Plus Nate and Andrew talk about the resolution of the Borgata counterfeit chips debacle and how to get what you want with pocket Kings.

Timestamps

0:30 Hello & Welcome; counterfeit chips at Borgata
32:23 Interview: Pauly McGuire
88:14 Strategy: Pre- and post-flop decisions with pocket Kings

Timestamps

:30 – Hello & Welcome; counterfeit chips at the Borgata
14:54 – Mailbag: going vegan and going sober
18:03 – Ethics: angle shooting and poker celebrity
28:45 – Interview: Ryan van Sanford
58:13 – Strategy: dealing with a donk bet on the turn

John recommends reading Unbroken, watching Jiro Dreams of Sushi, and learning from Carlos Welch‘s latest Two Plus Two article. If you enjoy John’s stories, check this one out too.

Timestamps

0:30 Hello and Welcome
6:50 Treating Opponents with Respect
12:09 Strategy: Fold Aces?
25:29 Interview: John the Lawyer

Timestamps

0:27 Hello and welcome; Where in the World is Gareth Chantler This Week?
11:38 Ethics: On being offered a chip dump
26:37 Strategy: A question and two hands
1:22:30 A salty outtake

Strategy

Hand 1

http://www.tournamentpokeredge.com/handhistory/DisplayHH.php?HandNo=26173

Hand 2

http://www.boomplayer.com/poker-hands/Boom/3999295_2118B5A6FD

Ryan is an instructor at PokerXFactor, where the code HALL4995 will get you $70 off of your sign-up fee. You can follow him on Twitter @RGHall (NOT RyanGHall as I mistakenly said on the show).

Strategy Segment Hand History

Gareth Chantler submitted the hand for this week’s strategy segment, all the way from Chile. The game was (approximating based on exchange rates) $2/$4 no-limit hold ’em.

Pre-Flop: UTG and UTG+1 limp. Hero overlimps UTG+2 with 88. BTN limps, SB raises to $26, BB and first two limpers fold, Hero calls, BTN calls.

Flop ($90 in pot): QQ9r. SB checks, Hero checks, BTN checks.

Turn ($90 in pot) QQ98r. SB bets $50, Hero calls, BTN folds.

River ($190 in pot) QQ98K. SB shoves for $270. Hero folds.

Timestamps

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy or occurrence in the poker community. This is the first in a series of posts about the major players in the recent Poker Stars – Full Tilt Poker – Department of Justice settlement. Older editions of The Poker Ethicist are available in the archives.

Q: As you’ve probably heard by now, the Department of Justice recently approved a settlement in which PokerStars will buy the remaining assets of Full Tilt Poker, pay a fine to the DOJ, restore the FTP balances of non-American players, and ultimately re-open the site. American players (more specifically those of us who were Americans as of June 29, 2011), via a process yet to be determined, will be able to apply to the DOJ for restitution of our money. The online poker community, myself included, is understandably elated about this near-ideal resolution to perhaps the darkest chapter in our short history.

Many direct their gratitude towards PokerStars. The word “savior” has been tossed around liberally. Numerous Stars-sponsored players have expressed pride at representing the company. Short Stacked Shamus, in a characteristically entertaining blog post, paints PokerStars as the hero in a John Wayne-esque narrative of law-breaking and vigilantism. Dominic Kofert, CEO of PokerStrategy.com, sees them as the benevolent dictator of the new world order of online poker:

Once the acquisition is completed and Full Tilt goes back online, PokerStars, which already has a world-wide market share of around 60%, will have substantially grown the margin by which it is the largest operator in the world. With most competitors severely struggling, I will not be surprised if PokerStars/Full Tilt’s market share reaches 75% by the end of 2013.

For many, this market dominance will be something to worry about. However, judging by PokerStars’ conduct over the past years and assuming that the company’s great philosophy does not change now that PokerStars.com co-founder Isai Scheinberg has to step down, I think that PokerStars will act responsibly and with the players in mind going forward – as it has always done in the past.

Do we owe PokerStars our gratitude? Or was this just a savvy maneuver to acquire their largest competitor and establish a near-monopoly on online poker? Should the average player really be celebrating this deal?

A: To quote Grandpa Simpson, “A little from column A and a little from column B.”

Let’s start with the obvious: PokerStars isn’t doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. There’s been rampant speculation about why the company would be interested in Full Tilt. Did they seek its customer database? Good will with the DOJ? Good will with the online poker community? Re-entry to the US market? All of the above?

Your guess is as good as mine. Whatever their reasons, I believe Stars wouldn’t have purchased FTP unless they believed it was in their interest to do so.

I know they’re playing a game and acting strategically in their own best interest, but that doesn’t mean I’m not grateful. What I’ve always respected about Stars – I used to represent them myself – is that they are playing a long game, and that’s good for customers.

Among other things, PokerStars has just purchased a generous helping of legitimacy for online poker. Black Friday and subsequent revelations about the FTP “Ponzi scheme” made mainstream headlines around the world and surely scared away thousands of would-be depositors from other online poker sites. Making the affected players whole may not undo the public relations damage entirely, but it’s a gigantic step in the right direction.

The companies that have done the most harm to online poker – Full Tilt Poker, Ultimate Bet, Absolute Poker – were playing a short game. Common wisdom once held that no company would risk slaying the goose that laid the golden egg by stealing customer money. That assumption proved wrong. Principals at all of those companies chose a short-term windfall over an uncertain but potentially even more profitable future. In other words, they took the money and ran (or not).

In ways large and small, PokerStars has repeatedly demonstrated that they are in it for the long haul. It’s clear from their recent actions that they expect to be in the online poker business 10 years from now, and they’ve just made an investment that may take that long to mature.

