In their never ending fight to protect us from ourselves, the United States government pens a settlement with the European Union to continue the US prohibition of online poker.
If you've been following at all, you know that Antigua has caused quite a stink in the WTO. They haven't taken kindly to America's gambling prohibition which violates a WTO (World Trade Organization) ruling. Antigua had threatened to suspend United States trademark and copyright rights in their country, which would have allowed anyone in Antigua to legally produce bootlegs DVDs, counterfeit clothing, pirated software, or just about any other product produced by a domestic company. These black market producers would have no fear of prosecution (unless returning to the United States, no doubt).
Antigua hoped to leverage this threat against the United States after the US apologetically refused to abide by the WTO ruling in Antigua's favor. Antigua was the shining beacon of hope for American online poker players, but now the beacon has dimmed...snuffed out by a US/EU settlement deal that sparked an immediate 4% drop in the share price of PartyGaming in the UK.
This EU deal has the European Commission signing a deal in Geneva that agrees to the United States restrictions on international banking and online gambling (Don't forget that the WTO already ruled that this policy was in violation). In concession, the US agrees to give the EU new trade opportunities in research, postal, warehousing, and testing service business sectors. Oh, thank you big government! Thank you for outsourcing more American jobs rather than allowing your citizens to easily fund their micro buy-in sit-n-go habits. If the average citizen can't "click his mouse and lose his house", I guess he doesn't need a job, eh?
Japan and Canada have reportedly also agreed to similar terms. It looks like Antigua's push to fully legalize online poker in the United States has lost its momentum. A major setback, obviously, but there is still hope. (We're looking at you, Barney Frank)
EU and US Strike a Deal in Online Gambling Fight Antigua Left Out in the Cold
Friday, December 21, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Classic Money Laundering Fraud Scam with an Online Poker Twist
An acquaintance of mine just fell for a variation on his Full Tilt Poker account. The scam is the same, only the payment service changes between wire transfer, paypal, or in this case...an online gambling account. It's quite ingenious, actually.
First of all, the criminal befriends his victim at a low limit table. He becomes a regular, chatting it up and letting slip how he'd be playing at higher limits if only he could deposit into the site. Citing a banking problem, or some other regulation excuse, the culprit offers to wire money directly into your banking account if you'll only transfer some chips to them.
So far, you're thinking this is an obvious scam. Only an idiot would fall for something like this.
Oh, but it gets sneakier.
Smelling the obvious scam, the victim protests, but the culprit convinces him to take the conversation to email. After a few emails are exchanged, the victim is given an offer he can't refuse: Take the $1,000 wire transfer and transfer $900 in chips, but only after the $1,000 wire transfer has cleared and the funds are available at your bank. Wow...this isn't the usual scam, now. I mean, if the guy is willing to wait until the money clears before expecting his player to player cash transfer at the poker site then he's putting all his trust in the victim, right? How could the victim be robbed at this point?
The victim agrees to the plan. The wire transfer hits his bank. A few days later and the funds are available and the victim thinks everything is done.
Now, fast forward a couple of weeks. The victim receives a call from his bank's fraud department. It seems that someone way across the world is angry that they didn't receive the new laptop they bought from the victim for $1,000 on Ebay.
What's going on here??
Here's the scammer's plans laid bare. After setting up this "no-risk" deal with the victim found at the poker table, the culprit immediately went to Ebay and created a new auction with a buy it now price of $1k. The item sells, but the scammer gives the winning bidder the victim's payment information instead of his own. That's right...the wire transfer into the victim's bank or paypal account came from a third party: The unwitting winning ebay bidder.
In the end, the transfer into the victim's bank account does indeed clear and become available. Of course! It is a legitimate transfer from somebody who expects you to wait for it to clear before shipping a $1k item.
In the end, the poker victim loses his $1,000 and is wrapped up in an ugly money laundering and wire fraud investigation by his bank. Not a lot of fun when you are constantly moving money between offshore banks, online gambling sites, and your local bank.
I haven't seen much talk about this exact type of scam happening before, but here is a good resource that explains how these organized crime groups run theft and money laundering scams in the same manner. The site is a little low rent, but he's a very thorough watchdog against online money laundering scams.
First of all, the criminal befriends his victim at a low limit table. He becomes a regular, chatting it up and letting slip how he'd be playing at higher limits if only he could deposit into the site. Citing a banking problem, or some other regulation excuse, the culprit offers to wire money directly into your banking account if you'll only transfer some chips to them.
So far, you're thinking this is an obvious scam. Only an idiot would fall for something like this.
Oh, but it gets sneakier.
Smelling the obvious scam, the victim protests, but the culprit convinces him to take the conversation to email. After a few emails are exchanged, the victim is given an offer he can't refuse: Take the $1,000 wire transfer and transfer $900 in chips, but only after the $1,000 wire transfer has cleared and the funds are available at your bank. Wow...this isn't the usual scam, now. I mean, if the guy is willing to wait until the money clears before expecting his player to player cash transfer at the poker site then he's putting all his trust in the victim, right? How could the victim be robbed at this point?
The victim agrees to the plan. The wire transfer hits his bank. A few days later and the funds are available and the victim thinks everything is done.
Now, fast forward a couple of weeks. The victim receives a call from his bank's fraud department. It seems that someone way across the world is angry that they didn't receive the new laptop they bought from the victim for $1,000 on Ebay.
What's going on here??
Here's the scammer's plans laid bare. After setting up this "no-risk" deal with the victim found at the poker table, the culprit immediately went to Ebay and created a new auction with a buy it now price of $1k. The item sells, but the scammer gives the winning bidder the victim's payment information instead of his own. That's right...the wire transfer into the victim's bank or paypal account came from a third party: The unwitting winning ebay bidder.
In the end, the transfer into the victim's bank account does indeed clear and become available. Of course! It is a legitimate transfer from somebody who expects you to wait for it to clear before shipping a $1k item.
In the end, the poker victim loses his $1,000 and is wrapped up in an ugly money laundering and wire fraud investigation by his bank. Not a lot of fun when you are constantly moving money between offshore banks, online gambling sites, and your local bank.
I haven't seen much talk about this exact type of scam happening before, but here is a good resource that explains how these organized crime groups run theft and money laundering scams in the same manner. The site is a little low rent, but he's a very thorough watchdog against online money laundering scams.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Bluff Fires Chris Vaughn after Cheating Controversy
The axe has fallen. BluffMedia (Bluff Magazine) has officially fired Managing Editor Chris Vaughn. After initially supporting him following the Mizzi/Vaughn account sharing fiasco at the Full Tilt $1,000,000 tournament, Bluff must have hoped that the story would dry up and blow away. One week of mounting industry pressure, however, has left the cheater Chris Vaughn on the soup line.
Matthew Parvis, Bluff Magazine Editor-in-chief had this to say on the TwoPlusTwo forums:
Bluff's handling of this entire controversy shows the general immaturity of most business aspects surrounding the poker world. Do you think this would have been handled the same if the Wall Street Journal editor was caught red handed illegally trading? Of course not. The only way Matthew Parvis and the other bigwigs at Bluff could have ever supported Chris Vaughn is if they either didn't view their editor's blatant cheating as a moral conflict, or they assumed the news would go away without ruffling many feathers.
That's not the type of insight I expect from a leading industry magazine. How out of touch are these guys?
Matthew Parvis, Bluff Magazine Editor-in-chief had this to say on the TwoPlusTwo forums:
...and I don't think any one is more sorry that this whole incident happened then he (Chris Vaughn) is...Oh really? You think, Mr. Parvis? Depending on the price Sorel Mizzi paid for Vaughn's account at Full Tilt, Mizzi might be feeling a sting much more painful than the peanuts you were paying a niche-industry managing editor.
Bluff's handling of this entire controversy shows the general immaturity of most business aspects surrounding the poker world. Do you think this would have been handled the same if the Wall Street Journal editor was caught red handed illegally trading? Of course not. The only way Matthew Parvis and the other bigwigs at Bluff could have ever supported Chris Vaughn is if they either didn't view their editor's blatant cheating as a moral conflict, or they assumed the news would go away without ruffling many feathers.
