Poker cheating interview on RGP?
Mike Caro
Apparently a rumor is circulating that I'm about to reveal some
information about cheating in poker. I know why the rumor got started,
so I think it's time to clarify a few things.
YES.
There is cheating in poker. Are you surprised?
NO.
It isn't something that happened only in the bad old days.
YES.
Cheating is a serious issue online as well as in real-world casinos,
and cooperative efforts among all well-intentioned players and
managers is needed now, as it always has been.
YES.
I was approached several months ago by prominent insiders who have
decided that they now want to reveal some of the current scams and
come clean about some of the major cheating they themselves have been
involved with. The scope involves teams of colluders, dishonest
dealing, and technology (old and new) -- a broad spectrum of
revelations involving millions of dollars.
YES.
I was previously aware of the existence of cheating through collusion,
manipulative dealing, and sophisticated card marking technology. I
have written about the danger, including a controversial post here
several years ago. But I was not aware of many of the specifics that
the people I'm now interviewing allege. If true, the scope and
seriousness is frightening, and some of it breaks my heart.
YES.
Some tournaments, too.
NO.
I cannot yet verify many of their allegations. I believe in their
sincerity, but their past dishonesty in poker means their credibility
will be diminished in some minds and enhanced in others. I have,
however, questioned these people about some of the historic,
not-publicized, instances of cheating I know about, and they not only
knew the details, but were able to fill in gaps.
ODDLY.
The reason they contacted me was not because of my previous work to
combat cheating through the Cheater Monitoring Service, but because of
a post I made right here on RGP. They approached me in a moderately
hostile way, because they had been sent my post by someone else as an
e-mail and thought it was merely a private correspondence between me
and a casino. They accused me of lacking the courage to make those
opinions public. I informed them that what they were quoting was -- in
fact -- a public post, and they decided to cooperate with me. They
have stated their intention of going forward with their revelations
with or without me, however.
NO.
They do not want to be identified at this time. However, I have
already "shopped them around" to major industry people whom I believe
will help. Linda Johnson, Roy Cooke, Nolan Dalla, Barry Shulman, and
others know their identities. I have taken them to management of a
major casino that I believe to be honorable, and we expect to meet
with other reputable managers.
YES.
I will be seeking the cooperation of major casinos before I go
further. I do not want to damage poker unnecessarily by making casinos
a target. I want honest casinos on the side of the clean-up effort. I
will also be seeking the cooperation of many of the players who have
been involved in things they are not proud of. I know this part is
controversial, but I have firmly decided that we're going to need some
kind of amnesty program whereby everyone agrees that the past is past
and that poker in the future needs to be ultra clean and that none
among us will tolerate cheating any longer. We need a rebirth of
poker, with a date to be stamped on it.
NO.
The concept of amnesty doesn't sit right with me, either. But it's the
way I've decided to proceed. I have asked the people cooperating with
me to be very careful about tarnishing reputations if they only
suspect and cannot prove the allegations. I will give advanced notice
privately to some of the players accused (not all are alive), even if
their identities are not revealed and seek their side of the story. It
is important to me that reputations not be tarnished by mere
speculation.
YES.
I know the grief this will bring to me personally in regard to
relationships with casinos who feel this kind of talk is bad for
business and may lead to more scrutiny from law enforcement. I agree
that generally, it's much better if poker adequately polices itself.
No, I'm not especially eager to do this. In fact, I kind of wish I
hadn't heard about these things or the allegations about some players
I've felt kindly toward over the years. I hope some of it isn't true.
But I'm convinced beyond any doubt now that some of it is true. I hope
many of the most-respected players will stand with me, no matter what
may have happened in the past, and help with poker's rebirth as a
zero-tolerance sport when it comes to cheating. Looking the other way
and finding other games can no longer be an option for honest players.
SO, THE RGP INTERVIEW.
Unless we can resolve this in some other way, the people I'm dealing
with have decided that June 11, 2001 will be the target date for an
online interview. I have decided to use RGP for this, unless you feel
that is inappropriate. I will publish the questions. They will publish
the answers. I have advised them that it will not be a softball
interview and that I will ask tough follow-up questions. I have told
them that in no way will I consult about their answers and that I do
not want to see those answers until they are published here. But I
have requested that they be very careful about what they allege if it
goes beyond their considerable first-hand experiences. Again, they
have expressed their commitment to go through with this with me or
without me. We are taking measures to go forward even if some or all
of the participants are unable to continue. Others are being enlisted
to follow through, in the event of unforseen events.
I am eager to hear privately from casinos and players who wish to
cooperate. I will be especially interested in hearing from those who
have been involved in cheating and who want to switch sides. This is
the time.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Mike- thx. The only question I have is what their motivation is
for revealing this info- Is there any way to discuss that on your
part, or will that come out in the eventual exposition that you
referred to?
Best, Wayno
Grant Denn
therefore winning the crazy eights game and securing the
victory cupcake. Oops, too early.
--
Grant Russell Denn Dept. Physics and Astronomy
Runs, Lands Gentler University of Wyoming
Null Trends Angers http://w3.uwyo.edu/~denn
Red Slung Lanterns (307)766-2982
Red Nun Sell Grants de...@uwyo.Xedu
Jfraser375
Isn't casino cheating a criminal act in Nevada? If so, and the cheating
occasionally occured there, then you need to report it to the authorities.
Seems that you would run the risk of criminal charges yourself otherwise..
Joe
Mike Caro
We have discussed their motivation at length. Everywhere I take them,
it's among the first thing people ask. It's a fair question, but I'd
rather not say any more or add to my statement just now.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Bill Vanek
>Wayno --
>
>We have discussed their motivation at length. Everywhere I take them,
>it's among the first thing people ask. It's a fair question, but I'd
>rather not say any more or add to my statement just now.
>
Did this mostly occur at higher stakes, or at all levels? Generally,
at what stakes would one need to start being extra careful? And what
did you mean by manipulative dealing in the first post? Seconds and
that sort of thing?
minus200
will be very rocky. There will be potholes everywhere. I think you are
the leading spokesperson for poker and less than a handful would do the
job as well even if they agreed to the challenge..
good luck and put on your bullet proof/flame proof suit
Richard John Cavell
- are they big names? Surely they're not going to tell us anything that
we didn't already know.
It would be not unacceptable to interview people through RGP, but you
might find a lot of noise on the group around that time.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com
Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems). Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------
NolanDalla
Mike Caro has introduced a serious topic that merits a response. Without going
into specifics, Caro has made some deeply troubling allegations about the
integrity of poker games that are played at various levels. While I do not
presume to be privy to all of the information on which Caro is basing his
comments, I know he has good reasons for making a post on this subject.
Unfortunately, as is the case with most cheating scandals, Caro's charges
cannot be proven (as of yet). Nevertheless, I believe it is important that he
be supported and encouraged by the poker community to share his views on this
subject so that undesireable elements in poker can be exposed and corrective
measures may be taken, if and when possible.
Some background. For decades, the poker world has maintained silence whenever
allegations of cheating have surfaced -- either in live games or tournaments.
There have been whispers of cheating at the grandest of scales, but thus far,
very little has risen to the surface. What has been exposed has, oddly enough,
even been celebrated in some quarters as part of our folklore. As though
cheating and con games are part of poker's nature. This point can be debated,
yet I believe our silence, and failure to take the problem seriously in the
past (and now) have been bad for the game. Our silence undermines efforts to
expose poker to greater numbers. It's bad also because it allows criminals to
continue doing what they have been doing and encourages others to do the same,
since there is little or no risk, nor fear of retribution.
Fortunately, this forum (RGP) has shed some light on these past problems and
provided an outlet for comments and personal experiences vis-a-vis cheating.
However, the discussion(s) here have not remedied the problem. Perhaps nothing
can, nor will.
While there is no way to fully comprehend the extent that cheating exists in
poker today, there are several points of view on this subject. One side
suggests that there is very little cheating in live action and tournaments.
Another faction believes that what "cheating" exists, is really nothing more
than bending (but not breaking) the established rules, which indirectly gives
license to take advantage of poker's ambigious nature. Still another faction
out there says as long as live action and tournaments are totally
player-funded, it is up to players to make (and break) their own rules and
codes of conduct. In other words, if an unsuspecting player is dumb enough to
get taken for $50K in a side game and never suspectd he is being cheated, so be
it. It's an issue that invites inevitable ethical and moral questions. But
one point we are likely to agree on is that EVERY PLAYER in poker deserves a
fair shake, void of player collusion or house improprieties. That should be a
given when a players sit in ANY game. Once that basic right is lost, everyone
is fair game and there are no rules.
The other extreme believes that there is an immeasurable amount of cheating
that exists at all levels of poker -- online, live action, and in tournaments.
Most of these people I have spoken with (who are qualified to know) tend to
believe games above a certain financial level are subject to inequities
(usually $50-100 and up, although that varies depending on the source).
Obviously, one only needs to monitor these forums to see how prevelant charges
of cheating are, particularly with online poker.
Where is the truth?
It probably exists somewhere in the middle. Frankly, I have not made up my
mind as to the extent of this problem. I have my opinions and suspicions.
However, before I draw any conclusions I would like to see further
investigation and Caro's "interview" which will purportedly surface here at
some point in the future.
I ask that others reserve judgment before drawing their own conclusions. There
is certainly more to come on this subject. I look forward to joining Caro's
movement to investigate and expose this problem to the extent that it exists
and am sure the vast majority of readrs on this forum will agree.
-- NOLAN DALLA
**********************************************
Mike Caro
wrote:
Everyone --
I'm not going to respond further. But to answer this post only, the
biggest dangers involving technology, sophisticated collusion, and
crooked dealing that have been alleged are at the higher limits. I'm
not saying smaller limits are always cheat-proof -- and I'm sure they
aren't -- but bigger limits will be the main focus of the interview.
The people I'm going to interview will not have much firm information
about smaller limits -- certainly nothing below $30/$60.
Yes, that's what I mean by manipulative dealer -- and more.
I personally am not stating my opinions about the merits of what will
be discussed beforehand. You will have to decide for yourselves. I am
going to try to conduct an objective interview.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Nuggy
Have you given any sort of thought to a more real-time interview forum such
as IRC? It would be especially easy to set up a room in which only those
involved in the interview could "speak", while allowing any interested
parties to at least watch. Could also be set-up as semi-private. It could
be difficult to get everyone involved together at the same time, however;
and then only those who were available at that time could watch, though it
would be easy to log the interview and send it via e-mail to anyone
interested.
Just seems like too many people would be answering, replying, asking
questions, and generally making the whole thing a huge assortment of stuff
to sort through to get to the heart of the conversation, not to mention it
would take up a lot of your (and everyone else's) time. But it's your deal
(pun intended - groans welcome), I'm just offering a suggestion. I'd be
happy to help set it up if you'd like.
-Nuggy
--
Optimist: The hard drive is half full.
Pessimist: The hard drive is half empty.
Computer Geek: Time to upgrade!
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:yUzTOvCZHlGHOl...@4ax.com...
Mike Caro
wrote:
>Mr. Caro,
>
>Have you given any sort of thought to a more real-time interview forum such
>as IRC? It would be especially easy to set up a room in which only those
>involved in the interview could "speak", while allowing any interested
>parties to at least watch. Could also be set-up as semi-private. It could
>be difficult to get everyone involved together at the same time, however;
>and then only those who were available at that time could watch, though it
>would be easy to log the interview and send it via e-mail to anyone
>interested.