That makes them a good company to work with, because it means that good customer service is in their interest. They want satisfied customers and repeat business. They want legitimacy and a regulated, predictable marketplace. Their business model seems to align with the interests of their players in a way that, at least in retrospect, FTP’s and UB’s did not (though also in retrospect, the signs were there: re-entry tournaments, anyone?).

Arguably, FTP and UB made the wrong choice, not just ethically, but financially. They may well have made more money by running honest businesses. Sometimes greed overtakes good business sense, and sometimes people are just short-sighted.

I’m grateful that PokerStars has so far eluded these pitfalls, but I don’t delude myself into thinking that they are playing sheriff out of an innate sense of justice. Nor have they claimed to be. In fact, I would distrust any company that did claim such.

I expect a large corporation to act in its own self-interest. If one tries to tell me they are not, then they’re lying, and that makes me suspicious. I’m far more comfortable in a relationship where I know what game the other party is playing and I can see how their interests align with mine. Both PokerStars and I have an interest in the long-term viability and legitimacy of the online poker industry, and that makes me glad to be their customer, even if I’m not kissing their feet. I’m grateful that they seem to have the foresight that some of their competitors lacked, and that even as they close this landmark deal they continue to work tirelessly to serve their customers.

That doesn’t mean that I’m sanguine about a single company possessing such a large share of the market. I feel better when a company, no matter how benevolent the owner (who, by the way, is stepping down as a condition of this settlement) or how strong the track record, feels that treating their customers right is good business and not simply “the right thing to do” as a matter of principle. Principles change, especially when there’s a lot of money at stake.

Thankfully PokerStars still has a lot of self-interested reasons to treat its customers well. They may soon face competition from gaming mega-brands like Caesar’s/World Series of Poker in a regulated US marketplace. They know that they can’t afford to rest on their laurels if they want to gain access to that market at all, let alone be competitive in it. It’s no coincidence that PokerStars’ own announcement of the settlement concludes with these words:

Our settlement acknowledges that both PokerStars and Full Tilt are eligible to apply for a license in the U.S. to offer real money poker when states or the federal government offer such an opportunity. We look forward to this opportunity and are confident that we bring tremendous value, regulatory experience, market credibility and financial integrity to the marketplace.

We’re optimistic about the future and we look forward to sharing the next chapters in our history with you.

My sentiments exactly.

It reminds me of some of the teenagers I’ve met through my work in urban public education. Many of these kids come from circumstances that force them to grow up early. For a variety of reasons, they may be responsible for not only themselves but younger siblings from a very young age. Many have seen violent crime and drug addiction up close, in a friend or family member if not personally.

Consequently, they can seem deceptively mature. One minute, you can be having a deep, serious conversation about religion or education and you feel like you are talking to an adult. Then suddenly your 15-year-old interlocutor will ask you a question like, “Is Bush a Democrat or a Republican?” or just interrupt himself mid-sentence to go run after a girl he’s interested in, and you remember that you are still dealing with a child.

That’s how I felt reading Haseeb’s “confessions” and Daniel’s interviews. These are individuals who have achieved incredible success at a very difficult game, who are dealing with staggering sums of money, and who are suspected of perpetrating some very complicated and serious fraud. It’s an adult situation, and while at one moment they seem to recognize the gravity of it all, in the next they are offering ridiculous, frivolous justifications for their behavior: ” It’s one of those things that happens and that everybody does and has been guilty of at one time or another” (Haseeb on the 25/50 heads up PLO session that he played on the Girah account) or “Maybe I should have confronted Haseeb, but coming out and saying something publicly is nothing but the most sanctimonious mother fuckers would ever do.” (Daniel on why he wouldn’t have said anything even if their chipdumping had resulted in Girah winning the Lock Poker challenge illegitimately).

Of course there’s the open question of to what extent anything that these guys say can be believed. The naivete is there either way, though. Either Haseeb and Daniel really did stake Jose for $100,000 without investigating his results, or they expect the poker community to believe they did. Either they really did think that chip-dumping was the best way to get the money into Jose’s account, or they expect us to believe that they had no idea the dump would give Jose the lead in the Lock challenge. In either case, the naivete is staggering.

Time and again, these scandals that rock our community seem to be caused at least in part by extremely immature individuals who take their ethical cues from a very small and specific peer group and are at best out of touch with the larger context of their actions. How many times have we heard that “everyone” was multi-accounting the Sunday Majors (Bonomo), “everyone” was buying accounts (Mizzi), “anyone” would take a UB sponsorship if money were thrown at them (Sebok et al) etc.?

It’s possible that these are just ex post facto justifications, but I’m often inclined to believe them simply because the perpetrators make so little effort to hide what they are doing. Josh Fields was busted for multi-accounting because one of his friends bragged about him winning a major tournament on an account that wasn’t his. Instructors used to produce videos all the time where they played on other people’s accounts, as though the fact that it made for better videos justified the harm done to their opponents. Dan Flowers produced instructional videos in which his HUD showed tens of thousands of hands’ worth of data on opponents with whom he’d played only a few hundred hands, clear evidence that he’d purchased datamined hand histories.

All of these players were probably aware that they were doing something a little shady, but the fact that they made so little effort to hide suggests that they honestly didn’t believe it was that big of a deal. In some sense, they were right. Of the players I mentioned in the last two paragraphs, Fields is the only who is still persona non grata in the poker community. A shocking number of players support accused cheats in the “no big deal” defense, and sponsors (who remember are often relatively immature suddenly-wealthy individuals themselves) are generally willing to overlook these things. Likewise, if they are good players and/or fun to hang out with (by the way, isn’t it shocking how many of these folks caught cheating were already making tons of money on the up and up?), other members of the community are surprisingly quick to forgive them as well.