That's not the type of insight I expect from a leading industry magazine. How out of touch are these guys?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Sorel Mizzi and Chris Vaughn Admit to Cheating the Full Tilt $1 Million Guaranteed Tournament
No more debating. They've both come clean.
Mizzi bought Vaughn's account when the tournament was down to the final three tables, logged in, then resumed the tournament(ultimately winning), and still denies that he cheats in tournaments via multi-accounting. So let's recap. Sorel Mizzi enters a tournament and plays hands from his own account as well as hands from Chris Vaughn's Full Tilt account. In Mizzi's warped mind, this somehow doesn't add up to multi-accounting.
The complete interview is linked at the bottom courtesy of Poker News, but here are some highlights:
I wonder if Ray Bornet wasn't right after all. As this becomes more and more common, involving bigger and higher profile people, will the poker sites eventually have to throw up their hands and give up on any sort of online poker cheat prevention at all?
I have a virtual army of pokerbots playing right now as I type this. Many of them are sitting at tables with other members of my bot army, but none of them share cards or any other sort of collusion. I could collude on a massive scale with a day's worth of coding, but I don't.
Can someone please explain to me how I, or any other poker bot operator, should somehow be viewed as a less moral poker player than the high-profile guys that literally turn online hold'em into a team sport?
PokerNews Interviews Chris Vaughn and Sorel Mizzi
Mizzi bought Vaughn's account when the tournament was down to the final three tables, logged in, then resumed the tournament(ultimately winning), and still denies that he cheats in tournaments via multi-accounting. So let's recap. Sorel Mizzi enters a tournament and plays hands from his own account as well as hands from Chris Vaughn's Full Tilt account. In Mizzi's warped mind, this somehow doesn't add up to multi-accounting.
The complete interview is linked at the bottom courtesy of Poker News, but here are some highlights:
Sorel Mizzi: No, I'm not a – I'm not a cheater; I'm not a multi-accounter. I acted fast without malice and didn't intend to hurt Chris and myself, opponents, or the entire poker community.Allow me to translate. "No, I'm not playing multi-accounts, I just play more than one" (Huh?!) While I'm sure he had no malice in his heart for himself (lmao) or his Bluff Magazine editor little buddy, Chris Vaughn, to pretend you didn't intend to hurt your opponents is either comical or insulting. I can't decide which.
Sorel Mizzi:But, I want to make it clear that this is something that was an isolated incident and it's, it's not something that I've done in the past.So he's never cheated in an online tournament before. Ok. Fine. For the sake of argument, let's assume he's telling the truth. But then what is this comment about later in the interview?
Sorel Mizzi:The fact of the matter is that – yes, there's a lot of things going on where players are being ghosted in the middle or late – in the late stages of the tournament by a better player and this is – this is something that can never be regulated. And the fact that there is no one player per hand rule online really gives those people justification for doing this kind of thing. But, I know – I know that it goes on in the high limits and in the low limits and there's absolutely nothing that can be done.As predicted, here is another "I don't do it, but everyone I know does" poker cheat. The only thing this guy feels he has done wrong is login from a different location. The article is full of interesting quotes that point to the simple fact that there is an Old Boy network among the top online players. They are team playing against you, and they don't think that is wrong. Buying and selling of accounts deep in the big money online holdem tournaments is the norm. If you manage to survive until the final few tables in a high payout online poker tournament, you aren't playing against just the other players...you are playing whomever is the best final table player out of his entire network of contacts.
I wonder if Ray Bornet wasn't right after all. As this becomes more and more common, involving bigger and higher profile people, will the poker sites eventually have to throw up their hands and give up on any sort of online poker cheat prevention at all?
I have a virtual army of pokerbots playing right now as I type this. Many of them are sitting at tables with other members of my bot army, but none of them share cards or any other sort of collusion. I could collude on a massive scale with a day's worth of coding, but I don't.
Can someone please explain to me how I, or any other poker bot operator, should somehow be viewed as a less moral poker player than the high-profile guys that literally turn online hold'em into a team sport?
PokerNews Interviews Chris Vaughn and Sorel Mizzi
Monday, December 3, 2007
Open Holdem, Free Online Poker Bot Source Code!
If you have been sitting on the sidelines, afraid of what virus or trojan might be hiding in a commercial pokerbot, now is the time to get in the game. Open Holdem is a new OPEN SOURCE (nearly) commercial quality botting platform.
That's, right. It's open source. You can see the source code and you are free to modify it anyway you like (within GPL restrictions, I believe).
OpenHoldem builds on the foundation of WinHoldem established by Ray Bornet. In fact, it uses Winholdem screenscraper profiles and formulae. It appears as if it were a reverse engineering job on WH, but I guess only the WH developers know if they've actually decompiled WinHoldem or if the mystery coder simply copied the function. I doubt it is a decompile, or we'd be hearing about legal problems already.
Without a doubt, though, it is a solid piece of code. This isn't a hack job. Outsourced or home brewed...I don't know, but it sure looks like the work of a professional coder to me. The OpenHoldem developers (no idea who that is, but I've heard whispers of "SingleMalt" from the WH forums) give the following reasons for releasing this project:
When that day comes, WH may be in trouble. Honestly, I'd hate to see Ray Bornet suffer from this. All in all, he's done a lot of good for poker bot operators, as well as having taught me the ropes. I owe him a lot.
So, anyway, grab this source code if you have any aspirations of running a poker bot system. This is valuable source code without a doubt. I know of poker bot players that have spent thousands of dollars for their own custom bots that were no where near this quality. Grab it before Google pulls it.
Here's a link to the OpenHoldem OpenSource Poker Bot home. You'll find the source code, versus bin, and even a free Cake poker 10-man table Winscrape profile. For any other poker site, you'll have to find a profile or build your own with Winscrape, but you'll need a WinHoldem subscription for that.
We'll be watching this closely to see how the WinHoldem vs OpenHoldem war turns out.
That's, right. It's open source. You can see the source code and you are free to modify it anyway you like (within GPL restrictions, I believe).
OpenHoldem builds on the foundation of WinHoldem established by Ray Bornet. In fact, it uses Winholdem screenscraper profiles and formulae. It appears as if it were a reverse engineering job on WH, but I guess only the WH developers know if they've actually decompiled WinHoldem or if the mystery coder simply copied the function. I doubt it is a decompile, or we'd be hearing about legal problems already.
Without a doubt, though, it is a solid piece of code. This isn't a hack job. Outsourced or home brewed...I don't know, but it sure looks like the work of a professional coder to me. The OpenHoldem developers (no idea who that is, but I've heard whispers of "SingleMalt" from the WH forums) give the following reasons for releasing this project:
- Questionable long term viability of the WinHoldem platform (and I totally agree). WH requires connectivity to a "license server" to function. If that server is unavailable or discontinued, the software is non-functional.
- WinHoldem forces software upgrades on you whether you want them or not. With OpenHoldem, you choose when you want to upgrade, if at all.
- Peer review. Does WinHoldem really do what it says it does, and does it do it correctly? Without peer review of the source code, we will never know.
- Are you a tinkerer? Do you want a solid code base from which to develop your own particular botting platform? OpenHoldem provides this.
- WinHoldem is a closed platform, and the community has been unwilling to contribute to the success of that platform; this is a cultural issue encouraged to a large degree by it's author(Ray Bornet).
When that day comes, WH may be in trouble. Honestly, I'd hate to see Ray Bornet suffer from this. All in all, he's done a lot of good for poker bot operators, as well as having taught me the ropes. I owe him a lot.
So, anyway, grab this source code if you have any aspirations of running a poker bot system. This is valuable source code without a doubt. I know of poker bot players that have spent thousands of dollars for their own custom bots that were no where near this quality. Grab it before Google pulls it.
Here's a link to the OpenHoldem OpenSource Poker Bot home. You'll find the source code, versus bin, and even a free Cake poker 10-man table Winscrape profile. For any other poker site, you'll have to find a profile or build your own with Winscrape, but you'll need a WinHoldem subscription for that.
We'll be watching this closely to see how the WinHoldem vs OpenHoldem war turns out.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Pokerbot World Championship Cruise Results
Well, the much hyped PBWC has come to a conclusion and, as I expected, turnout was dismal. Honestly, I forgot about the event completely. A few academic types and Ray's forum favorites showed up, but just about anybody who's first priority is profit stayed home.