>
>Just seems like too many people would be answering, replying, asking
>questions, and generally making the whole thing a huge assortment of stuff
>to sort through to get to the heart of the conversation, not to mention it
>would take up a lot of your (and everyone else's) time. But it's your deal
>(pun intended - groans welcome), I'm just offering a suggestion. I'd be
>happy to help set it up if you'd like.
>
>-Nuggy
Thanks, Nuggy, but we've given considerable thought to this. I will
ask from one to three questions and/or follow-ups each day. They will
then carefully consider their replies, quote my questions, and post
them here. I will only be publishing the questions. I will have
nothing whatsoever to do with the content of their answers -- except
that I have advised them to be prudent and truthful in what they post.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Ed Hill 777
I know that this is a free country and everybody has the right of free speech.
But please get behind Mike and don't make this great undertaking any harder on
him than it already is. Poker needs this. I, like Mike, don't want to discuss
this publically, but please trust me, this really needs to happen. There is
volumes of stuff that have never been brought public. I talked to Mike on the
phone today for about an hour and shared with him a lot of the info that I
knew. The more higher stakes players that come forward and share what they know
with Mike, the better off poker will be in the long run. Trust me, the game
really needs an enema at the higher levels and in the bigger tournaments.
RexNihlio
game has. We also need standardized rules and a zero-tolerance policy, IMHO.
"Ed Hill 777" <edhi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010411040306...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Donald Rieck
> SO, THE RGP INTERVIEW.
> Unless we can resolve this in some other way, the people I'm dealing
> with have decided that June 11, 2001 will be the target date for an
> online interview. I have decided to use RGP for this, unless you feel
> that is inappropriate. I will publish the questions. They will publish
Mike,
I encourage you to continue with this effort - it is badly needed in the
industry. However, I would caution you about using rgp as the original
forum for the interview. As we are all painfully aware, anyone can
interject their opinions into the mix. That is a good thing, however it
could easily cause the valid responses from the people you are
interviewing to get lost, misunderstood, misquoted, or otherwise
misrepresented. Even worse, it's pretty trivial to forge usenet posting
headings (see r.g.blackjack vote for historical basis :) ), which would
invalidate the whole thing.
I would suggest an IRC channel private chat with you and the individuals,
or an email based exchange with an impartial 'editor' to parse all the
responses together. This should then be posted to rgp in it's entirety as
a public record of the discussion, and as a basis for comments.
So yes, the interview should be on rgp, but the actual act of the
interview happening might be better suited for a different forum.
My two chips,
Don 'Bingo' Rieck
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
I agree with Ed Hill. The poker community ought to rally behind
Mike Caro and give him our support on this issue. This sounds like a
sticky/complicated problem with numerous loose ends. One point that
should be inserted at the beginning, though- or at least prominently
displayed at the top- is that Mike Caro is the neutral party here.
This is the sort of detail that could get lost in the shuffle as the
days go on. This sounds like something that showed up on his doorstep
one day, uninvited, that he refused to look the other way from. This
sort of behavior- refusing to look the other way- is at odds with a
lot of the way the world works these days and may incur the deep
puzzlement of some and wrath of others. Support from the poker
community may therefore be helpful/necessary in getting through this.
Two specific reasons why this is true:
(A) These sorts of things never seem to unfold in a neat, orderly
fashion. Holes tend to appear in stories; contradictions take place;
denials and counter-accusations occur; different people have differing
memories of events; charges and counter-charges can rear their ugly
heads; dirty individuals can profess innocence; innocent individuals
can get inadvertently dragged into the crossfire. All of this will-
if we allow it- pave the way for exactly the kind of brickbats that
the not-so-smart are always standing on the sidelilnes waiting
breathlessly to lob in because (Eureka!) they've come across something
that "doesn't add up" in their black-&-white view of the world.
(B) Support from the Poker community is also important because
somewhere down the road- rationalizations, personal agendas, toes
being stepped on, and fingerpointing being what they are- some bright
individual at some point is going to come up with the idea that Mike
Caro is "the bad guy" here. While this is a boring, predictable
cliche to anyone with any sense, rest assured it will inevitably
strike someone as a fresh, original idea and they will start promoting
it. So let's get that part in at the top (again) and remember how
this started: Mike was the neutral element in this picture. All he
did was answer the doorbell. (Or, we might say: 'the bell'). Let's
support him.
Best, Wayno
Andy Latto
Mike, I commend you for your actions here. This is a tough thing to
do, and I'm sure it will make you some enemies, and you are brave and
honest for going through with it anyway. But I'm sure it will have a
good effect on poker in the long run, and that's why you're doing it.
I do have one question, which you will probably be unwilling to answer
at this point, but I'll raise it anyway. You say:
> I know this part is
> controversial, but I have firmly decided that we're going to need some
> kind of amnesty program whereby everyone agrees that the past is past
> and that poker in the future needs to be ultra clean and that none
> among us will tolerate cheating any longer. We need a rebirth of
> poker, with a date to be stamped on it.
What is the reason for this suggested amnesty?
If I asked you what I thought of the general suggestion
"When someone is caught cheating at high-stakes poker, we should tell them
not to do it any more, declare amnesty, and continue to allow them
to play in all public cardrooms and open tournaments",
I strongly suspect you would disagree with it. From what I've seen of
your writing before, I would think that in general, you would believe
something closer to
"When someone is caught cheating at high-stakes poker, they should be
banned from all public cardrooms and tournaments. If there is sufficient
evidence to convict, they should be prosecuted criminally".
So you must believe something like
"While in most cases, those caught cheating at poker should be
banned, in this case they should instead be granted an amnesty
because _______________"
But I have no idea how to fill in the blank. The fact that a lot of
people were involved in cheating, or that those who were cheating were,
until the cheating was detected, well respected and widely
thought to be honest, doesn't seem to me to be a reason to make
an exception.
Why should there be an amnesty in this case? How would you fill in the
blank?
If you don't want to discuss this now, I will raise the issue
again after the interview.
Mike Caro
I agree with you sentiments entirely. The reasons for amnesty are
purely pragmatic, and I came to the conclusion very reluctantly.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:41:46 GMT, Andy Latto <andy....@pobox.com>
wrote:
TEX DOLLY
this so you know what is going to happen. Just a few days ago, some homosexuals
came to me about you. They told me of these decadent things they did with you
in a room at the Stardust hotel. They told me you had been having these orgys
with them for years. Of course, they don't want anyone to know their names.
Now Mike, I know you are completely hetrosexual, but PROVE
TO ME THAT STORY ISN'T TRUE. You are going to damage poker greatly with this so
called expose. Y^ou will have people afraid to sit down and play. I agree, we
have to police our own games and not be afraid to speak up about wrong things,
but the way you are going about it is be of very little help and is going to do
a lot of harm. Maybe Dollar or what ever his name
was that said he knows all about me will surface again. I welcome him if he
won't try to hide under false names. Here is what to
do==put everyone on a polygraph, including your "experts." Doyle
Brunson
Mandy
texd...@aol.com (TEX DOLLY) wrote:
> Mike==Even though you e-mailed me in private about this I thought I would
> post
> this so you know what is going to happen. Just a few days ago, some
> homosexuals
> came to me about you. They told me of these decadent things they did with
> you
> in a room at the Stardust hotel. They told me you had been having these
> orgys
> with them for years. Of course, they don't want anyone to know their
> names.
> Now Mike, I know you are completely hetrosexual, but
> PROVE
> TO ME THAT STORY ISN'T TRUE. You are going to damage poker greatly with
> this so
> called expose. Y^ou will have people afraid to sit down and play.
With all due respect to Doyle, I have to disagree. In my opinion what
Mike is attempting to do here is noble and deserves to be applauded. As
Mike has already stated, the people being interviewed are doing so of
their own volition out of repentance for dishonest and unethical
behavior. While I cannot say that I am in the know about what was
perpetrated by whom and on what site, what I can say with absolute
certainty is that if people were cheated out of their money, they
deserve to know who cheated them, when, how, and for how much. Though it
may not be possible for the cheated parties to have their money
refunded, it is certainly well within their rights to know the truth.
By the way Doyle, your hypothetical point about Mike Caro engaging in
decadent homosexual behavior at the Stardust is extremely off-base. The
fact of the matter is that as a U.S. citizen Mike is entitled to have
sex with whomever he pleases, wherever he pleases, and in whatever
manner he pleases. Mike is under no obligation to divulge any
information about his sex life, especially in a public forum. If he were
to do so, it would be his own prerogative. And if you or someone else
were to allege that he did such things, having committed no crime Mike
would be under no obligation to dignify the allegations with a reply.
i.e. whereas cheating on Phyllis Caro is not a crime, cheating at cards
is a VERY serious matter and as such it should be discussed here.
Cheers,
~Mandy
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Doyle was simply making an analogy with the Mike/hotel/orgy thing
to illustrate the dangers that are inherent when unsubstantiated
charges are tossed around- as well as how hard it is to prove that you
DIDN'T do something. That's a good point. But it sounds to me from
what Mike Caro wrote that these people plan to go forward with or
without Mike.
Best, Wayno
Gary Carson
wrote:
>In article <20010411163334...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
>texd...@aol.com (TEX DOLLY) wrote:
>
>With all due respect to Doyle, I have to disagree. In my opinion what
>Mike is attempting to do here is noble and deserves to be applauded. As
What is it that make is attempting to do?
He's been talking about exposing cheating for a couple of decades now.
Is he suggesting that's he's going to get around to it this June? Or
is going to publisize some folklore that he picked up? I have no
idea.
I'm not a fan of cheating. I'm not a fan of sweeping knowledge of
cheating under the rug. I his post starting this thread Mike alluded
to cheating incidents he knows about in the past that have not been
made public knowlledge. Why?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Cwtiii
1. Mike's sexual preference is of no concern to me if/when I play poker with
him. If I am considering playing a tournament, however, I would like to know
of the risks I might be taking.
2. Knowledge of how cheating might be performed permits those of us without a
lifetime of poker to have an idea of how to protect ourselves against cheating.
Under his reasoning, a warning on how to avoid internet/credit card scams
should not be given (Doogie excepted) because it will discourage use of the
net.
3. His remarks smack of "chamber of commerce types" who threaten to pull
advertising from media outlets if negative stories are run about a problem with
the community because it won't be good for business. The truth may or may not
set you free, but hiding the truth is fraught with danger. Further, the truth
seldom is as damaging as rampant rumors.
4. Lie detectors are of minimal use, except as a deterrent, which may be his
desire for their use. I represented a client who "failed" a lie detector test,
but subsequently was proven by both alibi witnesses and dna testing not to have
been guilty.
5. To the extent names are named, some people will be damaged. As someone
without a poker reputation, I do not mean to be blase about damage to something
I do not an am unlikely to ever have, but such risks are part of public life.
Mike Caro has been called a lot of things, but gullible is not an adjective I
at least have ever seen connected with him. If he has gone to this point, then
I am willing to keep an open mind.
David Monaghan
1) If there's cheating going you could have used this information to
gain co-oberative evidence which would allow appropriate punishment -
preferably after a fair trial - of the miscreants. Not to do so is an
opportunity missed.
2) Even where the (?anonymous) informants claim to have participated in
the dishonesty their word is tainted and where they repeat hearsay this
is doubly so. Named players will have their reputation instantly
tarnished with little prospect of regaining it. I would be surprised if
some longstanding scores aren't settled in the process.
3) It smells wrong. Perhaps it's because I don't know what you know but
the sums don't add up for me.
