IS HANK(REDTOP) legit??????

GeoffA

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 8:51:12 AM3/1/06

to

I have sadly had the misfortune of watching Hank (REDTOP) for 6 years
on MSN gaming zone.. He has no respect from me as well as many other
players. He is well known as a cheater who will enter tournys despite
being banned. There is a letter making the rounds of the internet now
from Paul Weever to Hank that goes a little further than I do.. I am
just posting this as a warning to other players to beware of REDTOP.

Hank:

I would love it I were wrong. I wish it were not true. I would be
very happy if you would show me that you are a legit 3.5 player, but
that is not going to happen. I would give you a public apology in the
newsletters and on the Internet if you would just take a bit of time to
play a few monitored matches to prove yourself.

Did you think you could get by with it forever? Did you really think
nobody would ever figure it out? Do you get a big kick out of winning
by cheating? I admit that I was naïve for a long time. You fooled me
for more than four years after I first met you.

I now know what you have known for years - you use a bot when you
cheat to play backgammon on the Internet, for rating points and also
for money. You are not merely a cheater, you are also a thief. You
have committed the equivalent of grand larceny. Your violation is not
trivial. In the course of our country's history, many people have
been murdered for doing much less than what you have done.

As I recall, you told me at some point in 2004 that you had won more
than $10,000 playing backgammon on the Internet over the previous few
months. You deserve a prison sentence for your crimes.

How sure am I? Over 99%, as certain as I am that I am currently in
Japan. In fact, the evidence against you is far stronger than the
evidence you used five years ago to condemn Alex for cheating on the
Internet.

For starters, your integrity has taken many serious hits over the
years. To give just a few examples:

· You entered the same tournament on the Zone twice under two
different names.
· You originally denied to me that you had entered the tournament
twice, but you later admitted to me that you had done so.
· Your credibility took a hit when Jeremy discovered your plagiarism
in the article you wrote and posted on your web site.
· Your credibility took another hit when you denied that you had
committed plagiarism.
· When Patty was playing a match on your team, you offered to help
her and tell her what moves to make over the phone as she was playing
the match. Patty declined your offer.
· You did, in fact, tell another woman over the phone what moves to
make. At some point after the match, her conscience bothered her and
she reported the incident.
· Bethesda told me that you offered to give him a demonstration of
how it was possible for someone to consult a bot quickly enough to play
a match without making the opponent suspicious.

There is not enough room on the Internet to list all the rude and
dishonest things I have heard about you from different people. Am I
supposed to believe, "Everyone is lying except Hank?"
I said above that the case against you is stronger than the case
against Alex five years ago. The bullets above support this assertion,
as do the bullets below.

You have claimed to me that your Snowie error rate is 3.5. However,
you do not act at all like the genuine 3.5 players that I know. For
examples,

· From the time I met you until the time you realized I knew you were
a cheater, you treated me deferentially, like I was a celebrity or a
big shot or something. On one occasion, I was over at your apartment
when you were on the phone to Patty, and you made a very big deal to
Patty about my presence in your home. If you were a legit 3.5 player,
you would have treated me like a peer and an equal, and not acted like
a groupie. It would have been no big deal to you that a Giant 32
player was in your home, and you would have not made such a big deal of
it to Patty.
· No legit 3.5 player would go up to Nack like you did, asking to
take lessons and offering to pay any price. No legit 3.5 player would
suck up to Nack and me and other Giant 32 players as you have done.
· No legit 3.5 player would ask Nack to play doubles with him,
offering to play Nack's entire entry fee and giving him half the
winnings.
· No legit 3.5 player would ask me to play doubles, making the same
offer as above. After I explained to you that I had absolutely no
interest, you still kept on pestering me to play with you. Doubles is
not an important event to a legit 3.5 player.
· No legit 3.5 player would make the claim that he plays much worse
on a live, physical board, to the extent that he could not play in a
live tournament. Your claim that you play 3.5 online, but cannot see
the board when you play live is absurd, ridiculous and preposterous.
It is merely an excuse because you know that you would be exposed as a
fraud if people saw how poorly you really play in a live setting.
· No legit 3.5 player would go to more than half a dozen live
tournaments, as you have done in Vegas, Charlotte and Atlanta and never
play in a singles event.
· No legit 3.5 player would get his jollies from being a big fish in
a lake of minnows on the Zone. You got your kicks out of being
recognized and respected as a great player on the Zone. If you were a
legit 3.5 player, then by entering half a dozen tournaments a year
(including Vegas), you could have and would have made the Giant 32 list
within a few years. What legit 3.5 player would prefer to be
recognized as a good player on the Zone instead of being recognized as
a Giant 32 player?
· No legit 3.5 player would tell me that Doug Daub is a strong
player, as you did. No legit 3.5 player would suggest to me that Doug
would be a great partner for Nack and me to take on in writing a book
about backgammon openings.
· A legit 3.5 player would have had interesting discussions with me
about backgammon positions and theory. You never challenged my
intellect with anything interesting to say about what backgammon
concepts you were studying and learning.
· When I visit in the home of a legit 3.5 player, or he visits in my
home, he wants to play me in backgammon. As many times as we visited
in each other's homes, you never asked me to play. You knew that if
we played, you would be exposed.
The above list could go on ad infinitum.

I have known you for a bit more than five years, and I liked you for
the first four years I knew you. Soon after I met you, I started
hearing many negative things about you from many different people, but
I simply dismissed them. Over time, however, they became too great in
number and seriousness for me to continue to ignore.

Once while I was at your apartment in Inverness, I saw that while you
were playing a match, you had a small Snowie board at the top of your
screen. Even then, I refused to consider that you might be an Internet
cheater.

The turning point for me came in January 2005, as I was leaving Howard
Ring's home after a long visit. Your name came up because I asked
Howard if he would play on your team again, and he responded by saying
something to the effect that you were a Snowie Internet cheater.

After considering Howard's statement, I pondered the many pieces of
evidence I had at my disposal. The same words and logic that you used
to condemn Alex five years ago applied with equal force to you.

There was a guy in Charlotte from Bethesda, MD, to whom you spoke for a
long time on Saturday night. He is tall, with gray-white hair and a
ponytail. I do not remember his name, so I will call him Bethesda. He
told me that he played four 11pt matches with you and your average
error rate was under 2.0. Your error rate in the demo match against
Ray Fogerlund was roughly 2.4. You have told me that your average
error rate online is 3.5. No way do I believe that you could have
averaged 2.0 in those five 11pt matches.

Even the brightest person on the planet would have to do a helluva lot
of work and study to learn enough about BG to play with an error rate
of 3.5 online. It is very clear to me that you do not have enough
understanding of the concepts of backgammon to play legitimately 3.5
online or live. Your claim that you learned the game and became a 3.5
player by sparring with Jellyfish is laughable.

But wait! Reports have been pouring in that your error rate has
miraculously improved from a world-class 3.5 to a world's best 2.5!
VCF (a very credible friend) told me that he has 18 of your online
matches in his Snowie account manager, and you are averaging 2.5. You
expect me to believe that against Bethesda, Ray and VCF, you are now
averaging better than 2.5? Am I supposed to believe that you are the
best player in the world online? Too bad you can't see the whole
board at one time well enough to play over a live board, or you would
be recognized as the best in the world! Why would you even want to
take lessons from Nack when you already play better than 2.5?

You wanted to have the accolades and respect that come with being a
great player, but you wanted to have them without paying your dues in
the form of studying.

Can you name one single player on the Giant 32 list who believes that
you legitimately play 3.5 online? Are you aware that dozens and dozens
of people know you are not
legit? Lots and lots of people knew it before I did. While you were
playing the demo match with Ray Fogerlund and Phil Simborg was doing
the commentating, one of the players mentioned in the chat that you are
a cheater.

It is no big secret. It is out in the open. You have absolutely no
credibility in the BG world. Your scam is over. It lasted a long
time, and I hope you enjoyed it while it lasted, but it is now time to
give it up. Why don't you start cheating at poker instead? You
could make a lot more money cheating at poker online.

You could allay all of our suspicions by agreeing to the same test that
you proposed for Alex five years ago. Would you be willing to play a
series of matches online in the presence of a monitor? Would you be
willing to do this the next time you are in Vegas or at some other
tournament? I would be willing to fly to San Antonio, paying my
airfare and hotel expenses, to give you the chance prove yourself.
Name any weekend in May or June, and I'll be there. I'll watch
you play some matches online, and we'll do the Snowie analysis and
see what your error rate is. Are you willing to do this?

If so, and if your error rate is what you claim it to be, then I will
be happy to offer you a big-time public apology.

I believed in you for a long time, but sorry, it has now become far too
difficult a stretch of the imagination for me to believe that you are a
legit 2.5 or 3.5 player.

You evidently wanted a shortcut to gaining respect. The irony is that I
would have respected you just fine with a 6.0 or 8.0 error rate, as
long as you had been honest, but now, neither I nor any other BG player
I know of has any respect for you at all.

You were trying to find people to enter your tournament with a $100
entry fee and a payback of 120%. You told me you had only nine
entries. You could not figure out the reason that more people were not
interested. Did it ever occur to you that the reason you had a tough
time getting entries is that people are onto you and want to have
nothing to do with you?

To answer your questions:

Someone on the Zone made the following statement to me:

"it is alleged that he said to all who wud listen that he saw you using
a bot while playing bg in zone and u said that u do it whille playing
money games as well"

The "he" in the prior statement was you, in other words, that you were
telling people that you had seen me using a bot in Zone games, and that
I had told you that I use one in money games. This allegedly took
place in Charlotte.

This all sounds very strange, did this happen? It makes very little
sense.

Yes, I said that I saw you using a bot in your home while playing BG on
the Internet. Yes, I said that you do it while playing money games. I
did not, however, say that you
had told me you used one in money games, but I may very well have told
them about the self-incriminating e-mail you sent me on or about Sep
23, 2005, telling me about the wide disparity in your Snowie error rate
online and in real live play.

Did you say those things, or didn't you? And if you claim to have seen
me using a bot on the Zone, it could not possibly have been more
recently than early 2003, since that was the last time you were at my
home. What would possess you to suddenly make this claim years after
the fact?

There was no "suddenly" to it. I've been saying this for the
last year. I said it to Bethesda because he told me about playing four
11pt matches with you in which your error rate was under 2.0, on
average. I told him that there was no way your level of play was a
legit 2.0. I told him that I had seen you use a bot in your home. It
is not merely a claim, it is a fact.