The max buy-in anybody would pony up for a game was $100, which is kind of sad when you are calling the event a World Championship. I understand why Bornet is trying to find a revenue stream outside of grinding code, but he might want to keep looking. I don't think anyone who's seriously running a bot for profit in today's world is going to fight against diminishing returns to become the elite 2 or 3 bots that exist. There's no point.
All of that energy and brainpower should be applied to scaling your bot farm war room and your table selection algorithms.
Are my bots the best? Doubtful, but that's not the name of my game. My bots are automated nearly 100% and they are self adapting in many ways. Fire and forget. Collect profits. Repeat and multiply.
That's no typo...it really is $1 buy in.
The max buy-in anybody would pony up for a game was $100, which is kind of sad when you are calling the event a World Championship. I understand why Bornet is trying to find a revenue stream outside of grinding code, but he might want to keep looking. I don't think anyone who's seriously running a bot for profit in today's world is going to fight against diminishing returns to become the elite 2 or 3 bots that exist. There's no point.
All of that energy and brainpower should be applied to scaling your bot farm war room and your table selection algorithms.
Are my bots the best? Doubtful, but that's not the name of my game. My bots are automated nearly 100% and they are self adapting in many ways. Fire and forget. Collect profits. Repeat and multiply.
That's no typo...it really is $1 buy in.
| $1 Fixed Limit Holdem 2007-09-24 01:17:36 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | HTC | Man | $3 | |
| 2 | Asbak | Man | $2 | |
| 3 | Winngy | Bot | $1 | |
| 4 | AsbakAlpha | Bot | - | |
| 5 | ChadZ | Man | - | |
| 6 | Matrix | Bot | - | |
| $1 Pot Limit Holdem 2007-09-24 19:10:03 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | Tyche | Woman | $4 | |
| 2 | Guaran | Man | $2 | |
| 3 | MatrixB | Man | $1 | |
| 4 | ChadZ | Man | - | |
| 5 | Asbak | Man | - | |
| 6 | Winngy | Bot | - | |
| 7 | HTC | Man | - | |
| $1 No Limit Holdem 2007-09-24 20:29:57 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | AsbakAlpha | Bot | $4 | |
| 2 | Guaran | Man | $2 | |
| 3 | Winngy | Bot | $1 | |
| 4 | Asbak | Man | - | |
| 5 | ChadZ | Man | - | |
| 6 | MatrixB | Man | - | |
| 7 | HTC | Man | - | |
| $10 Fixed Limit Holdem 2007-09-25 01:22:55 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | AsbakAlpha | Bot | $30 | |
| 2 | ChadZAlpha | Bot | $20 | |
| 3 | Braveheart | Bot | $10 | |
| 4 | Matrix | Bot | - | |
| 5 | Winngy | Bot | - | |
| 6 | Mulciber | Bot | - | |
| $10 Pot Limit Holdem 2007-09-25 14:39:58 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | Tyche | Woman | $30 | |
| 2 | Asbak | Man | $20 | |
| 3 | Winngy | Bot | - | |
| 4 | HTC | Man | - | |
| 5 | Guaran | Man | - | |
| $10 No Limit Holdem 2007-09-25 17:34:14 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | Guaran | Man | $40 | |
| 2 | HTC | Man | $30 | |
| 3 | ChadZ | Man | $20 | |
| 4 | MatrixB | Man | - | |
| 5 | AsbakAlpha | Bot | - | |
| 6 | ChadZAlpha | Bot | - | |
| 7 | Winngy | Bot | - | |
| 8 | Asbak | Man | - | |
| 9 | Braveheart | Bot | - | |
| $100 Fixed Limit Holdem 2007-09-25 20:19:23 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | HTC | Man | $300 | |
| 2 | Matrix | Bot | $100 | |
| 3 | Winngy | Bot | - | |
| 4 | Asbak | Man | - | |
| $100 Pot Limit Holdem 2007-09-26 01:20:48 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | HTC | Man | $200 | |
| 2 | Tyche | Woman | - | |
| $100 No Limit Holdem 2007-09-26 02:32:13 GMT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode | Prize | |
| 1 | HTC | Man | $300 | |
| 2 | Guaran | Man | $200 | |
| 3 | MatrixB | Man | - | |
| 4 | WHooray | Man | - | |
| 5 | Winngy | Bot | - | |
| World Champion Fixed Limit Holdem 2007-SEP-28 FRI | ||
|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode |
| 1 | HTC | Man |
| 2 | AsbakAlpha | Bot |
| World Champion Pot Limit Holdem 2007-SEP-28 FRI | ||
|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode |
| 1 | Tyche | Woman |
| 2 | HTC | Man |
| World Champion No Limit Holdem 2007-SEP-28 FRI | ||
|---|---|---|
| Place | Player | Mode |
| 1 | Guaran | Man |
| 2 | HTC | Man |
| 3 | AsbakAlpha | Bot |
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Cost of a "Free" Poker Bot
For those with short attention spans, just read this one sentence: Free pokerbots aren't worth your time and will more than likely COST YOU MONEY in the long run.
Stop downloading them. Even if you happen to find a copy that is not laden with mall-ware (or worse), most of these free poker software bots will require you to sign up with a new account at whatever small list of online poker sites compatible with this particular bot. This makes them your referrer and entitles them to a significant portion of your rake for the entire life of your account. If, instead, you sign up with a reliable rakeback provider (no affiliate spam here, I suggest 2+2 forums to research reliable rake back affiliates) you would get thousands of dollars returned in rakeback. If you run any sort of profitable pokerbot, a years rakeback is far more than the cost of a reputable bot platform such as winholdem or Pokerbot pro, and those are compatible with far more online casinos.
Heck, run a break even bot and your rakeback should be thousands of dollars per year. That's the beauty of running a bot war room.
Ok, let's assume you didn't heed my advice and you've installed a free poker robot that is not a complete scam and does actually at least do something. Sadly, you are going to find that you have nothing more than a mediocre pot odds calculator. Possibly you'll have a few rudimentary sliders for adjusting the tightness of play.
I hate to break the bad news to you, but that won't cut it in today's online poker climate. The games are too tough for that unless you are playing at a totally worthless limit. Don't fool yourself with a run of good luck in the beginning before the other players have any sense of your play. Even low limit poker games are full of opponents that are acutely aware of your playing tendencies. Software such as Poker Tracker is practically a requirement...the days of new players remaining clueless fish for months or years is gone. There is simply too much good advice on the net. A purely mathematical approach to poker is unlikely to be successful over the long term unless you exercise very precise table selection methods.
That's a hint, btw. A sophisticated table hopper that closely monitors table conditions may be worth as much time investment as your bot. Diminishing returns, and all.
So in the end, you have a mediocre pot odds program, probably a compromised computer, a rakeback-free account that's loosely associated with other bots, and nothing that will help you learn more about the art and science of pokerbot programming.
Just walk away. That "Free" software is going to cost you plenty.
Stop downloading them. Even if you happen to find a copy that is not laden with mall-ware (or worse), most of these free poker software bots will require you to sign up with a new account at whatever small list of online poker sites compatible with this particular bot. This makes them your referrer and entitles them to a significant portion of your rake for the entire life of your account. If, instead, you sign up with a reliable rakeback provider (no affiliate spam here, I suggest 2+2 forums to research reliable rake back affiliates) you would get thousands of dollars returned in rakeback. If you run any sort of profitable pokerbot, a years rakeback is far more than the cost of a reputable bot platform such as winholdem or Pokerbot pro, and those are compatible with far more online casinos.
Heck, run a break even bot and your rakeback should be thousands of dollars per year. That's the beauty of running a bot war room.
Ok, let's assume you didn't heed my advice and you've installed a free poker robot that is not a complete scam and does actually at least do something. Sadly, you are going to find that you have nothing more than a mediocre pot odds calculator. Possibly you'll have a few rudimentary sliders for adjusting the tightness of play.
I hate to break the bad news to you, but that won't cut it in today's online poker climate. The games are too tough for that unless you are playing at a totally worthless limit. Don't fool yourself with a run of good luck in the beginning before the other players have any sense of your play. Even low limit poker games are full of opponents that are acutely aware of your playing tendencies. Software such as Poker Tracker is practically a requirement...the days of new players remaining clueless fish for months or years is gone. There is simply too much good advice on the net. A purely mathematical approach to poker is unlikely to be successful over the long term unless you exercise very precise table selection methods.
