More pix here: BadBlood Chips
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Redux
For anyone who’s been part of the online gaming scene, the cheating that’s been recently uncovered shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. There are some interesting parallels to the cheating that occurs in first-person-shooter (FPS) games such as Counter-Strike.
Take a look at the wikipedia article “Cheating in Counter-Strike” and you’ll see some similarities to the current state of affairs in online poker.
Hacked executables, bots, and client/server trustworthiness are all covered. One thing to note is that while the cheating was very commonplace, there was little to no money involved as an incentive. Add the huge sums of money involved in online poker to the picture and you can see how the cheats suddenly become very motivated to succeed.
Whenever you have a game architecture with a remote client communicating over the Internet with a remote server, you’re going to have issues with respect to cheating. It’s unavoidable. The best you can hope for is that the companies in charge of the game in question do their best to protect the honest clients.
I don’t have any inside information on any of these companies, but I still choose to play solely at Pokerstars and FullTilt Poker. While I have no ironclad guarantees, I feel that both sites care enough about the player’s experience to devote significant resources to combat cheating. If this issue gains momentum, cheat prevention will become a significant differentiator in determining which sites survive and which sites don’t.
I’m sure I don’t have anything to worry about at the stakes I play, but I’d like to think that as I eventually move up in limits, I’ll be greeted by better players, not by better cheaters.
Take a look at the wikipedia article “Cheating in Counter-Strike” and you’ll see some similarities to the current state of affairs in online poker.
Hacked executables, bots, and client/server trustworthiness are all covered. One thing to note is that while the cheating was very commonplace, there was little to no money involved as an incentive. Add the huge sums of money involved in online poker to the picture and you can see how the cheats suddenly become very motivated to succeed.
Whenever you have a game architecture with a remote client communicating over the Internet with a remote server, you’re going to have issues with respect to cheating. It’s unavoidable. The best you can hope for is that the companies in charge of the game in question do their best to protect the honest clients.
I don’t have any inside information on any of these companies, but I still choose to play solely at Pokerstars and FullTilt Poker. While I have no ironclad guarantees, I feel that both sites care enough about the player’s experience to devote significant resources to combat cheating. If this issue gains momentum, cheat prevention will become a significant differentiator in determining which sites survive and which sites don’t.
I’m sure I don’t have anything to worry about at the stakes I play, but I’d like to think that as I eventually move up in limits, I’ll be greeted by better players, not by better cheaters.
Monday, February 27, 2006
At What Cost
Because I have readers who aren’t familiar with the story, here’s a brief recap. Two high-profile Internet players were recently banned from both Party Poker and Pokerstars for cheating. They both had multiple accounts and had managed to enter tournaments multiple times under different user id’s. While having multiple accounts certainly violates the terms and conditions set forth by each poker site, I don’t believe it’s cheating as long as only one account is played at any one time. However, playing multiple accounts in the same tournament or same ring game is most certainly cheating for a variety of reasons.
Not knowing either individual personally, I wonder what it was that made them decide on their course of action. Certainly, we’ve been witness to other forms of cheating in other walks of life, professional sports most notably. In the aftermath of such scandals, it always seems like the guilty party offered one of two reasons. Either they felt that they had to even the playing field because everyone else was doing it, or it was their drive to be the absolute best at any cost. Neither argument holds any water in the poker world.
I have to think that the amount of money involved played some factor. The sum of money confiscated in each case was over six figures, and to many of us, that represents a year or more of salary. It brings me back to one of the first thoughts I had upon embarking on the journey of becoming a better poker player. Why did I play? Was it for the money? Of course the money is important; without it, we’d never be able to pressure our opponents into making sub-optimal decisions. But for me, that’s not the reason I play.
Poker, in its infinite combination of possibilities, represents to me the ultimate mental challenge. I am truly driven by the goal of being able to outthink my opponents in any situation more often than not. Being better at putting opponents on their hole cards, making bets that offer incorrect odds to be called, and knowing a blind-steal situation when it manifests itself are all areas in which I hope to have an edge.
I’d never cheat to gain that edge. For any amount of money.