DaveM
Gary Carson
<xg...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Mike, I don't like this one bit for the following reasons:
>
>1) If there's cheating going you could have used this information to
>gain co-oberative evidence which would allow appropriate punishment -
>preferably after a fair trial - of the miscreants. Not to do so is an
>opportunity missed.
>
>2) Even where the (?anonymous) informants claim to have participated in
>the dishonesty their word is tainted and where they repeat hearsay this
>is doubly so. Named players will have their reputation instantly
>tarnished with little prospect of regaining it. I would be surprised if
>some longstanding scores aren't settled in the process.
In Texas, where it's a capital crime to not have the money for an
attorney, you can't convict on the testimony of an accomplise only.
Some kind of corrobaration is needed. Anonymous accomplises don't
work either.
>3) It smells wrong. Perhaps it's because I don't know what you know but
>the sums don't add up for me.
It sounds like just more of the same to me. A lot of talk. Has Caro
ever named names?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
During the Chinese airplane/detainee/hostage problem
recently concluded, an acquaintance said:
"Nuke 'em".
Bill
"TEX DOLLY" <texd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010411163334...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> You are going to damage poker greatly with this so
> called expose. Y^ou will have people afraid to sit down and play. I agree,
we
> have to police our own games and not be afraid to speak up about wrong
things,
> but the way you are going about it is be of very little help and is going
to do
> a lot of harm.
I am relatively new to poker and this is only my third post to RGP.
I agree with the above remark. However . . .
My problem is that I would not know whether or not I was being cheated and I
suspect this is true for the majority of players. Unless someone is willing
to enlighten us, how do we police our own games? I bet some of these
"schemes" are very sophisticated, and everyone, including Casino staff,
needs to know what to look for.
We DO need to know what has happened in the past and what can happen now.
We need to prevent it from happening in the future. This "interview" might
accomplish that. But is it really necessary to name names and events if a
general amnesty is going to be granted anyway? The real risk to poker is to
have this deteriorate into a mud slinging match with all kinds of
accusations and denials. In the end, we won't have a clue who to believe or
trust and Poker loses.
If everyone knows "how", it will become difficult to "do" without being
noticed. So, somebody (Mike), how about teaching us what to look for.
Bill Pitcher
bi...@GoldenBCphotography.com
http://www.goldenbcphotography.com
Ed Brayton
I'm reserving judgement on the cheating expose and what Mike is doing
until I see what the evidence is, but I will say that the idea about
using polygraphs is a bad one. Study after study has shown that
polygraphs do not provide a high enough accuracy to justify their use.
When they fail, which is often, it is almost always to show a false
positive. Police love polygraphs because they help solicit confessions
from the guilty. But in one study they asked policemen if they
themselves would take one if they were accused of a crime and as I
recall over 70% said they would not.
Ed
Mike Caro
I don't understand what your problem is with me. I'm not naming
people, because I can't prove most of the things being alleged. As I
clearly posted, I have asked the people I'm dealing with not to make
accusations they can't prove. If I had my way, they would only talk in
general terms about the methods they've used and the technology that
exists, unless they can absolutely prove more.
Some of these allegations have been proven to my satisfaction. Most
haven't, but I'd wager that most of those that haven't are true
nonetheless. You have previously posted, a year ago or months ago, to
challenge my commitment to combating cheating. Why? Everyone knows
I've put a lot of effort into it. But I'm the first to say that this
effort has been mostly unproductive. I've done a little good
sometimes, but not enough. Would you feel better if I stopped
completely? If I had any common sense, I would. It's what constantly
gets me in trouble with some factions in the industry.
You know what? My life has been threatened twice today and the only
one I'm angry at right now is you. What's your motive for always
challenging me on this? What's your stake here? I don't want this
assignment. If anyone else volunteers to take over -- perhaps a
committee that y'all select -- I'll drop this is a minute. I even
think that might be a superior solution. You want it, Gary, you've got
it. Say the word.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:19:05 GMT, garyc...@mindspring.com (Gary
Carson) wrote:
RealtyACE
issue. I know he is a man of integrity and would not bring an issue like this
forward if he did not believe in it.
I do agree the the credibility of public poker relies on the players believing
it is a fair and honest game.But, what if that is not the case? Do we mask the
impropieties in an effort to do what is "good" for poker? Is that what really
is "good" for poker? I hope not!
I have knowledge of part of the story. I do know many of the people involved,
including the interviewee. I am interested in hearing the full story. I think
weather it is bogus or real the truth will eventually come to light.
Cheating is a serious issue in poker. I don't think it should be swept under
the rug under the guise of not being good for the game. Players have the right
to a fair and honest game. I support all honest efforts in that direction. I do
not support inuendo or slander, nor does Mike.
Sincerely,
Roy Cooke
David Monaghan
Carson) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:47:56 +0100, David Monaghan
><xg...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>1) If there's cheating going you could have used this information to
>>gain co-oberative evidence
<snip>
>Some kind of corrobaration is needed. Anonymous accomplises don't
>work either.
Corroborative. That's what I meant. I knew "co-oberative" didn't look
right but the spell checker passed it and i was too lazy to
double-check. I wonder what the heck it means.
DaveM
David Monaghan
>I don't understand what your problem is with me. I'm not naming
>people, because I can't prove most of the things being alleged. As I
>clearly posted, I have asked the people I'm dealing with not to make
>accusations they can't prove. If I had my way, they would only talk in
>general terms about the methods they've used and the technology that
>exists, unless they can absolutely prove more.
Describing methods would be fine although of limited usefulness, I'd
suspect. Time and place information would be accusation by innuendo and
worse than naming the accused directly.
DaveM
Gary Carson
>Gary --
>
>I don't understand what your problem is with me. I'm not naming
>people, because I can't prove most of the things being alleged.
Mike, you've been making noises about this stuff and pounding your
chest about it for over 20 years.
But, I don't see anything other than hand waving.
You aren't saying anything, you aren't alleging anything. You're just
making vague references then pounding your chest and telling everyone
how brave you are?
Has Planet Poker caught any cheats?
Who?
>As I
>clearly posted, I have asked the people I'm dealing with not to make
>accusations they can't prove. If I had my way, they would only talk in
>general terms about the methods they've used and the technology that
>exists, unless they can absolutely prove more.
So, you don't want people to just speak the truth -- you only want a
little bit of the truth?
There are lots of things that I know to be true but can't absolutely
prove. But, that doesn't mean I think those things should be kept
secret. Hell, we kill people based on less than absolute proof.
>Some of these allegations have been proven to my satisfaction
But, you won't make them public? What have you been pounding your
chest about for 20 years?
If you want to keep quiet, then keep quiet. If you want to talk, then
talk. This "I'm going to talk in the future, but even then it will
only be vague revelations", is just crap.
>. Most
>haven't, but I'd wager that most of those that haven't are true
>nonetheless. You have previously posted, a year ago or months ago, to
>challenge my commitment to combating cheating. Why? Everyone knows
>I've put a lot of effort into it.
I don't know that at all. I know you claim it. But, I havn't seen
any evidence ofit.
>But I'm the first to say that this
>effort has been mostly unproductive.
Tha part seems pretty clear.
>I've done a little good
>sometimes, but not enough. Would you feel better if I stopped
>completely?
I'd prefer if you'd just accomplish something.
> If I had any common sense, I would. It's what constantly
>gets me in trouble with some factions in the industry.
You keep saying this. What trouble has it gotten you into?
>You know what? My life has been threatened twice today and the only
>one I'm angry at right now is you.
Give me a break, Caro.
>What's your motive for always
>challenging me on this? What's your stake here?
Maybe you should work this out with Schoonmaker.
> I don't want this
>assignment. If anyone else volunteers to take over -- perhaps a
>committee that y'all select -- I'll drop this is a minute. I even
>think that might be a superior solution. You want it, Gary, you've got
>it. Say the word.
I've got what? Your permission to do what I've always done anyway?
I've always talked openly and frankly about cheating as a way to
combat it. I havn't seen you do that. I wish you would.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Darryl Parsons
I must say you have balls of steel to get involved in the cheating issue to
such an extent as you are. But I also have to say you are a lunatic if you
think you have any hope of eliminating cheating or even coming anywhere
close
to this ideal...
Just to illustrate, consider the following (fictitious) cheating
scenario....
I live in Europe, I visit the Bellagio occasionally, and I have a good
friend
who plays regularly in high limit games at the Bellagio. Our friendship is
private in that, for all intents and purposes, nobody knows we are friends.
I am a chronic nail biter and it shows. In biting my nails, there are over
100 commonly recurring positions that my hand can be in, each of which looks
perfectly natural as a nail biting position. Just consider that I could
bite
any of 10 nails, each on the left, right or centre -- that's 30 positions
right there. I could look at my hand from the front and back, lifting a
particular nail -- that's another 20 right there. If you combine a few
drink
signals, etc. and just a LITTLE creativity, you can see it's not difficult
to
get the number to 100.
My friend and I worked out 100 different meanings for these 100 hand
motions,
each giving the other information about his cards and/or about the strategy
he
will employ in the game.
We only use this method when one of a few specifically targetted individuals
is in the game. These "suckers" are known not to be interested in the
goings-on of RGP, or any of the finer points of the game. They are rich
gamblers interested only in having some fun. When the targetted person is
not
in the game (ie. he folds his hand) we use decoy signals -- that is, use the
same signals that normally have a meaning when the sucker is in the hand,
but
without any meaning when he is not in the hand. This way, in case any of
the
other players suspect that something is going on, they will be confused by
the
apparent inconsistency of the signals.
My question to you, Mike, is... Supposing your "movement" achieves success
according to the most optimistic scenario you can envision (with at least a
0.1% chance of materializing, say), what force will there be to prevent a
cheating scheme like the one I just described? Assume that these targetted
"suckers" are not interested in and will not heed general anti-cheating
advice.
I think the obvious answer is that the scheme cannot be prevented from being
employed at least a few times, after which a different scheme with a
different
partner can be devised, ad infinitum.
So my advice to you then, Mike, if you want to stay out of the psychiatric
ward, is to lower your expectations and goals in such a pursuit. Be
satisfied
with simply eliciting and exchanging information from time to time, without
any hope of ever eliminating most cheating. The interview is a great idea.
Don't get me wrong. Just see it as an end in itself rather than a means to
an
end, and set more noble goals for yourself such as having your descendants
survive and be on the winning (or neutral) side of a nuclear war, for
example.
A good sub-goal might be to gain the psychological upper hand on Gary
Carson
(just ignore him, he hates that -- it's his achilles heel).
You're a great guy, Mike, and the world of poker needs you. The death
threats
you mentioned are scaring me. I hope you can slow things down before it's
too
late.
Best wishes,
Darryl Parsons
Darryl Parsons
Darryl Parsons
JimFireGuy
>general terms about the methods they've used and the technology that
>exists
Mike
You should try very hard to "get your way".As a poker player, this is all I
need to know to expand on my knowledge of the game. I'm afraid that people will
get so involved in, who did that to whom, that the important information will
get lost in all the speculation and gossip.
Jakell
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
This same individual, in the autumn of the year,
is fond of describing members of his favorite pro
football team as either "all world", or "totally
worthless". There was never any gray areas
in between.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
The tediousness of this approach is
surpassed only by its inaccuracy.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Gary --
>
>I don't understand what your problem is with me. I'm not naming
>people, because I can't prove most of the things being alleged. As I
>clearly posted, I have asked the people I'm dealing with not to make
>accusations they can't prove.
