering some form of proof.

Vince

[hmmmmm]

Wasn't Roy Cooke the one who admitted to reviewing players hands on planetpoker and using it agains them in live games?

[Seahorse]

<font color="red"> </font> [ QUOTE ]
Wasn't Roy Cooke the one who admitted to reviewing players hands on planetpoker and using it agains them in live games?

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> </font>

<font color="black"> </font> No – Cooke wrote in article in CardPlayer (not exactly an admission) about reviewing the play of a friend and helping that friend – my memory is that people said they were afraid Cooke would do what you said, but he always firmly denied it and Caro backed him up.

I think what Cooke said in this post was:
Russ G. is definitely a cheat and his info on cheating on his website is good.
Cooke knows some of Russ G.’s accusations are true, believes some are true, he doesn’t know about others, and he’s not accusing anybody in particular. (I’d like to know which, but I can understand his reluctance to go farther.)
Under 10-20 cheating is irrelevant, higher it starts to matter. Real high it matters a lot.

This is a guy who has spent the last 5 or 6 years investigating internet cheating accusations. I’d guess he knows something about it.

All these guys are part of the industry, including David and Mason. And it’s a pretty clubby industry. Mason once said he thought he’d never been cheated. David has said indirectly a number of times he’s sure there is cheating. Like Cooke they have an interest in not causing problems for the industry which pays their bills.

I live in LA but spend a lot of time in Vegas. Cooke doesn’t play $4k-$8k but he knows pretty much everybody, probably sees and hears a lot. He did play-by-play at Live at the Bike recently (he was really good) he's always hanging out with top poker people.

I’ve seen in his articles that he has a strategy of never playing the highest game of his type in a room, because the best players and the cheaters play high when it’s available ---- if there’s $100-$200 at the Bellagio which sucks the toughies out of the $80-$160, he plays $80-$160. If the biggest middle limit hold em game is $80-$160, as it often is at the Bellagio he plays $30-$60. I’ve seen him playing $200-$400 at the Commerce though he usually plays $40-$80 there and $75-$150 at Hollywood Park. They were both sweet games where he obviously had huge edge. I think that’s what he’s about, picking the best spots with the least fluctuation.

I heard from a good source that Party busted a guy with 350 accounts and IP addresses who was playing 5 seats in 6 handed games. I know at least two high profile Vegas regulars, friends of mine actually, were barred from several sites including Planet and PokerStars for cheating. And I’m not in the know like Cooke, David and Mason – I’d bet they know lots of stuff I haven’t heard. And I’ve heard stories like the ones Russ G. tells lots of times over the years, though I got no clue whether they’re true or not.

I do know that I heard from a real reliable source that when Scotty N. checked the nuts behind Daniel N. at a WPT final table on television, Daniel had put Scotty into the tournament. That’s surely not a righteous thing, and I kind of think Daniel is a good guy and straightshooter.

I’m sure we all get cheated some but it’s like the rake, just an expense of playing the game that you have to allow for.

I think it’s pretty remarkable that Cooke went against the grain of the industry’s tendency to just not talk about this subject and take a public stand. You can quibble over the details about how he want about it, but hey he’s got us all thinking and talking about it and that’s got to be bonus.


BTW since I admit to having friends who cheat I made a new account to make this post.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
I do know that I heard from a real reliable source that when Scotty N. checked the nuts behind Daniel N. at a WPT final table on television, Daniel had put Scotty into the tournament. That’s surely not a righteous thing, and I kind of think Daniel is a good guy and straightshooter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in hearing substantiation on this issue if there is any way someone can provide it.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jedster:

I've written on the topic. Again see my book Poker Essays, Volume III.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
All these guys are part of the industry, including David and Mason. And it’s a pretty clubby industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think I'm part of the club, you better think again. Go to Google archives of RGP and you can start reading the many personal attacks made on me by some of these club members.

MM

[Seahorse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do know that I heard from a real reliable source that when Scotty N. checked the nuts behind Daniel N. at a WPT final table on television, Daniel had put Scotty into the tournament. That’s surely not a righteous thing, and I kind of think Daniel is a good guy and straightshooter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in hearing substantiation on this issue if there is any way someone can provide it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll call the person I got it from get the details and get back to you. Seems to me it was one of the cruise ship events.

[Seahorse]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

Here's the way I see it. Russ G essentially called everyone a cheater with usually no evidence to back it up. Cooke should know better than to write anything that appears to endorse him in any way.

Below is an article that originally appeared in Poker Digest that is now in my book Poker Essays, Volume III. It is the position that both David Sklansky and I take on this issue.

Best wishes,
Mason



[/ QUOTE ]

Mason -- I find the use of the word "usually" interesting. Isn't that a qualified endorsment of some of what Russ G. says but not all of it? Isn't that the same thing Cooke did?

And I didn't mean to imply any wrong-doing with the club comment. I used to be an rgp person and one of the reasons I left was the way they treated people like you, Brunson, Caro and Cooke. 2+2 is a much friendlier place. I only meant that you make your living from a poker related business so what's good for poker is good for you and what's bad for poker is bad for you, and it it's only reasonable for you to protect your own self-interest.

Nothing bad meant by it.

I think you and David are poker's most credible spokespeople. I think Cooke is probably next. You should grab him as a writer! Be good for both of you! (I loved the Harrington book by the way, keep on doing what you do.)

[Mason Malmuth]

Russ G talked about some events that happened approximately 30 years ago and in which I had heard before. I also had heard about Martino almost 20 years ago.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I only meant that you make your living from a poker related business so what's good for poker is good for you and what's bad for poker is bad for you, and it it's only reasonable for you to protect your own self-interest.


[/ QUOTE ]

You need to think again because that sure isn't my history. For instance I broke with Caro many years ago becuase I disagreed with some of the information that he put out and it certainly wasn't in my own self-interest to do so and I still feel some repercussions to this day.


If your comment was true, we would probably have about triple the number of books published and most of them would be garbage, but my job and life would certainly be much easier.

MM

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]

I do know that I heard from a real reliable source that when Scotty N. checked the nuts behind Daniel N. at a WPT final table on television, Daniel had put Scotty into the tournament. That’s surely not a righteous thing, and I kind of think Daniel is a good guy and straightshooter.



[/ QUOTE ]

What a silly thing to believe. Maybe he checked the nuts into DN, or there was someone left to act behind him, or they were not on the river. There is no way SN checks the nuts closing out the hand (or fails to raise last to act for that matter) since that is cheating (you are not allowed to soft play in a tournament) and it will be apparent to everyone when he shows down the hand, which he will have to do since DN isn't going to muck for nothing. If this is from a "real reliable source" I would hate to here what your sketchy ones say.

If this was truly at the final (TV) table, where all the hands are reviewed (since they may make the TV cut) it is even more ludicrous.

[Seahorse]

I was right and wrong about Daniel Negranu and Scotty Nguyen. First remember that I’m a second hand reporter of this, so I ‘m just reporting what I have been told, now with very specific details and a way to check the facts though that route is not open to me.

The Event was PP3, on a cardplayer.com cruise, March 2004.

It wasn’t a final table, it was down to 2 tables. Daniel put Scotty in the tournament. By Scotty making this play both he and Daniel made it to the final table, where there was no further indication of impropriety.

Scotty didn’t check the nuts behind Daniel, he check-called the nuts, when they both had plenty of chips left, but would have put Daniel all-in and knocked him out of the event, where he went on to finish second.

So I was wrong on the details but right on the principle – my apologies for my error

I am told the issue has been extensively discussed by the Tournament Directors Forum, (my source is not a member, but a friend of a member and personally reviewed the discussion at the member’s house, but was not allowed to copy anything) where Daniel admitted this happening, said Scotty did “a stupid thing” with no prompting from Daniel. Daniel promised to get out of the business of putting players in tournaments. (I’m not sure why Daniel is part of the Tournament Directors Forum but it’s something I don’t know a lot about.) There was apparently a lot of debate and discussion about this, which is actually a good thing.

If anybody who has access to the Tournament Directors forum might want to comment on, confirm or refute this that would be cool.

Meanwhile the unconfirmed scuttlebutt (confirmed to me by the same source however) at the Commerce is that Habib, Tuan Le and Daniel were a three way partnership in last week’s event.

I stand by my original observation that Daniel tends to be one of the good guys. It makes me wonder what the bad guys are doing and gives some credibility to Cooke’s comments.

I’ll repost this on the WPT thread.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I do know that I heard from a real reliable source that when Scotty N. checked the nuts behind Daniel N. at a WPT final table on television, Daniel had put Scotty into the tournament. That’s surely not a righteous thing, and I kind of think Daniel is a good guy and straightshooter.