For whatever reason, if I were to win a tournament or cash big in a ring game due to an unfair advantage gained through cheating, I’d feel empty. It would be a hollow victory. The rules of poker define the playing field. The guilty parties mentioned above expanded their playing field to include the infrastructure of online poker. The holes in that infrastructure allowed them to gain their edge.
One of the players indicated that having other accounts allowed him to remain anonymous. His main online persona had developed a reputation and other players knowing his style began to play back at him. So rather than develop the skills required to adjust to those who’ve adjusted to him, he simply created a new account that enabled him to reap the rewards of his main playing style. That, to me, is the easy way out. It indicates to me that poker became a moneymaking endeavor rather than an opportunity to become truly world-class. That’s not to say this player was unskilled. Quite the contrary. But I feel he lost an opportunity to become even better by relying on the crutch of multiple account names.
Frankly, I’m a little bit saddened (but not surprised) by the events. Online poker was gaining momentum, making inroads to the already established B&M tournament scene. Million dollar prize pools have become almost commonplace, rivaling the live poker scene from a decade ago. And it was growing fast.
In one sense, I’m satisfied with the resulting course of action. After an investigation, the guilty parties were banned and funds were confiscated. On the other hand, I’m disappointed that this was handled reactively than proactively. I have to ask, hopefully not rhetorically, why this cheating wasn’t discovered internally. I’m sure the technical details are complicated, but two players having the same IP address/unique machine ID playing in the same tournament or same ring game should simply not be possible. The fact that it is/was is disturbing to me.
This episode indicates how far online poker still has to go; after all, it’s still in its infancy. Unfortunately, the incident has the makings of being the tipping point from which the legality issue will be determined. Russ Fox has written about the possibility of the mainstream media picking up on this issue and its implications. With the impending bill to ban online gambling gaining exposure, we’re in for some interesting times.
I hope online poker improves and learns from these growing pains. And I hope that the players who feel the need to cheat in order to win have the capability to look inside themselves and realize that what they’re doing is wrong. If you’re playing only because you want to win money at all costs, you should look for another game. Don’t pollute the beauty of the game with your greed.
Not knowing either individual personally, I wonder what it was that made them decide on their course of action. Certainly, we’ve been witness to other forms of cheating in other walks of life, professional sports most notably. In the aftermath of such scandals, it always seems like the guilty party offered one of two reasons. Either they felt that they had to even the playing field because everyone else was doing it, or it was their drive to be the absolute best at any cost. Neither argument holds any water in the poker world.
I have to think that the amount of money involved played some factor. The sum of money confiscated in each case was over six figures, and to many of us, that represents a year or more of salary. It brings me back to one of the first thoughts I had upon embarking on the journey of becoming a better poker player. Why did I play? Was it for the money? Of course the money is important; without it, we’d never be able to pressure our opponents into making sub-optimal decisions. But for me, that’s not the reason I play.
Poker, in its infinite combination of possibilities, represents to me the ultimate mental challenge. I am truly driven by the goal of being able to outthink my opponents in any situation more often than not. Being better at putting opponents on their hole cards, making bets that offer incorrect odds to be called, and knowing a blind-steal situation when it manifests itself are all areas in which I hope to have an edge.
I’d never cheat to gain that edge. For any amount of money.
For whatever reason, if I were to win a tournament or cash big in a ring game due to an unfair advantage gained through cheating, I’d feel empty. It would be a hollow victory. The rules of poker define the playing field. The guilty parties mentioned above expanded their playing field to include the infrastructure of online poker. The holes in that infrastructure allowed them to gain their edge.
One of the players indicated that having other accounts allowed him to remain anonymous. His main online persona had developed a reputation and other players knowing his style began to play back at him. So rather than develop the skills required to adjust to those who’ve adjusted to him, he simply created a new account that enabled him to reap the rewards of his main playing style. That, to me, is the easy way out. It indicates to me that poker became a moneymaking endeavor rather than an opportunity to become truly world-class. That’s not to say this player was unskilled. Quite the contrary. But I feel he lost an opportunity to become even better by relying on the crutch of multiple account names.
Frankly, I’m a little bit saddened (but not surprised) by the events. Online poker was gaining momentum, making inroads to the already established B&M tournament scene. Million dollar prize pools have become almost commonplace, rivaling the live poker scene from a decade ago. And it was growing fast.