That's a hint, btw. A sophisticated table hopper that closely monitors table conditions may be worth as much time investment as your bot. Diminishing returns, and all.
So in the end, you have a mediocre pot odds program, probably a compromised computer, a rakeback-free account that's loosely associated with other bots, and nothing that will help you learn more about the art and science of pokerbot programming.
Just walk away. That "Free" software is going to cost you plenty.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Nothing is Certain but Pokerstars and Taxes: Guide to Gambling Taxes in the U.S.
Unfortunately, yes you must (according to the IRS) pay taxes on all "worldly income" and this includes gambling winnings as income. We won't try to talk about any state laws at this time...they are simply to varied. A tax professional in your state would be your best bet at these questions. Along the same lines, don't take any of this post as tax advice, but only a collection of the "rules" as I know them.
It is a big misconception that rakeback isn't considered income by the IRS. Unfortunately, since you've included the rake paid out as a loss, any return of that money must be considered income. This includes bonuses, or any other comps you have received. Be careful on this one. Lots of us have rakeback payments coming right into our checking accounts for large amounts of money. Declare this as income...it's worth being able to sleep at night.
Another big mistake is assuming you can report only the net difference of your wins and losses. Ie, that you can win $100k, lose $97k and report to the IRS that you had a gambling income of $3k for the year. This will get you an IRS red flag in a hurry. You must report ALL winnings as income as well as all losses. I won't get into it here, but suffice to say that the tax implications are significant. When you begin to make more money as a poker pro, the need (and means) to consult with a tax professional versed in gambling income will be apparent. Depending on your state, your gambling income, and other factors; you may find it beneficial to declare yourself as a professional gambler. This requires a lot more paperwork and itemized deductions, but again...when you reach that level, you'll know it.
To declare as a pro, you must:
All in all, as much as it hurts, do not trivialize the IRS and their cravings for your money. Use their rules against them for any advantage you can find, but don't step outside the lines.
It is a big misconception that rakeback isn't considered income by the IRS. Unfortunately, since you've included the rake paid out as a loss, any return of that money must be considered income. This includes bonuses, or any other comps you have received. Be careful on this one. Lots of us have rakeback payments coming right into our checking accounts for large amounts of money. Declare this as income...it's worth being able to sleep at night.
Another big mistake is assuming you can report only the net difference of your wins and losses. Ie, that you can win $100k, lose $97k and report to the IRS that you had a gambling income of $3k for the year. This will get you an IRS red flag in a hurry. You must report ALL winnings as income as well as all losses. I won't get into it here, but suffice to say that the tax implications are significant. When you begin to make more money as a poker pro, the need (and means) to consult with a tax professional versed in gambling income will be apparent. Depending on your state, your gambling income, and other factors; you may find it beneficial to declare yourself as a professional gambler. This requires a lot more paperwork and itemized deductions, but again...when you reach that level, you'll know it.
To declare as a pro, you must:
- Be able to show profit and that you support yourself with this income
- Operate as a business (Itemized expenses, paperwork, etc)
- Show profit for 3 of the last 5 years.
All in all, as much as it hurts, do not trivialize the IRS and their cravings for your money. Use their rules against them for any advantage you can find, but don't step outside the lines.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Wired Magazine: Online Poker Players Bet on Prohibition Repeal
Nothing more for me to say, and nothing further after the jump.
This is an excellent article from Wired Magazine showing the current state of online poker due to the UIGEA, and the damage it has caused to the typical grinder at the poker table.
The tables really have dried up...both for myself, a mid-stakes pokerbot, as well as my friends that play everything from $5,000NL to heads up Omaha. As income levels drop, collusion becomes more apparent at even the small stakes tables.
I do not collude, never have, and never will. I feel that is cheating, unlike a poker bot that has no information outside the bounds of a rule abiding human. However, you are about to see an influx of collusion that will make everyone forget about the "danger" of poker bots.
Trust me...I've talked to them. Automated collusion-bots are on the rise.
Wired.com - Refusing to Fold, Online Poker Players Bet on Prohibition Repeal
This is an excellent article from Wired Magazine showing the current state of online poker due to the UIGEA, and the damage it has caused to the typical grinder at the poker table.
The tables really have dried up...both for myself, a mid-stakes pokerbot, as well as my friends that play everything from $5,000NL to heads up Omaha. As income levels drop, collusion becomes more apparent at even the small stakes tables.
I do not collude, never have, and never will. I feel that is cheating, unlike a poker bot that has no information outside the bounds of a rule abiding human. However, you are about to see an influx of collusion that will make everyone forget about the "danger" of poker bots.
Trust me...I've talked to them. Automated collusion-bots are on the rise.
Wired.com - Refusing to Fold, Online Poker Players Bet on Prohibition Repeal
Sunday, May 20, 2007
So This Blog is Banned from Digg...
Woke up this morning to do my normal Sunday Digg browsing and got a shock: This blog is banned from Digg?
No idea what happened, but all articles from this site are now auto-buried by Digg. Now, they don't call this a ban because they want to maintain the idea that they are a site created by the users. Banning a site might create a backlash of publicity (not from my trickling of readers, but there are some large sites that have received the same treatment).
I've contacted Digg for clarification but from what I've read, they are unlikely to even reply.
I did find some interesting links of others that have had the same problem. Interesting reading if you, like me, believed Digg to be a user generated site. On the bright side, I'll be ditching the annoying clutter of the Digg button.
Swollenpickles.com - Defacto Dig Ban
Forevergeek.com - Digg Corrupted: Editor's Playground
Toprankblog.com - Digg Hypocrisy
Those three are enough to give you the gist of the story. Heck, I could post dozens of links to people who've been banned. Some, obviously spammers, but many small time bloggers like myself that don't understand what has gone wrong. Google "Digg ban" if you like to see dozens of examples.
Here's a tutorial for how to use Digg's own system to ban a site you don't like, even. Unbelievable.
Wolf-howl.com - How to be a Dirty Digger
Hopefully the Digg folks will get back to me so I can find out what caused this. Wouldn't shock me if an anti-pokerbot contingent spammed Digg with complaints.
No idea what happened, but all articles from this site are now auto-buried by Digg. Now, they don't call this a ban because they want to maintain the idea that they are a site created by the users. Banning a site might create a backlash of publicity (not from my trickling of readers, but there are some large sites that have received the same treatment).
I've contacted Digg for clarification but from what I've read, they are unlikely to even reply.
I did find some interesting links of others that have had the same problem. Interesting reading if you, like me, believed Digg to be a user generated site. On the bright side, I'll be ditching the annoying clutter of the Digg button.
Swollenpickles.com - Defacto Dig Ban
Forevergeek.com - Digg Corrupted: Editor's Playground
Toprankblog.com - Digg Hypocrisy
Those three are enough to give you the gist of the story. Heck, I could post dozens of links to people who've been banned. Some, obviously spammers, but many small time bloggers like myself that don't understand what has gone wrong. Google "Digg ban" if you like to see dozens of examples.
Here's a tutorial for how to use Digg's own system to ban a site you don't like, even. Unbelievable.
Wolf-howl.com - How to be a Dirty Digger
Hopefully the Digg folks will get back to me so I can find out what caused this. Wouldn't shock me if an anti-pokerbot contingent spammed Digg with complaints.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Full Tilt PokerBot Scandal Post-Mortem (Part I)
Now that the roar is dying down (Full Tilt Pokerbots(?) at Two Plus Two Forums), I thought I'd wrap it all up with what I, as a bot operator, have found interesting in this monstrous debate.
#1. "...As for 1forthethumb and mariojr, I've not only played with both of them but have talked to both of them..."
Most players still believe that a few replies in the chat window "prove" your bot is a human. You should already know how easy it is to inject a few semi-random chat messages now and then. Don't get carried away, however. Lack of response is less suspicious than a nonsensical or repetitive response.
#2. "...I mostly ignored bot issues because I agreed with the popular sentiment at the time that it was just too complicated to program a bot to play well at an kind of meaningful stakes...."