[/ QUOTE ]

What a silly thing to believe. Maybe he checked the nuts into DN, or there was someone left to act behind him, or they were not on the river. There is no way SN checks the nuts closing out the hand (or fails to raise last to act for that matter) since that is cheating (you are not allowed to soft play in a tournament) and it will be apparent to everyone when he shows down the hand, which he will have to do since DN isn't going to muck for nothing. If this is from a "real reliable source" I would hate to here what your sketchy ones say.

If this was truly at the final (TV) table, where all the hands are reviewed (since they may make the TV cut) it is even more ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

[hmmmmm]

Tone Barbaccio Mar 9 2002, 10:59 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
From: "Tone Barbaccio" &lt;hakt...@hotmail.com&gt; - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 18:59:28 GMT
Local: Sat,Mar 9 2002 10:59 am
Subject: Roy Cooke and Planet Poker - Crosspost from 2+2
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Read this on the 2+2 site. As I play often on Planet I found it to be very
interesting. I have a MAJOR problem if what is stated below is the case.
pokerstuff if you read this I hope you didn't mind the crosspost. I think
your post is extremely interesting.
--
Tone Barbaccio
hakt0ne
-----
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?

Roy Cooke and privacy and PlanetPoker

Posted By: pokerstuff
Date: Tuesday, 5 March 2002, at 1:52 p.m.

I like planet poker. They have a very strict privacy agreement where they
explain that no one can look at hand histories except in certain instances
of investigation, and that no one including Mike Caro himself will be able
to look at who the players are involved in hand histories should Mike to
studies of results. This is a private matter according to Planetpoker, and
learning things about how people play is not available to anyone.

Roy Cooke their manager seems to not to believe in this policy. While
visiting Las Vegas...Roy Cooke told me that he like to look at hand
histories to see how people play. Roy then stated "thecount" was the
winningest player on Planet. Followed by Roy stating Marlen, then of course
GWS, cleanedaboy, db, where right up there. Pretty bad to confirm for sure
to people that they have won more than me, and it is none of anyones
business how much I may win or lose.

When I asked about a player at planet...Roy many times said "yes...he
plays slow..or "yes, he plays fast." Kind of wild, when you think he was at
a poker table at the time spouting.

I was still upset about this, when 3 weeks later Roy Cooke wrote in the
Cardplayer telling everyone how he likes to look at hand histories, where no
one can embellish, etc. I have written Planet, and Roy Cooke answered saying
that he can not help but talk about it...people ask, and he IS human...( an
excuse for anything right? ).

So why does Planet even have a privacy agreement if their cardroom manager
totally goes against all the promises made?

As a player who often plays against Roy Cooke, I wonder how much money
Planet has cost me by allowing Roy Cooke to see how I play any time he
likes.

Roy reveals much more...and I am surprised that he even puts the fact that
he ignores the privacy agreement in the Cardplayer. Actually, Mike Caro says
that Roy regrets writing that. I would also regret Roy telling his customers
what he is doing. I agree with Mike. If Planet allows Roy Cooke this
tremendous abuse, I would regret putting it in print also.

Just want to know any thoughts...and I am surprised Planet has not
apologized for breaking their agreement, and for costing so much money to
those who play planet, and then play live against Roy Cooke.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Scotty didn’t check the nuts behind Daniel, he check-called the nuts,

[/ QUOTE ]

If he called with the nuts with no one left to act, and the tourney was not down to two players, he should have been given a penalty and maybe even DQ'd. Soft playing is blatently against tourney rules, and though according to some accounts it is not really enforced in low buy in tourneys (Felicia Lee had some posts about this a while back), I am shocked to here that it wasn't enforced in a major tourney. Are you sure it was the nuts? I mean could it have been the nut flush where a straight flush was technically possible though highly unlikely? Or was there a third person in so he could have been going for an overcall?

I still have trouble believing SN would softplay even if DN had loaned him the buy in or was backing him. If it happened the way you say, that is just disgusting.

[JohnBond]

Sheesh, been on the site a couple of hours and already somebody's beating up on my bud.

Rocky is that you? I've got more reasons than one to think it is and if so we both know why you've a problem with Roy. Amazing how quiet this account has been for so long and suddenly it pops up from the dead to smack at RC. Classic anonymous smear at a person fighting hard to stop poker cheats.

This is old news from an incident in 2001, reported in 2002 practically the dawn of Internet poker when everybody including Roy was figuring out the right way to do things. Roy was a pioneer establishing standards, methodologies and principles to protect players on the Internet. Everybody who plays in an honest Internet game owes Roy Cooke for all the money they haven't been cheated out of!

All that crap’s been asked and answered long ago.

It's also essentially inaccurate, though it has a tiny bit of truth which is what makes for the best slanders. But RC hates it when I get into wars with people about him on the net so I won't go there. Also, old friend, you know and I know that RC doesn't need inappropriate edges to take the money at the table -- including from you which is of course part of the problem.

Here's the reality: Nobody has done more for integrity in poker, on and off the web than Roy. Nobody knows more about integrity issues confronting poker than Roy. Nobody more credible has spoken out for players’ interests on integrity and related issues more often (or more recently) than Roy.

Have to ask myself how you profit from trying to sandbag RC's efforts to make things cleaner across the industry. Wait, no I don't -- we both know the answer.

I've always liked you, bud. You're charming, friendly and funny, and in many (though sadly not all) ways a good guy. You and Jeannie share something important, and you’ve always been a good man to me about that. But you need to stop whipping this dead horse and get on with things already.

Thanks again for the great story about Hourly Rate in the Mirage game a few weeks ago. As we discussed it's worth using and we will. It makes the point beautifully.

If this ain't Rocky -- I really think it is -- oops, sorry bout that. Really. But I’ve gotten this old just saying what I think – not anonymously I might add, like some cowards we know – and I ain’t likely to change anytime soon.

Whoever this hmmmm person may be is an essentially anonymous jerk who has revitalized a long dead account name to take shots at Roy with long dead and mostly discredited and discounted stories in an effort to make Roy less credible in his battle to help shape the industry.

I think that as Roy continues to press for the poker industry to put up the money to keep the game clean in all regards, he will be subject to many more such attacks. Believe them if you wish, though that will likely make you among either the gullible or the criminal. I'd suggest rather that you take them for exactly what they're worth - nothing.

Not that I’d say what I think or anything.

John Bond
Aka The Loose Cannon
Aka Roy’s Rottweiler (Heel, Boy, Heel!) (That’s sort of an inside joke, but truer and funnier than ya know.)

[hmmmmm]

[ QUOTE ]

Whoever this hmmmm person may be is an essentially anonymous jerk who has revitalized a long dead account name to take shots at Roy with long dead and mostly discredited and discounted stories in an effort to make Roy less credible in his battle to help shape the industry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this isn't true - I lurk here all the time - just saw this thread and was trying to remember what was said about it and did some googling. I couldn't find the original accusation or defense - seems to go to far back for my limited googling abilities.

[JohnBond]

Liar, liar, pants on fire,
Nose is Longer than a telphone wire.

ROFLMFAO

jb

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
Soft playing is blatently against tourney rules, and though according to some accounts it is not really enforced in low buy in tourneys (Felicia Lee had some posts about this a while back), I am shocked to here that it wasn't enforced in a major tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could write a whole book on this subject, as it is one that greatly interests me. I wish the poker industry would clean up it's act a little bit and try to be more legitimate.

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

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has done more for integrity in poker, on and off the web than Roy. Nobody knows more about integrity issues confronting poker than Roy. Nobody more credible has spoken out for players’ interests on integrity and related issues more often (or more recently) than Roy.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is Cooke's number 1 booster, and I would take it with a grain of salt.

MM

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish the poker industry would clean up it's act

[/ QUOTE ]

There in lies the problem my dear: There is no Poker Industry!

Let me say that I wish you well and good health and a full recovery from your recent battle. To see you post up here is just...well considering what you've been through, amazing and very heart warming. Keep up the good fight!

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has done more for integrity in poker, on and off the web than Roy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is Cooke's number 1 booster, and I would take it with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me, I would have thought it was sugar coated but what do I know.

Vince

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has done more for integrity in poker, on and off the web than Roy. Nobody knows more about integrity issues confronting poker than Roy. Nobody more credible has spoken out for players’ interests on integrity and related issues more often (or more recently) than Roy.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is Cooke's number 1 booster, and I would take it with a grain of salt.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason -- long time.

I notice you don't actually say my proposition is untrue, and that is good -- because we both know it is.