One evening when I was over at your place, you were sitting on your
sofa, playing a match on your desktop, while I was lying on the sofa to
your right watching TV. You thought I could not see your screen from
that angle, and you were correct, but when I suddenly got up for
whatever reason, I caught a glimpse of your screen with the larger
board in the center and the cheating board at the top. You looked at
me and I quickly looked away and acted as if I had not seen anything.
Even after seeing this, I was still in denial, and still not willing to
believe that you were a cheater. That has now changed. Now I know.

Even the way you phrased your question indicts you. You wrote, "And
if you claim to have seen me using a bot on the Zone, it could not
possibly have been more recently than early 2003, since that was the
last time you were at my home. What would possess you to suddenly make
this claim years after the fact?"

Instead of saying, "You could not possibly have seen me using a bot
because I never did it," you said, "It could not possibly have been
more recently than early 2003, since this was the last time you were at
my home." By the way you worded the question you were conceding that
I had seen you using the bot. Instead of asking, "Why would you make
such a baseless claim?" you asked, "What would possess you to
suddenly make this claim years after the fact?"

You are a fake. You are a fraud. You are a phony. You are a thief.
You are scum.

You defile the backgammon scene. You need to get totally out of
backgammon.

Git out wile the gittin's good.

Paul

eskimo

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 9:37:51 AM3/1/06

to

In article <1141221072.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Ge_...@ameritech.net says...

BlaBla, be it a troll or not... (I don't bother to check headers & al).
But there are a few interesting notions in there that is worth
commenting considering this newsgroups perspective.

> legit 3.5 player...

For the last 5 years more and more players seem to move below the
(IMHO) magic 5.0 mark. I think my stats on a certain Finn are close to
3.5 average (doubt I have enough material) and he sure plays live.

> Once while I was at your apartment in Inverness, I saw that while you
> were playing a match, you had a small Snowie board at the top of your
> screen. Even then, I refused to consider that you might be an Internet
> cheater.

I would almost be surprised not to see this (on occasion at least).
Lots and lots of players analyze their previous matches while playing
the next. It's good to know when your concentration starts to faulter.
I would suspect people keep their analysis software minimized though as
even looking at another board interferes with the game.

Eskimo

--
//------------------------------
//Remove tämä all the way to and including soomee to mail directly.
//Ascended:W,V (genopolywish),P(ill ath), T,K,H,S,B,C,P,W
(naked),Ro,Ra,A,W,almost pacifist A
//In progress:PAIN

Robi

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 5:23:39 PM3/1/06

to

I checked my stats about redtop. the matches I played him (mostly 3pointers)
he averages
below 2. this is amazing. he must be one of the best or cheating.

Grunty

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 5:34:14 PM3/1/06

to

Robi wrote:

> the matches I played him (mostly 3pointers) he averages below 2.

So, he lost most of them. Pretty mediocre.

Robi

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 5:42:49 PM3/1/06

to

nope, I lost the most of them.

"Grunty" <grunti...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1141252454.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 6:19:37 PM3/1/06

to

I have played redtop a lot. I haven't kept detailed stats. However,
my informal verdict is very much in the opposite direction of Robi.
There was one money session where he incorrectly held, when he had a
very strong double. This happened several times. Hank totally misread
the cube actions for a complex back game. I've played him in games
where he has been rated very poorly indeed.

In conversations with me, he has been very upfront about his use of
Snowie. He explained to me that he always keeps Snowie running in the
background, because he uses it for research in opening theory. So the
allegation that he uses Snowie in a secretive and clandestine way is
100% bullshit. I never asked him about Snowie. He just mentioned it
to me casually in an online conversation.

There is lots of non-cheating evidence for the defence, available from
his interactions with me. He explained to me that I was sure to lose
to him in the long run and even quantified my losses at 0.25 ppg which
is quite enormous. He never tried to persuade me to raise the stakes.
Once, when I got lucky and was 8 points ahead in a money session, he
encouraged me to quit while I was ahead (which I did).

Paul Epstein

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 6:25:35 PM3/1/06

to

What is his speed of play during your matches? Did he play obvious
moves very quickly or was there a lag? Is he a World Class player who
plays in real life backgammon tournaments and is successful?

I may be mistaken but was not Hank (Red Top) the one who said that he
often played rather slowly using all his available time because he was
"multitasking"?

I also recall Paul Epstein criticizing him for doing this as it was
unfair to his opponents to have to wait because he was doing something
other than playing backgammon. I certainly hope he was not cheating
using a bg computer program.

Apologies if I got the wrong player but I am pretty sure my memory is
correct. If so, the rationalization for his slow play combined with
reports of his playing at such a high level could cause one to be
suspicious.

Rich

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 6:32:51 PM3/1/06

to

On 1 Mar 2006 15:19:37 -0800, paulde...@att.net wrote:

>I have played redtop a lot. I haven't kept detailed stats. However,
>my informal verdict is very much in the opposite direction of Robi.
>There was one money session where he incorrectly held, when he had a
>very strong double. This happened several times. Hank totally misread
>the cube actions for a complex back game. I've played him in games
>where he has been rated very poorly indeed.

The above certainly is not evidence that he is not using a computer
program. It could have been that he was not using the program when he
was playing poorly. Someone who is cheating would be wise to not
always use the program since that would make it too obvious. In fact
if you are playing for low stakes that would be a time to not use the
program.

>
>In conversations with me, he has been very upfront about his use of
>Snowie. He explained to me that he always keeps Snowie running in the
>background, because he uses it for research in opening theory. So the
>allegation that he uses Snowie in a secretive and clandestine way is
>100% bullshit.

It is 100% bullshit because he gave you an explanation
(?rationalization) for running Snowie in the background?? Interesting
logic.

> I never asked him about Snowie. He just mentioned it
>to me casually in an online conversation.

Perhaps he knew that others knew he ran Snowie in the background and
wanted to have an explanation for it that did not include cheating.

>
>There is lots of non-cheating evidence for the defence, available from
>his interactions with me. He explained to me that I was sure to lose
>to him in the long run and even quantified my losses at 0.25 ppg which
>is quite enormous. He never tried to persuade me to raise the stakes.
>Once, when I got lucky and was 8 points ahead in a money session, he
>encouraged me to quit while I was ahead (which I did).

The above also is not evidence he is not cheating. Maybe he likes you
and does not want to rip you off.

And was it not you who criticized him for admitting to playing very
slowly because he was doing other things while playing backgammon?

Note clearly that I am not directly accusing him of cheating but your
experience certainly is not compelling evidence exonerating him.

Rich
>
>Paul Epstein

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 6:43:34 PM3/1/06

to

Rich,

Your comments are sober, and relevant.

I'm just a bit upset by this. What I can say is that I very much
_hope_ he hasn't cheated. Part of the reason is that a fair amount
involved is my money, which I willingly sacrificed for the sake of
playing a world-class player. I certainly did not want to play someone
who is just copying Snowie -- why would I pay for that?

You are certainly correct that I have no real evidence to exonerate
him.

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to me criticizing him. Yes, I did
criticize him for slow play. However, I did this privately. To the
best of my recollection, I kept this personal criticism between me and
him, and never made this complaint public. Perhaps I misremember and I
mentioned it in a posting? I don't know -- it's puzzling anyway.

Paul Epstein

Robi

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 6:46:55 PM3/1/06

to

<ri...@NOTyahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:40bc02p52igl2nuc7...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:23:39 +0100, "Robi" <r...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>>I checked my stats about redtop. the matches I played him (mostly
>>3pointers)
>>he averages
>>below 2. this is amazing. he must be one of the best or cheating.
>
> What is his speed of play during your matches? Did he play obvious
> moves very quickly or was there a lag?

the speed is rather slow, but not too slow.

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 6:52:52 PM3/1/06

to

The key question is whether he plays the very obvious rolls quickly or
if he plays those slowly also. I also don't know what you mean by not
"too slow".

Rich

Robi

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 6:56:36 PM3/1/06

to

<ri...@NOTyahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nrcc02pe4p857fp0e...@4ax.com...

I don't remember exactly if he plays different on obvious rolls.
about the slowness: if you cheat with Snowie i guess you nead more
time to do this, so his slowless does NOT indicate that he cheats.

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 7:03:26 PM3/1/06

to

On 1 Mar 2006 15:43:34 -0800, paulde...@att.net wrote:

>Rich,
>
>Your comments are sober, and relevant.
>
>I'm just a bit upset by this. What I can say is that I very much
>_hope_ he hasn't cheated. Part of the reason is that a fair amount
>involved is my money, which I willingly sacrificed for the sake of
>playing a world-class player.

Is Hank Youngerman a World Class Player other than his ability on the
internet? Does he play backgammon away from the computer and have a
good reputation at live tournaments? The OP suggested that he never
plays singles and only plays doubles when he plays in tournaments. Is
that true? If so that is *very* suspicious IMO. Of course the world
class players who he plays doubles with could give an assessment of
his ability based on the advice that he gave during the match.

> I certainly did not want to play someone
>who is just copying Snowie -- why would I pay for that?

Good question. Again, why do you think Hank is World Class player?
That is a very important question.

>
>You are certainly correct that I have no real evidence to exonerate
>him.

Actually your "evidence" is in some ways more incriminating than
exculpatory if you look at the big picture.

>
>I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to me criticizing him. Yes, I did
>criticize him for slow play. However, I did this privately. To the
>best of my recollection, I kept this personal criticism between me and
>him, and never made this complaint public. Perhaps I misremember and I
>mentioned it in a posting? I don't know -- it's puzzling anyway.

Since I am not psychic it obviously was done publicly in this
newsgroup. I don't recall the thread but there was a discussion about
slow play on line. Hank said that he often used up all the clock when
he played on GE because they were lenient about giving you a lot of
time per move. He explained it by saying that he was doing other
things. You then criticized him for doing this. I remember this very
clearly. I believe he apologized and agreed that it was not fair to
the opponent.

Are you saying you complained about his slow play when he played *you*
specifically. IOW does he play slowly with you? That suggests he may
be using a computer program especially if he plays slowly on the
obvious moves.

I've watched him play on TMG and he plays slower than the other
players making me suspicious especially in light of all the other
accusations.

I am really interested in whether he plays singles backgammon
tournaments in real life and has a good record which he should
considering his level of play on the internet.

But he reads this newsgroup and can speak for himself.

Btw, who is this Paul who is the OP and says that he is a top ranked
player. It is not Paul Magriel is it?

