It wasn’t me! (Part I of II)

Anyone remember Russ Hamilton and the Ultimate Bet scandal?

Well a couple of weeks ago an audio tape surfaced exposing the roles played by Hamilton and other Ultimate Bet staff as they cheated their way to $23m of their customers’ money.

As you probably know, the cheating was done through special software – they called it “God Mode” – which allowed Hamilton and others to view the hole cards of opponents at the Ultimate Bet tables. I say Hamilton “and others” because it is widely accepted that it wasn’t just him doing the cheating, although the Kahnawake Gaming Commission named Russ Hamilton in their 2008 report as the sole perpetrator. (Was it a shoddy investigation?  Pretty much, yes.)

Now remember that all this cheating happened between 2003-2007, so this is really old news. But the tape is still very interesting.  It features a three hour conversation between Hamilton, two Ultimate Bet attorneys, Daniel Friedberg and Sanford Millar and the Ultimate Bet founder (and current Iovation CEO) Greg Pierson.

The Iovation connection is worth a mention. I’d never heard of the company before but it’s inextricably linked to the reason that this tape was released in the first place. The man who released the tape – Travis Makar, who worked as Hamilton’s personal computer expert for years – cited the re-emergence of Iovation in connection with Nevada’s newly legalised online-poker industry as one of his motivations for releasing the tape. Unbelievably Greg Pierson is still working in the industry – laughably, in relation to Nevada’s first ever legalised online poker site.

And Iovation’s business is?  Fraud prevention! You really couldn’t make it up.

In the tape the men discussed the specifics of the cheating and ways for covering it up, refunding some affected players, and otherwise minimizing the impact of the cheating. They also discussed ways to not issue refunds to some of the players if reasons could be found. Apparently one reason Hamilton proposed for not repaying a certain player was if “he just didn’t like him”. But it’s not exactly surprising that Russ Hamilton could come out with something that would make you want to smash him in the face with a brick.

Players specifically mentioned as being cheated were Prahlad “Mahatma” Friedman, Mike Matusow, Mike “trambopoline” Fosco and Robert Williamson III. These players were scammed for enormous amounts.

Hamilton was so scummy he used to actually phone Matusow up – Matusow would have considered Hamilton to be a friend – and ask him to play online. One time when Matusow was skint Hamilton even lent him 50 grand to play with, which he cheated out of him straight away, leaving the 50 grand debt to be collected later. (Like I say, when you think of Hamilton, the old brick-face-smash dynamic isn’t far away.)

Interestingly Annie Duke and Phil Hellmuth are mentioned as well.  They represented the site from the beginning and Duke was instrumental in setting up the software – giving her input as to how the site should look and how the features should work. So now everyone wants to know exactly just what Phil Hellmuth and Annnie Duke knew about the cheating and the tape does shed a little bit of light on the matter.

For Hellmuth’s part, they specifically spoke about keeping him in the dark about “God Mode”. But before you get the impression he’s Mr Goody Two Shoes consider this: he carried on taking money from Ultimate Bet all the way until 2010. Whether or not he knew about the cheating when it was happening is one thing, but he definitely knew about after 2008 . We all did, because it was investigated and the company was censured and fined and forced to repay $20m odd. He’s a wrongun for having anything to do with the site at all in my book and he should have walked as soon as that report was out.

Perhaps a better reason for keeping Hellmuth in the dark was that they didn’t want him mentioning anything to the likes of Prahlad Freidman or Mike Matusow when he saw them on the circuit.

So what of Annie Duke? Well her situation is murkier.  It transpires that Annie Duke definitely did know about God Mode and had even used the software herself, but on a 15 minute delay.  Both Hellmuth and Annie Duke issued statements in the wake of the tape being made public and we’ll have a look at those next time.

Hand of The Week – Week 85

Here’s a hand that features a strange move on the river. At first it seems totally perverse and you’ll probably think it’s a huge error, but there’s a good reason for it.

I’ve tried and tried to find this hand online but no joy. I remember reading about it but I just can’t seem to find it no matter what Google searches I try.  Sometime I wonder whether I dreamed it up. (Er no, I definitely didn’t dream it up )

Anyway I’ve tried to remember what the cards were and that guarantees these definitely aren’t the actual cards that were dealt in the hand However, the action on the river is how it played out so the “moral” of the story stays intact.

(A little bit of background to the hand):

It took place between Dan “Jungleman12″ Cates and Tom “Durrrr” Dwan in their much hyped “Durrrr challenge” which never actually came to a conclusion. You’re probably aware of the story. Basically Tom Dwan offered 3/1 on a $500k bet to anyone who could beat him over 50,000 hands. Rules were they had to multi table 4 tables of heads up holdem at the same time. Players would get to keep their winnings so if Dwan lost, as well as handing over $1.5m he’d lose whatever he lost at the tables on top. Obviously 50,000 hands is tonnes of hands and it was going to take a number of days or even weeks to complete. (It’s actually taken about 3 years and there’s no end in sight.)