In one sense, I’m satisfied with the resulting course of action. After an investigation, the guilty parties were banned and funds were confiscated. On the other hand, I’m disappointed that this was handled reactively than proactively. I have to ask, hopefully not rhetorically, why this cheating wasn’t discovered internally. I’m sure the technical details are complicated, but two players having the same IP address/unique machine ID playing in the same tournament or same ring game should simply not be possible. The fact that it is/was is disturbing to me.
This episode indicates how far online poker still has to go; after all, it’s still in its infancy. Unfortunately, the incident has the makings of being the tipping point from which the legality issue will be determined. Russ Fox has written about the possibility of the mainstream media picking up on this issue and its implications. With the impending bill to ban online gambling gaining exposure, we’re in for some interesting times.
I hope online poker improves and learns from these growing pains. And I hope that the players who feel the need to cheat in order to win have the capability to look inside themselves and realize that what they’re doing is wrong. If you’re playing only because you want to win money at all costs, you should look for another game. Don’t pollute the beauty of the game with your greed.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Words out of My Mouth
Bill Rini has made an excellent post regarding the ZeeJustin situation. I am in 100% agreement with Bill, props to him for a clear cut analysis of the situation.
New Banner
Friday, February 24, 2006
A Tale of Two Laydowns
The G-Vegas medium game was on last night, this time at casa de G-Rob. I imagine at this point, G-Rob is hastily writing a post documenting the curse of hosting a poker game and how it’s impossible to post a winning session when everyone is at your house.
This post is aimed mainly at looking at a couple of different laydowns that I made during the night. Each was different in that the action and thought processes that made me fold came from different points in the hand. Basically, one laydown was made on past action and one made on future actions.
We’ll go to the past first.
I was dealt pocket K’s in MP and raised the $1 blind to $6 since two people had limped in prior to me acting. Sadly, there were 4 callers and about $25 in the pot. The flop appeared to be a reasonable one: T72, rainbow. Checked to me, I threw out a $20 continuation bet, hoping to get some weak Aces to fold. Everyone folded back to the Rocket who went on to checkraise me to $40. At this point, my decision space was two-fold: either I was already beat, or the Rocket was putting me on overcards and felt that the flop missed me. I called his $20 raise. The turn was another rag, yet another undercard to my Kings. The Rocket pushed all in for about $90 more. It was at this point that my decision space was narrowed down to one thing; I was beat. Either Rocket made a very speculative call pre-flop with T7 and flopped two-pair, or most likely, limped with a pocket pair and caught his set. It was upon reviewing the pre-flop action that I determined it was a set and folded my K’s face up. Easy laydown? Maybe. But it was truly the review of the action to that point that got me to fold.
Back to the future.
I was in a multi-way limped pot with KQo. The flop came Q35 rainbow and Rankster bet out his consistent $3 probe bet into a $6 pot. MattyC called without much delay and I knew I had to find out where I was in this hand. Calling doesn’t do that, so I raised the $3 bet to $13. FranktheTank, acting behind me, smooth called. It was at that point that I suspected something was up. What hands smooth call right there? Rankster folded and MattyC called. Now there was close to $50 in the pot. The turn came and paired the 3. MattyC checked. I checked too determining that I was going to see how Frank played his hand. He bet out $20 and MattyC reluctantly folded claiming he was making a tough laydown. I looked over at Frank’s stack and figured he had about $50 behind. With the pot at $70, I didn’t have much room to outplay him since his $50 behind wasn’t all that much compared to the pot, especially if I were to call. It was his smooth call of my post-flop raise that sold me on the fact that he had a better hand. I just couldn’t fathom calling off an additional $50 that he was sure to bet on the river with top pair, King kicker. The pot was unraised pre-flop and the only hand I could put him on was a set that had just boated up. So I folded, again face up. Frank was surprised at my laydown and claimed to have a pocket pair lower than Queens. He said he simply did not believe that I had a Queen, even though I represented one via my post-flop raise. I chose to fold mainly based on the thought of potentially having to call his all-in bet that I predicted he’d make. Again, it was the future, anticipated action that cemented my decision. Even though it turned out to be the incorrect one, I’m satisfied with the fold on that hand.