Rich

>
>Paul Epstein

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 7:05:15 PM3/1/06

to

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:56:36 +0100, "Robi" <r...@gmx.ch> wrote:

>
><ri...@NOTyahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:nrcc02pe4p857fp0e...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:46:55 +0100, "Robi" <r...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><ri...@NOTyahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:40bc02p52igl2nuc7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:23:39 +0100, "Robi" <r...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I checked my stats about redtop. the matches I played him (mostly
>>>>>3pointers)
>>>>>he averages
>>>>>below 2. this is amazing. he must be one of the best or cheating.
>>>>
>>>> What is his speed of play during your matches? Did he play obvious
>>>> moves very quickly or was there a lag?
>>>
>>>the speed is rather slow, but not too slow.
>>
>> The key question is whether he plays the very obvious rolls quickly or
>> if he plays those slowly also. I also don't know what you mean by not
>> "too slow".
>>
>> Rich
>
>
>I don't remember exactly if he plays different on obvious rolls.
>about the slowness: if you cheat with Snowie i guess you nead more
>time to do this, so his slowless does NOT indicate that he cheats.

The OP said that Hank told someone of a way to use Snowie and not
arouse suspicion. If you have a fast computer and a partner you could
pull it off without suspicion other than the level of play.

Rich

Robi

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 7:08:39 PM3/1/06

to

> Btw, who is this Paul who is the OP and says that he is a top ranked
> player. It is not Paul Magriel is it?
>
> Rich

Paul Weaver

Raccoon

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 7:08:57 PM3/1/06

to

paulde...@att.net wrote:
> There was one money session where he incorrectly held, when he had a
> very strong double. This happened several times. Hank totally misread
> the cube actions for a complex back game. I've played him in games
> where he has been rated very poorly indeed.

In Robi's money matches HY played extraordinarily well, but in your low
stakes games he played poorly -- is that what you're saying? I don't
know what that proves. What was your point again, please?

> There is lots of non-cheating evidence for the defence,

I'm very confused. Are you sure you are a defense witness?

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 7:16:25 PM3/1/06

to

In Paul's defense I suspect he just does not want to admit that he got
cheated.

Rich

Grunty

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 7:18:46 PM3/1/06

to

Robi wrote:

I was just word-playing with the 2 figure as "points" :-)

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 7:48:49 PM3/1/06

to

"Btw, who is this Paul who is the OP and says that he is a top ranked
player. It is not Paul Magriel is it? "

Rich, I think you misread the OP. The OP is called GeoffA and his post
consists (mainly) of an extensive quote from "Paul Weever". [I think
this is a misspelling of Paul Weaver]. Anyway, the "Paul" is Paul
Weaver/Weever, a well-known player.

Paul (neither a Magriel nor a Weaver be) Epstein

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 8:02:29 PM3/1/06

to

On 1 Mar 2006 16:48:49 -0800, paulde...@att.net wrote:

>"Btw, who is this Paul who is the OP and says that he is a top ranked
>player. It is not Paul Magriel is it? "
>
>Rich, I think you misread the OP. The OP is called GeoffA and his post
>consists (mainly) of an extensive quote from "Paul Weever". [I think
>this is a misspelling of Paul Weaver]. Anyway, the "Paul" is Paul
>Weaver/Weever, a well-known player.

Yes, I know Paul Weaver if it is the same Paul Weaver. He is from
Texas?

If Paul Weaver really said those things then I would be very hesitant
about playing Red Top aka Hank for money. A word to the wise.

Raccoon

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 8:45:15 PM3/1/06

to

GeoffA wrote:
> There is a letter making the rounds of the internet now from Paul Weever

Mr. Adams, you won't mind if someone asks: who on the good green earth
is Geoff Adams and what credibility did he expect posting in a public
forum a private email supposedly from someone whose name the
aforementioned Mr. Adams didn't even spell correctly?

And, Mr. Adams, not to worry but you've been reported to the UN
programme responsible for the protection of endangered question marks.

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 8:46:42 PM3/1/06

to

On 1 Mar 2006 15:43:34 -0800, paulde...@att.net wrote:

>I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to me criticizing him. Yes, I did
>criticize him for slow play. However, I did this privately. To the
>best of my recollection, I kept this personal criticism between me and
>him, and never made this complaint public. Perhaps I misremember and I
>mentioned it in a posting? I don't know -- it's puzzling anyway.

I found Hank's post but not your reply. Here it is:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:43:21 -0500, Hank Youngerman
<red...@redtopbg.com> wrote:

>Speaking for myself, I am often multi-tasking when playing on GE.
>They give me 45 seconds a move, so if I'm on the phone or getting IMs
>from a friend, I take the 45 seconds. TMG puts me under much more
>time pressure, so it gets my full attention. GE should tighten up its
>clocks IMO.

It is interesting that Hank made this reply in a post entitled
"Cheating At Gammon Empire". One can make an argument that he was
pre-emptively trying to rationalize his slow play there.

Rich

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 9:01:36 PM3/1/06

to

No, I'm not sure I'm a defence witness. I _hope_ that he is not
cheating.

I've played him at $5 per point. What were Robi's stakes?

Paul Epstein

Grunty

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 9:03:27 PM3/1/06

to

ri...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:

> If Paul Weaver really said those things then I would be very hesitant
> about playing Red Top aka Hank for money. A word to the wise.

A saying goes: "Never poop where you eat".
Hank is tied with CG, he wouldn't cheat there. Even less so, for just
$15 or $25 matches against a less skilled player.
(I'm not implying CG can't cheat games, that may be another story
folks...)

One possibility that comes to mind is, his new tournaments run at CG
might be threatening, if grown up, someone else's share of tournaments
(be they live organizers or online sites).
I don't know what people are behind CG, but I'd bet Paul Weaver is not.
Something smells rotten indeed.

Regarding Hank's playing level, I have him rated ranging between Expert
and WorldClass according to the old scale. But I've seen him at TMG a
few times making mistakes (some checker, some cube) a top expert
wouldn't.

Regarding Hank's playing pace, yes he takes a bit longer than an expert
player would. But it didn't appear to me as "suspicious".

Only thing I can assure is, he is definitely *not* a top expert. If he
truly went by live tournaments pretending that, then he's a poor guy.
Not necessarily a cheat though.
But hey, notoriously more stupid are the *real* top players who got
fooled for years, when to an expert eye it takes watching a few money
games to quite accurately assess a player's level.

Maybe our former Kitten could shed some light on this disgusting
matter, from having met Hank in live tournaments...?

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 9:06:51 PM3/1/06

to

"In Paul's defense I suspect he just does not want to admit that he got
cheated."

This is basically correct. Although I'm not particularly reluctant to
"admit that I got cheated", particularly if the evidence mounts up.

There's also more to it than that. Most of us would rather believe
that people are good-natured etc. So it is a bit upsetting when we
know someone personally who has been shown to be dishonest.

Rich, you're about to accuse me of being hypersensitive etc. But your
portrayal of my reaction is not that flattering. Never mind.

Paul Epstein

Robi

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 9:12:41 PM3/1/06

to

they were tournaments on truemoneygames. 25$ and 50$ entry fee, with
guaranteed prize ofof 250-500$

<paulde...@att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1141264896.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Derek Ray

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 9:17:41 PM3/1/06

to

Raccoon wrote:
> GeoffA wrote:
>> There is a letter making the rounds of the internet now from Paul Weever
>
> Mr. Adams, you won't mind if someone asks: who on the good green earth
> is Geoff Adams and what credibility did he expect posting in a public
> forum a private email supposedly from someone whose name the
> aforementioned Mr. Adams didn't even spell correctly?

Even more entertaining... how do you know his name is Adams? :)

I'm having a good look at this post, and I don't see him mention that
name anywhere... nor do I see it in his email address. Puzzling?
CONSPIRACY!?!?#$!!1111birdflu!11eleven

--
Derek

* I don't care if Hank cheats, because I don't play him for money

Pip_Pant...@noyahoospam.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 9:30:10 PM3/1/06

to

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:17:41 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Raccoon wrote:
> > GeoffA wrote:
> >> There is a letter making the rounds of the internet now from Paul Weever
> >
> > Mr. Adams, you won't mind if someone asks: who on the good green earth
> > is Geoff Adams and what credibility did he expect posting in a public
> > forum a private email supposedly from someone whose name the
> > aforementioned Mr. Adams didn't even spell correctly?
>
>Even more entertaining... how do you know his name is Adams? :)
>
>I'm having a good look at this post, and I don't see him mention that
>name anywhere... nor do I see it in his email address. Puzzling?
>CONSPIRACY!?!?#$!!1111birdflu!11eleven

The NTTP Posting address identifies as an ADSL line in the northern
Illnois area. Does that info help any?

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 10:23:32 PM3/1/06

to

It seems fairly clear to me that this "proof" should cause the site
owners to take absolutely no action against him. "If he really was a
3.5 player, he would play against Paul Weaver for money." Not exactly
compelling is it? All the other evidence is of that type.

Paul Epstein

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 10:32:20 PM3/1/06

to

Can anyone in the know (preferably an established expert) shed at least
a little light by confirming that Paul Weaver has indeed written the
above letter? As it stands, we only have "Geoff A" 's word for it.

Does Paul Weaver have a public email address [Please respect his
privacy. _Only give his address if he has made it public himself_.]

Since this letter is "making the rounds of the internet", I was
surprised not to be able to google it. (Although this may be a
reflection on my poor googling skills.)

Paul Epstein

Derek Ray

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 10:33:49 PM3/1/06

to

paulde...@att.net wrote:

> Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> Ideally, someone with this much "proof" would simply go to the site
>> owners, you'd think. :) They can't ALL be in on it with him...
>

> It seems fairly clear to me that this "proof" should cause the site
> owners to take absolutely no action against him. "If he really was a
> 3.5 player, he would play against Paul Weaver for money." Not exactly
> compelling is it? All the other evidence is of that type.

Amazing, huh? :) I guess that's why it's being posted here instead of
taken somewhere else.

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 10:49:22 PM3/1/06

to

On 1 Mar 2006 19:32:20 -0800, paulde...@att.net wrote:

>Can anyone in the know (preferably an established expert) shed at least
>a little light by confirming that Paul Weaver has indeed written the
>above letter? As it stands, we only have "Geoff A" 's word for it.

If Paul Weaver did not write it, whoever is asserting that he did can
get into all kinds of legal trouble. Of course he misspelled his name
as "Weever" so this may be a way to avoid legal ramifications.

Did you ask Red Top about this? Can you get in touch with him to get
his side of the story.?

