JohnBond
04-29-2005, 02:00 PM
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.
And further even if it were, insofar as any particular of cheating is concerned, it’s pretty much impossible to prove. Most importantly, what went wrong in the past has little or nothing to do with how the poker industry is going to handle the future.
-------------------------------------------
From Roy Cooke’s post on Georgiev:
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.
------------------------------------------------
It is almost impossible to prove the truth or fallacy of any past cheating allegation, and the farther in the past it is the harder it is to prove.
Reasonable people do not make allegations – or substantiate the allegations of others – which cannot be proved. This has nothing to do with whether or not any particular allegation is true or false.
We lawyers deal with three possible standards of proof:
1. Beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. This is the standard for most criminal convictions. While by the nature of the legal process it does not translate to percentages, let’s metaphorically call it a degree of certainty that is between 99.xx and 100%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence. A standard which requires that the case be patently obvious, though not certain. This standard is used in many administrative proceedings where things ranging from property to civil rights may be at risk, as well as certain kinds of contract matters. Metaphorically, let’s call this 66.66+%
3. A preponderance of the evidence. A standard which requires that the weight of truth weighs more heavily on one side or the other. This is used in most civil actions. Metaphorically, 50.001+%.
Further, we deal with several basic types of evidence:
1. Direct evidence – observed behavior, DNA, books and records – the tangible things which contribute to the proof of the truth or fallacy of a fact.
2. Circumstantial evidence – those things which do not contribute directly to the truth or fallacy of a fact, but imply the truth or fallacy of it.
3. Eyewitness testimony – a person reports what he or she personally observed. (more unreliable than you would think)
4. Expert evidence – testimony by those with great knowledge of a matter which contributes to the truth or fallacy of a fact or proposition, often relating to something intangible.
(When it comes to cheating, Russ G. is certainly an expert.)
Note that none of the above are exact legal definitions, but conceptual representations for the purpose of addressing how one proves cheating. Or doesn’t.
So consider an allegation that a long dead casino owner fixed a tournament, or a particular card room manager long since fired allowed cheating to flourish in his room 15 or 30 years ago. How does one prove that? What standard can you meet?
The Internet of course has changed things – it is much easier to construct direct and circumstantial evidence from a variety of factors ranging from IP addresses to hand histories.
Consider this hand, played on the Internet: The first player limps, the second player folds AK, the button holds KK and hits it. It would be reasonable to conclude that the AK and KK players are in communication and cheating. But can you prove it? Maybe the AK player had his wife play his hands so he wouldn’t time out and she was clueless. Maybe he misread his hand. You know and I know that we would suspect cheating in this case – but could we prove it?
Or consider the Scotty/Daniel incident – Scotty hold the nuts heads up against the guy who put you in the tournament. He checks. Daniel bets. Scotty can move all-in and if Daniel calls, he’s done. Scotty doesn’t move, but calls with the nuts. Was there cheating? Was Daniel culpable of anything? Did Scotty misread his hand?
If you can’t prove cheating in such clear cases in real time with the hands open in front of you – how the hell can you prove it about some incident in the distant past where you don’t have hand histories available and some or all of the principle or witnesses are dead, not even available to comment?
The answer is of course you can’t. You can’t even muster a preponderance of the evidence.
Since it is nigh impossible to prove cheating, does that mean cheating doesn’t happen? Of course not. I have heard many cheating stores which I believe from all the available circumstances to be true – and yet they are completely unprovable. I am sure Mason, David and Roy – and slimeball Russ – have as well. Russ is likely to have heard and seen more because he is a self-acknowledged cheater, associated with cheaters his whole life. He’d know more stories likely to be true than the rest of us. Yet htat doesn't make any crap he spouts off necessarily true -- or for that matter untrue.
But what choices does that leave people like Mason, David and Roy who would want to honestly comment on the consequences of cheating on poker --- when even though they know it’s happening they can’t prove it? Unlike Slimeball Russ they are rightly unwilling to accuse any particular person in any particular circumstance absent at least a preponderance of the evidence – which cannot be obtained.
Lipstick cameras and hand histories have made proving some cheating easier. And site proprietors are not constricted by legal niceties – they can bar people based on suspicion, regardless of standards of proof. Tournament Directors have the wherewithal to do more than they have done.
When considering the question of past cheating – it can almost certainly never be proved, and will always devolve into a he said- she said flurry of charges counter-charges and denials, with no firm result and profit to anybody. You can’t effectively prove somebody cheated. Or didn’t cheat. And the longer ago the incident, the truer that is. It’s a waste of time to talk about whether somebody did or didn’t cheat at some point in the past. And it serves no good purpose.
I believe that is why so many thoughtful, intelligent writers have let the subject sit for so long. But that has, alas, resulted in cheating growing unchecked. It’s time for the big players to take a stand. Not to prove past cheating but to prevent future cheating.
