Should I remove Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet from my blacklist?

For those unfamiliar with the situation, here is the short version of the story. In 2007 and 2008 it was found that some players at Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet were playing poker with the aid of super-user accounts, that allowed them to see their opponent's hole cards. Naturally, they won a great deal of money. Evidence indicates it was an inside job by dishonest employees. However, AP and UB initially denied everything, and in my opinion confessed only after a video appeared of a compromised tournament. I would like to think I had a part to play in exposing the whole thing. Here is a link to my investigation, and a 60 Minutes piece about it.

Since then, they have paid back the victimized players, plus a $500,000 fine. They claim to have spent a great deal of money on security since then. I still have very hard feelings about how both sites initially denied all charges, in the face of very convincing evidence. However, they have apologized, and done everything they should do to make things right, save perhaps an apology directly on their web sites.

From time to time somebody writes to me saying that the sites have been punished enough, and that I should remove them from the blacklist. At some point redemption should be given to those who confess the error of their ways. But in this case, when? If you vote "no" in my survey, after how many years do you think I should I remove them, assuming good behavior on the part of AP and UB?

I didn't place a vote, because I seem to think that the answer might be more complicated than a simple yes or no.

I never viewed your "blacklist" before I read this post. From what I read on there, it seems there are different categories of occurrences. One are occurrences that directly happen to you and/or you are directly able to prove are problems. Another is occurrences that you have heard that happen to other people, that when you yourself tried to resolve or find out what is going on, you were ignored. Another category would be occurrences that other webmasters have reported to you.

I think that you might have categories, such as blacklist, non-endorsed, and endorsed. The categories are fairly self-explanatory. Anybody you endorse would be able to advertise on your sites. Non-endorsed wouldn't be allowed to advertise, but you have nothing bad to say about them. Blacklist would be non-advertisable, and also directly declared as bad by yourself.

I would agree that redemption should be possible. However, I would say that, again, by the use of the categories, you could better indicate how much and what type of redemption is possible. In the example of Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet, they were clearly blacklisted due to your investigation of their fraudulent actions. In order to get in your good graces, they should be clearly willing and allow you to view any and all source code, as well as audit their poker games and tournaments, to such a point that your satisfaction is achieved. Once this is done, and you have full clear conscience that their games are once again secure, fair, and non-fraudulent, then perhaps you would move them to the "endorsed" category.

Without this clear and unbiased audit of their systems, I would only suggest that if sufficient time had passed, as determined by yourself, in which nothing negative has occurred, and perhaps also with positive recommendations and/or reviews by other parties indicating that they had good experiences with the companies, perhaps you would be willing to move them into the "non-endorsed" category.

Now that I think about it, "non-endorsed" might not be a good phrase for that particular category as it does seem to sound a bit negative. But I think you get my meaning behind it.

Anyway, the point is that with all these online casinos, you could have a multitude of categories with which to put them into, based upon your own experiences, how much information they are freely willing to share with you acknowledging your expert knowledge in the subject, and even perhaps the experiences and problems that other people have encountered.

I used to be a big fan of Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker. In fact, Ultimate Bet was my first poker site that I started with.

That being said, I would still have to say no. You should not endorse these two sites. Perhaps you could make a probabationary list. I think the poor way that they handled the situation/scandal was downright horrible.

The only two sites that I recommend are Poker Stars and Full Tilt. I would include Bodog in there as well, but they need to work on their interface.

Perhaps you could have a slow step by step upgrade for them, never to get complete exoneration short of Presidential Pardon which of course ain't coming [g]

I voted no.

A conviction is a black mark that follows the person for the rest of their life.

These businesses should carry a similar mark for more than a mere couple years.

If anything, update the list saying that they got spanked, sat in the corner and behaved since then, and the time-out has lasted long enough, but don't remove them from the list.

I voted no and you should NEVER remove them from the blacklist.