The players WANT to be deceived. They have self-inflated egos that have convinced their Id that they're some sort of super-human poker calculator...pulling information from the ether, evidently. All we have to do is lay low and allow them to believe this. Just as a fish can't believe he isn't a winner, these winning players can't believe their winning isn't the result of their own extraordinary talents.
Are these players making decisions outside the realm of what most bots do? Of course, but there is no guarantee they are making the correct decision. For many low stake players, they are talking themselves into exploitable bad plays much more often than they think...they seem to believe that the amount of thought put into a decision is a direct indicator of the QUALITY of the final decision. With the human mind, this is not the case.
#3. If you get mentioned on a forum. SHUT UP.
Don't be BrandonJoseph from the main thread, trying to spin the conversation to avert suspicion. It doesn't work and it will never work. Just keep your mouth closed. You will only give them more information by which to convict you. The forum lynch mob can't clear your name...but they can sure convict you and force the site into action. Let it die!
#4. "...30,000 hands, same site, three different players logging on at the same time, logging off at the same time, and not playing at the same table for any one of those hands?..."
If you do something so obvious, you deserve to get caught. It may take awhile for the players to catch on, but the sites are well aware. Don't rely on the site operators lax attitude. It can change on a whim and I will tell you from experience that some sites will catch you and then not take action until you've either reloaded the account for a bonus offer, or you've attempted a cash out.
#5. Players don't understand the economy of large numbers.
It's clear from this thread that many, if not most, players don't understand the scale of how a bot farm works. These players are driven to move up stakes as quickly as they comfortably can, and they assume your bot is doing the same. They simply do not understand that you can make a six figure salary mining micro stakes where each table is earning $.25/hour.
Could I move up limits with my bots? More than likely, but should I spend 100 man hours coding and testing this move, or should I spend 100 hours dropping 10 more computers (80+ tables) into my war room? The choice is easy at even the smallest of limits until you run out of IP's or funding accounts.
I will break here before this post gets out of hand. So far we've only scratched the surface of this thread. More analysis to follow.
#1. "...As for 1forthethumb and mariojr, I've not only played with both of them but have talked to both of them..."
Most players still believe that a few replies in the chat window "prove" your bot is a human. You should already know how easy it is to inject a few semi-random chat messages now and then. Don't get carried away, however. Lack of response is less suspicious than a nonsensical or repetitive response.
#2. "...I mostly ignored bot issues because I agreed with the popular sentiment at the time that it was just too complicated to program a bot to play well at an kind of meaningful stakes...."
The players WANT to be deceived. They have self-inflated egos that have convinced their Id that they're some sort of super-human poker calculator...pulling information from the ether, evidently. All we have to do is lay low and allow them to believe this. Just as a fish can't believe he isn't a winner, these winning players can't believe their winning isn't the result of their own extraordinary talents.
Are these players making decisions outside the realm of what most bots do? Of course, but there is no guarantee they are making the correct decision. For many low stake players, they are talking themselves into exploitable bad plays much more often than they think...they seem to believe that the amount of thought put into a decision is a direct indicator of the QUALITY of the final decision. With the human mind, this is not the case.
#3. If you get mentioned on a forum. SHUT UP.
Don't be BrandonJoseph from the main thread, trying to spin the conversation to avert suspicion. It doesn't work and it will never work. Just keep your mouth closed. You will only give them more information by which to convict you. The forum lynch mob can't clear your name...but they can sure convict you and force the site into action. Let it die!
#4. "...30,000 hands, same site, three different players logging on at the same time, logging off at the same time, and not playing at the same table for any one of those hands?..."
If you do something so obvious, you deserve to get caught. It may take awhile for the players to catch on, but the sites are well aware. Don't rely on the site operators lax attitude. It can change on a whim and I will tell you from experience that some sites will catch you and then not take action until you've either reloaded the account for a bonus offer, or you've attempted a cash out.
#5. Players don't understand the economy of large numbers.
It's clear from this thread that many, if not most, players don't understand the scale of how a bot farm works. These players are driven to move up stakes as quickly as they comfortably can, and they assume your bot is doing the same. They simply do not understand that you can make a six figure salary mining micro stakes where each table is earning $.25/hour.
Could I move up limits with my bots? More than likely, but should I spend 100 man hours coding and testing this move, or should I spend 100 hours dropping 10 more computers (80+ tables) into my war room? The choice is easy at even the smallest of limits until you run out of IP's or funding accounts.
I will break here before this post gets out of hand. So far we've only scratched the surface of this thread. More analysis to follow.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
WSOP Changes Payout Structure
In what I believe to be the dumbest P.R/Advertising move in the entire poker industry, the people behind the World Series of Poker change to a flatter payout system.It makes no sense to me. How much did 74th place get last year? Anybody know? Anybody care? I don't understand how the WSOP folks could be unaware of what every spam-blog poster on digg already knows: Big numbers sell! People don't sit at home and dream of 147th place in the WSOP Main Event, they dream of first place. They spend weeks or months dreaming of how they are going to spend the first place prize money. They talk around the water cooler about the lotto-sized final table stakes.
For whatever reasons, the WSOP has decided that the final table payouts will be smaller this year. Each player that reaches the top will get a smaller percentage of the purse than before, with the difference being splashed around down in the "barely cashed" levels.
For example, if you were 873rd place last year, you took home $14,605. This year (assuming the same number of entries) that would be a $22,266 win. Typically I like flat payout tourneys to minimize variance a bit, but NOT when the entire value of the tournament is derived from its shear size and enormous first place prize! Last year, Jamie Gold took home $12,000,000. The winner this year would receive just over $10,000,000.
With most players expecting a smaller field this year to begin with, why is the WSOP further damaging the buzz of their brand? It makes no sense. All they've done is weaken the single most important aspect of their brand for reaching those not completely immersed in the world of poker: That big, headline-grabbing first prize.
“We discussed this concept with our poker operations team and with members of the WSOP Players Advisory Council and the consensus was that spreading the wealth is the right thing to do,” said Greenbaum, Regional V.P. for Harrah's. “The new schedules are designed to increase the rewards to players who finish in the money but don’t reach the final table.”
Congratulation, Mr. Greenbaum. You just got angle-shot by a bunch of pros looking to reduce their variance at the expense of your marketing.
I can't find the table of exact payout structure at the WSOP's main site. They reference it but don't even link to themselves. Quality.
If you want to wade through their site for details: World Series of Poker
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Full Tilt Rep Responds to Poker Bot Accusations
Full Tilt Poker representative "FTPSean" responds to the angry mob at Two Plus Two. As you've come to expect from Full Tilt poker, there isn't much substance.
I'll spare you FTPSean's corporate-customer-service-speak and jump right to his bullet points.
- During the investigation we found the evidence to be inconclusive in supporting either determination (human or bot).
- After careful consideration, the evidence did not warrant the seizure of funds and permanent account closure.
- We stand by our decision. Having said that, re-opening an account after an investigation such as this one does not mean we have made an irreversible decision. We will continue to reevaluate this situation.
Not too exciting, but Full Tilt is in damage control mode...I'm surprised they replied at all.
FTPSean's full post can be found at the Two Plus Two Forums .
Full details in my earlier coverage here: Full Tilt Poker Bots
Full Tilt Poker Bots (?) at Two Plus Two Forums
A massive thread at Two Plus Two regarding poker bots at Full Tilt Poker has exploded. You can read the 1,500+ replies, or see my summation below.
An observant human player (SukitTrebek) noticed some statistical similarities in the play of 1forthethumb, full_tilting, mariojr, and 0_Drunkenboxer. When I say similarities, I mean SIMILARITIES. Their stats on all streets are nearly identical over 100k hand samples each. This is a link to SukitTrebek's collected stats...decide for yourself.
SukitTrebek reports his findings to Full Tilt. The suspected bot players disappear, and Trebek assumes they are banned. 1 month later, the entire crew of accounts re-appears at the same time and returns to grinding more hands of $200NL than anyone else for 1.5bb/100.
Suspicious? Oh yes. You really shouldn't continue reading until you take a look at the stats
When the bots return, Trebek breaks his silence and the NL Bots on Full Tilt thread is born. Read Trebek's original post if for no other reason than to know what a player will go through to catch you. Full_tilter and a buddy chime in to profess their innocence, backed by Nation, a Two Plus Two forum moderator that claims to know them in person and "knows" they do not run bots.