I signed my post as "Roy's Rottweiler", a not exactly tacit admission that I'm biased in his favor. But I'm not his #1 booster - he actually has people even more exuberant than I about him - I'm just his best friend. You of course have a few boosters of your own, like Poor Vincent -- although I don't go sotto voce like he does (probably you and David is a better analogy, though Roy and I haven't known each other quite as long our relationship is more intense and personal)--

As with pretty much everthing in my life I'm no bull and upfront about it. It is both the most irritating thing and the most refreshing thing about me. Part of my charm /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I've always liked you, you know that -- long after you and RC had your falling out, you and I sat and chatted on a very friendly basis -- to me you've always been the good guy from Coral Gables. Ask Chuck -- I said something along those lines to him not too long ago at a spring training game. You're just Mason, and people who understand you get that, and either accept it or don't. Though you sometimes make it hard, I'm happy to accept you for who you are, and not judge.

All things considered, if I am somewhat biased in RC's favor on a personal basis you are somewhat biased against him on a personal basis-- and probably each of our comments regarding him should be weighed accordingly.

And notwithstanding your falling out, RC has always treated you with professional respect and great credit for what you've done(as you have mostly treated him) -- he named you in his Hall of Fame as one of the ten most important people in the history of poker. He has always referred people to books published by you.

You have always referred to him as one of the best non-2+2 writers which is the highest praise you give -- though we both know most 2+2-ers don't come close. (RC has always said that David has written the best book in the history of poker, so good that a better may never be written. He has been foisting the Harringon book on people as well, recently.)

As to the issue at hand, I could make the argument at length, but will settle for two salient points and let it rest. (Honest, I've learned to let thing rest, although I haven't learned to just shut up. If I could learn that...)
1. Before 99%+ of the people playing on the Internet today logged on, RC was ferretting out and barring cheaters, working with programmers on algorithms and screens to identify them, sniffers and other client-based preventative measures, which were shared with others in the industry and have become standard.
2. RC is the only mainstream commentator in the industry standing on a soapbox screaming that there are problems with cheating in poker and if somebody doesn't do something about it we're going to be [censored]. He's been doing this at seminars, in coversations with management of both B&amp;M and Internet operations extensively for the past year --- and most recently in 2 articles in CardPlayer. http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/writers/view/name/Roy_Cooke -- Nobody else has done more than he, more publicly more energetically, or more recently.

Like my mama always said, it just ain't braggin' when it's true!

You are a good guy, but odd, Of course that is the pot calling the kettle black. You are particularly odd on a personal level about RC, have been for about eight years. I too tend to be a bit odd about him in the opposite direction.

Oddness notwithstanding though, what I said about him being in the forefront of protecting players particularly on the Internet just happens to be true.

It is good to hear from you, and I hope we get a chance to chat again sometime soon. You are at heart a good man, our disagreements notwithstanding, and the fact is that good men in this industry can be few and far between.

Genuine Best Regards,

jb

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wish the poker industry would clean up it's act

[/ QUOTE ]

There in lies the problem my dear: There is no Poker Industry!

Let me say that I wish you well and good health and a full recovery from your recent battle. To see you post up here is just...well considering what you've been through, amazing and very heart warming. Keep up the good fight!

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Cooke's been agitating and organizing and pushing for the industry to coalesce into some kind of national voice with accountability for over a year now.

It will probably take a major public scandal to make it happen -- and I'd guess one's not far off.

jb

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has done more for integrity in poker, on and off the web than Roy. Nobody knows more about integrity issues confronting poker than Roy. Nobody more credible has spoken out for players’ interests on integrity and related issues more often (or more recently) than Roy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dispute all of the above. I can't be more clear than that. Mike Caro has harped on this topic for 25 years.

[ QUOTE ]
I've always liked you, you know that

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this include the insults you posted about me on RGP a couple of years back? Remember the "Brick Mason."

As I stated to you in a private message I think I'm entitled to a public apology, especially since you now realize the value of participating in our forums.

MM

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has done more for integrity in poker, on and off the web than Roy. Nobody knows more about integrity issues confronting poker than Roy. Nobody more credible has spoken out for players’ interests on integrity and related issues more often (or more recently) than Roy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dispute all of the above. I can't be more clear than that. Mike Caro has harped on this topic for 25 years.

[ QUOTE ]
I've always liked you, you know that

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this include the insults you posted about me on RGP a couple of years back? Remember the "Brick Mason."

As I stated to you in a private message I think I'm entitled to a public apology, especially since you now realize the value of participating in our forums.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Mase -- when you're right you're right.

Caro has been saying it longer than Roy -- and was also part of the early efforts designing methodologies to stop cheats on the Internet. Roy has been louder recently ---- but permit me to modify my statement -- Nobody with the possible exception of Mike Caro ..... the relative weight of their influence is arguable and close ----- Roy is currently more on the front line on this than Mike, but Mike is indeed the other person who deserves great credit. With that edit would you say I'm basically correct? Would you agree that Roy is doing a good thing and deserves credit for it?

And given your history, it is big of you to say that about Caro. That's why I continue to like you even when you're sometimes a jerk! /images/graemlins/smile.gif (we're all sometimes jerks, dont take it too personally!) You are intellectually honest and overcome your personal prejudices far more often than not. Anybody who doesn't respect that is a fool.

I also like you because Donna likes you, and I have this strange thing where my friend's friend is my friend. And Todd likes you. And Chuck likes you, and he will likely become a friend, as we are embarking on what I hope will be a long-term relationship. I respect the opinions of people I respect. (Hell, for that matter I respect most of your opinions!)

There is the problem of how you feel about RC, but it's not like you two are enemines -- then I'd have to choose. Each of you is wrong about the other, albeit in my VERY biased opinion you are more wrong than he -- and my opinion is meaningless. You two are among the most pigheaded, stubborn creatures in God's creation and trying to talk sense to you about each other is a waste of time. You should have kissed and made up and become allies long ago. I still have some small hope that will someday happen. And small hope is better than no hope at all.

As to the rgp matter -- I never read a single PM at rgp, didn't know you'd sent me one --- and I'd forgotten the incident, don't even remember the details. To be honest I don't even remember what I said. I would venture a guess that you were taking shots at RC and I was defending him --- I have been known to go overboard in such situations.

That's part of your oddness - you never forget a slight and you always take it in the worst possible way ---- and as I said above those of us who know you accept that or don't -- I do. Part of my oddness is that nothing from last week bothers me next week -- we are different. Not better or worse, just different.

Brick Mason is certainly I joke I would have made, although I don't remember it (I just think I'm too damned clever) - so I'm 100% certain your reportage here is correct, even though I'm too lazy to go back and check.

To the extent that I was inappropriately personal in any exchange we may have had in the past, please accept my genuine and public apology. Reprint or re-post it anyplace you deem appropriate. I am often guilty of an excess of zeal in defense of those I care about, and I'm sure I was out of line.

As noted in my previous post you are one of the good guys in a world and industry that needs them -- even if you are odd /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm sure we'll disagree again. And I'm sure then as now and in the past, we'll be honest with each other. Neither of us is known for pulling punches in our discourse. And that's all good.

Best,

jb

PS If you ever have the need or inclination to take this or any other discussion private, please use my email: Sundance1@aol.com --- I really never got the pm at rgp!)

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
although I don't go sotto voce like he does (

[/ QUOTE ]

This is laughable. One reading your posts, here, would be justified believing that you get paid to take the heat for him or as you so dearly call him, "RC". This is a pot and kettle joke, right?

Hey, while your into defending your own "sotto voce" why not explain just what cheating "RC" is referring to when he backs up nutcase Georgiev? Come on you speak for him give us some insight. Actually "facts" something Georgiev and apparently RC don't deal in, would be nice.

Vince (poor Vincent)

[Vincent Lepore]

Am I wrong, or haven't you continuously dodged the subject of this thread? What is Roy Cooke talking aobout? Where are the facts backing up RC (Roy Cooke's) endorsement of the claims made by Russ Georgiev. That's what this thread is about or hadn't you noticed? Maybe RC sent you up here to change the subject so he wouldn't have to answer. Who knows? I don't think that is true. Roy seems like a straight shooter too me. I would just like to hear the straight scoop from him concerning Georgiev's accusations.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vincent:

I agree with you and feel that this is the real problem here. When Cooke writes

[ QUOTE ]
I do not know that every detail of cheating described by Russ is true. When he describes specific incidents, I wasn t there and I don t know though I have
heard some of the same stories Russ has told from other (more?) credible sources. I would guess there is at least a kernel of truth in a lot of Russ's accusations. The fact that when he names names he doesn t get sued is telling
to me, although I have been told by some the reason they don t sue is that they could never collect.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
Also, to any person Russ has pointed a finger at I know that some of his accusations are true, I believe some of his other accusations are true, and many of his accusations I have no personal knowledge of. It s likely that in some cases he s incorrect. I m not necessarily talking about YOU.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have real problems with this since Georgiev has accused almost everyone with name recognition of being a cheat. At the very least, I believe that Cooke needs to rethink what he wrote and quickly make the appropriate correction. In addition, we need to hear this statement directly from Cooke, not from someone else.