From the start Cates started spanking Dwan to the tune of about $700k. I reckon Cates has basically got Tom Dwan’s number at heads up holdem but I suppose it’s not impossible Dwan could reverse the loss.  Luckily for Dwan Black Friday came in April 2011 so he could exclaim “oh no we can’t finish our match” and save a bit of face. Anyway who cares? Dwan did the same things with Patrik Antonius in an earlier match and after about 2 years that match also fizzled out into oblivion, Dwan being ahead in that one. Tedious!

Anyways, the hand:

Dan Cates: A♥ 3♥
Tom Dwan: 8♣ 5♣

I do apologise. I forget the exact action during the hand but it’s highly likely the pot was 3-bet preflop and that there was betting along the way. Suffice to say the pot was massive, of the order of $50,000. So by the river there’s a board with 4 hearts on and a load of money already in the pot.

6♥ K♥ 7♣ 2♥ J♥

Cates fires a bet with his absolute nut hand, the ace high flush and Tom Dwan raises him – with nothing at all.  You can see what Dwan is doing – he is representing the ace flush himself – but we all know how unfortunate it is in poker when you represent the hand your opponent is actually holding.

The action was back to Cates. So what’s your move? What would you do with the nuts?  Assuming you don’t disconnect and fold you can raise or you can raise all in! Right?

Cates just called!

Although I never heard Cates explain in his own words why he made what, is on the face of it, an inexplicable move, there is an explanation that makes sense.  There are two reasons for just calling instead of raising. The first and most important reason is: if he raises he ain’t getting called!

People might argue the opposite: “but Dwan might call with the Kh”

I’d argue that no, he wouldn’t. Not Tom Dwan, anyway.  Let’s get it right. A weak player might call with the King of hearts here. But Tom Dwan won’t – not when he’s playing against Dan Cates.

If Dwan did call a re-raise on the river with just the Kh he’d never be winning because Cates wouldn’t be re-raising with just a Queen of hearts in the first place. (He would have just called Dwan’s river raise at best.  Cates wouldn’t re-raise here with a King of hearts for the same reason: lest he get blown off the hand should Dwan actually hold the Ace of hearts himself. He’d just call and hope it was good.)

To sum it up – if Cates raises with his ace all Dwan is going to do is fold. He isn’t ever going to make more money by raising on the river.

And the second reason?

Well I like this one. Cates wanted to see Dwan’s cards.  Because he’ll put that information to use in ways we probably just don’t understand.

Poll of The Week

Last week we talked about when it was the right time to move up in stakes.

The corollary of that question is: “when should we be moving DOWN in stakes?” It’s an altogether more depressing question, but it’s the question that virtually every player who ever went broke failed to answer correctly (or even ask themselves in the first place).

Some players just won’t admit they aren’t good enough to play the stakes they do.  It’s also a question of “action”.  Most people can’t bear to play at a lower level than they’ve been playing at because you don’t get the same buzz.  If either of these apply to you when you’re on a downward run then you could easily find yourself in danger. This week’s questions is “When should you move DOWN in stakes?” Answer this week’s poll and leave a comment with your Twitter username to be in with a chance of winning a WSOP satellite token worth $22.

Congratulations to @djdoc2001 for winning last week’s poll

Friday’s Caption Competition

It’s that time for another caption competition again. First of all though, the password for tonight’s Freddie Mays Bounty tournament at 8pm tonight is:

rmancini

While searching for a humourous Roberto Mancini pic I managed to find this quality image. A Manchester-manager-two-for-one. A jackpot of sorts.  See what you can do with this…..

Answer this week’s poll and leave a comment with your Twitter username to be in with a chance of winning a WSOP satellite token worth $22.

Congratulations to @fiercelyacute for winning last week’s competition with: “Alex whistles his nose to bring Fergie time to a close.”

Hand of The Week – Week 84

Busting on the first level of the WSOP main event must be pretty bad.  But busting on the very first hand must be an entirely different sphere of pain. That’s what happened to actor Oliver Hudson in 2005 (his acting skills couldn’t save him this time )

This is one of my all time favourite WSOP main event hands. I always remember this hand because I’d not long been playing poker and it just struck me as such cruel luck at the time-  one of the worst things that could possibly happen to a man, yet so funny of course.

Stacks were 10000 to start and the blinds were 25-50. Facing a raise to 200 from Sammy Farha, Oliver Hudson raised to 450 with pocket tens, which Farha called, and Hudson was in heaven when he saw a flop of AA10.

Perfect!

Well not quite: Sammy Farha had A-10 offsuit for the nuts.  Enter the house of pain.