What do I think? I can tell you right now that something fishy is going on with their stats. These guys have posted stats over 100k samples that are more similiar than any I've been able to find on ANY of my bots, and I'm admitting they are un-tilting, automatons. I've run bots for 1M hands with untouched logic code without 100k runs this similiar. If these guys are bots (or a sweatshop...there's no difference) then they are following a script, but one that is horribly static and has almost no regard for the texture of the board or styles of the opponents around them.
The only way I can see a bot with such similiar statistics is if they are using only the number of actions in the hand and their hand strength to make decisions. They obviously don't use the bet amount as a decision making tool as hand histories have been posted showing them folding to minimum bets and raises in a way that no sane player would.
In other words, folks, this is a horrible bot/script/sweatshop. There are so many factors of the game that they are obviously ignoring and they are still turning a considerable profit at $200NL, a game and limit that most ignorant human players thought was untouchable by bots. full_tilter and his crew have done it successfully and as you've seen from their stats, they are making some downright horrible plays. They are continuation betting 97% of the time at $200NL for example.
Update: A Full Tilt representative has responded. Read my article Full Tilt Rep Responds to Poker Bot Allegations.
An observant human player (SukitTrebek) noticed some statistical similarities in the play of 1forthethumb, full_tilting, mariojr, and 0_Drunkenboxer. When I say similarities, I mean SIMILARITIES. Their stats on all streets are nearly identical over 100k hand samples each. This is a link to SukitTrebek's collected stats...decide for yourself.
SukitTrebek reports his findings to Full Tilt. The suspected bot players disappear, and Trebek assumes they are banned. 1 month later, the entire crew of accounts re-appears at the same time and returns to grinding more hands of $200NL than anyone else for 1.5bb/100.
Suspicious? Oh yes. You really shouldn't continue reading until you take a look at the stats
When the bots return, Trebek breaks his silence and the NL Bots on Full Tilt thread is born. Read Trebek's original post if for no other reason than to know what a player will go through to catch you. Full_tilter and a buddy chime in to profess their innocence, backed by Nation, a Two Plus Two forum moderator that claims to know them in person and "knows" they do not run bots.
What do I think? I can tell you right now that something fishy is going on with their stats. These guys have posted stats over 100k samples that are more similiar than any I've been able to find on ANY of my bots, and I'm admitting they are un-tilting, automatons. I've run bots for 1M hands with untouched logic code without 100k runs this similiar. If these guys are bots (or a sweatshop...there's no difference) then they are following a script, but one that is horribly static and has almost no regard for the texture of the board or styles of the opponents around them.
The only way I can see a bot with such similiar statistics is if they are using only the number of actions in the hand and their hand strength to make decisions. They obviously don't use the bet amount as a decision making tool as hand histories have been posted showing them folding to minimum bets and raises in a way that no sane player would.
In other words, folks, this is a horrible bot/script/sweatshop. There are so many factors of the game that they are obviously ignoring and they are still turning a considerable profit at $200NL, a game and limit that most ignorant human players thought was untouchable by bots. full_tilter and his crew have done it successfully and as you've seen from their stats, they are making some downright horrible plays. They are continuation betting 97% of the time at $200NL for example.
Update: A Full Tilt representative has responded. Read my article Full Tilt Rep Responds to Poker Bot Allegations.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Poker Cheats: The History, Part 2
"The continuation of the article found in the archives here. A quick look at the history of poker cheating when getting caught meant more than getting banned."
Poker, The Cheating Game? - Part II
by: Kenneth Bateman
The introduction of the 52-card deck meant that the poker tables could now accommodate more players and there were more cards left over to draw, with each player having the chance to improve their hands. As the game of poker became more complex with the introduction of straights and flushes, so to did the complexities of cheating, as crooked gamblers had to adjust to the changing games and perfect new strategies and methods to fleece the suckers.
Collusion, whereby two or more poker cheaters would secretly partner in a game, using a series of signals to let each other know what cards they were holding, became popular with gamblers looking for a distinct advantage at the tables. The notorious marked deck was a commonly used ruse to give gamblers a secret advantage in the games. Decks of cards were “marked” in various ways, such as using undetectable markings on the card backsides, or nicking the edges of certain key cards in a way noticeable only to the cheater.
Some cheaters spent long hours perfecting the “art” of deftly manipulating cards to their advantage by second dealing or so-called bottom dealing, meaning that these experts could, for instance, hold back the top card in the deck, using the thumb of the hand holding the deck and unobtrusively deal every second card or bottom card to the other players and dealing the top card – the card that would improve the cheaters hand – to himself. Certainly, these maneuvers were meant for private games, and only possible to use when the gambler is dealing. and not possible in well regulated casinos where cards are dealt from “shoes” and multiple decks are commonly used.
But let’s give the crooked gambler his due. The ability to manipulate cards to one’s advantage under the direct gaze of other players requires not only a high degree of skill, but nerves of steel as well. Some cheaters take an easier path and devise ways of stealing chips from their fellow players. One method is to closely observe the players on either side and watch for an inattentive player. Then, with the use of a sticky substance hidden in his palm, the chip thief will casually lay his hand on a stray chip near the other players main stack, or palm a chip while pushing a pot toward that round’s winner. Slipping these chips into his own pile is easy, since the cheater’s chips are purposefully not neatly stacked.
These various methods of cheating, among countless others, such as card counting, the use of electronic devices and a myriad other ways to cheat at cards are very difficult to accomplish in a modern casino, where the staff is well trained and observant. However, there have been occasions when crooked gamblers and casino dealers worked together, with the dealer aiding his partner in various ways, one of which was to cleverly lift the corner of each card as it is dealt, allowing the cheater to see what was being dealt to each player. Assuredly, the chances of being cheated in a well-run casino are small, but when you are gambling alertness pays off, regardless.
About The Author
Kenneth Bateman writes numerous articles on the subject of poker and its players. To read more player profiles, visit www.xlpoker.com
Poker, The Cheating Game? - Part II
by: Kenneth Bateman
The introduction of the 52-card deck meant that the poker tables could now accommodate more players and there were more cards left over to draw, with each player having the chance to improve their hands. As the game of poker became more complex with the introduction of straights and flushes, so to did the complexities of cheating, as crooked gamblers had to adjust to the changing games and perfect new strategies and methods to fleece the suckers.
Collusion, whereby two or more poker cheaters would secretly partner in a game, using a series of signals to let each other know what cards they were holding, became popular with gamblers looking for a distinct advantage at the tables. The notorious marked deck was a commonly used ruse to give gamblers a secret advantage in the games. Decks of cards were “marked” in various ways, such as using undetectable markings on the card backsides, or nicking the edges of certain key cards in a way noticeable only to the cheater.
Some cheaters spent long hours perfecting the “art” of deftly manipulating cards to their advantage by second dealing or so-called bottom dealing, meaning that these experts could, for instance, hold back the top card in the deck, using the thumb of the hand holding the deck and unobtrusively deal every second card or bottom card to the other players and dealing the top card – the card that would improve the cheaters hand – to himself. Certainly, these maneuvers were meant for private games, and only possible to use when the gambler is dealing. and not possible in well regulated casinos where cards are dealt from “shoes” and multiple decks are commonly used.
But let’s give the crooked gambler his due. The ability to manipulate cards to one’s advantage under the direct gaze of other players requires not only a high degree of skill, but nerves of steel as well. Some cheaters take an easier path and devise ways of stealing chips from their fellow players. One method is to closely observe the players on either side and watch for an inattentive player. Then, with the use of a sticky substance hidden in his palm, the chip thief will casually lay his hand on a stray chip near the other players main stack, or palm a chip while pushing a pot toward that round’s winner. Slipping these chips into his own pile is easy, since the cheater’s chips are purposefully not neatly stacked.
These various methods of cheating, among countless others, such as card counting, the use of electronic devices and a myriad other ways to cheat at cards are very difficult to accomplish in a modern casino, where the staff is well trained and observant. However, there have been occasions when crooked gamblers and casino dealers worked together, with the dealer aiding his partner in various ways, one of which was to cleverly lift the corner of each card as it is dealt, allowing the cheater to see what was being dealt to each player. Assuredly, the chances of being cheated in a well-run casino are small, but when you are gambling alertness pays off, regardless.