There’s a pervasive sense in our community that skirting (to be generous) ethical lines is no big deal if “everyone else” (meaning your small circle of similarly situated and self-interested friends) is doing it, if it is convenient or profitable for you (for some really laughable ethical reasoning, check out this thread about US players playing over a VPN), or if the only victims are “fish” (Tommy Angelo is the only poker player I’ve ever heard condemn the practice of berating opponents simply because it’s a bad way to treat other human beings rather than because it’s bad for the game).

This self-centered mindset where the only ethical compasses are one’s own self-interest and the approval of one’s immediate, usually biased peers is fundamentally immature. Even more immature are the half-assed apologies and justifications and the general attitude that pristine ethical behavior can’t be expected from poker players.

Well, maybe it can’t be expected, but it ought to be demanded. We all probably ought to be more skeptical than we are about our competitors. We also ought to demand better behavior and have higher consequences when people fall short. It seems like even after a player acknowledges wrongdoing, he rarely makes any effort to rectify the problem. See Cates’ unwillingness to repay money he won when playing on the Girah account for a recent example.

Poker players aren’t saints, and I’m not saying that an ethical infraction ought to get you shunned for life. But I do think we ought to demand a little more, from others and from ourselves, before we let it all become water under the bridge. It’s the mature thing to do.

Some of you may have heard that Phil Hellmuth overslept yesterday morning and was getting blinded off in the tournament. Apparently Mike Matusow called security at Phil’s hotel and got them to enter his room and wake him up. I didn’t know any of this at the time, but I was still at my starting table with Russel Rosenblum and Sorel Mizzi when Phil came dashing into the Amazon room, with a floorman shouting after him about whether he knew which table he was going to.

Russel: I wonder if the floor is going to scurry to get me to my seat if I show up late.
Me: I don’t understand why Phil Hellmuth and Annie Duke aren’t getting the kind of shit that the Full Tilt guys are getting.
Russel: I don’t want to say too much here, but Phil and Annie are just paid spokespeople, whereas the Full Tilt guys may have been somewhat more that that.
Sorel: That’s… putting it very carefully.
Me: Yes, sorry, I know that. I guess I misspoke. I do understand why they don’t get as much shit as Lederer, but people still put money on UB because Phil and Annie were endorsing them, and those people are never going to see that money. I just don’t think Phil and Annie should be getting invited on stage at the WSOP like they’re the best and brightest in the poker world.
Sorel: But they’re just sponsors. They aren’t on the inside. They don’t know anything more about what’s going on behind the scenes than you do.
Me: Based on what I knew, I wouldn’t have worn a UB patch.
Sorel: But come on, if they are just throwing money at you…

I had to change the subject at this point, because the irony and Sorel’s total lack of self-awareness was getting too much for me, and I nearly said something pretty rude to him.

Security is Called

The table broke not too long after, which was very welcome, though my new table was still pretty tough. I went on a nice little tear and chipped up to 170K while acquiring a relatively aggressive table image. Blinds were 400/800/100.

I opened to 2200 with 33 in the CO. A loose French player called me on the BTN, the SB folded, and the BB, who’d been quietly chipping up with very few showdowns and seemed pretty table aware re-raised to 6800 with about 45K behind.

I wasn’t getting the right odds to setmine, and online I’d just fold this even though I suspect the guy is light. I don’t want to get it in pre, and it’s just going to be too hard to figure out where I stand post-flop. In live play, however, the added information available through tells makes it a little more feasible and call and evaluate, and that’s what I did. The BTN quickly folded behind me.

The flop came 742r. BB bet 7500, and I called. The turn was another 4, and he checked. At this point he had barely a pot-sized bet left in his stack, and I think there are a lot of hands he wouldn’t check, including big draws and vulnerable hands like medium pairs. This was either an elaborate trap with like QQ+ or he was giving up.

I had no delusions of getting him to fold a hand better than mine, but I didn’t want to give him a free card or a shot at bluffing a scary river, so I bet 9000. After a bit of thought, he moved all in for 24,500. Now I had to think.

This is another spot I simply wouldn’t get myself in online. Before I bet the flop I’d have a plan for whether I was going to call a check-raise. Live, though, there is more room to figure out exactly which part of his range he has and what he’s up to. I let him sweat for about 3 minutes and then counted out the chips for a call. He looked uncomfortable. I placed them gently in the pot. He tapped the table. I tabled my treys. He whistled. “Very nice call, sir.” He showed AQ. Q on the river.

Where it gets really crazy is that while he’s still stacking his chips, three guys from security walk up to him. Two of them stand back, flanking a third who taps him on the shoulder. “Finish stacking your chips and then we need to ask you a few questions, sir.”

Naturally the whole table is staring at this scene trying to figure out what’s going on. The player in question looks totally nonplussed. He stacks his chips and then leaves the table with them. “That beat was so bad it was criminal!” I quip after he’s gone, earning me a few groans from my tablemates.

The guy returned after just two hands and seemed unperturbed. Curious about what was going on, I said to him, “I wish they’d come a hand earlier.” He laughed. I heard the player next to him asking him what happened, and he said it was something to do with a friend of his and that everything was fine. He remained at the table until late in the day, when he shoved AJ over one of my raises. I called with 99 to eliminate him and win back about a quarter of what I’d lost to him in that earlier hand.

French Fish

As I previously mentioned, the guy on my left was a loose and generally bad French player. Blinds were 500/1000/100. A tightish player in the HJ opened to 2500, and I called with 77 in the SB. The poisson re-raised to 11,000 with 15K behind. I was pretty sure I was going to fold but gave him the old stare down first.

He’d been watching a movie on his iPad, and when he saw me looking for a read, he pressed play and turned his attention to his screen. I could see perfectly well that he wasn’t cheating, but I wanted to get a reaction from him, so I told him to put the computer away during the hand.