I ran this by 4 people who are unrelated to RGP and poker,
and who know nothing about this. One was the manager of
a small business, one was a lady who does part-time cleaning
at a business, one was an insurance man, and the other was
a kid who delivers pizzas. All answered immediately, and with
some version of the same answer: "Maybe this person is unsure of
the situation and he wants to be careful before naming any names."
The question is not, Why isn't Mike naming any names?
The question is: Why would four people, who are all completely
unrelated to this, immediately know the answer?
Wayno
Semipro50
on my newsgroup reader.
thanks
test
garyc...@mindspring.com (Gary Carson) wrote:
I think Mike means that if you would like, you can replace him as the
contact for "the prominent insiders who ... want to reveal some of the
current scams and come clean about some of the major cheating they
themselves have been involved with" who approached Mike. This role
would include conducting the upcoming rgp interview with these insiders.
Paul R. Pudaite
at pipeline.com
Jfraser375
casinos. A poker celebrity claims to have received inside information about
widespread high dollar cheating and is satisfied that it is accurate. But
rather than go to the authorities to report felony acts, he chooses to
broadcast it in RGP. So is this about ego or is this about stopping the
cheats?
Joe
M
interview, there are certain areas in which cardrooms could increase focus
in order to help ensure a clean game. I believe that some of these
procedures have crumbled in recent years along with the explosive growth of
poker in new areas.
While specifics in the upcoming interview may involve certain yet unnamed
persons, it may be impossible to determine what exactly took place or who
might have been culpable or not. In fact in the long run these are not even
the most important considerations, IMO. What is important is a methodology
which decreases the chances that such shenanigans can take place in the
future.
Mike has alluded to manipulative dealing and marked cards (while very rare,
IMO, these could be far more devastating than collusion). Cardrooms need to
be very strict about the dealing procedures and insist that all dealers
follow them to the letter. In addition, players should know what these
procedures are and should ask the dealers to follow them when they notice
deviation from procedure. These procedures help ensure against dishonesty
and also help the game run more smoothly in general.
IMPORTANT DEALING PROCEDURES
1. The deck must be kept low and level at all times when dealing, including
while pulling bets into the pot. This prevents the dealer from
surreptitiously "peeking" at the top card or cards or from flashing the
corner of a card to a confederate. Keeping the deck low and level also aids
in preventing inadvertent flashing of cards while pitching the cards to the
players. Players should speak up about this now common deviation from
procedure as well as about dealers pitching too high.
2. The discards should always be "mucked" into the muck pile, not kept in
the order they were received, and this applies to folded hands and to any
community cards and to the deck stub at the end of the deal. The deck should
be given at least a very quick "mini-wash" prior to the start of the
shuffle. This and proper "mucking" will aid greatly in deterring any dealer
from "locating" a card or group of cards and possibly controlling it through
the shuffle. It will also help ensure a truer randomization of the cards for
the next deal and help avoid card-clumping.
3. The established shuffle pattern should be followed precisely.
Riffle-Riffle-Box-Riffle or Riffle-Box-Riffle-Riffle followed by squaring
the deck and a one-handed clear cut. Slugs should not be allowed while
riffling (a now common practice, especially for new dealers or experienced
dealers who have lazily fallen into the habit).
4. Dealers should not lift the corners of the cards too high while
riffling--doing so will allow the players in the seats next to the dealer to
see the cards as they drop.
NEW CARDS AND MARKED CARDS
5. Management should take the utmost pains to ensure that nobody without
authorization (and nobody solo, and with the camera on at all times) has
access to the new card boxes so that they could switch in marked cards.
Cards exist on which the markings are totally invisible to the untrained
eye. These procedures should be of a security mindset similar to moving gold
around inside Fort Knox. Frequently used setups should be kept in such a
manner that nobody can quickly and surreptitiously switch in a deck or two
without being observed.
6. A keen eye should be kept by players and personnel regarding things such
as bent cards, nailed cards, etc. One of the most well-known tricks is some
player at the table digging a fingernail into the back of a card in order to
identify it. Some card warps are caused by manufacturer defects and
cardrooms should be alert to this potential problem.
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:yUzTOvCZHlGHOl...@4ax.com...
> This is the only statement I am able to make on this topic for now.
>
> Apparently a rumor is circulating that I'm about to reveal some
> information about cheating in poker. I know why the rumor got started,
> so I think it's time to clarify a few things.
>
> YES.
> There is cheating in poker. Are you surprised?
>
> NO.
> It isn't something that happened only in the bad old days.
>
> YES.
> Cheating is a serious issue online as well as in real-world casinos,
> and cooperative efforts among all well-intentioned players and
> managers is needed now, as it always has been.
>
> YES.
> I was approached several months ago by prominent insiders who have
> decided that they now want to reveal some of the current scams and
> come clean about some of the major cheating they themselves have been
> involved with. The scope involves teams of colluders, dishonest
> dealing, and technology (old and new) -- a broad spectrum of
> revelations involving millions of dollars.
>
> YES.
> I was previously aware of the existence of cheating through collusion,
> manipulative dealing, and sophisticated card marking technology. I
> have written about the danger, including a controversial post here
> several years ago. But I was not aware of many of the specifics that
> the people I'm now interviewing allege. If true, the scope and
> seriousness is frightening, and some of it breaks my heart.
>
> YES.
> Some tournaments, too.
>
> NO.
> I cannot yet verify many of their allegations. I believe in their
> sincerity, but their past dishonesty in poker means their credibility
> will be diminished in some minds and enhanced in others. I have,
> however, questioned these people about some of the historic,
> not-publicized, instances of cheating I know about, and they not only
> knew the details, but were able to fill in gaps.
>
> ODDLY.
> The reason they contacted me was not because of my previous work to
> combat cheating through the Cheater Monitoring Service, but because of
> a post I made right here on RGP. They approached me in a moderately
> hostile way, because they had been sent my post by someone else as an
> e-mail and thought it was merely a private correspondence between me
> and a casino. They accused me of lacking the courage to make those
> opinions public. I informed them that what they were quoting was -- in
> fact -- a public post, and they decided to cooperate with me. They
> have stated their intention of going forward with their revelations
> with or without me, however.
>
> NO.
> They do not want to be identified at this time. However, I have
> already "shopped them around" to major industry people whom I believe
> will help. Linda Johnson, Roy Cooke, Nolan Dalla, Barry Shulman, and
> others know their identities. I have taken them to management of a
> major casino that I believe to be honorable, and we expect to meet
> with other reputable managers.
>
> YES.
> I will be seeking the cooperation of major casinos before I go
> further. I do not want to damage poker unnecessarily by making casinos
> a target. I want honest casinos on the side of the clean-up effort. I
> will also be seeking the cooperation of many of the players who have
> been involved in things they are not proud of. I know this part is
> controversial, but I have firmly decided that we're going to need some
> kind of amnesty program whereby everyone agrees that the past is past
> and that poker in the future needs to be ultra clean and that none
> among us will tolerate cheating any longer. We need a rebirth of
> poker, with a date to be stamped on it.
>
> NO.
> The concept of amnesty doesn't sit right with me, either. But it's the
> way I've decided to proceed. I have asked the people cooperating with
> me to be very careful about tarnishing reputations if they only
> suspect and cannot prove the allegations. I will give advanced notice
> privately to some of the players accused (not all are alive), even if
> their identities are not revealed and seek their side of the story. It
> is important to me that reputations not be tarnished by mere
> speculation.
>
> YES.
> I know the grief this will bring to me personally in regard to
> relationships with casinos who feel this kind of talk is bad for
> business and may lead to more scrutiny from law enforcement. I agree
> that generally, it's much better if poker adequately polices itself.
> No, I'm not especially eager to do this. In fact, I kind of wish I
> hadn't heard about these things or the allegations about some players
> I've felt kindly toward over the years. I hope some of it isn't true.
> But I'm convinced beyond any doubt now that some of it is true. I hope
> many of the most-respected players will stand with me, no matter what
> may have happened in the past, and help with poker's rebirth as a
> zero-tolerance sport when it comes to cheating. Looking the other way
> and finding other games can no longer be an option for honest players.
>
> SO, THE RGP INTERVIEW.
> Unless we can resolve this in some other way, the people I'm dealing
> with have decided that June 11, 2001 will be the target date for an
> online interview. I have decided to use RGP for this, unless you feel
> that is inappropriate. I will publish the questions. They will publish
> the answers. I have advised them that it will not be a softball
> interview and that I will ask tough follow-up questions. I have told
> them that in no way will I consult about their answers and that I do
> not want to see those answers until they are published here. But I
> have requested that they be very careful about what they allege if it
> goes beyond their considerable first-hand experiences. Again, they
> have expressed their commitment to go through with this with me or
> without me. We are taking measures to go forward even if some or all
> of the participants are unable to continue. Others are being enlisted
> to follow through, in the event of unforseen events.
>
> I am eager to hear privately from casinos and players who wish to
> cooperate. I will be especially interested in hearing from those who
> have been involved in cheating and who want to switch sides. This is
> the time.
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro
Bill Vanek
I've never seen so many childish posts on any subject. Do you really
think any of those involved would be forthcoming with information if
they knew it would be used against them in a courtroom? Do you really
think there's any chance they could lose in court based only on what
they told others, if there are no actual outside witnesses?
Mike Caro has voluntarily chosen to do something. He gets to decide
what's done, and how it's done. Anything he does concerning this is
more than I've done, more than you've done, and more than Gary
Carson's done to expose cheating. Any criticism of his actions is
truly bizarre. Everyone here is involved in the poker world: If you
don't like Mike's methods, go ferrett out the cheaters yourselves, and
expose them, and take the information to your state's attorney if you
like. Gary Carson has ridiculed the difficulty of this effort, and the
threats, and then danced around Mike's invitation to take over this
project, as if he didn't understand what Mike was saying. Again, if
he, or anyone else thinks this is a trivial matter, why not just do it
yourself. Then you can do it the "right" way.
Mike Caro
I don't know what you're talking about when you say I'm pounding my
chest. Cheating is something I very seldom talk about, dealing mostly
behind the scenes. Most of the mentions come from others who have
acknowledged my efforts, perhaps in an exaggerated way. I have always
said that these efforts have not had the result I wanted, so I'm not
particularly proud of the accomplishments in this regard. I am proud
of the efforts though. They make me feel good about myself, but maybe
it's symbolic and not substantive.
It is a fact that I founded the Cheater Monitoring Service 20 years
ago. It is a fact that I had an independent office for it at the
Bicycle Club when it opened in 1984. It is a fact that I addressed the
World Poker Industry Conference on this topic and that, as a result,
some major casino management was upset and tried to retaliate. Most
was supportive, but not actively so. It is a fact that the same thing
happened when I made my controversial post to RGP about collusion
several years.ago.
You are right if you believe that I can't fix all the problems. You
are also right that I don't name people or discuss many things that I
know. This is partly because I can't prove most things beyond a doubt
without cooperation from those with more resources and because I don't
want the legal exposure. There are practical limits to how aggressive
I will be in exposing cheating. I'm not proud of those limits, but
there they are nonetheless.
You say you're against the cheating. So, what I don't understand about
you is why you choose to be so vocal in attacking someone who is at
least trying to expose it and not vocal about those who are not trying
or who are turning the other way to ignore the problem.
To me, this is just goofy. I am only taking the trouble to respond to
you because you may be worth the effort. In other regards you have
said rational things that have value.
