A previously "well-respected" MTT cheating team...

[GtrHtr]

bump to flame

what do I win?

[Lee Jones]

Hi all -
I posted over on RGP about this, and I was going to just copy/paste it over here. But since "the shadow" has quoted quite a few of our rules here, I'll respond directly to that.

The definition of "two players" in that context is two people who each were dealt a hand at the same table. In short, we're talking about collusion - whipsawing a third player, sharing hole card information, softplaying a partner in a tournament, etc.

Please note that not only was Jerrod not talking about collusion but he makes it abundantly clear that they don't collude or do anything that has the odor of collusion.

Please don't look for a "one player to a hand" rule anywhere in our rules because we don't have one.

While we can (and aggressively do) enforce rules against collusion, [1] we believe that it is pointless to have a rule that you can't enforce.

And you can't enforce a rule against two people sitting next to each other in front of the screen discussing the play of a single hand.

The same applies, of course, to people on the phone or IM discussing play of that single hand.

You can't enforce it, and we won't write a rule that's unenforceable. Any good rule-writer of any sort will tell you the same thing. It promotes disdain and dismissal of the rules.

Also, online poker is not B&M poker. You can want it to be, but it's not. In many respects they are the same, but in some other respects, they are inalterably different. You can enforce a "one player to a hand" rule in a B&M room; you can't online. You can enforce a "no mechanical aids" rule in a B&M room; you can't online.

So the two will never be quite the same.

Now, I thought it was interesting that somebody raised the "Is it ethical?" question.

My answer: I don't know.

Do I do it? Occasionally. If I walk in the room, my wife is playing a S&G and she says "What would you do here?" I usually tell her. Then she does what she wants to do anyway [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]. I don't sit around with a group of people making a decision about how to play a single hand. But that's mostly because I wouldn't enjoy the game much that way.

I have enough ethical decisions to worry about that have a direct effect on my life. So I don't spend much time on ones that don't apply to me as a participant, and which I can't enforce as a monitor/policeman.

Is it ethical to use PokerTracker to keep track of your opponents' play?

Is it ethical to buy somebody else's database of hand histories and plug 'em into PokerTracker?

Is it ethical to write a bot to suck hand histories off an online site and dump 'em into PokerTracker?

Is it ethical for you to win money from somebody who is a truly awful poker player and, BTW, has a gambling problem that is costing him or her everything? If you knew such a player was at your table (B&M or online), would you refuse to play at that table?

There's lots of very interesting questions to be asked here, and I don't expect everybody to give the same answers to all of them.

But I find that the inability to enforce something is a very good point at which to stop worrying about its ethics, because I'm not going to get involved.

Best regards,
Lee Jones

PokerStars Poker Room Manager

[1] As I mentioned on RGP, I just saw an internal email at PokerStars that made me think "Sit and Go colluders are having a very bad day and don't even know it."

[the shadow]

Lee, thanks for the clarification.

Frankly, at this point, my only opinion is that rules should be clear. Your post here and at RGP is a step in that direction.

IMHO, it seems to me that Poker Stars should post something more on its website. You've done the same from time to time to explain why it's no big deal for players to sit out and blind off their stacks.

I agree with the point you made on RGP:

[ QUOTE ]
Such [unenforceable] rules are bad - they all but encourage people to break the rules. Now the guy who follows the rule is at a disadvantage to those who do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

But an ambiguous rule has the same disadvantage as an unenforceable rule. A number of players believed, not unreasonably, that your rules meant "One Player to a Hand." Many more unaware of this thread still do. That belief likely puts them at a disadvantage to those players who play as a team.

The Shadow

Edit: Heck, maybe Poker Stars can even start team competitions with team leaderboards, so we can tell how well Ankenman and Chen fare against the many other teams likely out there who have not been as public about what they have been doing. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[imported_torgeauxSA]

Sorry, Mr. Jones, but your argument isn't sound. It is also impossible to enforce actual collusion, e.g. where the "team" continues to discuss via IM or telephone the actual hands while at a table together. Yes, you could detect some whipsaw activity, but the edge given to players who could fold because some cards are dead and/or they are beaten would be almost impossible to detect. So, by your logic, it should be also legal to collude actively.

