Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

Taken from RGP,

Roy Cooke's post.


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_maga...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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

Are we sure that this is actually Roy Cooke?

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we sure you are slickpoppa?

Lawrence

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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. 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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...

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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.

From Lou Krieger on RGP
 

[ 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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

"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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

<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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

Hi Jedster:

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

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.)

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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 ]

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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.)

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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.

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

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

ROFLMFAO

jb

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
www.felicialee.net

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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

Re: Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters
 

[ 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