He removed his headphones and looked up at me. “What?”

“You can’t be on your computer during the hand.”

He sneered. “Whatchu going to do? Time.”

“You’re calling time on me?”

“Yes. Time.”

“OK. Put the computer away.” He made a point of putting his headphones back on and pressing play. I looked over at the dealer, who was doing nothing. She hadn’t even called the floor to clock me. Of course by this point I had all the information I needed to fold, but now I was upset that the dealer wasn’t enforcing the rules.

“Player has called time,” I informed her.

She turned to another dealer who was waiting to push her after this hand. “Am I supposed to call the floor if a player has asked for time?”

The floor finally got called and came over. I informed her that I twice asked this player to stop using his computer during the hand. She ignored me and started telling him that he would have 70 seconds to act.

“Time was called on me,” I told her.

“OK then you have 70 seconds to act.”

“Are you going to do anything about the computer?”

“First you need to act on your hand.” I folded without a second’s thought.

“You can’t be on your computer or phone while you have a live hand,” she informed him and walked away.

I thought there was some chance that his reaction was also an act and that he was trying to make me angry to get a call. He said something to me after the hand, though, which made me think he was legitimately upset.

The very next hand I got black Queens in the CO and opened to 2600. I was 110% sure that the poisson would at least call. He angrily threw 7500 chips into the pot. The blinds folded, and after a cursory glance at his stack (he had about 35K behind), I shoved a stack of orange into the pot. He snap-called and turned over TT like it was the nuts, which it pretty much was in that spot. I think there’s a legitimate chance that his angry chip tossing was an act and that he thought he was baiting me. I got no reaction when I showed the QQ.

The dealer went to deal the flop, and there was the Tc in the door. The other two cards were also clubs, so I had a lot of outs, but none of them got there. I calmly counted out an appropriate number of chips and passed them to him.

He finished the day with over 300K. I’ve got 135K, though, so no complaints here.

In this case, GT employed much better phraseology than I did. This is an excerpt from the de-translation of the excerpt from my blog that was quoted in Hungarian on the site. Note the bolded phrase, which I swear I am not making up:

“Yesterday I accidentally found it in a spam email in Mail, which informs me that my account is $ 1,040.26.The letter 2010th February 19 dátumozású was only yesterday, but stumbled as the spam filter caught. I thought this is something a refund of the UB Hall of frauds.”

In 2007 and 2008, I had an active account on Ultimate Bet. I played in their bigger tournaments and in cash games ranging from 5/10 to 25/50 NL. When the extent of the cheating that had taken place on UB began coming to light, I withdrew the entire balance of my account and have not played on there since.

On January 24, I discovered an old e-mail from UB , dated 2/19/2010, in my spam folder. The e-mail informed me that I had $1040.26 in my account and encouraged me to come play on the site. I do not know for certain where the money came from. My best guess is that it was a superuser refund, but to my knowledge (it could also have been lost to a spam filter, though I think the other email got scammed primarily because it was an auto-generated advertisement), I never received an e-mail or anything explaining that I would be getting a refund.

The old e-mail that I stumbled upon was NOT a notification that money had been credited to my account. It seemed to be an advertisement sent automatically because I had not logged in for a while, informing me that there was money in my account and encouraging me to return to UB to use it.

I have no intention of playing on UB anytime soon, but I downloaded the software and logged into my account intending to withdraw the $1040.26. Upon logging in, I received a message that my account was unavailable and that I needed to e-mail support, which I did:

I attempted to log-in to my account this morning and received a message
saying it was unavailable. I assume this is because it has been quite
some time since my last log-in. Is there something I need to do to get
access to the account and its contents again?

The next day, they responded:

We checked your account and we are pleased to inform you that at this moment, your UB account is in good standing and has no security blocks or restrictions. Please try to log in once again, and in case you experience any other issues, please let us know.

It’s not clear whether they are saying that there was never a restriction on my account or that they lifted whatever restriction there was, but in any event I was able to log-in successfully. I was not surprised to see that my account balance was $0. I wrote back immediately:

Thank you, I was able to log in successfully today. Unfortunately, there
seems to be $1040.26 missing from my account. Allow me to explain:

Several years ago, I decided to stop playing on UB. I cashed out my
balance, deleted the software from my computer, and never logged in again.

Yesterday, quite by accident, I found an e-mail in spam folder informing
me that I had a balance of $1040.26 in my account. This e-mail is dated
2/19/2010, but because it was caught by my spam filter, I never saw it
until now. I am assuming that this was a refund I was issued in
connection with the cheating that occurred on UB.

Upon logging it in today, I find that I have a balance of $0.

Obviously, I would like to know what happened to the $1040.26. If you
could please look into this and get back to me, I would greatly
appreciate it.

The next day, the money was back in my account, no questions asked and no explanation given:

We are pleased to inform you that your account has been reactivated and you should now be able to log in. Also, we have put back $1040.26 to your UB account.

When playing in our poker room, please abide by our Terms and Conditions at all times.

Important: Sometimes players experience difficulties logging in from the lobby after having their account reinstated. Please follow the instructions below to ensure that you can access your UB account without issue.

1. Open the UB software.
2. Go to a table.
3. Choose an empty seat to sit down.
4. Proceed with the login process from there.

We appreciate your patience in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any additional questions or concerns.

After withdrawing the funds and confirming that they were safely in my bank account, I asked for an explanation as to why the money was removed from my account. Here is the response that I got:

Thank you for contacting us.

In regard to your last message, please be informed that funds were on hold since we found out that your account was inactive for more than 6 months.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any additional questions or concerns.