I guess I'm the lone dissenter saying that it should be removed, since the scam was not really carried out by the company in question (disregarding the lack of response) and they paid back all of the money lost by the players who got ripped off. Although I've never played at either site (already have one), I would join either one without worry of being swindled, which to me means they shouldn't be on a blacklist.

Quote: UWPeteO

I would join either one without worry of being swindled, which to me means they shouldn't be on a blacklist.

Perhaps if that situation persists for some additional period of time, a review of the situation might be in order. However, I am mindful that the sites were incredibly non-responsive and denied everything even in the face of utter certainty. The industry is rife with off-shore corporate entities, bribery and corruption, ... it is simply not a situation wherein purity is achieved by re-paying the stolen money. There has, as far as I know, never been a simple admission of Yes it happened, Yes we knew of it, Yes it was obvious to all our employees that we knew, Yes we denied such knowledge repeatedly.

Redemption? Reform? A second chance? I don't know. I'd sure wonder about the source of those funds for repayment and the oversight of that repayment. Paul got his money back, but I'd sure have a talk with Peter about that first.

I voted no as well. If I'm not mistaken, the UltimateBet scandal occurred after the Absolute Poker scandal.

The software should be designed so that the server does not send the hole cards of other players to client software until after it has been determined that a showdown will occur. The code for this particular aspect, as well as the code which determines what cards to deal, should be audited regularly... which is something I doubt occurs at either site (or probably does now that Kahnawá:ke has compelled them to).

Thanks for the comments everybody. Your advice does help.

Quote: JB

I voted no as well. If I'm not mistaken, the UltimateBet scandal occurred after the Absolute Poker scandal.

The software should be designed so that the server does not send the hole cards of other players to client software until after it has been determined that a showdown will occur. The code for this particular aspect, as well as the code which determines what cards to deal, should be audited regularly... which is something I doubt occurs at either site (or probably does now that Kahnawá:ke has compelled them to).

Yes, that the UB scandal was about 8 months after AP, is a major factor in my anger. You would think that both sites would be very guarded against it happening again, but with UB it again took the player community to stop it.

The server likely does not send the opponents cards to the client software until after the hand, in most cases. They set up a testing account, which could see everything. Evidently somebody with AP/UB was using this account at the company HQ, and telling a confederate playing elsewhere what to do over the phone or IM.

I voted "no". Because I don't think they care. They don't care whether or not they are on your list, I don't think, and if they don't care then they shouldn't come off it. They should always care if they are on anyone's black list. Do they know they are on it? Have they asked to be removed?

Once they care, take them off.

I completely agree with Konceptum here. After working in corporate america for many years, I can tell you for a fact that companies are unwilling to admit guilt let alone take measures to investigate fraud. Having dealt with the matter up-front, companies are responsible to their customers/clients. Without them, they do not exist. So despite them subsequently resolving some of the issues regarding the scandal, how do you ensure the trust of the public that such actions will not occur again? Afterall, I'm sure the Wizard or other statisticians/actuaries continue to question the "randomness" of online gaming outcomes let alone collusion, or cheating.

To rebuild that trust and confidence, a full audit needs to be completed by a respectable knowledgable source. And since this forum contains a growing number of loyal members, it's important to maintain the highest level of integrity. So for the Wizard to remove those sites from the blacklist, I believe that the measures taken to protect the customers must be fully detailed, documented, and reported. You should be able to view some part of the source code to the extent that it doesn't compromise website. There does need to be an independent audit, one which is familiar with the technicals as well as the control procedures.

To remove the website from the blacklist, either implies your approval or acknowledgement that the issues they faced before are completely resolved and/or that sufficient controls are in place today. Should another scandal occur, we'd look pretty foolish endorsing a site that did not meet some independent verification. So with that in mind, even after such verification is performed, the history of what happened should still remain. A sub-section perhaps might be better to retain that history. Websites With Reported Scandals - UB and AP resolved after some sort of verification.