But this is about the fourth or fifth time you've seemed to stretch
your imagination in order to attack something I've said. I wish you
wouldn't do that. I'd rather hear you disagree if and when you really
do, not when you're simply seeking a reason to disagree to no clear
objective -- which, correctly or incorrectly interpreted, is what you
seem to me to be doing.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Linda Sherman
> Gary --
>
> I don't understand what your problem is with me
Mike, Gary has a problem with everyone. What makes you think you should be
exempt?
Linda
Linda Sherman
news:tdbnc4j...@corp.supernews.com...
> While much remains to be heard (and evaluated) regarding Mike's
forthcoming
> interview, there are certain areas in which cardrooms could increase focus
[snipped for brevity]
I would add to your list:
(1) Dealers should be more attentive about removing damaged decks from the
game. I never ask for a deck change unless I think there's a bent card or
marked card, and I find myself asking for too many deck changes.
(2) If a card goes off the table, the deck should be immediately removed
from play. (I always insist on it).
(3) Dealers and floor personnel should more vigorously address the problem
of players who palm or otherwise cover their cards, even if unintentionally.
Linda
minus200
pladd
TIGER123
>Mike, Gary has a problem with everyone. What makes you think you should be
>exempt?
--------------
nope.
gary's just got lots of problems.
tiger
Jim Geary
questions. Out of some sick sense of fair play, I feel obligated to stand
with him if just for a little bit.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Mike Caro wrote:
> YES.
> Cheating is a serious issue online as well as in real-world casinos,
Once I see you mention online, I'm sorry, but I'm reaching for my wallet.
Do you see an inherent conflict in any efforts you might make to "clean
up" online cheating while simultaneously holding a substantial stake
(promotional, finanical, personal?) in the success of one particular
online casino? Later tone of the post indicates that you are mostly
talking about real life, but you see why this might diminish your role?
> and cooperative efforts among all well-intentioned players and
> managers is needed now, as it always has been.
I've cooperated by not cheating for the 18 years I've played poker. I've
also cooperated by being creatively reactive upon the discovery of
cheating and proactive in being a nit about things that could even lead to
the appearance of impropriety even when I had no reason to supsect
anything was afoot. Maybe I need to know what more is being asked of me.
_Cooperation_ is a nice-sounding word, but ranks in the top ten of words
that can be used for nefarious doings.
> ODDLY.
> The reason they contacted me was not because of my previous work to
> combat cheating through the Cheater Monitoring Service,
Not being disparaging, but how has the CMS ever benefitted me, Jim Geary?
Were there dishonest players who didn't end up in my games due to advance
warning to AZ cardrooms? Was their training of casino employees to help
nip these things in the bud? I bring this up not because I have any bone
to pick with CMS, but because it seems to be a point on your resume
indicating why you are the authority here. Subsequent posts seem to
indicate so as well. You certainly can say that that was not your intent
by mentioning it, and be right, but at the same time it can't help but
color the assumptions. Therefore, it's not unfair to ask what exactly the
CMS *does*.
> NO.
> They do not want to be identified at this time. However, I have
> already "shopped them around" to major industry people whom I believe
> will help. Linda Johnson, Roy Cooke, Nolan Dalla, Barry Shulman, and
I like all these folks. I've played poker with them, and found them all to
be good people, even if they didn't know me from a speck on the wall. But
at the same time, all but one of them have significant equity in poker as
a business. I don't even believe it's an open secret that the editorial
content of industry publications has been colored by advertising revenues.
I don't mind and I'm aware of why this is so, and that's great. I guess
what I'm getting at is that the gravity of this subject is such that the
authorities have to be beyond the appearance even of conflicts of
interest. I have no idea what anyone else's role is with regards to your
efforts, but by name-dropping these folks, it would appear you are trying
to boost the credibility of your efforts. Even though you don't need to
do so, that is the appearance.
I'd rather see the names of four poker players who have no ties to poker
other than playing to confer moral authority on this matter. What if I
said: Mike McClain, Steve Brecher, Paul Phillips & Lee Jones. Most people
outside the rg-sphere don't know these folks. But I would trust them all
with my life. If you want confirmation, credibility or whatever, you
should open up the process for assigning that credibility. I'm committed
to your ultimate goal and am willing to help if called upon to do so, but
my main objection is with the way in which everything comes ex cathedra.
> others know their identities. I have taken them to management of a
> major casino that I believe to be honorable, and we expect to meet
> with other reputable managers.
Who are the unreputable managers? Who decided?
> YES.
> I will be seeking the cooperation of major casinos before I go
> further. I do not want to damage poker unnecessarily by making casinos
> a target. I want honest casinos on the side of the clean-up effort. I
> will also be seeking the cooperation of many of the players who have
> been involved in things they are not proud of. I know this part is
> controversial, but I have firmly decided that we're going to need some
> kind of amnesty program whereby everyone agrees that the past is past
_Everyone_ agrees? They didn't. Now what?
> The concept of amnesty doesn't sit right with me, either. But it's the
> way I've decided to proceed.
Hmmm. What does this mean exactly? Seriously, who are you to confer
amnesty upon anyone? If it's a case of you are saying, "I think we should
all get together and as a community confer amnesty on these folks,"
that's another thing. But I as a member of said community do not agree
and will not do so. In the absence of one person empowered to grant
amnesty, which I stipulate to be so, it's a nonstarter. You're a
hands-off freemarketer, I know. So much so that you don't believe
government should be in the business of regulating workplace air quality
as you have stated many times before. Why now a command environment where
one person deems the amnesty distribution? I have my own anti-cheating
methodologies which may or may not be perfect, but a population full of
each person choosing is superior to a command amnesty economy where one
person grants absolution. Let the market decide.
For what its worth, I wish you well on this venture. But I have some
reservations about the manner in which so grave an issue is to be
distilled through one man and certainly the call to rally around one man's
vision of what is to be done.
Jim Geary
jimgeary.com - something to bore everyone
(And if this post pissed you off more than people threatening your life,
then you should realize that not looking at things the way Mike Caro does
isn't an attack on Mike Caro personally. I really am with you in spirit,
if not implementation. Good luck.)
Gary Carson
>Gary --
>
>I don't know what you're talking about when you say I'm pounding my
>chest.
An example would be when you said you didn't ask for this assignment.
Yes, you did. 20 years ago when you wrote a CP article announcing
that Cheater Monitoring Service you specifically asked for people to
come forward and contact you -- like what's happened now. You
specifically asked for this assignment.
But, now you treat it like the white man's burden. You play the
matryr. You did ask for it. Don't say you didn't.
That's one example.
>
>You are right if you believe that I can't fix all the problems. You
>are also right that I don't name people or discuss many things that I
>know. This is partly because I can't prove most things beyond a doubt
>without cooperation from those with more resources and because I don't
>want the legal exposure. There are practical limits to how aggressive
>I will be in exposing cheating. I'm not proud of those limits, but
>there they are nonetheless.
Prove without a doubt? That level of proof is almost unacheivable.
If you know something, then just have the balls to say it. If you
don't know, then shut up. Stand up for what you believe to be true.
>
>You say you're against the cheating. So, what I don't understand about
>you is why you choose to be so vocal in attacking someone who is at
>least trying to expose it and not vocal about those who are not trying
>or who are turning the other way to ignore the problem.
What exposure? I don't know of one cheat that you have exposed.
Maybe I missed something.
This is another example of your chest pounding.
>
>To me, this is just goofy. I am only taking the trouble to respond to
>you because you may be worth the effort. In other regards you have
>said rational things that have value.
I'm not your enemy Mike.
>
>But this is about the fourth or fifth time you've seemed to stretch
>your imagination in order to attack something I've said. I wish you
>wouldn't do that.
I wish you woulldn't make so many wishy-washy bullshit
prounouncements. But yoy keep doing it anyway.
> I'd rather hear you disagree if and when you really
>do, not when you're simply seeking a reason to disagree to no clear
>objective -- which, correctly or incorrectly interpreted, is what you
>seem to me to be doing.
I'd like to see you actually expose some cheats, Mike.
What's this interview about Mike? Gonna exp;ose techniques? Hi-tech
cheating at the Bellogia. Whoopee shit. In the 80's a whorehouse in
Lousiana had a card game outfitted with cameras, hidden mics, and a
crooked dealer. I never played in the game, but I know about it. The
game was run by a guy named Thibidaoux (I can't spell that) and the
crooked dealer was his daughter Arcelia. I've heard he'd dead now and
Arcelia works as a poker dealer in Mississippi somewhere.
Do I have proof beyond any doubt? No, I don't. Is what I said true.
Yes, it is. Is some cheating scumbag going to sue me because of what
I just said. I don't know. I doubt it. I don't care though.
Maybe you've got more to lose than I do. But, if you're afraid to
actually expose cheats, then you're part of the problem, Mike.
Expose a cheat today Mike. It will make you feel good about yourself.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
wrote:
I've asked someone to explain to me what his actions are. Can you? I
don't understand what he intends to do. It doesn't sound to me like
he intends to expose any cheats at all. I'm not aware of him ever
having done that.
I never suggested I thought this was a trivial matter.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Mike Caro
You raise many interesting and intelligent issues. I will give them
consideration. I agree that this will be much more successful if it
includes others who are dedicated to keeping poker honest. That's why
I have been seeking the support of notable people I believe to be
honest and why I am asking casino management to join with me.
I confided the names of the interviewees to those I mentioned (and
others) for the purpose of being able to prove that the interviewees
(who do not want to be initially identified) actually exist. There is
nothing more to it than that. Card Player is an ad-based publication
that promotes the good side of poker. Its function is not to crusade
in ways that advertisers don't want. It does its job well. I would
never use my column in Card Player to make advertisers uncomfortable.
That's the nature of the game. Even if I owed Card Player, I would
probably feel the same way. So, you're right on the money in this
observation. The people I intend to interview have been told this.
My intention is to seek cooperation behind the scenes to whatever
extent possible. The information the interviewees can provide doesn't
deal with online poker. The reason I mentioned that cheating needs to
be guarded against both online and in the real-world is because I
didn't want anyone to think that online games are immune from
criticism or that we don't need honorable, vigilant people involved in
trying to protect it.
As I've said here and elsewhere, the Cheater Monitoring Service has
not been very active recently, and what it's accomplished in the past
is minimal. It has always been a weak effort, but it consumed a lot of
mostly unproductive time.
It might be a good idea if I bowed out on this one and turned the
interview over to a committee more acceptable to people as having no
bias. That's a good idea. I'll talk to the people supplying the
information and see if they'd be OK with that.
Again, your points are mostly valid and worthy of discussion. I think
if you read my past posts, I have been quite open and respectful of
dissenting views. My complaint about Gary is for other reasons, which
I stated. But I am respectful of his right to post and wish he were an
ally.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:42:52 -0400, Jim Geary <jay...@netaxs.com>
wrote:
Mike Caro
You wrote: "In the 80's a whorehouse in
Lousiana had a card game outfitted with cameras, hidden mics, and a
crooked dealer. I never played in the game, but I know about it. The
game was run by a guy named Thibidaoux (I can't spell that) and the
crooked dealer was his daughter Arcelia. I've heard he'd dead now and
Arcelia works as a poker dealer in Mississippi somewhere."
Thanks for cooperating.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Edward Hutchison
I just wanted to wish you well in your attempt to bring attention to the
question of cheating.
As a serious student of magic, I can assure you that it is amazingly easy for
confederates to covertly pass information at the card table. I have written
two books on the subject of mentalism--that branch of magic that simulates
mindreading, ESP, clairvoyance and similar so-called psychic phenomena--and can
state unequivocally that there are many simple means of cheating which can be
very easily learned. No sleight of hand, no high tech, and no laborious
practice is required. A bit of larceny in one's heart being the only
prerequisite.
