Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters

[fnord_too]

[ 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.

[Seahorse]

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 ]

[hmmmmm]

Tone Barbaccio Mar 9 2002, 10:59 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
From: "Tone Barbaccio" <hakt...@hotmail.com> - 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.

[fnord_too]

[ 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.

[JohnBond]

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.)

[hmmmmm]

[ 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.

[JohnBond]

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

ROFLMFAO

jb

[FeliciaLee]

[ 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

[Mason Malmuth]

[ 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

[Vincent Lepore]

[ 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