****
Upon coming home from that game, I received a pleasantly surprising email that said my chips were due to arrive on 2/28. That’s next Tuesday. I had to change my pants immediately upon closing out of my email client.
This post is aimed mainly at looking at a couple of different laydowns that I made during the night. Each was different in that the action and thought processes that made me fold came from different points in the hand. Basically, one laydown was made on past action and one made on future actions.
We’ll go to the past first.
I was dealt pocket K’s in MP and raised the $1 blind to $6 since two people had limped in prior to me acting. Sadly, there were 4 callers and about $25 in the pot. The flop appeared to be a reasonable one: T72, rainbow. Checked to me, I threw out a $20 continuation bet, hoping to get some weak Aces to fold. Everyone folded back to the Rocket who went on to checkraise me to $40. At this point, my decision space was two-fold: either I was already beat, or the Rocket was putting me on overcards and felt that the flop missed me. I called his $20 raise. The turn was another rag, yet another undercard to my Kings. The Rocket pushed all in for about $90 more. It was at this point that my decision space was narrowed down to one thing; I was beat. Either Rocket made a very speculative call pre-flop with T7 and flopped two-pair, or most likely, limped with a pocket pair and caught his set. It was upon reviewing the pre-flop action that I determined it was a set and folded my K’s face up. Easy laydown? Maybe. But it was truly the review of the action to that point that got me to fold.
Back to the future.
I was in a multi-way limped pot with KQo. The flop came Q35 rainbow and Rankster bet out his consistent $3 probe bet into a $6 pot. MattyC called without much delay and I knew I had to find out where I was in this hand. Calling doesn’t do that, so I raised the $3 bet to $13. FranktheTank, acting behind me, smooth called. It was at that point that I suspected something was up. What hands smooth call right there? Rankster folded and MattyC called. Now there was close to $50 in the pot. The turn came and paired the 3. MattyC checked. I checked too determining that I was going to see how Frank played his hand. He bet out $20 and MattyC reluctantly folded claiming he was making a tough laydown. I looked over at Frank’s stack and figured he had about $50 behind. With the pot at $70, I didn’t have much room to outplay him since his $50 behind wasn’t all that much compared to the pot, especially if I were to call. It was his smooth call of my post-flop raise that sold me on the fact that he had a better hand. I just couldn’t fathom calling off an additional $50 that he was sure to bet on the river with top pair, King kicker. The pot was unraised pre-flop and the only hand I could put him on was a set that had just boated up. So I folded, again face up. Frank was surprised at my laydown and claimed to have a pocket pair lower than Queens. He said he simply did not believe that I had a Queen, even though I represented one via my post-flop raise. I chose to fold mainly based on the thought of potentially having to call his all-in bet that I predicted he’d make. Again, it was the future, anticipated action that cemented my decision. Even though it turned out to be the incorrect one, I’m satisfied with the fold on that hand.
****
Upon coming home from that game, I received a pleasantly surprising email that said my chips were due to arrive on 2/28. That’s next Tuesday. I had to change my pants immediately upon closing out of my email client.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Wrong Coast
It’s times like these when programming FORTRAN seems pale. Just so you know, I recently added capability for a 4th turbine stage to much of the code I work with.
So big deal Wil Wheaton survived day 1 of the WPT Invitational, busting no-name poker hacks like John Juanda.
So big deal Dr. Pauly is again making his mark on the professional poker tournament coverage scene and nearly nailing B-list actresses.
I, BadBlood, have the capability to manipulate blade row model maps. Yeah, that’s right. No need to get jealous folks. Today I embark on a journey to manipulate compressor extraction flows through heat exchangers prior to reentering the gas turbine flow path. Gotta cool them blades, baby!
Don’t try to hide it, I can see you’re green with envy from here.
So big deal Wil Wheaton survived day 1 of the WPT Invitational, busting no-name poker hacks like John Juanda.
So big deal Dr. Pauly is again making his mark on the professional poker tournament coverage scene and nearly nailing B-list actresses.
I, BadBlood, have the capability to manipulate blade row model maps. Yeah, that’s right. No need to get jealous folks. Today I embark on a journey to manipulate compressor extraction flows through heat exchangers prior to reentering the gas turbine flow path. Gotta cool them blades, baby!
Don’t try to hide it, I can see you’re green with envy from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)