Kahnawake: Russ Hamilton responsible for UB cheating

Discussion in 'Blackjack Events (Online Casinos)' started by KenSmith, Sep 29, 2008.

Page 2 of 4
  1. LeftNut

    LeftNut Top Member

    LeftNut, Nov 25, 2008
    #21
  2. Monkeysystem

    Monkeysystem Top Member Staff Member

    November 30

    60 Minutes is running that segment on November 30. I'll be glued to the TV.
     
    Monkeysystem, Nov 25, 2008
    #22
  3. Venture

    Venture Member

    Details

    I am so interested to see the details of all this. So far all I have heard are accusations and generalities. The paybacks that have been made make it look like a bad deal, but sometimes that is a business or dollar decision. It may take a trial before the details and arguments come out with anything substantial. A deal may be cut before a trial, and then we may never learn exactly what went down.

    Hmmmm. Very interesting.

    Now, about the stuff going on in Kentucky?
    Interestinger and interestinger!
     
    Venture, Nov 26, 2008
    #23
  4. zweeky

    zweeky Member

    I did listen to the video on that page and I think there is something illogic in it. The guy describing the behavior of the cheater says: "He was raising really bad hands against very good hands, and killing the game day after day". That statement is also in the text. Now, that would mean that the cheater knows in advance which cards will appear on the board but that was not the case. The cheaters could see every player's cards so they would raise instead when they know they already have the best hand. Is that right?
     
    zweeky, Nov 26, 2008
    #24
  5. Monkeysystem

    Monkeysystem Top Member Staff Member

    Cheaters

    If you can see your opponents' hole cards and no one else can, you take advantage of it by raising alot. If you hit your flop and know your opponents didn't you can stay in the hand, otherwise you can fold. When you hit flops with marginal hands you can get alot of action from an opponent you know started with a strong hand.

    Example 1: Normally you'd fold K7o out of position, or even in late position most of the time. But if you know you're the only one with a king, or if opponents with a king have a lower kicker than yours, you can raise, even against AQs. Chances are you'll force ragged aces out of the pot with an aggressive raise. If any aces stay in and you don't get a king on the flop, you can just get out of the hand. If you get a king on the flop you can smooth call or bet small to milk some more money out of the pot, or bet huge if you need to push draws out.

    Example 2: Much of the money you lose in poker is when your powerhouse is beaten in a showdown by an even bigger powerhouse. If your hand is KK and an opponent with an ace hits his flop, you can just get out of the hand without even betting or calling it. Or you can just fold your QQ pre-flop if you know an opponent has KK or AA.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2008
    Monkeysystem, Nov 26, 2008
    #25
  6. zweeky

    zweeky Member

    Monkeysystem, I agree with your examples but I still think the statement in the video is in contradiction with them.
     
    zweeky, Nov 26, 2008
    #26
  7. Monkeysystem

    Monkeysystem Top Member Staff Member

    Cheaters

    I don't think the poker player meant that the cheater was raising every single pot. But he was probably raising a lot, even with marginal hands. When the cheater raised pre-flop he pushed hands out of the pot that would've called or checked in the absence of a raise. This reduced the chance of an opponent hitting his flop or drawing out on him. Then when flops came out and no remaining opponents hit them, he could raise again to drive these opponents out of the pots. The cheater didn't have to have good starting hands to do this.

    Example: Cheater raises pre-flop with Jd9s. He gets one caller with AcKd. Everyone else folded to the raise, including Ah9s. When the flop comes out Qh-8d-3c, cheater can raise aggressively again. The big slick caller has to assume the cheater either has a pocket pair or hit his flop with the queen. He has to lay down his hand. Cheater has won a raised pot.

    Of course, the cheater can't raise every, or almost every pot pre-flop. It would look too suspicious. Folding often enough would also help the cheater by keeping his opponents off balance.
     
    Monkeysystem, Nov 26, 2008
    #27
  8. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    "cover"

    I think what really exposed the cheatrs was that they weren't using any cover, they just gobbled up every hand thay could, often raising big with garbage against good hands that missed flops, or where the board might have hit them for a better hand (but didn't). It was the unrelenting greed that led the players to question how this type of stuff could happen EVERY TIME.
     
    RKuczek, Nov 26, 2008
    #28
  9. BABJ

    BABJ Member

    BABJ, Nov 26, 2008
    #29
  10. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    60 Minutes tomorrow

    Wow, I was watching the Det./Tenn. game today and they were talking about the $20 million dollar online poker cheaters that will be on 60 Minute tomorrow.

    Then later today I was e-mailed the following link from BJ21.com about the 60 Minutes show.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/25/60minutes/main4633254.shtml

    A collaboration by two of the world's most respected news organizations reveals how online poker players suspecting cheating were forced to successfully ferret out the cheaters themselves. That's because managers of the mostly-unregulated $18 billion Internet gambling industry failed to respond to their complaints.