Rich

Robi

unread,

Mar 1, 2006, 11:05:54 PM3/1/06

to

I asked Paul Weaver via Email and he said it is his letter.

Hank is moving right now and don't have access to newsgroup.

<paulde...@att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1141270340.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 4:38:25 AM3/2/06

to

I'll admit it. I'm chicken to ask him about it. Somebody else, step
up.

I find it pretty inconceivable that he doesn't know about the
controversy.

Paul Epstein

GeoffA

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 6:56:15 AM3/2/06

to

Shoot the messanger.. defend Hank whatever you do.. The reason I
posted this here was so people would stop getting cheated by Hank Y and
losing money etc.. What he is doing is stealing the writer of the
letter got that correct. I have some other letters from some of Hanks
other friends blasting Hank and admitting hes a cheat also.. but why
post them??? So you all can criticize me some more???

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 7:12:04 AM3/2/06

to

This confuses me. This reads as a reply to me. But where is the
criticism you are objecting to? I have never made any criticism of you
whatsoever.

Presumably, your positioning of your posting as a reply to me was an
error?

Paul Epstein

KDP

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 7:33:51 AM3/2/06

to

Let me start by saying I do not know Hank nor have I ever played him.
However over the years several things have struck me as being odd.
When I first started playing BG online several years ago, like many the
first place I played was MSN Zone. I enjoyed the (mostly) friendly
atmosphere and I also enjoyed watching my rating go up as I got better.
That is where i first saw the name RedTop. For a long time he was the
top rated player there, then the ratings manipulators took over and he
was no longer the top dog. I guess it was about that time that
GammonZone came into existence. I understand their reasoning about
wanting the ratings to be fair, providing competitive tourneys and
leagues etc, etc. Guess who is the top rated player there? Ok that in
itself isn't strange, but if one looks at the number of tourneys won
compared to the rest of the folks it begs the question, is he really
that much better than the rest? Is everyone else that bad? Given the
sheer number of players, (and there are some decent players there) one
would think the gap wouldnt be so great. Now it seems that the
operators of GammonZone and Hank have had a falling out and now there
is WarpGammon. Guess who is the #1 player there? Hmmmm. Please don't
get me wrong, I like the competion online and enjoy playing, but after
a while I want to test myself against better competition. So I would
agree with the OP that Hank revels in being the big fish in the small
pond scenario. But does that make him a cheater? Another thing I found
odd, is that if I'm that strong of a player, eventually I want to test
myself in the real world of live tournaments. I can't ever recall
seeing his name mentioned at Gammonvillage or Chicago Point about
placing in the money at any live tournament. I realize that not every
online player can arrange to play at a live tournament. I recall
something I did read Hank saying to the effect that he played bridge
live and BG online. My theory on that is, that most if not all bridge
tournaments do not offer cash prizes and its my understanding that the
bridge software isnt as strong or sophisticated as the backgammon
programs. So that makes sense. But does that make him a cheater? I do
find it odd also that his comment about taking the full 45 secs at
TrueMoneyGames. When I play, I dont want any distractions, so I rarely
have any messenger service open or a phone close by because I want to
concentrate on what I'm doing. I guess it doesnt matter much if I'm
yapping on the phone if I know that I'm only a mouse click away from
making the right move if in fact he is using Snowie. So, taken
individually none of these things mean he is a cheater, but
collectively things start to get a little suspicious. The question
remains, with a of a lack of any direct evidence, does suspicion
alone, even strong suspicion make someone a cheater? Perhaps we should
ask Barry Bonds.

georgeha...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 7:48:19 AM3/2/06

to

I'm not meaning to criticize you, I don't even know you. I do find it
strange that you have various letters from RedTop's "friends" calling
him a cheater. With friends like that who needs enemies? And why do
you collect these letters?

Still, I wish more people would step up and point out the cheaters in
online backgammon. So, if that was your intent, thanks. But I think
you're wrong. And I haven't seen anyone here defending Hank. I will.

I don't think RedTop uses bots while playing. You haven't shared
anything that shows that he is. A 3.5 error rate is not proof of
cheating. And that letter didn't make any sense. Anyone would gain
from lessons and/or playing doubles with Nack Ballard... whatever their
error rate. I also am very grateful to be able to play peever on
gamesgrid and appreciate the opportunity in the NackBlitzes. I've only
met a couple "name" players in real life (Frank Frigo, John O'Hagan)
but I probably was a little awestruck when I first met and played them.
I hope that doesn't make me a cheater somehow.

And, of course, doubles events do matter. The Pro-Am is the biggest
event of the Backgammon world right now... only possibly excepting
MonteCarlo. I don't know what the point of saying they don't matter
was, but it certainly doesn't prove any kind of cheating.

RedTop not only plays well, he shares his knowledge... on his website
and in (free!) lessons on gamesgrid, and in articles for various
newsletters. He's an intelligent, strong player who I've learned from
and enjoyed playing.

Obviously I don't know that he has never used a bot to cheat with. I
don't know him except as RedTop on gamesgird and clubgames. But why
would he? The idea that he would cheat to impress the players on the
Zone is laughable. If it is to make money, I'm sure he has better
legit ways to do that... and if he wanted to cheat to make money, there
is a lot more action in poker for instance.

So the "proof" that he cheats is (a) his error rate and (b) these
quasi-anonymous letters that have his former friends criticizing him
and pointing out that he has the ability to cheat if he wants to.

I would say both of those are true... he's a good player and of course
knows how a cheater might cheat.

So, I guess to GeoffA, if you are trying to convince me that he cheats,
I'll need some evidence, not an angry rant. And to be honest, if that
letter is from Paul Weaver, don't you think you should have let him
post it to rec.games.backgammon IF he wanted to?

To RedTop, thank you for all you have contributed to the backgammon
community. I don't know how you can clear this up, maybe with
gamesgrid and a webcam? It's a lot easier to accuse someone of
cheating than to prove that you don't.

GeoffA

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 8:00:02 AM3/2/06

to

I am so sure he wont clear his name its not even an issue. I posted
this ONCE again so that people will stop having their money STOLEN by
Hank Y (AKA redtop). The fact he has cheated in every way possible on
MSN zone (not including a bot) is a very well known fact. Now the
question is... for someone for which winning means so much would they
also stoop to the level of bot using to play??? I think this is a
no-brainer. Hank is a fraud always has been always will be.. I am
betting the farm he wont clear his name, wont ever play live, and wont
use a webcam.. The reason why?? Because he cant.. He would be exposed
just as this letter says... BTW I played Paul Weaver for a team league
match when he was on REDTOPS team so they used to be friends at one
point.

Maybe you missed the part where Hanks admits to making 10,000$ playing
online backgammon..????

To me this is grand larceny the same way holding up a bank with a ski
mask is..its CRIMINAL!!!

Michael Crane

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 8:11:41 AM3/2/06

to

snip> Maybe you missed the part where Hanks admits to making 10,000$ playing
online backgammon..????<snip

Did he actually tell you he made it by cheating? Or is that your opinion?

Michael

"GeoffA" <Ge_...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:1141304402.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Derek Ray

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 8:32:00 AM3/2/06

to

KDP wrote:
> Let me start by saying I do not know Hank nor have I ever played him.

Oh, look! Another anonymous poster we've never seen here before,
posting from Google Groups, posting from the 68.* class A IP range, and
making more indirect insinuations.

What are the chances? At least it wasn't the exact same IP address or
user-agent, but we can draw our own conclusions, I guess.

When Paul Weaver steps up to the plate and personally tells us that he
wrote the letter, then I'll be willing to believe that Paul Weaver
believes what he wrote. But that's as far as I can go, right now. And
honestly, that's about as far as I can care.

Again, I just don't give a damn whether RedTop cheats or not. But I
will say this; I have an inherent distrust of smear campaigns conducted
by people who are attempting to remain anonymous. If you are really
'betting the farm', then you would identify yourself completely with
your full name and background in backgammon, so we can know the source
of the connection and accusation. Any idiot can create a Google Groups
account and post a smear about someone; forgive me if anonymous
information circulated via the Intarwebs is just not high on my
credibility (or caring) list.

Of course, if you posted under your full name, you run the risk of
facing a libel suit. But in the USA, the truth is considered to be a
never-fail, always-win defense against a libel suit -- if what you say
is true and you can demonstrate it, then you have nothing to fear.

GeoffA

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 8:47:24 AM3/2/06

to

I'll tell ya what Derek.. if you post all your personal information on
here and your relationship to BG and your achievements and so on and so
forth then I will also. This isnt about me.. maybe you havent realized
that yet. I am not Hank Y.. I have won $$ playing before LIVE (unlike
Hank) and I am willing to have a webcam watch me play ANY time ANY day.

Michael Crane

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 9:31:11 AM3/2/06

to

My personal details are common knowledge via www.backgammon-biba.co.uk and
I'm asking you to come out and make your accusations giving us the same
details. If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

I shall take your (expected) lack of personal detail response to mean that
you are simply conducting a smear campaign and have no real evidence to back
it up.

Any moron can say anything about anybody on the web and remain anonymous and
thus escape having to produce anything to substantiate their claims . . . as
you have so clearly shown.

Michael

"GeoffA" <Ge_...@ameritech.net> wrote in message

news:1141307244.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Gregg Cattanach

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 9:34:47 AM3/2/06

to

ri...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
>
> I am really interested in whether he plays singles backgammon
> tournaments in real life and has a good record which he should
> considering his level of play on the internet.

Hank has attended quite a few major weekend tournaments and I've never seen
him play a match at any of them. He may have played some doubles, I'm not
sure about that. He usually spends his time recording other people's
matches.

>
> But he reads this newsgroup and can speak for himself.
>
> Btw, who is this Paul who is the OP and says that he is a top ranked
> player. It is not Paul Magriel is it?
>

The Paul in the letter is Paul Weaver.

--
Gregg C.

paulde...@att.net

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 9:38:03 AM3/2/06

to

This seems somewhat akin to very strong chess players who regularly
attend strong tournaments to act as arbiters and TDs etc.

Of course, such people are not chess cheats. When Hank attends these
events to act as a match recorder, why is it more suspicious than when
chess players act as officials rather than players.

Paul Epstein

Message has been deleted

Grunty

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 9:45:13 AM3/2/06

to

georgeha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I haven't seen anyone here defending Hank.

You and others may have missed my last post yesterday.
It got somewhat buried under the hysterical Rich's posts and the
sentimental Paul's ones and the Patriot-Act-tracing team's ones.