About The Author
Kenneth Bateman writes numerous articles on the subject of poker and its players. To read more player profiles, visit www.xlpoker.com
Poker Cheats: The History, Part 1
"I happened upon this post while browsing the web. It's an interesting primer on the history of poker cheats when the game was practically brand new. No, not 2001 at Paradise Poker...New Orleans riverboat in 1840. Without further ado, Mr. Bateman's article..."
Poker, The Cheating Game? - Part I
by: Kenneth Bateman
Poker’s advance from the casino’s of New Orleans to the paddle wheelers plying the Mississippi River in the early years of the 19th century. created new opportunities for the professional gambler. These steamboats were lavishly appointed floating palaces catering to the well-heeled, replete with wine, women and song for the taking, and, oh yes, gambling. Many of the passengers on these cruises were Southern plantation owners flush with money – thanks to the arrival of the railroads linking the cotton fields to the mighty river. These were men looking for a good time and willing to spend – or lose – their money in pursuit of pleasure.
At that time poker was a far different, and much simpler game then as played today. Only a twenty card deck (tens to aces), was used, and only four players at a table could participate, since the entire deck was dealt out, five cards to each player. Bets were placed and raised after the cards were dealt. The cards were then shown, and the best hand took the pot. This was an ideal game for card sharks since there was no draw and hands could easily be manipulated by various methods so that the card shark always left the game with the most winnings.
Among these various methods of cheating were sleight-of-hand tricks and even specially made mechanical devices often used by crooked gamblers, and most professional gamblers in those days were crooked. For example, Will and Finck developed a card-holding device called a sleeve card-holdout. This contraption – strapped to the inside forearm of a gamblers sleeve, which was tailored in a wide cut to accommodate the device, had a metallic clip attached to a leather band that could clasp a needed card that a gambler could transfer unnoticed into his palm with a deft movement of the wrist.
Since these were not penny-ante games it was not uncommon for crooked gamblers to recruit one or more of the ship’s officers as accomplices, with a portion of the “loot” going to the officer or officers for their aid. These officers would often steer so-called “marks” or suckers, who were usually pleasantly drunk over to the gambler and would further aid the card shark by prearranged signals that revealed what cards had been dealt to the “mark”.
In fact, cheating at these games had become so notorious that by the 1840’s a number of books were published as more or less “exposes” of the dangers of playing poker with professionals. About this time an American writer, Jonathan H. Green, wrote a particularly well received book on this subject called “The Exposures of the Arts and Miseries of Gambling”. In this book, Green referred to gambling as a “cheating game”. The game became more complex and more difficult for the card shark once the fifty-two card deck came into being, and new variations of poker were introduced.
Poker, The Cheating Game? - Part I
by: Kenneth Bateman
Poker’s advance from the casino’s of New Orleans to the paddle wheelers plying the Mississippi River in the early years of the 19th century. created new opportunities for the professional gambler. These steamboats were lavishly appointed floating palaces catering to the well-heeled, replete with wine, women and song for the taking, and, oh yes, gambling. Many of the passengers on these cruises were Southern plantation owners flush with money – thanks to the arrival of the railroads linking the cotton fields to the mighty river. These were men looking for a good time and willing to spend – or lose – their money in pursuit of pleasure.
At that time poker was a far different, and much simpler game then as played today. Only a twenty card deck (tens to aces), was used, and only four players at a table could participate, since the entire deck was dealt out, five cards to each player. Bets were placed and raised after the cards were dealt. The cards were then shown, and the best hand took the pot. This was an ideal game for card sharks since there was no draw and hands could easily be manipulated by various methods so that the card shark always left the game with the most winnings.
Among these various methods of cheating were sleight-of-hand tricks and even specially made mechanical devices often used by crooked gamblers, and most professional gamblers in those days were crooked. For example, Will and Finck developed a card-holding device called a sleeve card-holdout. This contraption – strapped to the inside forearm of a gamblers sleeve, which was tailored in a wide cut to accommodate the device, had a metallic clip attached to a leather band that could clasp a needed card that a gambler could transfer unnoticed into his palm with a deft movement of the wrist.
Since these were not penny-ante games it was not uncommon for crooked gamblers to recruit one or more of the ship’s officers as accomplices, with a portion of the “loot” going to the officer or officers for their aid. These officers would often steer so-called “marks” or suckers, who were usually pleasantly drunk over to the gambler and would further aid the card shark by prearranged signals that revealed what cards had been dealt to the “mark”.
In fact, cheating at these games had become so notorious that by the 1840’s a number of books were published as more or less “exposes” of the dangers of playing poker with professionals. About this time an American writer, Jonathan H. Green, wrote a particularly well received book on this subject called “The Exposures of the Arts and Miseries of Gambling”. In this book, Green referred to gambling as a “cheating game”. The game became more complex and more difficult for the card shark once the fifty-two card deck came into being, and new variations of poker were introduced.
About The Author
Kenneth Bateman writes numerous articles on the subject of poker and its players. To read more player profiles, visit www.xlpoker.com.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Free Winscrape for your WinHoldem Bot
I've been a bit bored lately.
No cashout problems.
No "random" security checks.
No bot problems.
I've gotten some hits from the WinHoldem forum, so I've decided to start tinkering around with WinHoldem again.
The biggest problem plaguing the new WinHoldem user at this moment seems to be the recent loss of official online poker room screen scraping. Unless something has changed since the last time I had to mess with Winscrape, I figure I can knock out a profile in a day or so. I just need you to Vote for the site you want scraped, and please be specific. I will need to know all the details you want in your profile (# of chairs, window size, 4-color cards, etc etc). I will compile all the suggestions and scrape the most popular one.
To be honest, if the winning online poker site is a juicy little spot my custom bot is beating up, I probably won't scrape that so that a hundred 12% vpip bots flood in. Sorry. I doubt this will be an issue as the more popular sites will be requested more often anyway.
Email me to vote.
Winning site and format will be announced on May 7th with the profile coming the following weekend.
Yes, I'm aware that Ray Bornet, WinHoldem's creator, is giving away $100 worth of subscription credit for working master profiles. My anonymity is worth more than $100, but I will find a way to get this to Winholdem support and hopefully posted to the master profile list. I'm not sure how exact I have to be to get my winscrape profile into the official list, but if Ray isn't too demanding, I'll do what is needed.
No cashout problems.
No "random" security checks.
No bot problems.
I've gotten some hits from the WinHoldem forum, so I've decided to start tinkering around with WinHoldem again.
The biggest problem plaguing the new WinHoldem user at this moment seems to be the recent loss of official online poker room screen scraping. Unless something has changed since the last time I had to mess with Winscrape, I figure I can knock out a profile in a day or so. I just need you to Vote for the site you want scraped, and please be specific. I will need to know all the details you want in your profile (# of chairs, window size, 4-color cards, etc etc). I will compile all the suggestions and scrape the most popular one.
To be honest, if the winning online poker site is a juicy little spot my custom bot is beating up, I probably won't scrape that so that a hundred 12% vpip bots flood in. Sorry. I doubt this will be an issue as the more popular sites will be requested more often anyway.
Email me to vote.
Winning site and format will be announced on May 7th with the profile coming the following weekend.
Yes, I'm aware that Ray Bornet, WinHoldem's creator, is giving away $100 worth of subscription credit for working master profiles. My anonymity is worth more than $100, but I will find a way to get this to Winholdem support and hopefully posted to the master profile list. I'm not sure how exact I have to be to get my winscrape profile into the official list, but if Ray isn't too demanding, I'll do what is needed.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Yahoo Enters Online Poker Market
Online poker might change dramatically in the coming months. The first online mega-giant has entered the fray.
Both Party Poker and Poker Stars representatives have been quoted in the past as saying that the real fight begins when one of the big online brands enter the market. Well...here it comes.
Yahoo's site is currently not open to U.S. or Canadian players, as the UIGEA continues to cast doubt. Others however, are welcome to sign up at Yahoo Poker (I purposefully did not link for fear of being accused of affiliate links) and begin playing immediately on the Boss network.
