Poker players targeted by card-watching malware

The online poker players of the forum should read this post: Poker players targeted by card-watching malware. Makes me glad I swore off of online poker years ago. Even if every form of cheating were removed, it is still infested with sharks.

I have heard the saying that if you have played online poker you have played in a crooked game. I once got my $5 back. Idiots scam a $5 tourney? Shows it is at every level.

I still play, though, as it is the only game going.........

Good link, thanks, btw.

Quote: Wizard

The online poker players of the forum should read this post: Poker players targeted by card-watching malware. Makes me glad I swore off of online poker years ago. Even if every form of cheating were removed, it is still infested with sharks.

The sad part is we only know about the things they have caught.

I'm always wondering about some of the online success stories.

One of the lowest stories I heard.

Some kid hired known online coach for heads up play. When the kid logged on the coach would remote view to his screen/cards during play(something like that, as soon as I heard that part I knew where it was heading).

The coach would "coach" him during play vs the other player(s) via phone or chat. The kid had a bad run, but his coach encouraged him to keep trying and eventually with his help things would turn around. They didn't.

eventually the kid found out the guy coaching him was the person he playing against. I can't remember the amount, but I believe it was over 10k loss for the kid.

I really felt bad for this kid. That's a new level of low. That kid must have felt betrayed and cheated by someone he though was a friend, someone he looked up to and admired . He must have felt angry, hurt, dumb and embarrassed all at the same time.

If I was ever going to send an individual a donation, I think that kid would be someone I would send it to.

Quote: AxelWolf

That kid must have felt betrayed and cheated by someone he though was a friend, someone he looked up to and admired . He must have felt angry, hurt, dumb and embarrassed all at the same time.

I'm sure he did, and I don't blame him. I've been cheated more times than I care to say so know how he feels. If there is sufficient proof, I hope he takes legal action.

The thing about online poker, even if legalized and regulated by the government, is that collusion can never be prevented. And that's the issue with online poker - it is extremely subject to hacking. It can be a virus, than when you go to a poker site, sends periodic screenshots of the game (or a complex virus could send user info, game ID and card info) to the virus owner who then can simply get on the game and learn the cards that are being played and exploit the victim bets and turn his game into an advantage. If you have enough victims and choose wisely you might get away with this for a very long time.

You can login to the same table using several different IPs and IDs and exploit a table that way as well, though I would think this would be easier to detect by following the money.

So many online poker hacks have been shown now that I would probably only gamble online with backed and known certified casinos with simple dealer games (head - to - head) or VP.

I wonder if the onlines have their own fraud detection software where they can detect a user's actually winning percentage with their probability of winning and look for the outliers (those beyond 2 - 3 sigma or so). At least hold up the money of those in the outlier group (the 1 in 100) while the hand history and play history is investigated.

Quote: boymimbo

The thing about online poker, even if legalized and regulated by the government, is that collusion can never be prevented.

The other thing about online poker is that, unlike live poker, there is a full record of every card that has ever been dealt and every action that has ever been taken. A competent online poker operator, like PokerStars, can do collusion-detection analysis that you could only dream of in live games. This is something they do proactively, not just in response to user reports. I don't play much poker anymore, but when I did, I felt significantly more confident in the games on PokerStars than the games at the WSOP or Bellagio.

Quote:

And that's the issue with online poker - it is extremely subject to hacking. It can be a virus, than when you go to a poker site, sends periodic screenshots of the game (or a complex virus could send user info, game ID and card info) to the virus owner

Yeah, so don't get viruses on a machine you use to play online poker. There are zero-days out there, but the vast majority of virus infections are due to user recklessness. Don't be reckless on a machine you use to handle money of any kind, whether it's online banking, online poker, or anything else. Preferably do it on a separate machine, or in a virtual machine, that you don't use for anything else - don't connect to insecure networks, don't browse untrusted sites, don't run unnecessary programs, etc.

Quote:

So many online poker hacks have been shown now that I would probably only gamble online with backed and known certified casinos with simple dealer games (head - to - head) or VP.

If you're worried about cheating, then playing house-banked games instead, where the entity responsible for the RNG is guaranteed to be the entity with a financial interest in the RNG's results, is just about the LAST thing you should be doing.

(Yes, third-party audits help, but the entity supplying data to said third party is the one with a financial interest in the results of said audit. I cannot see how the forensic tools available to an auditor could defeat even modestly sophisticated cheating on the part of an online casino running its own software. I have passed up on a lot of seemingly very profitable opportunities at online casinos because of this.)

One I recently found out about is top players buying tournament seats from lesser players who go deep, in events. So, you think you're playing against joe schmoe. You've got a history with him. Notes on his tendencies. Then, unbeknownst to you, he is replaced by a top player. If that wasn't bad enough, sometimes, they were playing multiple seats in the same tournament.

