Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters

[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/sh...;o=14&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_maga...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.