I find this suspicious for a few reasons:

1. I don’t know at what point the money was removed, but my account had been inactive for well over 6 months when the initial e-mail “reminding” me about the $1040.26 was sent.

2. The money was not automatically restored to my account when I re-activated it. More than 24 hours passed between the time that security informed me I could log in to my account and the time that the money was restored to my account.

3. Significantly, the money was not restored until I asked about it, but was restored immediately when I asked about it. In retrospect I wish I had allowed more time to pass before asking, just to see what happened, but it seems to me that they had no intention of putting that money back into my account had I not inquired.

In their defense, the User Agreement does state that

If you do not access your Account by logging onto the UB servers and using the Services offered by UB for any consecutive period of 180 days your Account will be deemed inactive, and may be deemed abandoned.  UB is entitled to charge you periodic administrative fee(s) during the period that your Account remains inactive, up to the extent of your Account balance.  Without limitation, if your Account is deemed by UB to be abandoned, your Account may be closed, this Agreement may be terminated, and/or UB may take the other actions or remedies set forth in Section 8.2 of this Agreement.

The primary reason that I have problem with them confiscating money from the account in this case is that, as best I can surmise, the only reason that there was money in there at all was because of the cheating that occurred on their site. In that case, this was a refund that I was issued when I was no longer an active player and would have no reason to realize that this money had been added to my account. I’m sure I’m not the only person to receive a refund after cashing out my account never to return, and it doesn’t seem right to me that they can take this money back after 6 months of inactivity.

I gave them one last chance to explain themselves before posting this:

Thank you. I am still unclear on what happened, though.

Where did this $1040.26 come from? Was it a refund from the Russ Hamilton/superuser incident? If so, why was I not informed that I had received this refund?

What does it mean that the funds were “on hold”? Would they have been returned to my account if I hadn’t asked about them?

This was sent on February 4, 2011. It is now the 21st, and they have not responded, so I’m posting this as a PSA to others who may be in a similar situation and generally as yet another warning that UB is still engaged in shady practices.

Cliff’s Notes: I stopped playing on UB years ago and cashed out my balance. For some reason, possibly as a superuser refund, $1040.26 was credited to my account without my knowledge. I eventually found in my spam folder an old advertising email from UB telling me there was still money in my account. When I logged in, the money was gone. I wrote to ask why, and they returned the money with no explanation. When further pressed, they told me the money was “on hold” because of my extended inactivity but did not respond to further questions. I was able to cash out the money.

Technology always pushes the boundaries, especially ethical boundaries. The primary way to think about these boundaries, I think, is the way Andrew presented them: Does everyone have the same understanding of what is allowed, and the same opportunity to use technologies which are allowed? If so, no ethical problem.

I think the conditions that he identifies are spot-on, and I want to delve a bit deeper into them. This time around I’ve got more questions than answers, so I’ll be very curious to hear your opinions on the subject.

The Right To Know

My claim is that use of any technology allowed by the rules of a casino or poker site is ethical, and that using anything disallowed is unethical. This is because, by choosing to play at a particular venue, players agree to both their host and their fellow players that they will follow the posted rules.

As piefarmer points out, this presumes that everyone understands the rules, or at least has the opportunity to do so. Exactly what obligation does this impose on a casino or poker site? Certainly the rules need to be readily available, in writing, for any player or potential player to inspect. Assuming that they are, then I would argue that choosing to play at that venue constitutes agreement to follow those rules, even if the player never actually reads them or fails to understand them correctly.

I think that there must also be a way for players to receive clarification as to the meaning of rules. At live venues, this requires readily available floor staff and properly trained dealers who can explain things clearly and accurately. As many of us know, getting a consistent answer to a question about the rules is not always a trivial matter when playing live poker, and I believe that to be a serious failing of a casino’s obligation to its players.

Is there any obligation on the part of online poker sites to affirmatively warn their players that others may be using HUDs and other technology? I’m sure there are people every day who start playing online and have no idea that such software is available or that their opponents may be using it.

It seems to me as long technology is mentioned somewhere in the Terms & Conditions, the site meets this obligation. I’m interested to hear people’s opinions on this, though. Is there anyone who would argue that sites have an obligation to be more assertive on this point? Perhaps announce to all their players, via e-mail or pop-up, whenever they add a new program to the list of approved software?

Equal Access

This is a thornier question. Is equal access to technology essential to make it ethical? What if there were some piece of poker software that somehow violated the laws of the US but were legal in most other countries. Would it be ethical for a poker site to permit the use of this technology? Would it be ethical for players to use it? What if there were some amazing software whose creator refused to share it with anyone other than a select group of his friends?

Also, is the cost of the software relevant? If there were some amazing software that was readily available for purchase and use by anyone but that cost thousands of dollars, would we still be able to say players had equal access to it?

In response to a recent post I made about using a HUD, commenter “Elmer Fudd” asked,

“I would like you to comment on the ethics of using a HUD in the first place. It most certainly gives you an edge over players that don’t use such software and provides you with stats that you couldn’t readily obtain during a live game. I guess I’m an old-fashioned poker purist, but anything that gives you a slight edge over other players is cheating. “

I would say anything that gives you an unfair edge is cheating. Sleeping and eating better than my opponents gives me an edge. Reading more books than they do gives me an edge. Using a second monitor gives me an edge over opponents attempting to multi-table on a single monitor. Yet none of these is unfair, because my opponents have equal opportunity to take advantage of them.

An edge becomes unfair when it violates the rules of the game as defined by the casino or site hosting the game. Even if you disagree with a particular rule or believe that other players are violating it, violating it yourself is unethical because it is essentially dishonest. By playing on a particular online poker site or at a particular casino, you are promising your fellow players that you will abide by a particular set of rules. This defines the parameters of the game, the ways in which players may and may not seek an edge.