Best wishes,
Mason

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Vincent:

I agree with you and feel that this is the real problem here. When Cooke writes

[ QUOTE ]
I do not know that every detail of cheating described by Russ is true. When he describes specific incidents, I wasn t there and I don t know though I have
heard some of the same stories Russ has told from other (more?) credible sources. I would guess there is at least a kernel of truth in a lot of Russ's accusations. The fact that when he names names he doesn t get sued is telling
to me, although I have been told by some the reason they don t sue is that they could never collect.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
Also, to any person Russ has pointed a finger at I know that some of his accusations are true, I believe some of his other accusations are true, and many of his accusations I have no personal knowledge of. It s likely that in some cases he s incorrect. I m not necessarily talking about YOU.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have real problems with this since Georgiev has accused almost everyone with name recognition of being a cheat. At the very least, I believe that Cooke needs to rethink what he wrote and quickly make the appropriate correction. In addition, we need to hear this statement directly from Cooke, not from someone else.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mase --

RC made it pretty clear he wasn't going to engage in exchanges, flames or fingerpointing on this. Also you know he doesn't post on 2+2 and probably won't unless and until the time you two settle your differences. He doesn't even lurk here. Knowing that, your call for his response here appears to me a tad disingenuous. You’ll have to settle for me until the far-off day you two sit down and acknowledge that each of you bear some responsibility for the present state of your relationship, and move forward.

You quote the essence of this part ( not the most important part -- the future not the past is the most important par) of the post :" I know that some of his accusations are true, I believe some of his other accusations are true, and many of his accusations I have no personal knowledge of. It s likely that in some cases he s incorrect."

I find it amusing that RC called this guy a slimeball and a cheat and he reveled in it!

Several of your posters summed it up quite well :

trying2learn:
i've also wondered why ethics aren't discussed more here as well. an occasional post for sure, but the grey areas that exist in and around this game are fascinating, and it's hard to have discussions about them without threads turning into flame wars.
(JB note: that's what RC is doing - bringing this issue into public discourse.)

John G: Roy Cooke is not stupid, and a lot of thought would have gone in to what he posted. He would have known exactly what people would read into it.
John G, again: So what would they do instead? ...Either never comment, outright lie, or tell the truth in a disguised way. Cooke chose the former for a number of years, and now the latter. I believe Sklansky has usually chosen the latter also, if pressed.

Seahorse: I think what Cooke said in this post was:
Russ G. is definitely a cheat and his info on cheating on his website is good.
Cooke knows some of Russ G.’s accusations are true, believes some are true, he doesn’t know about others, and he’s not accusing anybody in particular. (I’d like to know which, but I can understand his reluctance to go farther.)
Under 10-20 cheating is irrelevant, higher it starts to matter. Real high it matters a lot.

RC's point is that there's [censored] going on and people need to protect themselves. Ancient history ain't the point. The future of the game is the point. If you read Russ’s material on cheating on pokermafia.com (as opposed to his barely comprehensible screeds on rgp) there is much there to think about. To get sidetracked into discussion of Russ’s past allegations is to miss the point. It would certainly be interesting, it is not however relevant to the main issue: building a clean industry before the government shuts us down.

RC posted to juice up awareness and discourse of a subject which most industry people are afraid to discuss, which has been relegated to the province of peripheral irrelevants like Georgiev.

Given the number of views on this thread, I’d say he has succeeded admirably.

An aside --- I will be posting my apology on rpg after the Heat game.

Best,

jb

Parenthetically to Poor Vincent: I'm reasonably sure you have zero knowledge and are ignorant regarding all matters under discussion, and while your passion may be commendable it's probably better if you save your commentary for subjects relative to which you have knowledge. You will be less likely to embarrass yourself. I've known Mason and Roy for some 15 years, and have great respect for the opinions and knowledge of each, and huge affection for Roy. While you may find it cutesy to disparage strong friendships, that doesn’t become you. If you asked the same questions without the flame-ish and insulting edge, you’d get more respect and your posts would be taken more seriously.

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I don't go sotto voce like he does (

[/ QUOTE ]

This is laughable. One reading your posts, here, would be justified believing that you get paid to take the heat for him or as you so dearly call him, "RC". This is a pot and kettle joke, right?

Hey, while your into defending your own "sotto voce" why not explain just what cheating "RC" is referring to when he backs up nutcase Georgiev? Come on you speak for him give us some insight. Actually "facts" something Georgiev and apparently RC don't deal in, would be nice.

Vince (poor Vincent)

[/ QUOTE ]

See my response to Mason.

If you are foolish enough to believe I am paid by Roy -- well, I'm not surprised.

And I don't speak for him. But we do speak on the phone 3 or more times a week. We've been collaborating for almost 15 years. I have some insight into his thinking.


I promise this will be my last response to you. I learned long ago that it's just no fun to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

jb

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Parenthetically to Poor Vincent: I'm reasonably sure you have zero knowledge and are ignorant regarding all matters under discussion,

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, a weak arguer, trying to divert the attention from the truth would comment as you have. I have knowledge of the accusations that Georgiev has made concerning some high profile poker players. I have read Roy Cooke's statement in which he states that some of Georgievs comments are "true" Your meally mouth way of handling this doesn't change those facts.

[ QUOTE ]
I've known Mason and Roy for some 15 years, and have great respect for the opinions and knowledge of each,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am happy to hear that you reaspect Mason's opinion. Especially, since Mason states that he agrees with me concerning your "sotto voce, Roy Cooke."

You sir are the one embarrasing yourself with silly rhetoric in defense of your indefensible friend. He defends the veracity of Georgievs cheating claims and you try to whitewash those claims with a "I love you Mason" song. Get real and if possible be honest. Contact Roy Cooke. Ask him to post his "facts" confirming Georgievs allegations on rgp where he obviously does lurk. We, here on 2 + 2 know how to access that site. I wait with baited breadth but ... I know better.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing that, your call for his response here appears to me a tad disingenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call that he make any response here.

MM

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't call that he make any response here.

[/ QUOTE ]


But Mason, thawhat guys like John Bond do. They twist the facts and divert the discussion so they don't have to answer truthfully. Where aare the facts backing up Cooke's accusations? You will never see them from this guy. BTW - I hope that you noticed that he started the name calling.. Poor Vincent - and he called me a dick.. real nice guy huh.

Vince

[JohnBond]

I'm sorry, that's how I read it.

My mistake.

jb

[JohnBond]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2271075&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1

[Vincent Lepore]

I would ignore you except that it's so much fun reading your meally mouth replies.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I now have it from two independent sources that Cooke is no longer with Planet Poker.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MMMMMM]

I think Roy Cooke's recent post on RGP is largely unconstructive and potentially damaging to poker.

Caling for "taking action" on a "national level", yet without a very clear prospect of what that action might be, merely raises emotions in an unproductive manner, draws negative attention, and may also scare off potential players.

There are some things that can be done to help ensure the integrity of the games and the future of televised poker--but merely raising a scare without having a clear focus and concrete steps in mind is very counterproductive in that it just draws negative attention to the game and to the industry.

Also, old accusations are largely unprovable and have little to no bearing on the game today.

There are however a couple of constructive things which can be done to help improve the situation and address such concerns. Mason actually touched on these subjects in columns or essays long ago. What exactly are they?

1. Experienced players policing the games: remaining alert, noticing anything oddly suspicious, helping the games run smoothly etc. This in itself is a big thing.

2. Perhaps tournament players in major tourneys should be required to list percentages of themselves and others: granted, this is not entirely enforceable, but if implemented it could help to create a more open atmosphere and to allay suspicions. I would guess most top tourney players might very well go along with this. It would be a step towards transparency, and hopefully would alleviate fears, as well as putting some additional pressure on players to not softplay others in key spots in the tourneys. Although not truly enforceable, neither are university honor codes, yet those codes do have some effect in reducing unethical behavior. Hopefully too, peer pressure in tourney poker would be a factor, since there are more "good guys" than "bad guys" in high level poker and in the tournament circuit. I'm not completely sold on this idea but I think it has some merit and should be further explored.

