Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters

[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