When I sit down at a live game, I accept and agree that physical tells will be part of the game, and that signaling to a partner at the table will not. My opponents, in turn, agree to the same. They know that to keep up with me in this contest, they will need to practice their face-reading skills but not their sign language. If I were colluding with another player, this would gain me an unfair advantage, because it is one my opponents are not expecting me to have and one that they have themselves agreed not to pursue.

On sites that allow them, HUD’s are a legitimate part of the game. Insofar as they do not violate a site’s terms and conditions, then everyone playing on the site implicitly agrees that they are allowed. Some may use them more than others, and some may choose not to use them at all. Similarly, I might choose not to attempt to pick up physical tells during a live game, but this does not make it unethical for my opponents to do so. As long as I have the same opportunity, the playing field is level.

Using a HUD on a site that prohibits it, even if you were to find a way to make the HUD work and to evade detection, would not be ethical. Doing so would violate your agreement with the site and with your fellow players on that site. It would give you an edge that your honest opponents would not enjoy, and this would be unethical.

Online poker is not merely a derivative form of live poker. It bears many similarities, but also many differences. Just because something would not be allowed or possible in a live setting does not mean that it is unethical when done online, any more than a rule prohibiting cell phones at the table at the Rio would it make unethical to use a cell phone at the table at MGM. Different venues have the right to establish their own rules. Some players may prefer the rules generally found in a live setting to those found online, but they may not impose their preferred rules as an ethical obligation on their online competitors.

It’s bittersweet, but I’ve decided to leave UB.

I have nothing but positive things to say about UB and my experiences with the brand, management team, and dedicated employees who work hard every day to deliver a terrific online poker experience for players like you.

I’ve sincerely enjoyed wearing the UB patch, but it’s time for me to move on.

So why am I leaving UB? In a nutshell, professional and personal growth.

Translation: “They can’t afford to pay me and/or I don’t want to go to jail.” There’s been some speculation that perhaps Annie no longer wants to be associated with some of the biggest scumbags in the industry, but she’s stood by them for some time through a huge cheating scandal and repeated attempts to cover it up. Something has changed, and I’m guessing it’s their willingness or ability to pay her.

From Phil Hellmuth’s Twitter:

Making a BIG move…leaving UB. Truly lots of great memories, but it’s time to move on…Mutual decision…Looking forward to BRIGHT future!

The future’s so bright he has to wear shades… everywhere he goes… even indoors.

This one is less of a surprise. Phil was never as public in addressing UB’s problems as Annie was, and recently he’d stopped appearing in public with the UB logo.

Again, it’s hard for me to believe that this was purely a PR/branding decision. Although the man practically invented the idea of a poker celebrity, the UB brand was at its worst years ago but he is just now leaving. It was all about the money for him, even moreso than for Annie, and presumably they can no longer pay him what he believes himself to be worth.

These two announcements lend urgency to a warning I made earlier this month:

When [disreputable sites like Cereus] decide to close up shop, it will likely be without warning, and they may well take your money down with them. This wouldn’t even have to entail outright theft, though I wouldn’t put that past them, either. An unexpected occurrence such as a major crackdown on their payment processors could render them suddenly illiquid. If you believe that Cereus keeps player deposits in a separate account that is not used for operating expenses, I have some real estate to sell you in Florida….

Joe Sebok is still drinking the Kool-Aid:

Speaking of Team UB, while it’s true that two of our members have moved on, don’t think that we aren’t restocking the talent. We’ll be announcing our newest Team UB member next week and I am crazily pumped about it. UB has, and will continue to have, a whole new look and feel for our team and our newest signing exemplifies that, so stay tuned for that announcement next week. Going to be a bit of a doozy.

In related news, I’ve got a big announcement to make tomorrow

Their flawless software that is now the best and most secure in the industry apparently produced this little gem in the UBOC O/8 event the other day. The bet sizes were all screwed up, enabling people to limp in for 15 at the 50/100 level, and for the player in the Big Blind to move all in. Their response was to cancel the tournament, refund buy-ins, and offer a freeroll for affected players with about $10,000 in UBOC championship event buy-ins added.

Thanks to TwoPlusTwo poster FreeFalling for this awesome image!

“They’re like poker fluffers,” she quipped without missing a beat. “They get it started, and then the pro comes in to finish it off. You’d have to be a pretty big tool to agree to something like that, not just ethically but like… as a matter of personal respect.”

I agree, though I’m sure plenty of people care a lot more about getting backed for these tournaments by any means necessary, not to mention getting to take credit for the win on sites like Pocket 5’s, than they do about stuff like ethics and personal respect. Anyway, I think “Poker Fluffers” is a brilliant names for these clowns, and I encourage you all to do your part to make it stick!

When you talk about approaches to poker, there are two extremes. At one end you’ll find players who are guided almost entirely by instinct and don’t spend a lot of time articulating their processes. At the other end you’ll find players like Andrew ‘Foucault’ Brokos, who spend so much time articulating their process that one wonders – when do they actually find time to play? All kidding aside, Brokos is an excellent player with a focus on mid stakes no limit cash and some interesting insights into what it takes to make both a good poker player and industry alike.

Needless to say, the Post story was better than the 60 Minutes segment. Authored by two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Ira Rosen, it explored the cheating and the means by which it was discovered in considerable detail. Best of all, it kept the focus on UB and AP rather than painting all internet poker sites with the same broad brush. The overall theme of the story was that cheating occurred and that, although the perpetrators were not substantially punished, the players were able to uncover it and force restitution to be paid.

The 60 Minutes story was a bit more sensational, with references to the Wild West and cards “tumbling out of the computer”. It was also a bit more entertaining. After he declined to return their phone calls, they took several pretty funny shots UB cheater and former WSOP world champion Russ Hamilton, who won his “considerable weight in silver” along with the 1994 title.