3. More rigorous dealer training with an emphasis on procedure: while it is extremely unlikely you will be cheated by any dealer in a major casino, dealer errors can have ill effects and not all are clearly resolvable in a manner that is totally fair to all parties. Such errors may also lead to difficult floor decisions which may appear (or may actually be) biased. Therefore dealers should be very aware of proper procedure. Procedure is everyone's friend! It speeds up the game, keeps it running smoothly and error-free, and reduces the chances that someone may gain an unethical edge.

Along with emphasis on proper dealer procedure, should be additional emphasis on no dealer chit-chatting in the box. This really is the foremost cause of dealer error as it leads to lack of paying attention.

I think that strongly encouraging the above things will be good for the games and the industry.

There is no magic solution, and 100% across-the-board integrity or perfection is impossible to achieve in any industry, but every little bit helps. Emphasis on players policing the games, dealers paying attention and following procedure, and possibly a lot more transparency regarding percentages owned in tourneys, ought to be good for the game and the future of poker.

Roy wanted some sort of national consensus and action. Well I think the focus should be on the above points, and I don't see what else can constructively be done. Raising a scare and giving overmuch credibility to Russ G. are just bad ideas in my opinion.

I am sure Roy was well-intentioned with this but I think he may have gone off a bit half-cocked and without fully considering the potential negative repercussions. No offense meant to Roy or anyone else. The negative attention he fears may come about, he is himself contributing to with such broad and vague posts.

The focus should not be on the past, nor on vague fears of cheating or unethical behavior, but rather on how best to help ensure the integrity of today's game and the games of the future.


M

[JohnBond]

From RC's CP article 2 weeks ago:
There’s nothing wrong with teams of poker players. Tournament history is full of backers who put 10 or 20 players into a tournament. Competitors taking a piece of each other is practically a tournament tradition. It happens in other individual competitive endeavors, from tennis to golf to bridge to auto racing, although each of those has its own issues, which are different from poker’s.

The key is transparency, full disclosure . If everybody knows who has an interest in the outcome of a player’s results, the likelihood of impropriety is significantly lessened. It also creates opportunities for examination of the play of hands, a higher standard of scrutiny for those who have an interest in each other. Such transparency, of course, is not an easy thing to enforce.

Players on the same money, potentially colluding, are not the only threat to the integrity of tournaments. From time to time over the years, there have been suspicions about dealers in some major tournaments being in the employ of competitors. The poker industry recognized this for the threat to its very existence that it was, and has made serious efforts to keep it clean. One way to address this risk is to have standards of training and background checks for dealers. Another is to use mechanical shufflers.

From one of my own posts about ROy's thinking earlier this week: This fascination with whether this or that big name cheated is just a manifestation of a culture that wants to leer at the lives of celebrities – it’s the culture of Brad and Jen and Britney and Paris, only in our poker world it’s Doyle and Howard and Phil and Jennifer. People who want to talk about them are the same kind of people who read the National Enquire. It’s titillating. But it’s not relevant to anything.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, old accusations are largely unprovable and have little to no bearing on the game today. (JB Note: RC says this repeatedly)

There are however a couple of constructive things which can be done to help improve the situation and address such concerns. Mason actually touched on these subjects in columns or essays long ago. What exactly are they?

1. Experienced players policing the games: remaining alert, noticing anything oddly suspicious, helping the games run smoothly etc. This in itself is a big thing. (JB note -- experienced players are presently in some games; no help. This does nothign for the Internet issues.)

2. Perhaps tournament players in major tourneys should be required to list percentages of themselves and others: granted, this is not entirely enforceable, but if implemented it could help to create a more open atmosphere and to allay suspicions. I would guess most top tourney players might very well go along with this. It would be a step towards transparency, and hopefully would alleviate fears, as well as putting some additional pressure on players to not softplay others in key spots in the tourneys. Although not truly enforceable, neither are university honor codes, yet those codes do have some effect in reducing unethical behavior. (JB note -- see above - -RC said this CP 2 weeks ago.)

Hopefully too, peer pressure in tourney poker would be a factor, since there are more "good guys" than "bad guys" in high level poker and in the tournament circuit. I'm not completely sold on this idea but I think it has some merit and should be further explored. (JB note -- Maybe we could get Scotty or Habib to monitor for us? Where will we find someone as pure as Caesar's wife?)

3. More rigorous dealer training with an emphasis on procedure: while it is extremely unlikely you will be cheated by any dealer in a major casino, dealer errors can have ill effects and not all are clearly resolvable in a manner that is totally fair to all parties. Such errors may also lead to difficult floor decisions which may appear (or may actually be) biased. Therefore dealers should be very aware of proper procedure. Procedure is everyone's friend! It speeds up the game, keeps it running smoothly and error-free, and reduces the chances that someone may gain an unethical edge.

Along with emphasis on proper dealer procedure, should be additional emphasis on no dealer chit-chatting in the box. This really is the foremost cause of dealer error as it leads to lack of paying attention.

I think that strongly encouraging the above things will be good for the games and the industry.

There is no magic solution, and 100% across-the-board integrity or perfection is impossible to achieve in any industry, but every little bit helps. Emphasis on players policing the games, dealers paying attention and following procedure, and possibly a lot more transparency regarding percentages owned in tourneys, ought to be good for the game and the future of poker.

Roy wanted some sort of national consensus and action. Well I think the focus should be on the above points, and I don't see what else can constructively be done. Raising a scare and giving overmuch credibility to Russ G. are just bad ideas in my opinion.

I am sure Roy was well-intentioned with this but I think he may have gone off a bit half-cocked and without fully considering the potential negative repercussions. No offense meant to Roy or anyone else. The negative attention he fears may come about, he is himself contributing to with such broad and vague posts.

The focus should not be on the past, nor on vague fears of cheating or unethical behavior, but rather on how best to help ensure the integrity of today's game and the games of the future.


M

[/ QUOTE ]

M -- looks like you and roy are on the same page -- for more on RC's comments on this see :
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/writers/view/name/Roy_Cooke

[Lurshy]

A potential example of chip dumping / soft play from tonights Poker Stars 350K guareenteed tourney. Down to final 3. Top prize 102K, 3rd place about 35K.

PokerStars Game #1622053483: Tournament #7058449, Hold'em No Limit - Level XX (20000/40000) - 2005/05/01 - 22:48:57 (ET)
Table '7058449 169' Seat #3 is the button
Seat 3: Buster Love (3164039 in chips)
Seat 5: Dudley33 (2985491 in chips)
Seat 8: ramco (265470 in chips)
Buster Love: posts the ante 2000
Dudley33: posts the ante 2000
ramco: posts the ante 2000
Dudley33: posts small blind 20000
ramco: posts big blind 40000
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Buster Love: folds
Dudley33: calls 20000
ramco: raises 200000 to 240000
Dudley33: calls 200000
*** FLOP *** [Jh 3c Ah]
Dudley33: checks
ramco: bets 23470 and is all-in
Dudley33: folds
ramco collected 486000 from pot
ramco: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 486000 | Rake 0
Board [Jh 3c Ah]
Seat 3: Buster Love (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Dudley33 (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 8: ramco (big blind) collected (486000)

Not saying its collusion, but it certainly is intriguing.

Edit: to add one thing, they are down to the final 3 here.

[MMMMMM]

Hi John,

Yes, Roy did make some good specific suggestions. If he would focus on those suggestions I think he might be able to do some good for the game and the future of the game.

What I think is bad for the game is the focus on hazy past problems, Russ G. material/accusations, lending credibility to Russ, etc. It is not necessary to focus on such things in order to work to bring about positive improvements to the game (and to televised poker).

If Roy wants to try to work towards improving/standardizing dealer training, and getting tournament percentage disclosure to be made a standard practice--well I think that would be very positive indeed (I would imagine that mechanical shufflers will become more popular with or without his efforts, however;-).

If the above specific suggestions are what Roy meant by some sort of national group effort (or however he put it) then I think that's great.

I think where the emphasis lies is very important. I think Roy has some good ideas but he emphasized the negative way too much in his RGP post. Also, I really do not think that bringing Russ G, into it is is good for poker and I don't see anything constructive about it (I do see much negative, however). Nor do I see any good reason to offer Russ credibility, since a significant portion of what he has claimed is off base.The suggestions are just as good and valuable even if Russ had never entered the picture. So why even bring it up???

How to make things better: that's where the focus should be--not on past things that are unresolvable and only leave a nonspecific air of distaste and distrust.

If Roy is going to work on those specific suggestions--either alone, or if he is going to try to form a coalition to advance their cause--more power to him. I don't see why Russ even needs to be mentioned, though. The many benefits of standardized dealer training, for instance, should be obvious (and good for the casino's bottom line, too): improved efficiency, greater speed/less errors, protection of the integrity of the game, better customer relations, etc.