There I grant him, as for now, the benefit of the doubt.

> To RedTop, thank you for all you have contributed to the backgammon
> community.

Hey, it isn't funeral time yet...

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 9:45:55 AM3/2/06

to

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 05:05:54 +0100, "Robi" <r...@gmx.ch> wrote:

>I asked Paul Weaver via Email and he said it is his letter.
>
>Hank is moving right now and don't have access to newsgroup.

Could you ask him to post here directly so we don't have to hear it
second hand?

Rich

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 9:54:01 AM3/2/06

to

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:34:47 GMT, "Gregg Cattanach"
<rl31...@excite.com> wrote:

>ri...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> I am really interested in whether he plays singles backgammon
>> tournaments in real life and has a good record which he should
>> considering his level of play on the internet.
>
>Hank has attended quite a few major weekend tournaments and I've never seen
>him play a match at any of them. He may have played some doubles, I'm not
>sure about that. He usually spends his time recording other people's
>matches.

Unless I am mistaken not a single person has seen him play a match at
a tournament other than doubles. If he never plays singles this is
*very* suspicious. Paul Weaver also alleged in his letter that Red Top
gave a questionable rationalization for not playing live; that he
cannot see the board. The more I hear, the more suspicious I am
getting.

>
>>
>> But he reads this newsgroup and can speak for himself.
>>
>> Btw, who is this Paul who is the OP and says that he is a top ranked
>> player. It is not Paul Magriel is it?
>>
>
>The Paul in the letter is Paul Weaver.

Yes, I missed reading his name the first time around. Paul Weaver is a
backgammon pro. If that is his letter and he really wrote it then I am
inclined to believe him. He made some very direct and serious
accusations. If they are false then Hank clearly can take legal action
since he clearly has damaged his reputation and cost him money as
people are going to be less likely to play him.

I would like to hear Hank's side of the story.

Rich

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 9:55:53 AM3/2/06

to

Because these chess players also occasionally play live chess and show
their skills. Can ANYONE vouch for Hank's backgammon skills away from
the internet? Has ANYONE seen him EVER play singles backgammon
tournament live??

Rich
>
>Paul Epstein

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 10:01:54 AM3/2/06

to

On 2 Mar 2006 06:45:13 -0800, "Grunty" <grunti...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>hysterical Rich's posts

Hysterical? Now *that* was hysterical.

I clearly stated that I was not directly accusing him of cheating and
wanted verification that Paul Weaver really wrote that letter. I
encourage Paul Weaver to post here if he is able. Perhaps Robi can ask
him since he has his e-mail address. I am merely quite suspicious and
for good reason.

I know that Red Top plays on TMG tournaments and it is impossible to
determine before you enter a tournament, who is enrolled in it unlike
CG where not only can you see who enters but also what their rating
is. TMG has no ratings. Not only that, TMG allows users to change
their names on a rather frequent basis.

Until this is cleared up I would be reluctant to play in TMG
tournaments.

Rich

Gregg Cattanach

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 10:33:54 AM3/2/06

to

paulde...@att.net wrote:
> Can anyone in the know (preferably an established expert) shed at
> least a little light by confirming that Paul Weaver has indeed
> written the above letter? As it stands, we only have "Geoff A" 's
> word for it.

I know for a fact that Paul did indeed write this letter. I also doubt that
he asked Geoff A to post it here.

--
Gregg C.

Gregg Cattanach

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 10:37:20 AM3/2/06

to

Derek Ray wrote:
> KDP wrote:
>> Let me start by saying I do not know Hank nor have I ever played him.
>
> Oh, look! Another anonymous poster we've never seen here before,
> posting from Google Groups, posting from the 68.* class A IP range,
> and making more indirect insinuations.
>
> What are the chances? At least it wasn't the exact same IP address or
> user-agent, but we can draw our own conclusions, I guess.
>
> When Paul Weaver steps up to the plate and personally tells us that he
> wrote the letter, then I'll be willing to believe that Paul Weaver
> believes what he wrote. But that's as far as I can go, right now.
> And honestly, that's about as far as I can care.

I know for a fact that Paul wrote this letter. (He sent me a draft before he
sent it to Hank asking for comments). I also doubt he wanted it posted on
Usenet.

--
Gregg C.

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 11:03:41 AM3/2/06

to

How long ago did he send it to Hank? Did he get a response?

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 5:59:51 PM3/2/06

to

ri...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:01:47 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> certainly I know better than to
>> automatically believe the word of a pro just because they're a pro
>> (fallacy of appeal to authority raises its head again, yes?)
>
> While I agree with you that one should not automatically take the word
> of a pro or anyone else for that matter, I disagree that to do so is
> the fallacy of appeal to authority.

To take Paul's word solely because he is a pro _is_ that fallacy.

Paul's backgammon skill has no bearing on whether or not his claim of
Hank using a bot is true.

> I know Paul Weaver and don't
> believe he would make the kind of statements that he did without good
> reason.

Taking Paul's word because you know him personally, trust him to tell
the truth, and consider Paul to have _relevant_ reason to believe that
Hank uses a bot (ie. Paul saw it himself, as in his letter), on the
other hand, is not that fallacy. It still may be wrong (just because
you trust Paul doesn't have any bearing on the factual truth of Paul's
statements), but it at least puts everything in a valid perspective.

See the difference? :)

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 6:20:56 PM3/2/06

to

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:59:51 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>ri...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:01:47 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> certainly I know better than to
>>> automatically believe the word of a pro just because they're a pro
>>> (fallacy of appeal to authority raises its head again, yes?)
>>
>> While I agree with you that one should not automatically take the word
>> of a pro or anyone else for that matter, I disagree that to do so is
>> the fallacy of appeal to authority.
>
>To take Paul's word solely because he is a pro _is_ that fallacy.

If you did it *just* because he is a pro then you are correct. If you
take Paul's word because he is a pro and you know something about his
integrity then it is not appeal to authority. I am not aware of a
single poster here who has said that because Paul Weaver is a pro his
assertion about Hank must be true. So you are making the logical
fallacy of the straw man argument.

>
>Paul's backgammon skill has no bearing on whether or not his claim of
>Hank using a bot is true.

Never said it did. No one has. Straw man argument.

Paul said he witnessed Hank with Snowie on his screen while playing.
Paul said that Hank averaged 2.0 in fairly long matches. Paul made
many observations that if true would strongly suggest that Hank is
cheating. He said Howard Ring accused him of cheating. I would believe
Howard also, except Howard is no longer with us, may he rest in peace.

>
>> I know Paul Weaver and don't
>> believe he would make the kind of statements that he did without good
>> reason.
>
>Taking Paul's word because you know him personally, trust him to tell
>the truth, and consider Paul to have _relevant_ reason to believe that
>Hank uses a bot (ie. Paul saw it himself, as in his letter), on the
>other hand, is not that fallacy.

Yes and that is what I was using as the basis of my belief.

> It still may be wrong (just because
>you trust Paul doesn't have any bearing on the factual truth of Paul's
>statements), but it at least puts everything in a valid perspective.

Of course it may be wrong. That is why I would like to directly hear
from Hank and Paul as I have said. I simply am quite suspicious based
upon what information has been posted and would be quite reluctant to
play in a situation with Hank for money.

Of course it is possible that Paul Weaver really did not write all
that. It is also possible that Paul Weaver really did write it but is
either lying or mistaken. It is up to the readers to assess the
information in terms of reliability and validity.

Rich

Derek Ray

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 10:27:26 PM3/2/06

to

ri...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:01:47 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> certainly I know better than to
>>>> automatically believe the word of a pro just because they're a pro
>>>> (fallacy of appeal to authority raises its head again, yes?)
>>> While I agree with you that one should not automatically take the word
>>> of a pro or anyone else for that matter, I disagree that to do so is
>>> the fallacy of appeal to authority.
>> To take Paul's word solely because he is a pro _is_ that fallacy.
>
> If you did it *just* because he is a pro then you are correct.

Well, that's what I've been saying, Rich. You even quote it several
times above. Please quit putting words in my mouth just because you
feel argumentative today.

>> Taking Paul's word because you know him personally, trust him to tell
>> the truth, and consider Paul to have _relevant_ reason to believe that
>> Hank uses a bot (ie. Paul saw it himself, as in his letter), on the
>> other hand, is not that fallacy.
>
> Yes and that is what I was using as the basis of my belief.

And there we go.

>> It still may be wrong (just because
>> you trust Paul doesn't have any bearing on the factual truth of Paul's
>> statements), but it at least puts everything in a valid perspective.
>
> Of course it may be wrong. That is why I would like to directly hear
> from Hank and Paul as I have said. I simply am quite suspicious based
> upon what information has been posted and would be quite reluctant to
> play in a situation with Hank for money.

You are making a judgement based on your personal opinion of Paul
Weaver, however. That is what I was attempting to point out for other
people reading; that your suspicion is based entirely on personal
considerations.

Last I knew, the USA had an "innocent until proven guilty" court system.
I see no reason not to apply the same principles in other affairs,
even ones which are unlikely to ever reach a court of law. For people
who may not personally know Paul Weaver (such as myself), I see no
compelling reason yet to take his word for anything.

What I HAVE said is (paste begins) "I've seen this kind of

accusation/pissing match among professional gamblers before, and I know

better than to take sides one way or the other too early" (paste ends).

And THAT, boss, is also what I'm trying to point out; these sorts of
accusations are unfortunately far too common. Sometimes they are true,
and sometimes they are simply smear campaigns; I'm just pointing out
that nobody really knows anything yet, and it's not possible to take a
position based on rational thought until we hear both sides of the story.

> Of course it is possible that Paul Weaver really did not write all
> that. It is also possible that Paul Weaver really did write it but is
> either lying or mistaken. It is up to the readers to assess the
> information in terms of reliability and validity.

I find it extremely likely that Paul Weaver did write that letter, and I
am also sure that he firmly believes what he wrote in it. Right now,
however, you are asking people to assess the information based on only
half the story. After we have both halves, it should become pretty
obvious who is to be believed.

montygram

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 10:47:07 PM3/2/06

to

The only experience I have had with Redtop is watching him play in a
freeroll (against someone else). He moved off his 5 pt. anchor, and I
was so sure it was a mistake at that point that I recreated the
position in GNU and indeed it was quite an error. Of course, I were a
cheater, I would play freerolls without cheating so that I had a record
of not playing that well all the time, though this is not good either,
because then someone might ask to compare the low stakes or freeroll
games to the high stakes ones.