The only thing that struck me as truly irresponsible were the multiple references to online poker being “illegal”. Technically speaking, certain financial transactions between banks and online poker sites are illegal, but the actual playing is not. It’s pretty bad for a highly respected news program to misstate a verifiable fact like that, particularly given that many people from 2+2 called and e-mailed producers over the weekend to point out the error before the show went to air.

Also troubling were the ominous closing comments of Todd “Dan Druff” Witteles about how cheating was probably going on undetected at other sites. He’s already said that he regrets this comment, and while I don’t think the overall message that cheating is possible and players should be cautious is a bad one to send, Witteles and 60 Minutes didn’t communicate it in the most responsible way. There’s no reason to speculate with no evidence about what is actually happening at other sites, only to speak in broad terms about what has happened, what could happen, and most importantly (and largely lacking from the coverage) what can be done to prevent it in the future.

It would have been nice to hear about Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to regulate and tax internet poker. And if they really wanted to discuss the legality of playing poker online, they should have spoken to prominent legal scholars like Charles Nesson and I. Nelson Rose.

Still, on the whole they largely confined their comments to UB and AP, identified the most prominent perpetrator, embarrassed the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, and portrayed the complicated details of the situation in a way that should make sense to the general public. I continue to be of the opinion that if we want greater legitimacy, we in the poker community must be willing to air our dirty laundry.

After a lot of reflection and thought, I have decided to separate myself from the Ultimate Bet brand. I hope that everyone will respect my privacy, as I wish to not go into the decision in any great detail at this time. At this point in time I just believe that the things I’m trying to accomplish in my career are not in sync with the Ultimate Bet brand.

1. Cheating at Ultimate Bet- Ultimate Bet’s press release carefully avoided the word “cheating”, instead using the phrase “unfair play”. Mike and Adam resolved to press Leggett to use the word cheating, but surprisingly he employed it readily and without prompting.

2. Refunds- Leggett also referred many times to “refunding” money that was stolen from players. I’m really surprised by this choice of words, because it seems to imply that Tokwiro is returning money they have rather than compensating affected players out of their own pockets, which is what they claim is happening. I find it very strange that they don’t make a bigger deal out of the fact that they are doing this. I mean, if they were actually taking millions of dollars from their own coffers to replace money that they didn’t steal, you’d think they’d jump up and down about what an amazing thing it is they are doing for their players. But Leggett constantly refers to it as a “refund” and could not sound more dispassionate when he insists, “We’re very upset that someone was able to do this on our site, to our players.”

3. Stolen From UB?- Leggett repeatedly refers to money stolen “from our players, from our site” as though money were taken from them as well. I’m pretty sure he actually means that it was stolen through or using UB rather than from UB. It’s like he’s trying to portray his company as a victim in all of this as well. I guess if their story is true, then UB is a victim, because their reputation is shot to hell and they are on the hook for all the money.

4. Coughing- Leggett clears his throat constantly, pretty much any time he’s asked a tough question. It’s hard to say, though, whether he’s nervous because he’s lying or nervous because he’s getting grilled.

5. Absolute Poker Cheating Deal- Apparently, Tokwiro, which also owns AP, struck a deal with the perpetrators of the cheating on that site. In exchange for a detailed explanation of how the cheating was carried out, they agreed not to release the names of the individuals or attempt to prosecute the crime. This is new information and certainly inconsistent with the allegation that that cheating was carried out by owners of the site.

6. Kahnawake Gaming Commission Fine- Leggett confirms that the KGC fined Tokwiro $500,000 for the AP incident in addition to the cost of the audit that was performed. I really wish Mike and Adam had asked what the KGC was doing with this money. Since when does the regulator get to issue arbitrary fines and then keep the money for themselves? Yet as far as I know the KGC hasn’t said or done anything publicly with that money for the affected players.

7. Joe Norton Not So Corrupt- This made me laugh out loud. After Leggett cites the KGC fine, Mike and Adam ask if the KGC is really so independent, given that former Kahnawake Grand Chief Joe Norton is the sole owner of Tokwiro Enterprises. Leggett, who not surprisingly seems to have a close working relationship with Norton, says that Joe didn’t found Tokwiro until he was out of public office. He then adds that this is no more corrupt than a US Senator going to work for a lobbyist after he leaves office. That’s a real high moral standard they’re holding themselves to….

8. Return Visit? After the interview, Mike and Adam decide to keep inviting Leggett back every few months in an attempt to hold him to his timeline and insure that his promsies are kept. This is a great idea, and I hope they’ll stick with it.

Bobby Mamudi, an industry analyst and managing editor of the London-based Gaming Intelligence Group, said the new cheating incident is another blow to the reputation of Kahnawake’s gambling industry. “They definitely do seem to be losing credibility and not doing too much about it,” he said.

The article also includes more empty promises from the KGC:

Murray Marshall, legal counsel to the gaming commission, said that Kahnawake’s regulation is among “the tightest in the world” and said similar frauds have occurred in casino gambling and banking. “We would obviously prefer to prevent all possibilities of this kind of thing happening, but no system is infallible,” he said.

Tightest in the world? What does that even mean? How did the same shit get past them twice? Not only did they fail to identify cheating that amateur internet sleuths could and did identify, but to my knowledge there are no documented incidents of the KGC actually doing anything except for fining Absolute Poker after the fact. Their tight regulation hasn’t managed to catch or prevent any malfeasance.

The article also raises the troubling specter of legal action against the online gaming industry by the Canadian government:

The federal government considers the 400 or so poker and sports-betting sites operating from Kahnawake to be illegal, but, fearing a confrontation, both the federal and provincial governments have been reluctant to intervene. Last March, however, an aide to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government was studying ways of shutting down the gambling, possibly by targeting financial transactions with illegal Internet operators.