[Vincent Lepore]

Fom MMMMMM [ QUOTE ]
I think Roy Cooke's recent post on RGP is largely unconstructive and potentially damaging to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Johnbond [ QUOTE ]
M -- looks like you and roy are on the same page

[/ QUOTE ]


One can see how a lawyer (for RC) could come to this conclusion.

Vince

[MMMMMM]

Hi Vince,

I think Roy is on a similar page as far as his concrete suggestions for making poker better. However, I think his degree of emphasis on past problems and potential future problems is too high, and tends toward unproductive sensationalism.

John referred me to a couple of articles Roy wrote, and these articles are not as negatively oriented as the RGP post. Still, the overall emphasis is too negative and speculative, in my opinion. Roy would do far better publicly in this regard to concentrate almost exclusively on his concrete suggestions for improvement, and to work in that direction, if that is what he wishes to do. And I think that such positive emphasis would be good for poker rather than destructive.

Also, I believe that to support Russ G's efforts or lend him credibility is a serious mistake. Just because some of what Russ says may well be true, does not mean that support should be given to someone who routinely treats conjecture as fact and who makes many claims based on conjecture.

[andyfox]

There are two sides to this coin. With the exception of virtually everyone but Russ, you would think poker doesn't have, and never did have, a problem with dishonesty. Russ's diatribes had the benefit of directing attention to the issue. To think that the "old-time" players, who were traveling on the road, and dealing with mobsters bigtime and small, didn't have to cut corners to make a go of it, is silly. Or that some of them weren't cheats who would have been cheats even absent the need to fight fire with fire. To think that they didn't bring some of their time-tested techniques, and compromised moral compasses, with them when they stepped up into the limelight, is also, IMHO, a bit naive.

What Roy was saying, the way I read it, is that to simply not give Russ any credence because of his bombast and because he went too far is to make a mistake.

The other side of the coin, and the one that Vince in particular has been emphasizing, is that it is a very serious thing to name a name and not have facts to back it up. I have a friend in the movie business. He has told me some "casting couch" stories about some very famous names. They are titillating (pun intended). But I'm not in the business, I don't personally know the people involved, and I don't know whether the information my friend has was obtained from one of the participants in the extracurricular activities or from another party (who might only have heard about it from yet another party). Yet I like to think of myself as a worldy-wise person and it would be naive to think that such goings-on don't occur.

One ought to err on the side of caution when a person's livelihood and reputation are at stake, and it seems that Russ has erred on the wrong side.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two sides to this coin. With the exception of virtually everyone but Russ, you would think poker doesn't have, and never did have, a problem with dishonesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think most people realize that things used to go on in the old days.

[ QUOTE ]
Russ's diatribes had the benefit of directing attention to the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in a very negative and irresponsible fashion.

[ QUOTE ]
To think that the "old-time" players, who were traveling on the road, and dealing with mobsters bigtime and small, didn't have to cut corners to make a go of it, is silly. Or that some of them weren't cheats who would have been cheats even absent the need to fight fire with fire. To think that they didn't bring some of their time-tested techniques, and compromised moral compasses, with them when they stepped up into the limelight, is also, IMHO, a bit naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

True in some cases no doubt, but is anybody seriously claiming the opposite (that all old-time players were candidates for induction into Poker Sainthood)?

[ QUOTE ]
What Roy was saying, the way I read it, is that to simply not give Russ any credence because of his bombast and because he went too far is to make a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think few give Russ zero credence. Anyway, so what if not everything was always above-board especially in the old days? Big whoop-de-doo, in my opinion. Heck even the cream of corporate America has had its share of shady activities over the years.

The focus needs to be on what to do to make things better now--not on vague past allegations, etc., which only serve to create a climate of fear and offers nothing in the way of constructive suggestion regarding what to do to make poker better now and in the future.

Roy Cooke did make some good constructive suggestions. He would do much more good for poker if he were to focus on implementing those suggestions, rather than on old stuff and Russ etc.

[ QUOTE ]
The other side of the coin, and the one that Vince in particular has been emphasizing, is that it is a very serious thing to name a name and not have facts to back it up. I have a friend in the movie business. He has told me some "casting couch" stories about some very famous names. They are titillating (pun intended). But I'm not in the business, I don't personally know the people involved, and I don't know whether the information my friend has was obtained from one of the participants in the extracurricular activities or from another party (who might only have heard about it from yet another party). Yet I like to think of myself as a worldy-wise person and it would be naive to think that such goings-on don't occur.

One ought to err on the side of caution when a person's livelihood and reputation are at stake, and it seems that Russ has erred on the wrong side.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be sure.

My take is that the weighting of emphasis is important in determing how much good or harm may be done to poker: Focus on suggestions with merit for the future, and help poker grow and improve. Conversely, harp on past problems and vague diatribes and unsubstantiated accusations, and harm the future of poker. I think Roy Cooke made a mistake, albeit well-intentioned, by poorly weighting the focus of his recent post on RGP. The same holds true but to considerably lesser degree regarding his two recent articles in CardPlayer--in those articles I felt he made good suggestions, but his weighting of space devoted to vague "scare" material was rather too much.

[andyfox]

It seems to me that Russ's intention was indeed to harm many of the names he named. He seemed especially vindictive in a mean-spirited, rather than public-spirited, sort of way. I am basing this on nothing other than my own impression, having read his posts at RGP over a period of months. I had one incidence of correspondence with him and he was polite and gracious. If those, such as Cooke, can get involved with a different attitude, hopefully some good will come of the entire affair.

[PairTheBoard]

Roy Cooke's statement will not do the great damage to his general reputation that Mason opines. The inferences Mason draws are just not that clear cut. There's no smoking gun. RC will continue talking on the subject as he always has and whatever fleas he's picked up here will be quickly washed by the waters of time. Remember the Tylonol scare years ago? The brand name is as strong now as it ever was. Mason may have little use for RC in the future but Mason's is just one voice among many.

PairTheBoard

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
RC will continue talking on the subject as he always has

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I'm wrong, this is all something new. Where was Cooke and his comments when RG first appeared a few years ago?

MM

[PairTheBoard]

Mason quoting PTB:
PTB: "RC will continue talking on the subject as he always has"


MM: "Unless I'm wrong, this is all something new. Where was Cooke and his comments when RG first appeared a few years ago?"

By "the subject" I meant the subject of cheating in poker. My understanding was that RC has spoken on this subject in the past.

PairTheBoard

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bair:

Not to my knowledge. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is all something new to me. What's most interesting is that when Russ G was first introduced to most of us by Caro, I don't remember Cooke making any comments on this subject.

Now I might be wrong and if someone knows better I would like to be corrected. But I'm the one who spoke out on this stuff a number of years ago, not Cooke.

Best wishes,
Mason

[PairTheBoard]

Mason,

I'm just going on what I've been reading here. Not sure how I got that impression. Well, if you're right and RC continues speaking on the subject as he always has, I guess he won't be saying much more. From what he said in the statement it certainly doesn't sound like he intends to stick his reputation's neck out any further for this RG fellow. Unless he says something really stupid in the future I think most people will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

PairTheBoard

[Seahorse]

Hi Mason

So let me get this straight.

First, you said Cooke was wrong because he posted that even tho Russ G. is a slimeball, some of what he says is true we shouldn’t ignore all of what he says, and that would do permanent damage to Cooke’s rep.

But then you published here a few days ago that some of what slimeball Russ said is true, and some not. Just like Cooke.

Now Cooke is wrong because he didn’t post or write about it sooner? And you were the first one to talk about this? Not Cooke? Did you say something back when Caro brought Russ G. around? Or you have said something someplace lately?

Huh? I honestly don’t get it.

Also Mason you may have missed it but I asked a couple of posts back on one of these threads if you believe cheating on the internet, tournaments and live games higher than 15-30 is a real threat like Roy says. That’s the important question. I don’t think anybody cares much about the he said she cheated or he cheated her 20 years ago stuff, or even that was what Roy was talking about.

I think what we’re worried about is are we going to get cheated the next time we make a final table or play a sit n go or play 40-80 at the Commerce or play a shorthanded game on Party.

But how can Cooke be wrong to have posted about this and also be wrong for not coming out about it sooner? And Mason should get credit for speaking out about this (which this?) some years ago, not Cooke. But Cooke’s doing it now and has damaged himself by it?

I’m totally confused.



[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bair:

Not to my knowledge. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is all something new to me. What's most interesting is that when Russ G was first introduced to most of us by Caro, I don't remember Cooke making any comments on this subject.