As I've said before, if I think a player is about as good as I am, I
would not play for high stakes, unless someone wants to back me and
take a third of profits. At low stakes, who cares? You lose a buck,
then you don't play that person again. You are better off playing
poker online if cheating in backgammon is a major concern, because the
thing about poker is that you can get read on your opponents without
putting up a lot of money. Just put up the blinds and see how the
action unfolds. In backgammon, you have to put up too much up front
(in a high stakes game) whereas in poker, it's just the blinds, which
are very low compared to winning a big pot.

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 2, 2006, 10:54:18 PM3/2/06

to

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:27:26 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You are making a judgement based on your personal opinion of Paul

>Weaver, however. That is what I was attempting to point out for other
>people reading; that your suspicion is based entirely on personal
>considerations.

Quite correct. We all do this every day. We examine evidence and make
a conclusion with certain degree of certainty.

>
>Last I knew, the USA had an "innocent until proven guilty" court system.

What on earth does that have to do with trying to decide with a
reasonable degree of certainty if someone is cheating at backgammon on
line. It seems like until he is proven guilty in a court of law that
you think we should assume he is innocent. Sorry but we are not in a
court of law and I am not a juror. What is the fallacious argument you
are making here? You are applying a strict legal definition of guilt
and innocence to a nonlegal situation.

> I see no reason not to apply the same principles in other affairs,
>even ones which are unlikely to ever reach a court of law.

In this situation what would be adequate proof that he cheated. Please
be specific what would convince you of his guilt.

> For people
>who may not personally know Paul Weaver (such as myself), I see no
>compelling reason yet to take his word for anything.

Great. So who is telling you to take his word for anything. I am
offering my opinion based upon my experience.

>
>What I HAVE said is (paste begins) "I've seen this kind of
>accusation/pissing match among professional gamblers before, and I know
>better than to take sides one way or the other too early" (paste ends).

So. That is your position. I already stated that while I am very
suspicious that I will suspend judgement until I hear directly from
Paul Weaver or Red Top. Hank could easily settle this by agreeing to
have a monitor of his matches as Paul suggested to see if he can play
as well as he has on line.

>
>And THAT, boss, is also what I'm trying to point out; these sorts of
>accusations are unfortunately far too common. Sometimes they are true,
>and sometimes they are simply smear campaigns; I'm just pointing out
>that nobody really knows anything yet, and it's not possible to take a
>position based on rational thought until we hear both sides of the story.

Who is disagreeing with this? I would like to hear both sides of the
story. But based on what I do know I would not play Hank for money on
line and I won't play on TMG if Hank is playing there in tournaments
until this is resolved.

>
>> Of course it is possible that Paul Weaver really did not write all
>> that. It is also possible that Paul Weaver really did write it but is
>> either lying or mistaken. It is up to the readers to assess the
>> information in terms of reliability and validity.
>
>I find it extremely likely that Paul Weaver did write that letter, and I
>am also sure that he firmly believes what he wrote in it. Right now,
>however, you are asking people to assess the information based on only
>half the story. After we have both halves, it should become pretty
>obvious who is to be believed.

It should be obvious? Why do you think that? It will only be obvious
when Hank agrees to have his matches monitored to see if he could play
as well as he has been on line. Hank will say he is not cheating. Paul
will say he is cheating. He said he said. What we need is hard
evidence to come to a definitive conclusion. I have personally come to
a provisional conclusion. Sorry that you cannot accept that.

Rich

montygram

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 1:22:02 AM3/3/06

to

Typo in most post: it should read: "if I were a cheater." Since I
don't understand the cheating mentality, I guess I'm not the best
person to speak about it. Chess was my game for many years, and
there's not much worry about cheating in chess, though I guess some
people play chess for money on the internet now (I never have). In
poker, since you can win decent money in "low limit" games, I don't
think it's much of a problem there. Backgammon is a problem, but if I
can see how someone is playing before plunking down "serious" money, I
would know whether it would be to my advantage to play that person.
However, that person could then use Snowie against me in a classic
"hustler" move. That, along with the other reasons, is why I have not
played backgammon for "serious" money on the internet.

montygram

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 1:22:13 AM3/3/06

to

Typo in my last post: it should read: "if I were a cheater." Since I

Warwick

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 2:03:08 AM3/3/06

to

On 2 Mar 2006 04:48:19 -0800, georgeha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> The idea that he would cheat to impress the players on the
> Zone is laughable. If it is to make money, I'm sure he has better
> legit ways to do that... and if he wanted to cheat to make money, there
> is a lot more action in poker for instance.

Well he did enter the second zcs twice and was caught doing it. You may
find it laughable, but for those involved at the time it was anything but.

I gained the distinct impression that his ambition was more to annoy the
organisers of that tourney - with whom he had wide and very public
differences - than to gain prestige or bragging rights by winning it.

He may have also felt braver with that tourney because it was organized by
the players, with little or no support from the zone itself.

In fact the zone itself clearly didn't give a fuck about a lot of things
backgammon players generally regard as important.

cheers
Warwick

Warwick

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 2:16:08 AM3/3/06

to

On 2 Mar 2006 04:33:51 -0800, KDP wrote:

> That is where i first saw the name RedTop. For a long time he was the
> top rated player there, then the ratings manipulators took over and he
> was no longer the top dog.

That is not my recollection. He lost the top spot to Alex aka cool_canadian
and the next no 1 was Peter aka Plodd. Peter might have been accused of
playing too many one pointers, but not Alex. It is a matter of opinion if
playing one pointers under the zone rating system is a manipulation. I know
Hank regarded Paul Weevers rating on GG as manipulated, 'because he played
too much nack'. afaiac if it is within the rules it is not a manipulation.

I do think that Alex and Peter earned Hanks lasting enmity by being invited
to the Abu Dhabi tournament (the sheik played on the zone at that time) and
Hank being overlooked. (Mind you I cannot understand his disappointment if
he avoids playing over the table).

The part in Pauls letter about Hank exposing Alex as a cheat raised my
eyebrows. I had no knowledge of that, but plenty of time for Alex.

cheers
Warwick

montygram

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 3:17:22 AM3/3/06

to

Don't know what happened to my last post, but it was about ratings. I
knew what the ratings of my opponents were at CG beforehand. The >1600
to 1750 range represented mostly
"decent" players, though some did not have all basic skills mastered,
particularly positional understanding. However, even the <1600 players
win plenty of 3 pt. matches (at least against me). On TMG, I usually
rip through these players quickly, though eventually you usually lose
one before you win the freeroll. In any case, the point is that to get
a rating near 1900 on a bunch of sites would mean that you would have
to rip through decent players the way I rip through the candle-stick
makers just about all the time. Not easy to do, considering the luck
factor, unless you play a huge number of rated games. Perhaps Hanks
plays many more rated games than I do in a week, but I'd like to hear
more comments about this.

Derek Ray

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 8:05:55 AM3/3/06

to

ri...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:27:26 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You are making a judgement based on your personal opinion of Paul
>> Weaver, however. That is what I was attempting to point out for other
>> people reading; that your suspicion is based entirely on personal
>> considerations.
>
> Quite correct. We all do this every day. We examine evidence and make
> a conclusion with certain degree of certainty.

...And most of these conclusions are wrong, because most people tend to
prejudge things on inadequate information. :) I deal with this at work
every day; it's amazing how many people are in a hurry to follow the crowd.

>> Last I knew, the USA had an "innocent until proven guilty" court system.
>
> What on earth does that have to do with trying to decide with a
> reasonable degree of certainty if someone is cheating at backgammon on
> line. It seems like until he is proven guilty in a court of law that
> you think we should assume he is innocent.

Nope. But I do think we should assume he is innocent until we actually
hear his side of things.

>> For people
>> who may not personally know Paul Weaver (such as myself), I see no
>> compelling reason yet to take his word for anything.
>
> Great. So who is telling you to take his word for anything.

Well, you, for one, are already boiling up the tar and getting the
feathers ready, based solely on Paul's word, and you are actually
getting angry with me because I insist on hearing from Hank before doing
anything one way or the other -- and because I'm pointing out that while
you claim to be neutral, your attitude indicates that you've already
judged Hank guilty.

> Hank could easily settle this by agreeing to
> have a monitor of his matches as Paul suggested to see if he can play
> as well as he has on line.

This would actually be relatively meaningless, for some obvious reasons;
one, the monitor is not hard to edit. two, it wouldn't be hard to have
something out of range of the webcam. three, there's always the claim
that the unusual pressure caused errors he would not normally make.

All a monitor would prove is that Hank didn't cheat while the webcam was
watching -- and I bet I can predict that with 100% accuracy.

>> And THAT, boss, is also what I'm trying to point out; these sorts of
>> accusations are unfortunately far too common. Sometimes they are true,
>> and sometimes they are simply smear campaigns; I'm just pointing out
>> that nobody really knows anything yet, and it's not possible to take a
>> position based on rational thought until we hear both sides of the story.
>
> Who is disagreeing with this? I would like to hear both sides of the
> story. But based on what I do know I would not play Hank for money on
> line and I won't play on TMG if Hank is playing there in tournaments
> until this is resolved.

Are you hearing yourself here? :)

>> I find it extremely likely that Paul Weaver did write that letter, and I
>> am also sure that he firmly believes what he wrote in it. Right now,
>> however, you are asking people to assess the information based on only
>> half the story. After we have both halves, it should become pretty
>> obvious who is to be believed.
>
> It should be obvious? Why do you think that?

Because of the content, tone, and promptness of Hank's response.

... Or lack thereof.

> It will only be obvious
> when Hank agrees to have his matches monitored to see if he could play
> as well as he has been on line.

And here you have prejudged based on a very narrow set of criteria which
(as shown above) would not even prove the case one way or the other.

> Hank will say he is not cheating. Paul will say he is cheating.

Of course. But we've already seen _how_ Paul has said it. Let's see
_how_ Hank says he's not.

I think it'll be patently obvious.

> He said he said. What we need is hard
> evidence to come to a definitive conclusion.

There is no hard evidence to be had, Rich. There never will be, unless
someone breaks into Hank's house and puts a webcam down that Hank
doesn't know about, or some other such ridiculous extent of affairs.
Even if Hank busts out and plays a 2.0 error rate in a major tournament,
live, that STILL won't be sufficient proof that he hasn't cheated with a
bot in the past and doesn't continue to do so online just because it's
easier.

On the plus side, however, these pissing matches almost always end with
one person backing down in some fashion. Let's see if someone backs
down, shall we?