If you think about it, I believe that you'd have to agree that this
"partnership" approach is the best way to become a poker cheat. Not only is it
easy to accomplish, but it is almost impossible to prove--even in the unlikely
event that the authorities tumble to it. There will never be any physical
evidence.
I ordinarily agree with Doyle Brunson's views as expressed in this forum, but,
in this matter, I feel he is simply mistaken. Poker will not suffer from too
much examination of this issue, but from too little. And, I, for one,
appreciate your efforts to bring the harsh glare of publicity to this matter.
Good luck and best wishes.
Edward Hutchison
Jackson, MS
If Squire Skimp, Kosciusko Pete, or J-D, ring a bell, please see
my Home Page at: http://ehutchison.homestead.com/HP.html
Gary Carson
>
>dissenting views. My complaint about Gary is for other reasons, which
>I stated. But I am respectful of his right to post and wish he were an
>ally.
I will never be the ally of someone who wants to hide the identity of
cheats.
I will always the be ally of someone who wants to expose cheats.
Which are you Mike?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
wrote:
>I've never seen so many childish posts on any subject. Do you really
>think any of those involved would be forthcoming with information if
>they knew it would be used against them in a courtroom? Do you really
>think there's any chance they could lose in court based only on what
>they told others, if there are no actual outside witnesses?
>
>Mike Caro has voluntarily chosen to do something. He gets to decide
>what's done, and how it's done. Anything he does concerning this is
>more than I've done, more than you've done, and more than Gary
>Carson's done to expose cheating. Any criticism of his actions is
>truly bizarre. Everyone here is involved in the poker world: If you
>don't like Mike's methods, go ferrett out the cheaters yourselves-
Mike asked for a little support- let's give him a little g-dmn
support.
Kee-rist....
We don't even know what it's about yet
and everybody's analyzing it--
Best, Wayno
Mike Caro
Gary --
Got it. Sound like that make you an ally. Thanks for the
clarification.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
roGER
Thanks for yet another well argued and sincere post.
As one of Card Player's senior writers, surely there's a role for Card Player in
investigating or at least reporting this kind of stuff?
You were brave enough to break the taboo and wrote at length of Patrick Fleming
scandal that happened a couple of years ago. This was a major departure for the
magazine, since for once it was acting as an independent critical voice and as a
by-product became far more interesting to read (!).
Since then though, neither you nor any other Card Player journalist mentioned a
well known scandal that involved the cardroom manager caught stealing from a
tournament prize pool. Nor have I heard or read a single word in Card Player on the
stories currently circulating about the forthcoming WSOP. They may indeed be just
stories, but a journalist might try and ascertain if there is any truth to them.
Please don't interpret the above comments as a personal attack. You are actually
the only writer within the poker community to have written anything on cheating in
the past few years. But you might want to have a word with your editor and see if
this topic is worth another another article. Card Player is widely circulated, and
reaches more players than RGP. Surely the risk of annoying an advertiser or two
every few years is worth it to the rest of poker community, after all, its us
players that the advertisements are for.
Good luck!
- roGER
PS: All the above comments could apply to Poker Digest too, but obviously you don't
work for that magazine.
Jan Suchanek
Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3ad6229c....@news.mindspring.com...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:04:46 GMT, Mike Caro <ca...@caro.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dissenting views. My complaint about Gary is for other reasons, which
> >I stated. But I am respectful of his right to post and wish he were an
> >ally.
>
> I will never be the ally of someone who wants to hide the identity of
> cheats.
Sorry but as an admittedly inexperienced (and very interested) onlooker, I
have to say something here about this post. The above statement is clearly
intended to suggest that Mike may be motivated to hide the identity of
cheaters. This is completely unfair. I don't know what this poster's
motivation is to take the stance he has taken but his agenda here has
nothing to do with the fundamental issue of dealing with cheating at the
poker table.
Gary Carson
Svanstrom) wrote:
>Gary, I think that in a perfect world you are correct, but in the world
>that we've got you sometimes have to make a deal with bad guys just to
>stop other bad guys... It's simple math, stopping many from doing it in
>the future is positive EV as compared with doing the "right" thing and
>not stop anyone.
Maybe you could explain to me how this stops anybody?
I'd really like to know.
I have no idea what Mike's planning on doing in this interivew, but it
sounds to me like titilation, not substance.
I have named names about cheats and crooked games. I did it in this
thread, I've done it before on rgp.
Has Mike Caro ever done that? 20 years of self-promotion about his
anti-cheating campaing and not one cheat exposed?
Hell, he won't even tell us which cardrooms have retaliated against
him for talking about cheating. I'd like to know which cardrooms want
to cover up for cheats.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
VPOKERL
is cheating going on in Casinos. Really? Well that's great to here but
where's the beef? Collusion? By who? Interview on June 11, 2001 with the
cheaters. Wow I can't wait. And I mean that literally!
Shulman, Johnson, Cooke, and Dalla all know about cheaters and are keeping it
to themselves? What the ehll kind of players are they? Yes players. I know
through first hand knowledge that each of those you name play in public card
rooms. So you are saying that they are playing in card rooms, are aware of
cheating and are not telling anyone. Give me a break. Or are you saying that
if we play in games or casinos that they are in we can be sure that no cheating
is going on or if it is they know about it!
WHAT THE ...
Am I smoking something here or maybe I just don't get it. The least you can do
between now and June 11 th is identify the games in which cheating is going on.
What limits? Even the state that this cheating is occurring would give us a
heads up. Don't you think poker players are paranoid enough as it is without
hearing from Mike Caro that widespread cheating is going on throughout the
poker world and then having to wait two months before he lets us know what that
cheating is? Are we all just to stop playing or should we pack a six gun and
start blasting at the first sign of collusion. Maybe when Joe checks down his
buddy Bill we should point it at Joe and yell "Mike Caro is right!" as we end
the chicanery of a would be poker cheat! What do you think?
vince
Gary Carson
<jan...@attglobal.n-e-t> wrote:
>Sorry but as an admittedly
>Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3ad6229c....@news.mindspring.com...
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:04:46 GMT, Mike Caro <ca...@caro.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dissenting views. My complaint about Gary is for other reasons, which
>> >I stated. But I am respectful of his right to post and wish he were an
>> >ally.
>>
>> I will never be the ally of someone who wants to hide the identity of
>> cheats.
>
>Sorry but as an admittedly inexperienced (and very interested) onlooker, I
>have to say something here about this post. The above statement is clearly
>intended to suggest that Mike may be motivated to hide the identity of
>cheaters. This is completely unfair.
Unfair?
I give up. I surrender. Y'all have the reading comprehension skills
of a fucking turnip.
Mike knows the identify of these self-proclamed cheats. He has shared
that identity with some of his business partners. He has not made
their identity public.
That's not what I said. That's what Caro said.
I've seen nothing that suggests to me that he intends to make their
identity known.
And, it's unfair of me to suggest that Mike wants to hide th identiy
of cheats. Well, he's doing it.
btw, I just heard that Big Ricky, a player from Lake Charles (with a
long-standing reputation as a hold-out artist, cold decker, and a
player who gets backers for ring games then dumps his chips to a
confederate) has been playing pot limit in Tunica and doing pretty
well.
I've mentioned Ricky on this newsgroup before.
But, I give up.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
Vince, you should know better.
For 20 years Caro has focused his search for cheats on games where
Malmuth played. He couldn't find one.
But, the last few days Malmuth has been busy, and Caro's been watching
some other games.
To his shock and dismay, he found some cheats. It'll be a couple of
months before he recovers from the shock enough to tell us about it.
But, you can always trust Mike Caro to put your best interests ahead
of his own.
In the meantime, he's keeping the cheats busy with advance questions
for the interview so it's safe to play even if Malmuth isn't at the
table.
On 12 Apr 2001 23:20:49 GMT, vpo...@aol.com (VPOKERL) wrote:
>re you promoting yourself as a Cheating Expert Detector for some reason? There
>is cheating going on in Casinos. Really? Well that's great to here but
>where's the beef? Collusion? By who? Interview on June 11, 2001 with the
>cheaters. Wow I can't wait. And I mean that literally!
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Jan Suchanek
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:58:28 +0200, "Jan Suchanek"
> <jan...@attglobal.n-e-t> wrote:
>
> >Sorry but as an admittedly
> >Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ad6229c....@news.mindspring.com...
> >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:04:46 GMT, Mike Caro <ca...@caro.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dissenting views. My complaint about Gary is for other reasons, which
> >> >I stated. But I am respectful of his right to post and wish he were an
> >> >ally.
> >>
> >> I will never be the ally of someone who wants to hide the identity of
> >> cheats.
> >
> >Sorry but as an admittedly inexperienced (and very interested) onlooker,
I
> >have to say something here about this post. The above statement is
clearly
> >intended to suggest that Mike may be motivated to hide the identity of
> >cheaters. This is completely unfair.
>
> Unfair?
>
> I give up. I surrender. Y'all have the reading comprehension skills
> of a fucking turnip.
And you appear to have the common sense of a potato. Do you really think
these people came to him with the intention of just allowing him to blare
out their names in public? Mike clearly stated there is more to this
investigation ... he cannot say specifics at this point, but he will at a
later time. Why is it so important for you to make a firm judgement on this
before that happens?
Ed Hill 777
don't understand what he intends to do. It doesn't sound to me like
he intends to expose any cheats at all. I'm not aware of him ever
having done that.>>>
Gary, maybe you would best serve poker if you stayed out of this and let the
people that can actually do something about it do what ever they can to clean
up the game.
There is a lot more to this than you realize. You are trying to make people
show you their cards before it is time. I know this hard for you to accept, but
you are actually going to have to trust Mike.
What is the purpose of flaming somebody that is actually trying to do something
good for poker? I know, he isn't doing everything the way you want him to do
it. I know you like to be argumentative, but it serves no purpose here.
A lot of stuff happens in poker that isn't good, there are many different ways
to deal with the ugly situation. Not everybody is going to see eye to eye on
how to deal with the problems. Some people are privy to information that the
rest of the poker world doesn't have. I didn't know that it was mandatory to
get into RGP and tell everything that you know.
Anybody that is trying to do the right thing should be applauded, not flamed.
Even if it doesn't meet your standards. I am 100% positive that you will find
fault with this post also, so have fun!
Ed Hill
VPOKERL
concerning his allegations. After reading Nolan's post I will reserve further
comments until I see more factual information from Mike Caro or others
involved.
vince
RMITCHCOLL
>btw, I just heard that Big Ricky, a player from Lake Charles (with a
>long-standing reputation as a hold-out artist, cold decker, and a
>player who gets backers for ring games then dumps his chips to a
>confederate) has been playing pot limit in Tunica and doing pretty
>well.
>
>I've mentioned Ricky on this newsgroup before.
>
>But, I give up.
Are you talking about the guy who sits on all the chairs piled up with his
shirt open? I always wondered about him. For what its worth, I think Gary and
Vince are right on target in this thread. If anyone is convinced they know for
certain that a cheater is playing Poker, they should tell us what they know and
not make us wait for 60 days. I remember when Ashley relayed the news that some
people at a home game bragged about colluding online. Ashley took a lot of crap
for not exposing the colluders names. I think the RGP consensus was right then,
and I think Gary, Vince and all the others on their side of the argument are
right now.There are many Poker room managers and dealers who read RGP. Lets
give them the ammo they need to ban these players now before they steal from
anymore players.
