Roy Cooke on Cheating and Cheaters

[andyfox]

"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.

[JohnG]

[ 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.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ 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

[robug]

This is a post I made to rgp a year or so ago. It is all just hearsay, not the proof that everybody seems to be looking for. Just stories told to me by Ralph Morton. But I have no reason to believe they are false.

Anyway here it is:

About a year ago at my uncles friday night game an old man showed up and
played for a couple hours and left about 300$ up. Before he left one of
our regular players said "Hey Dad you left your series bracelet at my
house last weekend" Later my curiosity got the best of me and I asked
him what his bracelett was for and I was told that it was for winning a
world series of poker event. Later I found out that this player was
Ralph Morton.

After the game my curriosity was still getting the best of me so I did
some searching on the net for more info. I found out he won braceletts
in 1982 and 1987 but the most interesting thing I found was this

http://tinyurl.com/4kqx2

Up untill this point I had never heard of Russ Georgiev or rec.poker but
I knew I was going to ask Ralph about it. At our next poker game I
found out how to get ahold of him and later that week I took him to
lunch. He told me about the game he had at his ranch here in Yakima
with Erik Drache and Puggy Pearson and how he caught them playing with
marked cards. He told me a about a hi limit game he was playing in
Vegas with Erik Drache that he was losing in and when Erik left to use
the can he requested a new deck. When Erik got back he threw a fit
about the deck being changed and wanted to quit. Then Ralph asked Erik
if he wanted to play 50/50 Eric responded whith what the hell are you
talking about and Ralph said 50% of the time with your marked deck and
50% of the time with a normal deck and then Erik told him off and left.

He told me about a trip him and Lyle Berman made to the hustler where he
is conviced that He, Lyle and Larry Flint were cheated but did not tell
me who he was playing with (or I forgot)

He refused to pay Erik and Puggy the 150k he lost at the 7 stud game he
caught them cheating here in yakima so he was quickly blacklisted at
most of the casinos in vegas. On his final trip down there he was
beaten nearly to death with porcelain toilet top and left for dead in
his hotel room. Ralph recovered and has been back to vegas in the last
few years but mostly plays up here at Legends, Wildhorse and a few of
the small local card rooms.

I have played cards many time with Ralph in the last year and he is a
great player and I have learned quite a bit from his stories and advice.
In the years past Ralph Morton was a pillar in this community owning
the largest ag. supply company and I have no reason to not believe his tale.

It just makes me wonder if any of Russ Georgievs other cheating posts
have any truth to them.

John Storlie

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
He told me about the game he had at his ranch here in Yakima with Erik Drache and Puggy Pearson and how he caught them playing with marked cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ask him how Russ Georgiev came to know of this?

[ QUOTE ]
He refused to pay Erik and Puggy the 150k he lost at the 7 stud game he caught them cheating here in yakima so he was quickly blacklisted at most of the casinos in vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. This guy "invites" two people to play at "his" ranch. Loses 150k, refuses to pay and then cries cheat! And you have no reason to believe that what he says isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
On his final trip down there he was
beaten nearly to death with porcelain toilet top and left for dead in his hotel room.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it he can produce hospital records that verify some of this. I mean he was almost dead right? No?

[ QUOTE ]
It just makes me wonder if any of Russ Georgievs other cheating posts have any truth to them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Me, I don't wonder I ask for proof.

Vince

[Mason Malmuth]

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.

[stigmata]

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...

[David Sklansky]

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.

[Jedster]

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

[JohnG]

[ 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.