Markus Holm, Executive Vice President and Head of Business Development of Boss Media said, "We are delighted to be working with Yahoo! UK and St Minver. This partnership takes Boss Media to a new dimension and is a very strategic milestone for the company. It confirms that online gaming and entertainment are becoming increasingly integrated and that a major portion of future growth in our industry will come from large online entertainment brands."
"This partnership strengthens our position as the leading online poker software provider for the European market. Product innovation and an in-depth understanding of the European gaming landscape are keys to our success."
Is this the spark that lights the fuse for the next poker boom? Could be, but in and of itself, probably not. A more interesting thought, is that perhaps Yahoo knows something about online gambling regulation that we do not and is positioning themselves for an upcoming change.
The UIEGA looks weaker every day. Great news for us all, player or bot...American or not. Six months on from the introduction of the UIGEA in the United States and on the day that Congressman Barney Frank announced his bill to regulate online gaming, this news marks another seismic event in the relatively short history of the online gaming industry.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Both Party Poker and Poker Stars representatives have been quoted in the past as saying that the real fight begins when one of the big online brands enter the market. Well...here it comes.
Yahoo's site is currently not open to U.S. or Canadian players, as the UIGEA continues to cast doubt. Others however, are welcome to sign up at Yahoo Poker (I purposefully did not link for fear of being accused of affiliate links) and begin playing immediately on the Boss network.
Markus Holm, Executive Vice President and Head of Business Development of Boss Media said, "We are delighted to be working with Yahoo! UK and St Minver. This partnership takes Boss Media to a new dimension and is a very strategic milestone for the company. It confirms that online gaming and entertainment are becoming increasingly integrated and that a major portion of future growth in our industry will come from large online entertainment brands."
"This partnership strengthens our position as the leading online poker software provider for the European market. Product innovation and an in-depth understanding of the European gaming landscape are keys to our success."
Is this the spark that lights the fuse for the next poker boom? Could be, but in and of itself, probably not. A more interesting thought, is that perhaps Yahoo knows something about online gambling regulation that we do not and is positioning themselves for an upcoming change.
The UIEGA looks weaker every day. Great news for us all, player or bot...American or not. Six months on from the introduction of the UIGEA in the United States and on the day that Congressman Barney Frank announced his bill to regulate online gaming, this news marks another seismic event in the relatively short history of the online gaming industry.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Ultimate Bet Poker Tightens Up
The most noted pokerbot playground just changed the rules. Ultimate Bet Poker has recently changed both their rakeback MGR calculation and now today, their pts calculation methods. A LOT of winholdem and OPI poker bots just drifted into -EV.
In the past, UB's rakeback MGR was calculated in the method commonly called "dealt". For example, if the pot is $60 ($3 rake is taken) and there were 10 people dealt cards, then each person generated $0.30 in rake for that hand. Using this method of calculation you are generating rake every time you are dealt cards. Recently, they switched their rakeback to the "contributed" method. By this method, If 10 people are dealt cards and only 3 people actually put money into the pot (blinds count), then a $60 pot would give them each $1 of MGR. Those that did not put money into the pot get no MGR. For the tight, ABC playing grinder or pokerbot, this change penalizes their tight preflop play substantially. Possibly reducing their rakeback by 50%.
Today, they officially changed their webpage to reflect what had been popping up sporadically at tables over the weekend: Their Ultimate points would now only be given for hands when the player had contributed. UB effectively increased the time to clear a bonus by 4 or 5 times. The points to cash promotion is nearly impossible to reach. Only players that were previously getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 points per week will now reach the LOWEST level of 750 points.
In the past, UB's rakeback MGR was calculated in the method commonly called "dealt". For example, if the pot is $60 ($3 rake is taken) and there were 10 people dealt cards, then each person generated $0.30 in rake for that hand. Using this method of calculation you are generating rake every time you are dealt cards. Recently, they switched their rakeback to the "contributed" method. By this method, If 10 people are dealt cards and only 3 people actually put money into the pot (blinds count), then a $60 pot would give them each $1 of MGR. Those that did not put money into the pot get no MGR. For the tight, ABC playing grinder or pokerbot, this change penalizes their tight preflop play substantially. Possibly reducing their rakeback by 50%.
Today, they officially changed their webpage to reflect what had been popping up sporadically at tables over the weekend: Their Ultimate points would now only be given for hands when the player had contributed. UB effectively increased the time to clear a bonus by 4 or 5 times. The points to cash promotion is nearly impossible to reach. Only players that were previously getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 points per week will now reach the LOWEST level of 750 points.
That is a brutal, brutal bad beat for anyone botting the UB micros for the Points to Cash program. Note, I don't feel like I'm "outing" anyone here. UB has been notorious about ignoring bots for as long as I've been in the game. It's no secret. Open up a table of $.02/$.04 limit at Ultimate Bet. 1/3 of the players at that table will be playing more than 12 hours a day. 12 hours a day of multi-tabling the penny tables! I'd say that's just stupidity if it weren't for UB's complete apathy. It will be interesting to see exactly what Ultimate bet hopes to do with this. Player numbers are dropping, and I'm sure it will only get worse, as I constantly read of people that still haven't noticed their rakeback payments have dropped. Players leave, fewer tables...UB's in the downward spiral, and it seems like it is going to take some fancy maneuvering to pull out at this point.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Reason Your Pokerbot Will Be Banned #1: Session Length
There are many ways to flush the hard work of coding a bot down the toilet. Most seem obvious, but greed clouds judgement. The most important rule is to play reasonable session lengths!
Chances are that you will have an account or two banned as you go through your career as a botter. Don't panic. Before you begin, just assume it is going to happen and plan accordingly.
The most common reason for being banned (and your bankroll siezed more than likely) is the simple act of playing an unreasonable amount of hands per day/week/month or playing sessions of inordinate length.
Need an example? Datamine a day of Ultimate Bet micros. The bots there are so obvious it is comical. You'll find quite a few players there that multi-table all day, everyday, to suck up the UB "Points for Cash" free money. They aren't the smartest bots in the world, most either being a very predictable nutpeddler or a typical TAG that takes his hands too far. The point, however, is that they sit there all day, every day, in a way that any human regular at the tables will detect.
Most of your problems will stem from human players reporting you.
Again, using UB as our example, it is obvious that even a rudimentary security check by the site would reveal these bots to the site operator. UB has a record of not finding bots until they cashout, so I think these players will be in for a rude awakening at some point. Regardless of the site's vigilance in detecting a bot on their own, they WILL react when the customer complaints come rolling in...and if you play 80 hours a week, 6-tabling $10NL, the complaints WILL come.
Whether you are playing for testing, or playing for profit, you MUST resist the temptation to play more than is reasonable for a player. Also, take note that "reasonable" differs between levels. A reasonable $1/$2 semi-pro might run 5 or 6 tables for 8 hours in a day. A reasonable $.01/$.02 player will most certainly not.
Slow down. Use your head. This is a long ride.
Chances are that you will have an account or two banned as you go through your career as a botter. Don't panic. Before you begin, just assume it is going to happen and plan accordingly.
The most common reason for being banned (and your bankroll siezed more than likely) is the simple act of playing an unreasonable amount of hands per day/week/month or playing sessions of inordinate length.
Need an example? Datamine a day of Ultimate Bet micros. The bots there are so obvious it is comical. You'll find quite a few players there that multi-table all day, everyday, to suck up the UB "Points for Cash" free money. They aren't the smartest bots in the world, most either being a very predictable nutpeddler or a typical TAG that takes his hands too far. The point, however, is that they sit there all day, every day, in a way that any human regular at the tables will detect.
Most of your problems will stem from human players reporting you.
Again, using UB as our example, it is obvious that even a rudimentary security check by the site would reveal these bots to the site operator. UB has a record of not finding bots until they cashout, so I think these players will be in for a rude awakening at some point. Regardless of the site's vigilance in detecting a bot on their own, they WILL react when the customer complaints come rolling in...and if you play 80 hours a week, 6-tabling $10NL, the complaints WILL come.
Whether you are playing for testing, or playing for profit, you MUST resist the temptation to play more than is reasonable for a player. Also, take note that "reasonable" differs between levels. A reasonable $1/$2 semi-pro might run 5 or 6 tables for 8 hours in a day. A reasonable $.01/$.02 player will most certainly not.
Slow down. Use your head. This is a long ride.