Flopping a full house on the first hand of the WSOP must be a delightful sight but when the reality is that you are drawing dead it’s not quite so good.  Especially for an amateur player.  At the time I thought this was the ultimate cooler and that there was nothing that Hudson could have done to avoid busting. But I think I can say now – with 8 years extra experience to be fair – that I would be able to get away from this situation without busting. Well….maybe, if I didn’t go completely mental with excitement.

As you can imagine, both players checked the flop attempting to trap each other. A Queen was dealt on the turn.  The pot was 925, the board was A-A-10-Q

Talking of avoiding busting out, the Q on the turn is another potential scare card. Remember they’ve got about 180 big blinds behind on the turn still so you really shouldn’t have to bust out here. QQ and A-Q would both beat Hudson’s hand and you could even make a case for Farha folding to an all in (He’d be losing to A-Q). It’s the very first hand after all.

But there would be no such caution from either player. Hudson bet 300, Farha raised back straight away to 1300 and in a flash Hudson announced “all in”. Farha called and that was all she wrote.

Fair play to Hudson though. He took it well, laughing as he embarked on the walk of shame.

Whether I could get away from this hand without busting is besides the point. The real moral of the story is that this must never, ever happen to you!  

Backpack control – how about imbecile control ?

A couple of weeks ago I heard just about the most ridiculous proposal ever. It’s so ridiculous I can’t believe the idea was floated in the first place.

Following the bombing at the Boston marathon, some bright spark raised the idea that it might not be safe at the WSOP (held at the Rio hotel in Las Vegas), the supreme logic being that: a) anyone with a rucksack is a potential mass murderer because there could be a bomb in it, b) there will be lots of people in a confined space and, (at a wild guess) c) terrorists have always considered poker players to be high value targets.

And so the idea was raised that anyone carrying a back pack into the WSOP tournament should be checked – you know – just in case he was bring a bomb into the Pavillion room to try and kill everyone. And the organisers of the WSOP are actually considering doing it!

The stupidity of this should be obvious and immediate to anyone with just a semblance of a brain but unfortunately that precludes a lot of people these days.

It’s fine that the organisers of the WSOP say “we’re looking into the idea”. They’ve got to say that to show they take the safety of the players seriously I suppose. But the point is, standing out the front and frisking everyone with a back pack is not going to yield one single bomb if they did it for a 1000 billion years. It is simply a waste of time.

Sorry, but if “they” (whoever they are) want to bomb the WSOP they are going to do it and massively inconveniencing everyone in some lame arsed safety exercise is not going to prevent it.

But because so many people these days are so “right on” – and subscribe to the “if you’ve nothing to fear you’ve nothing to hide” mentality, they actually endorse this stupidity, saying it will “make us all feel safe” and how they “don’t mind being inconvenienced for a minute”.

Have you ever seen the queues for the toilets every break time at the WSOP main event? Would you want to do that before you’ve played a single hand?  Oh and that’s another point – do they plan on doing this for the Main Event when the place is full – or all 62 events when there might only be a couple of hundred people in there?

So you can carry a bomb in a rucksack? What about mobility scooters (a la Doyle Brunson.) There’s  loads of space for a bomb there – and electrics to detonate it. Stop that scooter. TERRORIST! (There’s loads of scooters too. Being as there are quite a few morbidly obese people in America, you see them everywhere in Vegas. Hardly any of the drivers are disabled – they’re 35 stone, that’s all.)

And while we’re on the subject of fatties, how long until someone suggests making it compulsory for all obese people to go through airport style scanners to see if they’ve got a bomb under their clothing. (Well they could couldn’t they? Carry a bomb under their fake 35 stone frame and head for the “no rucksack” queue where everyone is wasting their time and effort. There, that was hard to circumvent your brilliant back pack control policy was it. Took me 60 seconds of not very deep thought.)

All this closing the stable door after the horse has bolted nonsense is just so ridiculous.

I suspect they won’t enact this abjectly stupid idea. But if they do I imagine they will only do it once.

Poll of The Week

An important stage in a poker player’s progression is deciding when to move up in stakes. Do it too soon and you’ll most likely get your face ripped off. Wait too long and you could be costing yourself money.

One thing most people agree on is that you should move up when you are comfortably beating the game at the stakes you usually play. It’s often said you should move up in stakes when you are “crushing” your regular game.

But what does it mean to be “crushing the game” exactly? How do you distinguish between a lucky run and genuinely outclassing your opponents?  To be more specific, let’s actually try to quantify it by specifying what win rate should you be winning at in order to say you are “crushing the game”

So this week’s question is “when are you crushing the game?” Answer this week’s poll and leave a comment with your Twitter username to be in with a chance of winning a WSOP satellite token worth $22.

A couple of points to note.  I’ve calibrated the answers in win rates per month rather than “% of sessions won”. It’s no use winning 100 for 7/10 sessions if you lose 1000 in the 3 session that you lose. Also if you are crushing at 10 buy ins per month then of course it goes without saying that you are crushing at 20 buy ins per month.

Congratulations to @pcbunter for winning last week’s poll.