I hope this sheds some light on the way my friend Roy has addressed this subject.
jb
And further even if it were, insofar as any particular of cheating is concerned, it’s pretty much impossible to prove. Most importantly, what went wrong in the past has little or nothing to do with how the poker industry is going to handle the future.
-------------------------------------------
From Roy Cooke’s post on Georgiev:
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.
------------------------------------------------
It is almost impossible to prove the truth or fallacy of any past cheating allegation, and the farther in the past it is the harder it is to prove.
Reasonable people do not make allegations – or substantiate the allegations of others – which cannot be proved. This has nothing to do with whether or not any particular allegation is true or false.
We lawyers deal with three possible standards of proof:
1. Beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. This is the standard for most criminal convictions. While by the nature of the legal process it does not translate to percentages, let’s metaphorically call it a degree of certainty that is between 99.xx and 100%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence. A standard which requires that the case be patently obvious, though not certain. This standard is used in many administrative proceedings where things ranging from property to civil rights may be at risk, as well as certain kinds of contract matters. Metaphorically, let’s call this 66.66+%
3. A preponderance of the evidence. A standard which requires that the weight of truth weighs more heavily on one side or the other. This is used in most civil actions. Metaphorically, 50.001+%.
Further, we deal with several basic types of evidence:
1. Direct evidence – observed behavior, DNA, books and records – the tangible things which contribute to the proof of the truth or fallacy of a fact.
2. Circumstantial evidence – those things which do not contribute directly to the truth or fallacy of a fact, but imply the truth or fallacy of it.
3. Eyewitness testimony – a person reports what he or she personally observed. (more unreliable than you would think)
4. Expert evidence – testimony by those with great knowledge of a matter which contributes to the truth or fallacy of a fact or proposition, often relating to something intangible.
(When it comes to cheating, Russ G. is certainly an expert.)
Note that none of the above are exact legal definitions, but conceptual representations for the purpose of addressing how one proves cheating. Or doesn’t.
So consider an allegation that a long dead casino owner fixed a tournament, or a particular card room manager long since fired allowed cheating to flourish in his room 15 or 30 years ago. How does one prove that? What standard can you meet?
The Internet of course has changed things – it is much easier to construct direct and circumstantial evidence from a variety of factors ranging from IP addresses to hand histories.
Consider this hand, played on the Internet: The first player limps, the second player folds AK, the button holds KK and hits it. It would be reasonable to conclude that the AK and KK players are in communication and cheating. But can you prove it? Maybe the AK player had his wife play his hands so he wouldn’t time out and she was clueless. Maybe he misread his hand. You know and I know that we would suspect cheating in this case – but could we prove it?
Or consider the Scotty/Daniel incident – Scotty hold the nuts heads up against the guy who put you in the tournament. He checks. Daniel bets. Scotty can move all-in and if Daniel calls, he’s done. Scotty doesn’t move, but calls with the nuts. Was there cheating? Was Daniel culpable of anything? Did Scotty misread his hand?
If you can’t prove cheating in such clear cases in real time with the hands open in front of you – how the hell can you prove it about some incident in the distant past where you don’t have hand histories available and some or all of the principle or witnesses are dead, not even available to comment?
The answer is of course you can’t. You can’t even muster a preponderance of the evidence.
Since it is nigh impossible to prove cheating, does that mean cheating doesn’t happen? Of course not. I have heard many cheating stores which I believe from all the available circumstances to be true – and yet they are completely unprovable. I am sure Mason, David and Roy – and slimeball Russ – have as well. Russ is likely to have heard and seen more because he is a self-acknowledged cheater, associated with cheaters his whole life. He’d know more stories likely to be true than the rest of us. Yet htat doesn't make any crap he spouts off necessarily true -- or for that matter untrue.
But what choices does that leave people like Mason, David and Roy who would want to honestly comment on the consequences of cheating on poker --- when even though they know it’s happening they can’t prove it? Unlike Slimeball Russ they are rightly unwilling to accuse any particular person in any particular circumstance absent at least a preponderance of the evidence – which cannot be obtained.
Lipstick cameras and hand histories have made proving some cheating easier. And site proprietors are not constricted by legal niceties – they can bar people based on suspicion, regardless of standards of proof. Tournament Directors have the wherewithal to do more than they have done.
When considering the question of past cheating – it can almost certainly never be proved, and will always devolve into a he said- she said flurry of charges counter-charges and denials, with no firm result and profit to anybody. You can’t effectively prove somebody cheated. Or didn’t cheat. And the longer ago the incident, the truer that is. It’s a waste of time to talk about whether somebody did or didn’t cheat at some point in the past. And it serves no good purpose.
I believe that is why so many thoughtful, intelligent writers have let the subject sit for so long. But that has, alas, resulted in cheating growing unchecked. It’s time for the big players to take a stand. Not to prove past cheating but to prevent future cheating.
I hope this sheds some light on the way my friend Roy has addressed this subject.
jb