I certainly don't think the response provided by AP and UB are adequate. I feel that companies have a responsibility to customers and adequately investigate issues when they arise. Protecting a business is more than just denying or covering up a crime. Does anyone remember the scandal involving Coca Cola and Tylenol? Companies that survive, "do the right thing" and are open and transparent about their actions.

I voted no. The manner in which the cheating and resulting scandal occured is aggregious. A strictly inside job, with the security department as critical gateway. The on-line poker industry itself is on my personal watch-list, and I have decided so far not to return.

I would also like to extend this point also, that many sites are blacklisted for fail to pay, poor Customer Service, etc.THhis is a totally different cause/effect than outright cheating/cover-up. The incident(s) at AP/UB is unforgivable, due to any acceptance of this behaviour that cannot ever be acceptable, lest someone else rationalize its acceptance. The old joke about having no chance and a 1 in a billion chance immediately comes to mind. I for one do not want this "salesman" to ever get a foot in my door.

I have no opinion on your blacklist, Mr. Wizard, but they're remaining on my personal blacklist until Mr. Russ Hamilton confesses or goes to jail.

Thanks to all for their votes and comments. I will consider rewording how I present that page, but AP and UB will remain on it for the near future at least.

I vote no, but in the end it doesn't matter, and it all gives a lie to the 'why don't online companies cheat'. Often times people (including myself) said that online companies (or their employees) wouldn't cheats as there was more be gained by getting it slowly via antes... any company caught cheating or not having the relevant security would go under.

It didn't happen with UB and AP. They spent a lot of time to keep going, and players keep backing them by playing on the site. Phil Helmuth promotes and promoted a tainted company.

It doesn't matter that this was employees using a test account (I'd ask why that account was still live) or the company dealing seconds to encourage pots. Their product was faulty, yet they still exist. This is hardly a discouragement to anyone else.

This may not be the right place for this but I was wondering what your thoughts are on the latest proposed internet gambling bill that passed committee recently
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2010/07/house-financial-services-committee-votes-to-approve-barney-f-8618.htm

Especially as regarding the proposed revisions that would ban companies that have been in violation of "US Law" in the past.

Do you think Bodog could likely be one of those companies given that, I think anyway, it's owner refuses to set foot in the US for fear of being arrested. Is that true in your opinion?

Have "Bodog funds" ever been seized by the US? Or the funds of the processors it uses?

I realize this committee vote means next to nothing but I just don't get why you continue to promote Bodog when it's pretty clear Bodog itself knows it is unwelcome in the US.

If you were Calvin Ayres, if he is still the owner, would you welcome US players and still transfer planes in Dallas if you lived out of the US?

I don't get you taking the moral high-ground of blacklisting these poker sites while promoting Bodog? Is it maybe you only promote Bodog to non-US players?

Just asking for your thoughts. I love on-line gambling but the powers-that-be have scared the crap out of me lol. I'm afraid I won't be paid since that is the law, is it not?

Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooo.

I assume from all the comments focusing on potripper and Russ Hamilton that nobody is aware of this. The Cliffs version is that a few months ago, someone discovered that all the data going between clients and servers was not really encrypted, it was merely encoded, and anyone could break said encoding fairly trivially. Anyone who could intercept the messages between a client and server could see a player's hole cards (similar to the potripper incident), hijack a player's account, all sorts of fun stuff. They don't think anyone exploited it, and they've since fixed it and are using SSL (although they initially screwed that up, too, which still allowed hijacking until they patched up that hole). But the fact that they weren't using SSL in the first place and it took a shitstorm to cause them to start using it (especially after potripper, you'd think they would be using every tool at their disposal to make their site secure) suggests that they have a long, long way to go before they could even be considered for removal from the blacklist, let alone actually removed.

If you have an afternoon or three to kill, there's a thread on 2+2 that pulls together all the information of the initial UB scandal and its fallout. It has new stuff toward the bottom about both AP and UB, as well. You can probably find more in depth discussion in its parent forum (NVG), but you have to wade through a bunch of shit to find the shinola.