Now I might be wrong and if someone knows better I would like to be corrected. But I'm the one who spoke out on this stuff a number of years ago, not Cooke.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Horse:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I’m totally confused.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and I don't have the time to rescue you from your state of confusion. Perhaps others will elaborate.

Best wishes,
Mason

[PairTheBoard]

SeaHorse,

I believe Mason has given his and David's thoughts on the subject of Cheating in Poker in this post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2244503&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1

It looks to me like what Roy Cooke is trying to do is Raise an Alarm. You can see this in his May 3rd Card Player Article. If the Poker World really does get hit by a $64,000 Question type of scandal as he Fears and Predicts in that article it would indeed be a major blow to the Poker Good Times we are now enjoying. It looks to me like his comments on Russ G were intended to add a little more volume to that Alarm. They certainly added more noise to it. Is such an Alarm needed right now? Who knows? Maybe it will work toward preventing what RC fears.

Am I alarmed? Not really. Mason and David's opinions on the subject may not Grab the Headlines the way Roy has done with his Cardplayer Article. But I suspect Roy's Article will go the way of most Media Headlines these days and be quickly forgotten while S&amp;M's level headed thoughts will continue to have the staying power they've shown in the past.

PairTheBoard

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Poker World really does get hit by a $64,000 Question type of scandal as he Fears and Predicts in that article it would indeed be a major blow to the Poker Good Times we are now enjoying

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the one and major point of RCs posts and articles. It's only a matter of time. There is too much money at stake and too many stupid sleazeballs before something major does happen.

It's only a matter of time before online poker experiences a major "hacking" scandal and it's only a matter of time before team and signal type play are discovered to influence some major tournament.

Russ is a major sleazebag who undoubtedly has some credibility in the area of cheating. RC didn't agree with Russ on any specifics but I think most of agree Russ is correct in some of the generalities.

I agree a major incident is on the horizon and unless all of the major players in the poker community become very vigilant it could do great harm to us all.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
cheating... scandal....it could do great harm to us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it couldn't. The movie "Rounders" gave a good example of cheating when Worm dealt those seconds. Rounders was a very popular movie. The TV program "TILT" was not about "tilt", it was nothing more than a fanciful testimony of Poker Cheating, in fact when I saw it I thought RG was the consultant. Poker, after these movie things is bigger than ever and still growing. People, all people, that play poker, suspect or believe, that there is cheating in poker. A real live scandal would surprise no one nor would it do "harm to all of us".

Roy Cooke gets paid to "protect" his site from cheats. RG is trying to get paid by promoting himself as a Cheat catcher (what do you think GCA stands for?). If cheating is a problem then these two will be in high demand. That is what is going on. I have yet to see any proof of this wide scale cheating online or off that these folks are alluding to.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vince:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Roy Cooke gets paid to "protect" his site from cheats. RG is trying to get paid by promoting himself as a Cheat catcher (what do you think GCA stands for?). If cheating is a problem then these two will be in high demand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting logic. But it just turns out that Cooke is no longer with a poker site. (I don't know why.)

Also, to my knowledge no one has ever hired Russ.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting logic. But it just turns out that Cooke is no longer with a poker site. (I don't know why.)

Also, to my knowledge no one has ever hired Russ.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that RC is no longer working for a site might be even more of a reason for him to claim that Cheating is a big problem. Maybe he is looking for work. I never said that RG was working. I said that he was trying to make money from his "Cheating" claims. Mike Caro and Nolan Dalla refused to interview this guy because he couldn't provide any proof. He then just basically...died. A year or so later here comes (unemployed) RC saying that RG was right on with "some" of his accusations. You are right when you say "interesting logic"/ I'm not sure how you mean that.

I am confident that a Poker Cheating Scandal as alluded to by the previous poster would not do "all of us" great harm as he seems to think.

Vince

[PairTheBoard]

As my Daddy used to say, when it comes to money all bets are off. So I suppose that speculating on Roy's motives can't just be dismissed out of hand. But imo that's all it is. Speculation. Something we could apply to the motives of a lot of people. Russ G. certainly sounds like little more than a self promoter. But Roy Cooke has a long history as a winning poker player, respected author, and successful business man. It seems far more likely to me that RC is expressing a genuine concern about a problem he sees as an ongoing threat to Poker's current popularity. If there's anything to it, it certainly won't help to bury our heads in the sand about it, nor to get sidetracked with personal attacks on Cooke.

Vincent L: "I am confident that a Poker Cheating Scandal as alluded to by the previous poster would not do "all of us" great harm as he seems to think."

When the game shows "21" and "The 64 Thousand Dollar Question" were rocked by scandal in the 50's it certainly did do great harm to big money game shows back then. On the other hand Boxing seems to limp along just fine despite its grimy reputation. Bottom line imo, to quote a line from the movie Casino, "Why take a chance?"

PairTheBoard

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vince:

Your logic is tough to dispute. But how can Cooke be looking for work? He states in his post (from Lawrence Ng)

[ QUOTE ]
And I have 3 jobs my Internet job, my Real Estate business, and playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

But now it's been confirmed to me (from more than one source) that he doesn't have that Internet job anymore. But you would think that two jobs would be enough.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Pair:

There's no question that this is a topic which should be addressed. Here's an article that I wrote for Poker Digest years ago and which is currently in my book Poker Essays, Volume III.

Keeping Poker Honest


The biggest enemy of poker is cheating. Many people are quite concerned about it. Over the years, I have seen many cardrooms collapse and go out of business. I believe that some of these closures are due to the fact that these cardrooms developed a cheating reputation. Now this may surprise some of you since on many occasions I have argued that the games I play in are very clean. I have taken much criticism for this stance on cheating, but believe it to be the case. I try to call things as I see them. However, one thing is certain. Once a poker room acquires a cheating reputation, it is simply a matter of time before it becomes severely damaged. And this is the case whether the reputation is deserved or not.

There are many mechanisms present in cardrooms that help to keep the games honest. These include well-trained dealers, knowledgeable floor personnel, knowledgeable management, and modern security systems (which include surveillance cameras) to name a few. There is, however, another force at work in all cardrooms which plays an extremely important role in keeping the games clean. It is simply the fact that the players play independently of each other, and thus help to police the games themselves.

When I play, there are usually several experienced players at the table. Of course, with luck there will be some weak players as well, but these experienced players serve a very important role. They watch the game. It is hard to imagine that hands could come down “funny” in which these players would not recognize something was wrong. Again, they police these games because they are playing totally on their own and are only interested in their own results.

Let me give a simple example of how partnerships can change things. Suppose three players are in the pot. Furthermore, suppose that Player A bets, and after he is done betting the pot is offering Player B 3-to-1 on a 4-to-1 one shot. (That is, Player B will win 20 percent of of the time). Notice that Player B should fold, since his expectation is negative. Also, suppose that Player C is in the same situation, except that the cards required to make his 4-to-1 shot are completely different from those that Player B needs. (A possible example would be when each player has a flush draw on the river and their suits are different.) He too should also fold because he has negative expectation.

Now suppose that Players B and C are partners and are playing from the same bankroll. Notice that instead of each of them getting 3-to-1 to call, the team is getting 3-to-2 since the initial size of the pot stays the same. But also notice something else, instead of each of them individually having a 20 percent chance of winning, the team now has a 40 percent chance of winning, and 40 percent is exactly the same as 3-to-2. So in this example we see that the partnership has greatly benefitted them.

Again, I have very few worries about this sort of thing in the regular games. That is because virtually all participants play independently and we all do our job of policing the games.

As most of you know, my time at the poker tables is spent mainly in side games. Occasionally you can find me in a tournament, but it is only occasionally. Part of the reason for this is that I feel the independence of players is frequently violated. There are many practices in tournaments which are common place, which virtually never happen in the standard ring games. These include deal-making, players trading pieces of each of other, players buying pieces of other players, and players being staked — some of whom have long-term staking deals.

My fear is two-fold. First, these arrangements should have the effect of weakening the independence between players that poker (and tournament poker) must have to help assure that the games stay totally honest. Second, I feel that as these arrangements become more common place and more people become comfortable with them, they will spill over into the ring games. This will have the effect of damaging the cardrooms and poker in the long run.

(I am aware that in some of the very largest games, where only a very small number of people participate, players do take pieces of each other. However, when this is done it is usually announced to everyone at the table and all players have the option to object.)

So it appears to me that tournaments need to make efforts to clean up these practices. With that in mind, here are some suggestions which are targeted mainly for tournament directors, but which all of us should be aware of:

1. All deal-making needs to be stopped. Most tournaments are top heavy in their payout structure, which causes players to want to make a deal towards the end when the betting limits tend to be very high relative to the number of chips left on the table. Payout structures should be flattened, and the incentive for making the deals will be over.