Randy Collack
M
"Linda Sherman" <she...@KILLTHESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:_FmB6.2595$M_5.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Let's also add that dealers should as frequently as possible count the
deck stub just prior to mucking it. This should be a great deterrent to
would-be hold-out artists.
"M"
Casey kastle
For years I have loudly declared that poker's main two enemies are smoking
& cheating. Both have done great damage to me personally.
Since our 1st talk years ago, i've considered you "the" person most
capable of spearheading a legitimate effort to "clean up" the pathetic &
cancerous ethical "standards" that have existed & do exist in poker . Your vast
knowledge & understanding on this topic is 2nd to noone i know.
I am profoundly pleased & grateful that you & others of moral backbone are
now stepping forward courageously to confront this insidious evil.
Last year, as our national campaign to rid public cardrooms of cigarette
smoke shifted into high gear, Max Shapiro asked me "what's next after this?" I
told him that, in order to grow, i believe poker's next crusade must be to
clean-up the cheating----this industry's "dirty little secret."
At a young age someone told me," the ONLY thing necessary for evil to
prevail is simply for good men to do nothing." Thank you for engaging this
worthy battle. The thieves & thier supporters won't like it. But the vast
majority of players are decent folk. They DESERVE to be informed and to be
protected. And so DO the countless players, sponsors, & friends that this
business can and WILL attract when we COMMIT to offering a respectable
product...
Wishing you God's speed, casey kastle
>combat cheating
NolanDalla
From: roGER
Nolan,
Thanks for yet another well argued and sincere post. As one of Card Player's
senior writers, surely there's a role for Card Player in investigating or at
least reporting this kind of stuff.
***Actually, at age 39 I still think I'm one of the younger writers, but if you
mean senior in terms of "seniority," I'm in the middle of the pack. Many
writers have been with the publication longer than I. That point made, let's
move on.
roGER :You were brave enough to break the taboo and wrote at length of Patrick
Fleming
scandal that happened a couple of years ago.
***I only touched on that subject. Shulman discussed it more in detail in his
column and should be credited. I have discussed many controversial subjects in
the past in my writings and I have always been forthright here in this forum.
The important thing to remember about Card Player is it is the publication "of
record" and what appears there has a more lasting affect than an RGP post or
something posted to a website. Hence, while I think a chronology of cheating
scandals, background investigations, and expose's of problems would be a
positive thing for serious poker players, there is also a negative effect that
should be obvious. Here on RGP, we can discuss these things more openly --
perhaps because we get all points of view (even crackpots), and the more
serious players come here and read this forum for the latest news and opinion.
Card Player is burdened with the disadvantage of having at least a week's lag
time, and tends to get more mainstream readership. It is also something of the
public face for poker and the industry (which I'm sure annoys some people here
and subjects the magazine to some criticism). That's one reason perhaps why
the magazine has not always pursued scandals with as much tenacity as might be
warranted. The negatives seem to outweigh the positives in the PR sense. I
also want to point out that behind the scenes people like Linda Johnson, Mike
Caro, the Shulmans, myself, and others have taken active roles in solving
problems associated with poker problems and to a lesser extent -- scandal(s).
Just because you don't read about it in an article doesn't mean that many hours
or time were not spent trying to get the facts, serve as intermediaries, and
ultimately solve problems. Nevertheless, there are many here (and eslewhere)
who do want to do something more and are prepared to investigate and report
misdeeds. I consider myself one of those people.
roGER : This was a major departure for the magazine, since for once it was
acting as an independent critical voice and as a
by-product became far more interesting to read (!).
***I don't think our motive should be dragging out scandal just to entertain
readers or make things interesting. Scandal in a close person-to-person
business like this is a very painful subject to face -- especially when many of
us know the parties that have been involved in the past (Fleming, the Orleans,
et al). Taking your point to the extreme -- I'm sure a tabloid paper full of
gossip about poker players and cardrooms would be a riot to read, but I also
believe it's just as important to reflect poker's positive qualities to an
audience. Where to draw that line is subject to debate.
roGER : Since then though, neither you nor any other Card Player journalist
mentioned a
well known scandal that involved the cardroom manager caught stealing from a
tournament prize pool.
***The Orleans scandal was all over the place on this forum. I guess there
were a couple of hundred posts on the subject, at least of few of which were
written by me (I didn't have that much too add, since the information was
already out). By the time it was settled, it was old news and might have been
too dated to include in Card Player (a point that is debatable -- but worthy of
an editorial decision).
roGER : Nor have I heard or read a single word in Card Player on the
stories currently circulating about the forthcoming WSOP. They may indeed be
just
stories, but a journalist might try and ascertain if there is any truth to
them.
***Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but I know of no scandal involving the
upcoming WSOP. Keep in mind also that while I apprecaite the reference to
journalism in terms of ethics and respponsibilities, I'm not a reporter. I do
not have a beat. I do not have mandatory things that I cover (other than the
Player rankings). I'm a poker player like you are. I also happen to have the
capacity to editorialize with my commentary, but anyone that thinks of me as a
poker "reporter" is mistaken. Other writers can speak for themselves as to
their respective roles.
roGER : Please don't interpret the above comments as a personal attack. You are
actually the only writer within the poker community to have written anything on
cheating in
the past few years.
***I apprecaite the compliment. But, I'm hardly alone in the fight against
cheating and scandal in the industry. Frankly, I'd like to see us go at this
with everything we have. It's important that we do so. I also trust Mike
Caro's instincts on this matter even more than my own. This is one reason I
believe he should be supported in his efforts.
roGER : But you might want to have a word with your editor and see if
this topic is worth another another article. Card Player is widely circulated,
and
reaches more players than RGP. Surely the risk of annoying an advertiser or two
every few years is worth it to the rest of poker community, after all, its us
players that the advertisements are for.
***The Shulmans believe in this noble cause just as much as we do. That's not
the point. What is at issue is (1) getting facts right -- which is usually the
main problem, (2) deciding what deserves mention and commentary, and (3)
trying to determine what contructive engagement can result from reporting upon
a blemish in the industry. I don't think it's necessary that we try to
mico-manage every facet of every controversy, but I do believe that there are a
few fundamental questions that should be answered first when publishing stories
about these problems, which are -- DOES THIS SERVE ANY PURPOSE? IS IT FOR THE
COMMON GOOD OF POKER? I don't presume to have all the answers and my comments
here are intended to convey to you that I/we are very involved in trying to
improve conditions in the industry. Just because something is not manifested
in a Card Player article does not mean that dozens of phone calls were not made
and emails were not exchanged pursuant to the problem(s).
-- Nolan Dalla
bussy1
magazine, fold after a few issues, and never refund a penny to the suckers
(like me) who had subscriptions?
W.C. "Bill" Starr, Jr.
"Just because the person who criticizes you is an idiot doesn't make him
wrong"
"Ed Hill 777" <edhi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010411040306...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> <<<good luck and put on your bullet proof/flame proof suit>>>
>
> I know that this is a free country and everybody has the right of free
speech.
> But please get behind Mike and don't make this great undertaking any
harder on
> him than it already is. Poker needs this. I, like Mike, don't want to
discuss
> this publically, but please trust me, this really needs to happen. There
is
> volumes of stuff that have never been brought public. I talked to Mike on
the
> phone today for about an hour and shared with him a lot of the info that I
> knew. The more higher stakes players that come forward and share what they
know
> with Mike, the better off poker will be in the long run. Trust me, the
game
> really needs an enema at the higher levels and in the bigger tournaments.
>
>
Doug
About 10 years ago, there was a story about a Canadian who was a loan
officer in a Canadian bank. He "borrowed" $10Million from work, and gambled
in AC. He juggled accounts for a year and was paying it back when he got
caught. Nobody had ever seen his method of theft used before, and they
wanted his help to close the loophole more than they wanted him prosecuted.
I personally want to know how they cheated so I can watch for it. It is more
important to me that they talk about what happened than that they get
prosecuted or "outed".
--
Doug
---------
"Meet me on the riverbank, cause I LOVE reelin' in fishies!"
Gary Carson <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3ad634fe....@news.mindspring.com...
Ed Hill 777
magazine, fold after a few issues, and never refund a penny to the suckers
(like me) who had subscriptions?
W.C. "Bill" Starr, Jr.>>>
How many times do you want us to answer to this, obviously you have a problem.
We sold the magazine to Robert Feiger with the stipulation that he continue all
subscriptions so that our subscribers wouldn't get burned. If you feel like you
got ripped off and it was a big conspiracy by us we didn't do a very good job,
as Poker World Magazine lost better than $600,000 before we threw in the towel.
I have lost around $75,000 out of my own pocket. We tried to provide a service
to the poker community and lost our butts. We didn't want the subscribers to
get burned so we made a deal with Feiger to insure that didn't happen. So what
is it you expect from us? I am sorry you feel that way, there were no ill
intentions on our part that is for sure. Now we are attempting to do something
else that will benefit poker that is apparantly unappreciated by the public. If
you like to play high limit poker I could recommend a game for you.
Andy Hughes
"What is the purpose of flaming somebody that is actually trying to do
something good for poker? I know, he isn't doing everything the way you want
him to do it. I know you like to be argumentative, but it serves no purpose
here."
Good post, Ed! I agree with the above 100%.
Andy - Las Vegas
Richard John Cavell
> 2. The discards should always be "mucked" into the muck pile, not kept in
> the order they were received,
I think they ought to be mucked in order, so that a hand may be retrieved
under extraordinary circumstances, either for a mistake (like the dealer
mucking a protected hand, depending on the cardroom rule) or for
exploration of an anomaly (like two Queens of spades being found in the
deck).
> the shuffle. It will also help ensure a truer randomization of the cards for
> the next deal and help avoid card-clumping.
The cards are random enough after a standard technique. Card-clumping is
not a major issue. Shuffletracking is possible (Lord knows I've done it),
but if so, then it's not something that is outright cheating.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com
Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems). Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A. Prock
[snip some stuff]
I realize that Doyle comes from a different era
than most of us, but all I can say is:
I'd rater be a fag than a cheat.
- Andrew
Bill Vanek
Carson) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:36:08 GMT, bilv...@softcom.net (Bill Vanek)
>wrote:
>
>>On 12 Apr 2001 15:36:19 GMT, jfras...@aol.com (Jfraser375) wrote:
>>
>
>>what's done, and how it's done. Anything he does concerning this is
>>more than I've done, more than you've done, and more than Gary
>>Carson's done to expose cheating. Any criticism of his actions is
>>truly bizarre. Everyone here is involved in the poker world: If you
>>don't like Mike's methods, go ferrett out the cheaters yourselves, and
>>expose them, and take the information to your state's attorney if you
>>like. Gary Carson has ridiculed the difficulty of this effort, and the
>>threats, and then danced around Mike's invitation to take over this
>>project, as if he didn't understand what Mike was saying. Again, if
>>he, or anyone else thinks this is a trivial matter, why not just do it
>>yourself. Then you can do it the "right" way.
>
>I've asked someone to explain to me what his actions are. Can you? I
>don't understand what he intends to do.
He stated what he intends to do in his original post. Whatever isn't
clear to you probably isn't clear yet to him, either.
> It doesn't sound to me like
>he intends to expose any cheats at all. I'm not aware of him ever
>having done that.
My biggest complaint is that people who are doing essentially nothing
are complaining that *he's* not doing enough. This doesn't make sense.