    This should be a pretty interesting show tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2008
    TXtourplayer, Nov 27, 2008
    #30
  11. bjmace

    bjmace Member

    Wow CBS/ 60 minutes attacked

    Interesting link to CBS's story but interesting to see that 'collaboration by two of the world's most respected news organizations' has already been found to be poorly researched and with facts that do not stand up!

    Every comment on CBS's page is stating quite correctly that CBS's statement about Poker 'such gambling is illegal in both Canada and the U.S' is as we all know a nonsense.
    Come to think of it only CBS could have the audacity to call themselves the most respected lol Well possibly them and al-Jazeera :laugh:

    below is one of many posts,btw does anyone know if we will be able to see this documentary via their website ?


    For a news company that spent four months research a story, at least you could have gotten your basic facts straight. Poker is legal in both Canada and the US. If you take a look at the UIGEA, in the US it is illegal for banks to process credit card transactions from gambling companies. It is really a shame that you are going to broadcast this to a nation with such a poorly researched and wrongly negative view of online poker. I had high hopes for this interview that it would help shame the companies at fault and make the industry safer as a whole. Shame on you, CBS.
     
    bjmace, Nov 29, 2008
    #31
  12. LeftNut

    LeftNut Top Member

    No kidding. It sucked.
     
    LeftNut, Nov 30, 2008
    #32
  13. bjmace

    bjmace Member

    Was more of a waste of time then I had imagined lol,
    Thanks to zweeky who sent me link to view it
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4639016n
    Not a thing in it that had'nt been said before, and yes CBS seems to have got their whole basis that online poker being illegal In U.S and Canada totally wrong as we all know UIGEA made the banking side illegal not the playing.
     
    bjmace, Nov 30, 2008
    #33
  14. TheLegend

    TheLegend Member

    cbs...not wrong ...just unclear

    CBS's statement that online gambling in the US is illegal does have truth in it.....

    It is in fact illegal to operate an online gaming site in the united states that is why everything is based offshore......

    cbs just fails to make the distinction clear about playing online poker or running a gaming website in the United States, which leads to confusion that they don't know what they are talking about.
     
    TheLegend, Nov 30, 2008
    #34
  15. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    60 Minutes

    The segment was very superficial, didn't really say or do anything meaningful, except to catergorize on-line gambling as a game where you'll be cheated.
     
    RKuczek, Dec 1, 2008
    #35
  16. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    Washington Post Articles

    The Las Vegas Advisor has a link (in it's Today's News section) to several Washington Post articles on the AP/UB cheating and online gambling. This is an on-going series with several articles.
     
    RKuczek, Dec 1, 2008
    #36
  17. Reachy

    Reachy New Member

    So....

    Did he do it or not?
     
    Reachy, Dec 1, 2008
    #37
  18. Fredguy

    Fredguy New Member

    Washington Post

    Sundays Washington Post, front page, above the fold, "broke" the story about internet poker cheating. Superficial reading of the complete (over one full page) article would lead one to conclude that the Post reporters, in conjunction with 60 Minutes uncovered the scandal.

    This is why journalists and lawyers are the least respected professions.

    However, it did convey the fact that any software based gambling site is subject to an incredible risk of cheating. What brought down the poker scandal was the greed and stupidity of the perpertrators. If a little constraint had been used, the cheating could have gone on for years and years.

    Readers of this forum should realize that internet blackjack is equally subject to fraud, not from other players, but from the operators of the sites. Look at the millions of dollars spent detecting and fixing viruses and other malware on computer systems. How much is being spent to detect fraud on internet blackjack?

    I have read on this forum from members who have won money over the long run from internet blackjack. Well someone has to win , or nobody would play.
    But, everyone needs to ask if the games are completely honest. I suggest that nobody really knows.
     
    Fredguy, Dec 1, 2008
    #38
  19. KenSmith

    KenSmith Administrator Staff Member

    Totally wrong? Of course not.

    Any casino or poker site that accepts money transfers from the US is breaking the law. Yes, I think everyone here understands that it is not illegal for the player. But for the multi-million dollar companies on the other end of the transaction, it is illegal. Any TV coverage is not going to waste airtime on explaining the legal difference, nor should they be expected to do so in my opinion.
     
    KenSmith, Dec 1, 2008
    #39
  20. London Colin

    London Colin Top Member

    It seems to me that it is just as easy for a bricks-and-mortar casino to cheat you as it is for an internet casino, and harder to detect too. I've never yet assured myself that all the cards are present and correct in a shoe, before sitting down to play; I just take it on trust.

    Some of the internet casinos claim to employ independent auditors to check the fairness of their games. Although, I don't know how much faith can be put in the accuracy of their reports.

    Ultimately, we have the ability to log exactly what happens over a period of play, and audit it ourselves. Not something I've ever done; it would be time-consuming, to say the least. But such a thing would be much more difficult to achieve in a real casino.

    If there's a reason to be more sceptical of internet casinos, it's not that the underlying technology makes fraud easier. It's simply that there is less reason to trust some of the operators in the current, unregulated environment.
     
    London Colin, Dec 1, 2008
    #40
Page 2 of 4

Share This Page