> I have personally come to
> a provisional conclusion. Sorry that you cannot accept that.

Oh, you can believe what you want, trust me. But everyone else should
know where you're coming from... and that your protestations of "I have
suspended judgement" actually mean "I have made my decision, and Hank
must change my mind." That's fine; everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Warwick

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 4:16:19 PM3/3/06

to

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:05:55 -0500, Derek Ray wrote:

> Nope. But I do think we should assume he is innocent until we actually
> hear his side of things.

Why? Do you expect anything other than no response/denial?

I predict one or the other of those outcomes regardless of innocence or
guilt.

>There is no hard evidence to be had, Rich. There never will be, unless
>someone breaks into Hank's house and puts a webcam down that Hank
>doesn't know about, or some other such ridiculous extent of affairs.
>Even if Hank busts out and plays a 2.0 error rate in a major tournament,
>live, that STILL won't be sufficient proof that he hasn't cheated with a
>bot in the past and doesn't continue to do so online just because it's
>easier.

You seem to concede here that the issue cannot ever be resolved with 100%
certainty. If you also concede that Hanks response is predictable then
Montygrms position is defensible.

cheers
Warwick

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 4:59:04 PM3/3/06

to

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 10:16:19 +1300, Warwick <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:05:55 -0500, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>> Nope. But I do think we should assume he is innocent until we actually
>> hear his side of things.
>
>Why? Do you expect anything other than no response/denial?
>
>I predict one or the other of those outcomes regardless of innocence or
>guilt.

Well if he denies it I would hope that he would have an answer to each
of Paul Weaver's points which if true and considered in totality, make
him look rather guilty.

I am particularly interested in his live tournament history and an
explanation for why he does not play live tournaments if that is the
case. Paul mentioned something about him not being able to see the
whole board when playing live. I want to hear more about that.

unread,

Mar 3, 2006, 10:38:20 PM3/3/06

to

"If you also concede that Hanks response is predictable then
Montygrms position is defensible."

What is my position? And what is Hank's response? Perhaps that post
has not reached my server yet? I am interested in hearing what others
think about some issues raised here:

1. It seems difficult, in my experience, to get and hold your rating
much higher than around 1700. If you play those mostly around this
level, the luck factor means that you will not be able to get much
higher, unless, I guess, you play a huge number of games (assuming you
are clearly better than the other 1700s).

2. Why would a cheater want to be the highest rated player? If someone
has such a rating, I will then think that that person is an excellent
player or a cheater, and in either case I don't want to play that
person for high stakes.

3. TMG's lack of ratings and tournaments with no list of players (until
it begins, which then means it is too late to withdraw without losing
your entry fee) does seem to encourage cheating. Has anyone asked
someone from TMG about changing this?

4. Since we all know how easy it would be to cheat, and that a fairly
good player would only need to consult Snowie once or twice a game (on
average, or thereabouts), I can't see why anyone who is not a cheater
or world class player would even consider playing in these kinds of
tournaments.

5. With Snowie there for the asking, it must be awfully tempting to
refrain from consulting it. In those really difficult situations, I
have taken much more time than usual to make a decision, and probably
at least half the time it was the wrong decision, so this is where
"Snowie cheating" would really help get someone to that "next level."

Again, I am not making any accusations. If Hank does not cheat (and I
will assume he does not cheat until I know more about the situation),
there are probably plenty who do what some are accusing Hank of doing
here, so unless one wants to join the cheating crowd, it makes sense to
avoid certain high stakes situations on the internet.

Kees van den Doel

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 12:44:14 AM3/4/06

to

In article <1141443500....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
montygram <nazzt...@lycos.com> wrote:

>"If you also concede that Hanks response is predictable then
>Montygrms position is defensible."

>What is my position? And what is Hank's response? Perhaps that post
>has not reached my server yet? I am interested in hearing what others
>think about some issues raised here:

Unlike you, I'm doing you the courtesy of quoting (LOOK UP "QUOTING"
MONTYGARM THAT IS YOUR HOMEWORK!!!) the context of my reply.

I'm glad you're interested in my opinion: Your position is "pfffft" and
Hanks response is "prrrrftft".

I hope you appreciate how concise I say nothing!

Thanks for your attention, and I hope you learn from it.

Kees (De versterking werd over iemand te chelooven dad we do fail to
lie, cheat, and soreness a sign that article
3ajm14F...@individual.net Jan te pleuren.)

c...@world-backgammon-association.com

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 1:14:54 AM3/4/06

to

montygram schrieb:

> "If you also concede that Hanks response is predictable then
> Montygrms position is defensible."
>
> What is my position? And what is Hank's response? Perhaps that post
> has not reached my server yet? I am interested in hearing what others
> think about some issues raised here:
>
> 1. It seems difficult, in my experience, to get and hold your rating
> much higher than around 1700. If you play those mostly around this
> level, the luck factor means that you will not be able to get much
> higher, unless, I guess, you play a huge number of games (assuming you
> are clearly better than the other 1700s).

Somewhat true. If you are a good player, your rating will go up, but
not as fast as it went up to reach 1700. That is normal due to the
rating formula. The number of higher rated players is smaller, so you
will most probably will compete against lower rateds , hence you lose
more rating points by losing than you can gain by winning.....

>
> 2. Why would a cheater want to be the highest rated player? If someone
> has such a rating, I will then think that that person is an excellent
> player or a cheater, and in either case I don't want to play that
> person for high stakes.

Ego? Recognition? Fame? Glory? Anything no "cheater" can achieve in
real play and that makes him feel they are "someone"?

>
> 3. TMG's lack of ratings and tournaments with no list of players (until
> it begins, which then means it is too late to withdraw without losing
> your entry fee) does seem to encourage cheating. Has anyone asked
> someone from TMG about changing this?

I think this is a very good solution and should not be changed at all.
In live play, no decent tournament director will give you any
information on who has enrolled which division. You make your choices
to enter the open, the intermediate or the beginners division entirely
yourself. The only information a tournament director will give you is
the number of registered players in each division. Once registration is
closed and the draw is done, everybody can and will see the name of
participants in each division. Why should it be different online?

>
> 4. Since we all know how easy it would be to cheat, and that a fairly
> good player would only need to consult Snowie once or twice a game (on
> average, or thereabouts), I can't see why anyone who is not a cheater
> or world class player would even consider playing in these kinds of
> tournaments.

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 7:05:36 AM3/4/06

to

Well, I certainly respect Paul Weaver and Gregg C. I think that draft
letter could have used some more editing though.

If he suspects RedTop of cheating, why doesn't he just play him. Send
a quick email rather than a long rant stating that he finds his error
rate unbelievable and state that he really needs to see him play in
person that well. In person RedTop could use a laptop or computer I
suppose, but still, play against Paul Weaver. They could then analyze
the games and see if RedTop's error rate matches up with what they
expect (3.5 or less honestly... I have no idea what the accusers think
he really plays at... I guess just greater than 3.5? 5? 7? 9? 16?).
Since Paul writes that RedTop was happy (even giddy) to have Paul in
his home, it probably wouldn't be difficult to arrange another visit.

Many of the points in that rant are easy to answer.

Obviously the Zone stuff sounds like cheating... you shouldn't give
people moves over the phone or enter a tournament twice. But, I guess
that's already been dealt with years ago? If not, then it should be...
he should be disqualified from that tournament and not allowed to enter
in the future. And, if other servers found out about it, they might
also consider banning him from their tournaments. Do the TMG people
know about that incident? But, they might not too. It sounds like it
came about because of personal issues as Warwick pointed out, not
exactly a desire to simply impress people by winning the tournament(s).
I really don't know what another site would make of that information,
but no harm in letting them know about it. And does RedTop admit to
that now? Or was someone pretending to be RedTop perhaps to make him
look bad? I don't know, just asking...

Doug Doub is a fine player and may be an excellent writer/openings
theory analyst. Nothing wrong with suggesting that. Kit Woolsey and
Tami Jones made a great book together... indeed it was Tami's writing
that made their book what it is. It isn't for everyone, but I like it.
Would no 3.5 player suggest that Tami would make a good partner/author
too?

Clearly, not all legit 3.5 players are backgammon giants. To suggest
that is sort of silly. John O'Hagan is one player I know of who
probably plays better than that overall and as far as I know isn't on
the Giant's list. But there are lots of others. I looked briefly at
the Norway backgammon federation's player list and saw Tore Fredrickson
was number 18 on their list. And I think he plays around 3.5 or less
and isn't on the Giant's list. And that's just one country.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems the best evidence against RedTop is just
his error rate. And, since BG Giants are openly accusing him now, I
guess he'll have to prove he can play that well.

I have played RedTop for $ on TMG and clubgames. He's ahead a little
overall. I could look through my saved games, but I don't really know
what to look for. Using gnubg he rates about "expert" overall. That
seems about right to me. But I have no way of knowing if that is
cheating using Snowie or not. I don't own Snowie, and even if I did,
what would I be looking for? And, at the smaller stakes we generally
play for, how would anyone know if he was sandbagging against me or
not? Anyway, if the game records are of any use to anyone, you could
see them...

Oh, and he does write articles. I don't know if they are plagiarized
or not. But, they help beginning/intermediate players learn to play
better backgammon. That's a good thing in my book. And the weekly
lessons on gamesgrid are similarly useful.

If he spends his time at live tournaments recording matches, isn't that
a good thing? He is contributing to the backgammon community. Now
someone just needs to offer to record his matches. Has anyone offered?

I am glad that this discussion happens anyway. I was one who
criticized RedTop for multi-tasking on gammonempire. That was in a
thread where I was trying to get online players to unite on a code of
ethical standards for professional online players. It didn't seem like
anyone was interested... I still am.

GeoffA

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 7:08:27 AM3/4/06

to

For Hank this whole thing has been about his EGO. Most anyone who has
spent time or talked with him for very long could back me up. I also
know (although I havent seen it that he did respond to Paul) from
another letter I have from another friend of Hanks also accusing him of
cheating. This second letter I have had for as long as the first but am
not posting.. I will just say the first one speaks for itself. Once
again Hank has been busted cheating--being dishonest in the online
venue at least 4x on MSN gaming zone that I know of. He was banned from
the only major tourny the Zone had the ZCS (Zone Championship Series)
before I even got there 6 years ago! To be honest I only know about
maybe 1/4th of Hanks history with these type things. But it was enough
for me to NEVER play him for $. What I am saying isnt a "smear
campaign" its public knowledge. There are other Zone players with
better understanding of the history who could perhaps tell us why Hank
was banned to begin with?