I think we find out about it maybe 5% of the time at most. The first time, out of multiple times, Brian Townsend (I think hat's his name) was caught cheating, it was because he openly admitted to it on ESPN. Because in his mind, it was not cheating at all, but "standard" to collude against someone and relieve them of 2 million bucks.

It's a cesspool. Really, in any sane system, HUDs would be considered cheating. But the sites allow them, so technically they aren't. I'm sure people who lost thousands not knowing that their opponent was using a program that tells them how to play were fine with it, if/when they found out.

Anyway, HUDs aside, I'd say the % of top players who have done some form of cheating is about the same as top baseball players who used steroids during the 90s.

Pretty interesting observations, fivespot. You should post more often. :)

Quote: Rigondeaux

One I recently found out about is top players buying tournament seats from lesser players who go deep, in events. So, you think you're playing against joe schmoe. You've got a history with him. Notes on his tendencies. Then, unbeknownst to you, he is replaced by a top player. If that wasn't bad enough, sometimes, they were playing multiple seats in the same tournament.

I have yet to play any game in an online casino. Stuff like this is not encouraging me to change that decision any time soon.

Quote: fivespot

The other thing about online poker is that, unlike live poker, there is a full record of every card that has ever been dealt and every action that has ever been taken. A competent online poker operator, like PokerStars, can do collusion-detection analysis that you could only dream of in live games. This is something they do proactively, not just in response to user reports. I don't play much poker anymore, but when I did, I felt significantly more confident in the games on PokerStars than the games at the WSOP or Bellagio.

I think that's all backwards. People who are good at cheating are more likely to do it online than live. Just because a site says they have "collusion detecting software" doesn't mean much. What can it really detect? Probably only the most brazen forms of collusion using a small number of accounts. Certainly not the sharing of hand histories and other information against a common opponent and/or playing against them with a common bankroll. Oh wait, that's not cheating, it's "standard." Lol.

I'll tell you a story. Once on UB I was on the bubble in 6 player a sit and go. 3 handed. The little stack bets all of his money except for one chip on the flop. The big stack calls. The little stack bets it's last chip on the turn, maybe 1/20th pot. The big stack folds.

Not only did the magic software not pick up anything, when I wrote them UB said nothing was suspicious because they hadn't played together much. I didn't accept that. Finally, Annie Duke herself wrote to say it was all kosher. She couldn't explain the play, though. I guess they just became incredibly stupid for one hand.

Quote: fivespot

The other thing about online poker is that, unlike live poker, there is a full record of every card that has ever been dealt and every action that has ever been taken. A competent online poker operator, like PokerStars, can do collusion-detection analysis that you could only dream of in live games. This is something they do proactively, not just in response to user reports. I don't play much poker anymore, but when I did, I felt significantly more confident in the games on PokerStars than the games at the WSOP or Bellagio.

Then why did PokerStars get hacked and why didn't they do anything about it until now? You say "this is something they do proactively, where is the evidence to do that, and what algorithm would they use to detect it?"

Quote:

Yeah, so don't get viruses on a machine you use to play online poker. There are zero-days out there, but the vast majority of virus infections are due to user recklessness. Don't be reckless on a machine you use to handle money of any kind, whether it's online banking, online poker, or anything else. Preferably do it on a separate machine, or in a virtual machine, that you don't use for anything else - don't connect to insecure networks, don't browse untrusted sites, don't run unnecessary programs, etc.

People are dumb and virus detection software is not infallible.

Quote:

If you're worried about cheating, then playing house-banked games instead, where the entity responsible for the RNG is guaranteed to be the entity with a financial interest in the RNG's results, is just about the LAST thing you should be doing.

I agree with you there as well, as plenty of cheating has been discovered on those types of games.

Official warning to 1776USMC for spamming. His post was deleted.

It's not just online where collusion can occur though. Go to any casino that runs poker games where locals play, along with tourists, and you possibly will be the fish. I won't say it is blatant cheating, but if you closely watch a table of 1/2 tourists, and 1/2 locals, watch how the locals play their cards against the tourists, and then against the other locals. It can be quite an education at times.

Some of it is because they have much better reads on the other local players. But I have seen a pattern of the locals not really engaging each other, but going hard after the tourist money. I would love to know if any of the money ever gets split up amongst some of the locals at the end of a cash game............

Quote: RaleighCraps

It's not just online where collusion can occur though. Go to any casino that runs poker games where locals play, along with tourists, and you possibly will be the fish. I won't say it is blatant cheating, but if you closely watch a table of 1/2 tourists, and 1/2 locals, watch how the locals play their cards against the tourists, and then against the other locals. It can be quite an education at times.

Some of it is because they have much better reads on the other local players. But I have seen a pattern of the locals not really engaging each other, but going hard after the tourist money. I would love to know if any of the money ever gets split up amongst some of the locals at the end of a cash game............

In my always-the-fish-so-far opinion, no question the locals work together to ace out the itinerant players.