In fact, I don't think anyone should criticize him for not doing
enough, because he's doing this voluntarily. He has no obligation to
any of us - it's not like we're paying him to investigate cheats. We
should be grateful for any knowledge we gain from his efforts, because
most of us have put no effort whatsoever into helping him. It's all
free for us.
Jim Geary
> My biggest complaint is that people who are doing essentially nothing
> are complaining that *he's* not doing enough. This doesn't make sense.
I'm not complaining that he's not doing enough. My fear is that he is
doing too much. Specifically, granting amnesty on my behalf or anyone
else's without their consent. That doesn't mean I don't support efforts
to keep poker clean.
Jim Geary
jimgeary.com - something to bore everyone
Bill Vanek
wrote:
Something over and over again. Sorry about the duplicate posts.
Barry Shulman
about the WSOP. Let me know and I will research.
I did hear a rumor that they were taking 11% juice and I investigated and
REPORTED in Card Player that rumor, but also reported that it was false.
They have announced the fees.
Barry Shulman
Mike Caro
wrote:
Jim --
I will not be granting amnesty without your consent. I don't have the
power to do so. As I said in my original post, "we" should consider
amnesty for practical reasons, if we could get players to agree that
nothing more would be tolerated from a date certain. I also said, I
didn't personally like the idea of amnesty.
There is a sentence that follows that talks about how "I" had decided
to proceed. Maybe that was confusing. I meant that I would try to get
a consensus about amnesty that "we" need to make this effective.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Bill Vanek
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
>> My biggest complaint is that people who are doing essentially nothing
>> are complaining that *he's* not doing enough. This doesn't make sense.
>
>I'm not complaining that he's not doing enough. My fear is that he is
>doing too much. Specifically, granting amnesty on my behalf or anyone
>else's without their consent. That doesn't mean I don't support efforts
>to keep poker clean.
I probably shouldn't reply to this, since Mike Caro already did, but I
wanted to clarify my point: I felt it should have been evident to
anyone that he couldn't possibly grant amnesty to anyone on his own.
We all know who he is, and that he clearly has no authority to do
this. Even if his original wording muddled the point, and I don't
think it did, that's no reason to just assume that he recently decided
to start playing God.
No matter what anyone says, the amnesty thing seems pretty unworkable.
We all know Mike can't grant it, but who really can? Even if we all
agree on this forum, so what? The amnesty matter could be limited to
some context, I suppose. Maybe all major tournament directors would
agree to allow the confessed cheats to continue tournament play, or
cardroom managers would allow them to play live games, but that
doesn't mean the general poker playing public would be too happy
playing next to them. The amnesty matter is a fuzzy subject.
Lee Jones
> Maybe all major tournament directors would
> agree to allow the confessed cheats to continue tournament play, or
> cardroom managers would allow them to play live games, but that
> doesn't mean the general poker playing public would be too happy
> playing next to them. The amnesty matter is a fuzzy subject.
Oops, Bill, you just pressed one of my buttons.
I play hardly any tournaments, and don't follow them that closely. But I am
aware of two incidents in the last five years:
* Player A, down to heads-up in a WSOP event, "bought" the bracelet via
interested friend F, who offered A's opponent B a large sum of money if B
would dump off his/her chips to A. This event is well-documented, but only
came out because a veteran member of r.g.p. smelled something rotten in the
state of Denmark and started investigating.
* Player C was caught sneaking tournament chips palmed from a low-stakes
tournament back into a higher stakes tournament at the same venue. I
believe they had video footage of the incident. I might have the details
wrong, but I have the gist of the issue correct.
Players A, B, C, and interested friend F are all still active in the
tournament circuit. They were granted implicit (if not explicit) amnesty.
I am not aware of any venue in which any of them are not allowed to play
live or tournament games (I could be wrong - if so, somebody correct me).
The precedent has been well and clearly established - even getting caught
red-handed does not constitute grounds for future barring from public
poker. Should people who come forward to admit their cheating expect any
less than complete and unconditional amnesty? The poker industry seems to
have adopted the Christian model of forgiveness: go forth and sin. Then
repent. Your sins will be forgiven and you can go forth and sin again. In
fact, repentence doesn't seem to be a condition of forgiveness [1].
It seems to me that the only group of people who have meaningful authority
to grant (or not grant) amnesty are the managers of casinos who have the
authority from their employers to decide who may and may not play poker
there. If a critical mass of those folks decides to bar a specific player
from participation in their games, that's meaningful. Anything else is
symbolic and just about pointless.
Sadly, I think the chances of that group of people taking any substantial
action against cheaters is 989:1 against. If Caro brings that one in, I'll
send him and Phyllis flowers [2].
Regards, Lee
[1] Which causes any number of theological disputes within the Christian
community.
[2] Heh. A little Greek pun there.
--
Lee H. Jones \"Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho
le...@atheros.com\ or a Sears poncho? Hmmmm - no foolin?"
408-773-5316 \ -Frank Zappa
TEX DOLLY
Brunson
Cisco Kid
made aware of methods, places, means of cheating, collusion or hacking being
used against me and others in poker.
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3ad60b7d....@news.mindspring.com...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:36:08 GMT, bilv...@softcom.net (Bill Vanek)
> wrote:
>
> >On 12 Apr 2001 15:36:19 GMT, jfras...@aol.com (Jfraser375) wrote:
> >
>
> >what's done, and how it's done. Anything he does concerning this is
> >more than I've done, more than you've done, and more than Gary
> >Carson's done to expose cheating. Any criticism of his actions is
> >truly bizarre. Everyone here is involved in the poker world: If you
> >don't like Mike's methods, go ferrett out the cheaters yourselves, and
> >expose them, and take the information to your state's attorney if you
> >like. Gary Carson has ridiculed the difficulty of this effort, and the
> >threats, and then danced around Mike's invitation to take over this
> >project, as if he didn't understand what Mike was saying. Again, if
> >he, or anyone else thinks this is a trivial matter, why not just do it
> >yourself. Then you can do it the "right" way.
>
> I've asked someone to explain to me what his actions are. Can you? I
> don't understand what he intends to do. It doesn't sound to me like
> he intends to expose any cheats at all. I'm not aware of him ever
> having done that.
>
> I never suggested I thought this was a trivial matter.
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
Gary Carson
wrote:
>
>Mike Caro has voluntarily chosen to do something. He gets to decide
>what's done, and how it's done. Anything he does concerning this is
>more than I've done, more than you've done, and more than Gary
>Carson's done to expose cheating.
I don't know how you measure what someone has done to expose cheating.
But, I have a chapter in my book on cheating -- plus the first
article I ever wrote on poker (Card Player 1992) was on cheating. I
named names in that article also, with specifics of how two specific
cheats cheated. In this thread alone I've made specific mention of
three cheats, by name. I've never seen Caro do that. I didn't
consider it a flame to simply ask him what exactly it was he was
intending this interview to expose.
He's clarified that now. He's going to inform us that cheating exists
and cheats have stolen a lot of money. Whoppee shit. I'd never have
guessed if Caro hadn't told me.
>Any criticism of his actions is
>truly bizarre.
I think your criticism of me is bizare. We all seem to have a
difference of opinoin both about what's bizare and about what it means
to expose cheating.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
VPOKERL
>and cheats have stolen a lot of money.
Come on Gary, it's gotta be more than that. Caro wouldn't do that to his
public. Would he?
vince
VPOKERL
>Andrew===To each his own.==
vince
Jim Geary
> repent. Your sins will be forgiven and you can go forth and sin again. In
> fact, repentence doesn't seem to be a condition of forgiveness [1].
>
> action against cheaters is 989:1 against. If Caro brings that one in, I'll
> send him and Phyllis flowers [2].
>
> Regards, Lee
>
> [1] Which causes any number of theological disputes within the Christian
> community.
>
> [2] Heh. A little Greek pun there.
Lee, I promise to never use the phrase ex-cathedra in an rgp post again if
you promise not to footnote theopneustic hair splitting or laughing at
your own non-Romance language foreign language puns. Thank you for
attention in this matter.
Badger
> * Player C was caught sneaking tournament chips palmed from a low-stakes
> tournament back into a higher stakes tournament at the same venue. I
> believe they had video footage of the incident. I might have the details
> wrong, but I have the gist of the issue correct.
> Players A, B, C, and interested friend F are all still active in the
> tournament circuit. They were granted implicit (if not explicit) amnesty.
> I am not aware of any venue in which any of them are not allowed to play
> live or tournament games (I could be wrong - if so, somebody correct me).
> The precedent has been well and clearly established - even getting caught
> red-handed does not constitute grounds for future barring from public
> poker.
Player C is obviously meant to be Pat Fleming. Pat is not allowed to play
in some venues but is in others. I know several places consciously made the
decision to allow him to play, and at least on one case they did because he
was not "caught red-handed" -- the Orleans would not provide the other
casino with proof, video or otherwise of the incident. At the same time,
Fleming was the first player to point out the events that eventually were
revealed to be theft by an Orleans employee. I have no idea what actually
happened, but it is an easy conclusion to reach that Fleming believed he was
being cheated so he cheated back. It is further and easy conclusion to
reach that the Orleans didn't provide proof of the incident that lead to the
barring because it would have been like lifting the manhole cover off their
sewer.
In other words, this is not a good example to view as a precedent, and
neither is the incident where two players made a private deal at the final
table when they got headup. That is just absurd to discuss in a cheating
thread.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
Mike Caro
Vince --
Caro hasn't said that he intends to expose anything.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
Your industry leadership in the field of cheating, which makes my
efforts seem puny by comparison, makes me all the more gratified that
I approved your 1992 article for publication.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
VPOKERL
Mike,
I play a lot of poker. Mid limit - 10-20 through 20-40 stud and Holdem. I
consider myself an honest person. I have never met you but my impression fo
you is that you are a very honest person. I admire you and your efforts to
keep the game of poker clean. But please do not make frivolous accusations
when discussin poker cheating. Please do not say there is rampant cheating
going on and that you are aware of it but are not going to let the rest of us
that love poker in on the secret. I believe that there are amny like myself
that if we were convinced that there is considerable cheating going on we would
make a special effort to police our games. In short we would help you in your
efforts to keep poker honest if you let us.
vince
Mike Caro
Vince --
I agree with everything you said. I will continue to do my best to
enhance the integrity of our game. But in this single context under
discussion, it's important that you realize that I am not personally
making any allegations. Please read my original post again.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Gary Carson
>Gary --
>
>Your industry leadership in the field of cheating, which makes my
>efforts seem puny by comparison, makes me all the more gratified that
>I approved your 1992 article for publication.
Are you the one who pulled the reference to the Stardust scandel in
that 1992 article? I thought that was Linda. At least she said it
wasn't good for poker to make public statements about one of the
biggest poker cheating scandels around. But, now you're claiming she
was speaking for you?
Is that what passes for industry leadership in your world Mike?
Making sure cardrooms don't get embarressed?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
>On 14 Apr 2001 00:16:48 GMT, vpo...@aol.com (VPOKERL) wrote:
>
>>>Caro hasn't said that he intends to expose anything
>>
>discussion, it's important that you realize that I am not personally
>making any allegations. Please read my original post again.
>]
Would that be the post where you talked about "historic" cheating
indicents that you've known about for years but kept secret?
Is that industry leadership?
What cardrooms have retaliated against you for talking about cheating
and how did they retailiate.
I used to have a lot of respect for you Mike. But, I think you've
become nothing but hot air.
Just ignore me, Mike. And, go lead your industry.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
VPOKERL
>being cheated so he cheated back.
I guess that justifies it then, huh!
Vince