Your rules say that no two players can discuss a hand, whether in the hand or not. That rule is unambiguous, and the team in question is violating it. If you don't intend that, change the rule, don't tell us that it doesn't mean what it says. I refer to rule 16.

Your friendship with the cheaters in question seems to impact on your decisions here. I don't mean that you are colluding yourself, but that perhaps you are looking for a way to legitimize their unethical and cheating behavior.

[Lee Jones]

[ QUOTE ]

...but the edge given to players who could fold because some cards are dead and/or they are beaten would be almost impossible to detect.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's not true. We can, and do, detect hole-card sharing. It's cheating and it gets people thrown off our site.

[ QUOTE ]

Your rules say that no two players can discuss a hand, whether in the hand or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

In my original post here (or maybe it was on RGP...), I said that by "two players", we specifically mean two players each of whom was dealt a hand. In the case under discussion, there is only one hand - two people are looking at it.

And the word "discuss" means that you can't say "Damn - I folded an 8!" when the board comes 8-8-K.

[ QUOTE ]

Your friendship with the cheaters in question seems to impact on your decisions here. I don't mean that you are colluding yourself, but that perhaps you are looking for a way to legitimize their unethical and cheating behavior.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I've never met Jerrod or the Matt who isn't Matros. Bill and I are really only acquaintances; he is, I grant, my fashion consultant. That said, I have deep respect for Bill and Jerrod (I don't know Matt). As I implied in my previous post, I believe reasonable people may argue over the ethics of what they're doing. But I sense that both of those gentlemen think carefully about the ethics of their daily lives, including how they make their money at poker.

There's one other point that I should probably make: daily, I see our collusion people catch cheaters who are blatantly, overtly, and knowingly colluding. Really awful stuff. The kind of thing that when we catch them (and we do), most of us want to smash an old 20" monitor over their heads.

Paul Phillips was quite eloquent when he said (I'm paraphrasing) "You should hope that everybody gives you the same clean shot at their money that Bill and Jerrod do."

Best regards,
Lee Jones

PokerStars Poker Room Manager

[imported_torgeauxSA]

I see your point, but still disagree. You saying now what "two players" means is odd since it is in conflict with the obvious meaning. I strongly suggest you change the rule to make this clear.

I would not play at this website now. I see this as collusion and cheating, but it's not moral outrage, but self-preservation that forces me to make such a decision. I'm sure I'm playing against similar or worse activities daily elsewhere, but I won't do it willingly. Thanks for discussing this with us in an upfront and professional fashion.

[runout_mick]

Seriously, are you under the impression that a B+M mtt and an online one are the same sport? They may be the same on paper, but are completely dissimilar in practice.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

What could you be discussing, outside of strategy? I am baffled that you have convinced yourself that you are not engaged in actions that help eachother.

(Not to mention the suspicions I have about what happens when you ARE actually at the same table. Pretty big temptaion there, and considering you've already gone to the trouble of making a conference call and all.....)

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on!

I'll bet at least one member of this team has actually colluded with someone at the same table. Do you guys quickly hang up your conference call and stop chatting or emailing each other as soon as you are on the same table?

Yeah, right.

This team is WRONG in every sense of the word.

You've got to change your evil ways, baby.

-ptmusic

[randommuppet]

i think its like Dungeons & Dragons and stuff.....

[randommuppet]

i was firmly in the "anything other than one player to a hand is cheating camp" mainly because in my opinion we all like the sites we play to be as realisitc as possible - we wouldnt pu up with them screwing up the button and blind position heads up for example - and to me this (the concept not the example) implies as "real" an experiance as possible - this includes no collusion being allowed.... (im explaining this badly but im sure youre all clever enough to work out what i mean)

i still do feel that ignoring the issue (or worse joining in) is by far the worst "moral" decision but also the most practical for a lot of people

the simple reason for the sites not blocking two players from the same ip is that it costs them money (potentially) also its more likely these guys are communicating gy IM or something similar isnt it?

im thinking now however that there are degrees of wrongness here

my gf occasionally plays online and ill tell her to raise or fold (in a fairly disinterested manner) when she asks

i would probably argue that this doesnt really make a difference as she probably isnt going to win anyway - when seasoned pros (or even seasoned amatuers) do it en masse however i do think its slightly different.....

in summary - im a complete hipocrit