2. Players should not be allowed to trade pieces with each other, nor should they be allowed to buy pieces of other players. Of course this may be difficult to implement, but one way to help accomplish this could be through peer pressure, and having tournament participants sign an oath, pledging themselves to be playing totally independently of other players in the tournament.

3. Tournament directors should talk to those individuals who are known to stake more than one player in the same tournament, and ask them not to do so.

Another point which should be especially important to tournament players, is the idea that as long as these practices are known to be widespread it is hard to imagine any legitimate national company coming in as a sponsor. The potential for scandal and perceived improprieties is just too great.

The poker world is often divided into two groups. The tournament players and the non-tournament players. Of course there are many individuals who participate in both areas, and that is just the point. To assure that poker stays honest, which will allow it to grow and expand, all aspects of poker must be “squeaky clean.” It is hard to imagine poker being this way without all players who participate, no matter what form that participation takes, playing totally independent of each other. This is not something that should be taken lightly; and to achieve this goal many of you would have to make some sacrifices. In the short run, some of you who are getting free rides in these tournaments will have to pay your own way; some of you who are reducing your fluctuations by selling or trading pieces of yourselves will just have to live with higher swings; and some of you who are making a living at the tournaments may find it tougher to do because your income will be less consistent. But for the long-term good of poker it needs to be done and it needs to be done now.

Finally, I’m well aware that what is being proposed will not happen in totality. It is hard to imagine many poker players who are willing to accept a short term disadvantage for the long term good of poker. But if nothing else, I believe that what I have proposed should at least be the official stance of tournaments in order to give them the same degree of legitimacy that other sports tournaments have.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
But you would think that two jobs would be enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

O.K I give. My concern is not RC's employment. My concern is RC giving credence to RG's cheating allegations. That has been and still is the main focus of my objections to his comments.

Vince

[Seahorse]

Mason that is really good stuff -- except for the part where you say your solutions can't work because nobody will ever agree with them.

I guess you're saying there's no cheating to worry about in cash games and that's good.

I guess if Cooke's goal was to get people talking about all this it worked.

I still think you and Cooke are saying the same thing about Russ, that some of what Russ says is true, some of what Russ says isn't true. But it doesn't seem to matter much.

That was a great post. Thanks for the thoughts.

[PairTheBoard]

Hi Mason,

I've always enjoyed and been enlightened by your Essays. This one is Most Excellent. I think the Powers that Be might just finally be ready for your suggestions now.

Thanks,

PairTheBoard

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
am confident that a Poker Cheating Scandal as alluded to by the previous poster would not do "all of us" great harm as he seems to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the magnitude? What if there was a major hack into Party Poker that let you see everyone elses cards? This would be front page news and online poker as we know it would cease to exist. For a decent while anyway. No one would trust it or go near it. The poker boom would be history.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Horse:

But I don't endorse Georgiev in any way or any fashion. Neither do I endorse Cooke in any way or any fashion.

Best wishes,
Mason

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Horse:

But I don't endorse Georgiev in any way or any fashion. Neither do I endorse Cooke in any way or any fashion.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite their rather tumultuous history, Mason has rated RC's book a "9 out of 10" among non-2+2 authors, which for Mason is going overboard with praise.That's an endorsment of sorts.

Roy always recommends several books published by Mason -- Sklansky's Theory of Poker and Harrington on Hold'em -- to anybody asking about poker books. And RC listed Mason and David in some pretty elite company in his Poker Hall of Fame. He praises them effusively for their contribution to the game. Of course Roy is ALWAYS gracious --- and also honest and open about the quality of his competitors' work, whether good or bad. This latter is a trait he shares with David.

RC for example would never delete a post about Mason's books on a board he owned or moderated ---- in fact there were many such on UPF when RC was affiliated there. That would apply whether or not Mason himself wrote about his books or others did. That is one of the many differences between RC and MM. Rather RC would welcome the discourse.

Also --- if you sort through all Mason's tortured efforts to beat up on Roy without seeming to do so, he does in fact say the same thing Roy does: that much of what Georgiev says is true.

They differ on how much and what. Mason validates the charges made about cheating, saying many of the ones from 25 years ago and some but not most of the big name accustions are true.

Roy dismisses the cheating charges as irrelevant (while saying some indeed are true, others not) but validates many of Georgiev's comments on cheating on the Internet (relative to which RC is expert, having reviewed tens of thousands of cheating allegations at Planet the past 6 years, and participated in industry summits addressing hte problem) and in high live games and tournaments (relative to RC knows less than he does about the Internet, but still quite a lot.)

At the heart of the matter. both Mason and Roy postulate that some of what Georgiev says is true -- they just emphasize it differently. And RC clearly thinks the stuff about the Internet, high cash games and tournaments is important, while Mason apparently thinks only tournaments are an issue, regardless of Georgiev's comments.

Best,

jb

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
What if there was a major hack into Party Poker .... online poker as we know it would cease to exist. For a decent while anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously do not understand human nature. A major hack into PP wouldn't produce a blip on the screen nor affect PP's play. People don't care. People on party play so bad that they wouldn't even know (nor care) that they were cheated.

Vince

[PairTheBoard]

Vincent:"People on party play so bad that they wouldn't even know (nor care) that they were cheated."

I don't think you will be invited on college campuses to give lectures on human nature any time soon Vincent.

PairTheBoard

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you will be invited on college campuses to give lectures on human nature any time soon Vincent

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, their loss.

Vince

[robug]

This is a post I made to rgp a year or so ago. It is all just hearsay, not the proof that everybody seems to be looking for. Just stories told to me by Ralph Morton. But I have no reason to believe they are false.

Anyway here it is:

About a year ago at my uncles friday night game an old man showed up and
played for a couple hours and left about 300$ up. Before he left one of
our regular players said "Hey Dad you left your series bracelet at my
house last weekend" Later my curiosity got the best of me and I asked
him what his bracelett was for and I was told that it was for winning a
world series of poker event. Later I found out that this player was
Ralph Morton.

After the game my curriosity was still getting the best of me so I did
some searching on the net for more info. I found out he won braceletts
in 1982 and 1987 but the most interesting thing I found was this

http://tinyurl.com/4kqx2

Up untill this point I had never heard of Russ Georgiev or rec.poker but
I knew I was going to ask Ralph about it. At our next poker game I
found out how to get ahold of him and later that week I took him to
lunch. He told me about the game he had at his ranch here in Yakima
with Erik Drache and Puggy Pearson and how he caught them playing with
marked cards. He told me a about a hi limit game he was playing in
Vegas with Erik Drache that he was losing in and when Erik left to use
the can he requested a new deck. When Erik got back he threw a fit
about the deck being changed and wanted to quit. Then Ralph asked Erik
if he wanted to play 50/50 Eric responded whith what the hell are you
talking about and Ralph said 50% of the time with your marked deck and
50% of the time with a normal deck and then Erik told him off and left.

He told me about a trip him and Lyle Berman made to the hustler where he
is conviced that He, Lyle and Larry Flint were cheated but did not tell
me who he was playing with (or I forgot)

He refused to pay Erik and Puggy the 150k he lost at the 7 stud game he
caught them cheating here in yakima so he was quickly blacklisted at
most of the casinos in vegas. On his final trip down there he was
beaten nearly to death with porcelain toilet top and left for dead in
his hotel room. Ralph recovered and has been back to vegas in the last
few years but mostly plays up here at Legends, Wildhorse and a few of
the small local card rooms.

I have played cards many time with Ralph in the last year and he is a
great player and I have learned quite a bit from his stories and advice.
In the years past Ralph Morton was a pillar in this community owning
the largest ag. supply company and I have no reason to not believe his tale.

It just makes me wonder if any of Russ Georgievs other cheating posts
have any truth to them.

John Storlie

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
He told me about the game he had at his ranch here in Yakima with Erik Drache and Puggy Pearson and how he caught them playing with marked cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ask him how Russ Georgiev came to know of this?

[ QUOTE ]
He refused to pay Erik and Puggy the 150k he lost at the 7 stud game he caught them cheating here in yakima so he was quickly blacklisted at most of the casinos in vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. This guy "invites" two people to play at "his" ranch. Loses 150k, refuses to pay and then cries cheat! And you have no reason to believe that what he says isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
On his final trip down there he was
beaten nearly to death with porcelain toilet top and left for dead in his hotel room.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it he can produce hospital records that verify some of this. I mean he was almost dead right? No?

[ QUOTE ]
It just makes me wonder if any of Russ Georgievs other cheating posts have any truth to them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Me, I don't wonder I ask for proof.

Vince