Derek Ray

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 9:48:48 AM3/4/06

to

georgeha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> criticized RedTop for multi-tasking on gammonempire. That was in a
> thread where I was trying to get online players to unite on a code of
> ethical standards for professional online players. It didn't seem like
> anyone was interested... I still am.

I still have some concerns; specifically, about how you expect anyone
but the people who weren't cheating anyway (and therefore weren't a
problem) to follow this code.

Also, I'd like to know how you intend to prevent people from saying "Of
course I follow the code", reaping the benefits of saying it, and then
not doing so.

Skii

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 2:21:57 PM3/4/06

to

I have a suggestion.

Why don't we ask Hank to play snowie at the next live tournament close
to him or one that he will be attending .. so there will be no
expenses ( not every one can afford to fly all over to play bg ) this
will do three things one the game will be on a computer screen so Hank
can be "confirtable " and two there will be many watchers so every one
will be happy and third the game can be snowied right away with quick
resolts.

I wonder will this work for Hank ?

SKii

Derek Ray

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 2:58:08 PM3/4/06

to

Skii wrote:
> I have a suggestion.
>
> Why don't we ask Hank to play snowie at the next live tournament close
> to him or one that he will be attending ..

And would this prove anything at all about whether he's cheated in the
past while playing online, and whether he'll do so in the future?

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 3:02:15 PM3/4/06

to

I think it is a great suggestion. It would be very easy for Hank to
prove that he is as good as he appears to be when playing in
tournaments on the net. As I said before he could even wager those who
think he is cheating and make a bit of money in the process. I bet
Paul Weaver is so sure that he is cheating that he would offer him
significant monetary reward for playing consistently below 3.5 while
watching him play.

Hopefully he with either accept the challenge or admit that he is a
cheater. I cannot see any plausible reason why he would not accept the
challenge unless he was cheating.

One other problem with TMG is that Hank could change his name from Red
Top and continue his cheating (if he indeed is cheating) under another
name. This is another problem with TMG. I think they should require
that a person use the same name to avoid such problems.

Rich

ri...@notyahoo.com

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 3:07:43 PM3/4/06

to

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:58:08 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Skii wrote:

>> I have a suggestion.
>>
>> Why don't we ask Hank to play snowie at the next live tournament close
>> to him or one that he will be attending ..
>
>And would this prove anything at all about whether he's cheated in the
>past while playing online,

If he played Snowie and played significantly worse than he does on
line this would strongly suggest that he was cheating. Is it 100%
proof? Of course not.

For example if he was playing at average error rate of 2.0 while on
line and then playing at average error rate above 5.0 that would be
quite significant and strongly suggest he was cheating. Who knows? He
might have average error rate above 9 which would pretty much clinch
it in my mind.

Of course he would need to play enough to make the average error rate
valid to draw conclusions.

His decline to play while monitored would speak volumes about his
likely guilt.

> and whether he'll do so in the future?

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If he cheated
in the past he is likely to cheat in the future.

Rich

happyjuggler0

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 4:38:28 PM3/4/06

to

First, Hi Skii. Long time no see.

Second, the things I miss while not checking in at RGB for ages.

Third, Skii you're a genius in my opinion. Hank (aka RedTop and many
others) visits many big tournies each year apparantly. I had not heard
the claim that he couldn't "see" a live board well enough to play at a
high level before. Sounds weird to me, but whatever. Playing either
Snowie or a human on Snowie in front of an accusatory witness(es) will
at least put live play proof on the table. It would be a small sample
to be sure, but this sample could be added to over time as well. It
would have to be at least 11pt matches or a long money session. Short
matches (1pt or 3pts) a practiced player ought to be able to get at the
very least in the neighborhood of 3.5, if not blow through it, so short
matches are not good anectdotal proof of anything, unless they are bad
numbers of course. Even then, bad numbers would have to be in large
enough of a sample size to make reasonable doubt.

Fourth, count me amongst those who don't actually believe Hank will
take up Skii's suggestion. :o

Fifth, regardless of how Hank would Snowie if he actually took up
Skii's suggestion, it does nothing to prove or disprove any allegations
of past cheating. But it still helps eliminate a lot of mystery as to
how strong Hank really is at backgammon.

Curious to see if Skii's proposal goes anywhere,
happyjuggler0

P.S. For what it's worth for those of you who don't know, I used to be
on a G4F team (DC Junkies) with "Geoff A" that defeated Hank along with
several confirmed "super 32" players in a 7 player (not counting subs)
best 2 of 3 match series. If memory serves (I no longer have the data,
sorry) Hank's online team of ringers had Gregg Cattanaugh, Paul Weaver,
Steve Sax, Howard Ring, Malcolm Davis, and if memory still serves Neil
Kazaross too, but I forget. I'm sure someone will correct me if memory
is lousy here. True, we won the series 4-3 in dramatic fashion in the
7th series 2-1 (all 11pt matches my the way I believe, or was it 13pt
matches?). If memory serves, it was also Geoff who won what was in
effect the tiebreaker match, against Paul Weaver(?). Anyway, the behind
the scenes emails from that event were also an eye opener for me, but
I'll leave it at that cryptic statement. I'm sure our fabulous team
captain still has copies of them. :x http://www.gammon4fun.com/ gets
you to the old home page but the links at that page don't go anywhere
anymore. :( It was a great site while it lasted, thanks Shelby.

montygram

unread,

Mar 4, 2006, 10:55:28 PM3/4/06

to

"I've wondered how many people the online sites have EVER caught
cheating with a bot."

And this is also important in terms of the random number generating
software, as I have said on other posts. Until there is verification
from an independent third party that is above reproach, anyone who
doesn't want to lose big money will have to stick to playing for
dollars over the internet, at least at BG (the poker cheats seem to be
more interested in the higher stakes games, so that you can probably
play 3/6 limit HE safely, for example, at a site like party, and at
that level, make decent money for not much effort, assuming you are
clearly superior to your opponents, and again, you can watch players
for a while while you are on a waiting list, then only play top hands
for the first round, and watch what's going on).

montygram

unread,

Mar 5, 2006, 2:53:08 AM3/5/06

to

I find it odd that anyone would rather play BG on a computer screen. I
have made some really bad blunders because the screen and graphics
really annoy me, and I have a nice LCD panel for this reason. Ask Paul
Epstein. I once made a mistake against him that even a beginner would
not make. Then there is the time limit. When I can get relaxed, I
play much better, but with internet play, that is not the case. And
players will often complain if you take the time you are given, which
adds futher annoyance to the internet BG experience.

Any thoughts on this?

Message has been deleted

TUR.Un...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 5, 2006, 3:28:40 AM3/5/06

to

Hi all
Nice to see some old friends and new faces responding to this blot on
the integrity of our great game of backgammon.
Most all of the oldsters know me, my past affiliations and play and can
vouch for my sincere desires to further backgammon in any form.
I wish, as some have suggested, that there should be a way to monitor
the play in money games on the Internet but obviously that is
impossible. A player can move in his/her game while in phone chat with
other person who is running a bot concurrently with the game and
feeding information to that player.
As a moderator and watcher of many matches I consistently see threads
being posted, (in silenced matches), explaining what GNU or snowie
would have done and what was the error rate etc. etc. These threads by
the watchers are written so quickly that it is obvious that a bot is
being run at the same time. DOESN'T this tell you something?? DO NOT
PLAY FOR MONEY ON THE INTERNET.
Of course people by the millions go to casinos all over the world and
play roulette slots and other games of chance that the casinos even
tell the players the odds that the house has to take their money. Does
it stop them from contributing to the billions of dollars that the
casinos rake in every year??
One must realize, with all these threads, that it does not take a
rocket scientist to realize that cheating is here to stay whether it is
in real life or here on the Internet. If one is proficient at it they
can hide it with minor errors to disguise their usage or lose a few
games and/or make uncommon errors to throw their opponent off and make
them think they have a chance.
Take heed all those that think they can beat the system and/or the
cheater. Eventually your bank account will be lessened by your
endeavors.
Enough rambling from the old man
Regards to all
Matt aka Mkbr1 aka TUR_UncleSam

montygram

unread,

Mar 5, 2006, 5:12:24 AM3/5/06

to

To add to what Matt said, I would ask, why play for "big" money on the
internet? If you seek to make a living, poker is better these days.
If you like the "thrill," play for lower stakes. And if you want to
improve while playing "decent" or better players, you can play in the
tournament I asked the CG people to put together. It has 8 players and
has a $2.50 entry fee, and it is a series of 9 pt. elimination matches.
Few cheats will want to spend the time required to win such a
tournament unless more money were at stake, so this seems to me to be a
great solution to this problem. Playing the high stakes games at TMG
seems to be like asking for your money to be taken from you. Unless
you too are a cheater, what is the point of doing this? Just download
GNU for free and you will have the same thing, but your money will stay
in your pocket.

Philippe Michel

unread,

Mar 5, 2006, 6:02:29 AM3/5/06

to

On 2006-03-05, montygram <nazzt...@lycos.com> wrote:
> I find it odd that anyone would rather play BG on a computer screen. I

> Any thoughts on this?

Log of the games maybe ? In normal play, it is at best cumbersome, at
worse forbidden, to jot down interesting positions (and recording a whole
match is even worse). If you don't do it, they tend to blur after a few
hours, and then there are those you didn't even notice...

If you're keen enough to play backgammon for hours, it is a shame not to
take at least a few minutes to analyze your games (gnubg is widely
available, very good, and free) and review your play.

Grunty

unread,

Mar 5, 2006, 9:49:51 AM3/5/06

to

montygram wrote:
> Playing the high stakes games at TMG seems to be like asking for your money
> to be taken from you. Unless you too are a cheater, what is the point of
> doing this?

All what you said goes valid for the recreational or the "cultural"
player.
However, the psychology of a real gambler is such that he needs the
thrill, and getting thrill directly relates to the amount of money they
have available to gamble. (Needless to say, they as all of us enjoy the
occasional satisfaction of beating the opposition as well.)
They have all that extra money, so they'll play for high stakes (high
for the average standard, not necessarily for theirs). And the harder
the challenge the better it feels for them. They're up for *spending*
that money, as they go movies.

So, there's an audience for everyone. For you, playing not for money
but for the fun, challenge and pride. For me, playing for money as high
as my prudence dictates.
Just keep' em coming. There's people up for both kinds of play.

PS: Don't think TMG games are that *bad*. I think GE games are far
worse.