Let’s hope that doesn’t come to pass, and that future news outlets that cover this and other internet poker stories handle them with the same thoroughness and even-handedness that the National Press does here.

The theft was uncovered through the collective effort of several 2+2’ers who were high stakes regulars at UB affected by the theft, most prominently trambopoline, dlpnyc21, josem, and also Nat Arem. 2+2 Moderator Cornell Fiji composed a thorough summary of what is believed to have happened along with the damning evidence that goes well beyond what UB admits in its press release.

In this new thread, Cornell is once again doing an admirable job exposing all of the deception in the press release. I’m not going to try to summarize it all, but basically it is at the very least a shameful lapse, and more probably deliberate negligence, that UB’s security didn’t notice any of this until 2+2’s amateur investigators compiled undeniable evidence. If security isn’t tracking win rates and investigating the play of the biggest winners in the biggest games on the site, what exactly are they doing? How is it that amateurs with nothing more than Poker Tracker databases can unravel this stuff, but a supposedly professional security team cannot?

Moreover, UB claims that it knew nothing about the potential for its software to be exploited in this way. But UB is owned by Tokwiro Enterprises, which also owns Absolute Poker, which was the subject of another scandal where a similar vulnerability was exploited from the inside. It’s absurd for them to claim that they couldn’t have anticipated this, and it’s disgraceful that they either didn’t anticipate it or actively facilitated the theft.

Nat Arem had a chance to question one of their representatives, but don’t expect too much new info from that Q&A session.

Like Absolute Poker, UB tries to reassure its customers by pointing to its “regulatory agency”, the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. Aside from the gross incompetence (or worse) demonstrated above, there’s another big problem with the KGC: Joe Norton, the owner of Tokwiro Enterprises, is also the former Grand Chief of the Kahnawake Mohawk tribe of Montreal! In other words, there is nothing independent about the KGC.

During his time as Grand Chief, Norton was accused of more than his share of shady dealings and corrupt bargains. Though members of his tribe accused him of being a puppet of the Quebec government, he also had a well-publicized (in Canada) clash with Canadian police and soldiers.

In a lot of ways, this latest scandal is very discouraging and disheartening. However, both UB and AP were eventually forced to admit that something had gone wrong and to return player funds that were stolen. This demonstrates the power of the online poker community to exercise some level of independent oversight over the sites where we play. Ideally, this will discourage other sites from trying anything shady in the future. However, if the only ramification for UB, after all this time and effort, is that they have to return the funds that weren’t theirs to begin with, then this will not be much of a deterrent.

So what can we do? I’ve got some ideas, and I hope you’ll offer others.

1. Boycott AP and UB. I never played on AP, and I’ve pulled all of my money off of UB. If a scandal like this doesn’t bankrupt UB or at least crush their market share, then it will not be a deterrent to any future malfeasance by them or anyone else. I was probably one of maybe twenty people regularly playing 25/50 NL on their site, so hopefully my action will be missed, as will that of other high limit players who refuse to play there.

2. Stop endorsing them. High-profile players like Annie Duke and Phil Hellmuth need to end their affiliation with UB. It is downright unethical for them to be encouraging people to play on this site. Similarly, Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy should be ashamed of himself for signing with them this week. He claims he was convinced of their desire to change, but based on what he’s said publicly about this, it doesn’t seem like he was especially well-informed about the allegations nor that he went to great lengths to question whomever he spoke with from UB’s management. Then again, he is supposedly a pretty shrewd businessman, so perhaps he knows something I don’t. But I think he ought to either say a lot more about why he has confidence in UB or stop encouraging others to play there.

3. Ask tough questions of other sites. I’m no expert on this, but personally, Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker are the only sites I’m comfortable playing on right now. Still, I think it would be best to get specific, public statements from them about the nature of their security, why their software is not vulnerable to the exploits that led to the theft on UB and AP, who regulates them and how, etc. UB and AP have been able to hedge, make misleading statements, and deny responsibility because in many cases they had not made explicit statements before these scandals about the nature of their security. As players, we should have a more explicit understanding of the level of security the sites will provide. There should be measurable benchmarks and pre-agreed ramifications for them if something illicit happens on their site. If 2+2 could create a Players’ Bill of Rights or something, thousands of us could ask sites like Poker Stars, FTP, and especially UB to agree to it as a condition for our business.

4. Create a genuinely independent regulatory authority with teeth. Similar to (3), there should at least be an independent regulator whom sites could voluntarily hire to certify the security of their software. Then we as players could refuse our business to anyone who didn’t pay for that certification. There’s probably money to be made here if it’s done right, and it would be a huge boon for online poker generally.

5. Legalize and regulate online poker in the US. Obviously I think this would be a good thing anyway, but as much as opponents of poker may try to use scandals such as this as arguments against legalization, I believe they are actually arguments in favor. Not that government involvement is a guarantor of legitimacy, but it’s got to be better than the legal netherworld in which internet poker currently exists. Once again, there’s money to be made here.

6. Spread a genuine understanding of the issue. Casual players have a right to know about the security issues at AP and UB, and its in our interest to have them playing on the more reputable sites where we are taking our business. At the same time, we don’t want to be fearmongers turning the poker world off to internet poker in general. We need simultaneously to inform people that UB and AP are unsafe but that there have not even been any plausible suspicions raised about extensive cheating at sites like FTP and Poker Stars. I honestly feel that the risk of cheating on those sites is barely higher than it is in brick and mortar casinos and much lower than at underground poker clubs. However, I’ll feel a lot more comfortable vouching for the credibility of those sites if and when some of my above suggestions are implemented.