Years ago during the poker craze I was lucky enough to buy a few drinks at Flamingo to get a local to tell me how much he and a few friends made off tourists who came to Vegas and thought they could win playing Texas Hold Em like they see on TV.

Yes I lost my share but the info was eye opening and worth the losses and the beers.

I was always a cynical person and never trusted online but he opened my eyes so much to live games and online poker. I probably missed some opportunities online based on my cynical nature, but I know he saved me more than I would have ever made.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I think that's all backwards. People who are good at cheating are more likely to do it online than live. Just because a site says they have "collusion detecting software" doesn't mean much. What can it really detect? Probably only the most brazen forms of collusion using a small number of accounts. Certainly not the sharing of hand histories and other information against a common opponent and/or playing against them with a common bankroll. Oh wait, that's not cheating, it's "standard." Lol.

I'll tell you a story. Once on UB I was on the bubble in 6 player a sit and go. 3 handed. The little stack bets all of his money except for one chip on the flop. The big stack calls. The little stack bets it's last chip on the turn, maybe 1/20th pot. The big stack folds.

Not only did the magic software not pick up anything, when I wrote them UB said nothing was suspicious because they hadn't played together much. I didn't accept that. Finally, Annie Duke herself wrote to say it was all kosher. She couldn't explain the play, though. I guess they just became incredibly stupid for one hand.

if they want to dump chips, they could have go to showdown and one of them will win anyway. why would they have to do things so ugly.

Quote: Boz

Years ago during the poker craze I was lucky enough to buy a few drinks at Flamingo to get a local to tell me how much he and a few friends made off tourists who came to Vegas and thought they could win playing Texas Hold Em like they see on TV.

Yes I lost my share but the info was eye opening and worth the losses and the beers.

I was always a cynical person and never trusted online but he opened my eyes so much to live games and online poker. I probably missed some opportunities online based on my cynical nature, but I know he saved me more than I would have ever made.

could you tell us more.

I too had some bad experience with PS. Call it selective memories. Yes, it's selective because it is so out of context I just couldn't make sense out of it.

Now I am OK losing my pocket Ace to pocket Q's. Thats variance. But when some idiot with total junk like 3,7 off suit reraise you then call your all-in, then flopped a set, then you can't help but to wonder if he knows something you don't.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I think that's all backwards. People who are good at cheating are more likely to do it online than live. Just because a site says they have "collusion detecting software" doesn't mean much. What can it really detect? Probably only the most brazen forms of collusion using a small number of accounts.

a) That's a lot more than you'll get in live games.
b) Having talked to people who work on this stuff for PokerStars... you underestimate them.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I'll tell you a story. Once on UB I was on the bubble in 6 player a sit and go. 3 handed. The little stack bets all of his money except for one chip on the flop. The big stack calls. The little stack bets it's last chip on the turn, maybe 1/20th pot. The big stack folds.

Not only did the magic software not pick up anything, when I wrote them UB said nothing was suspicious because they hadn't played together much. I didn't accept that. Finally, Annie Duke herself wrote to say it was all kosher. She couldn't explain the play, though. I guess they just became incredibly stupid for one hand.

Entirely possible. Play a few thousand SNGs and you'll see plenty of plays like that. Not noticing the bet size is an easy mistake to make, especially online where the guy could be watching TV or playing 19 other tables. When I played SNGs as my main source of income, in certain situations I would often keep a tiny bet behind instead of pushing all-in, specifically to induce the kind of error you describe.

That said, UB is a site which I had no trust in whatsoever, even before the cheating scandal. Which isn't to say I never played there, or on even shadier sites, but I knew what I was getting into.

Quote: Rigondeaux

The first time, out of multiple times, Brian Townsend (I think hat's his name) was caught cheating, it was because he openly admitted to it on ESPN. Because in his mind, it was not cheating at all, but "standard" to collude against someone and relieve them of 2 million bucks.

You think live poker players don't discuss the tendencies of certain opponents with each other? Yes, this is standard. And it is not "collusion", which is something else entirely. There's room for disagreement here, but I don't think there's a substantial difference between "let me tell you what I've learned playing against isildur1" and "here is my collection of hand histories playing against isildur1", and neither did Townsend. I didn't think Full Tilt should have punished him at all, but the site rules they wrote, which I expect were intended to target services that did large-scale data mining and sold subscriptions to their data, didn't really leave them an out.

Quote:

It's a cesspool. Really, in any sane system, HUDs would be considered cheating.

Taking notes while playing poker is OK. You're playing poker on a computer. Saying that it's cheating to have your computer take notes for you while playing poker on a computer is... a little on the silly side.

Quote: boymimbo

Then why did PokerStars get hacked and why didn't they do anything about it until now?

PokerStars hasn't been hacked. People distributed malware to pwn the computers of PokerStars players and extract data, the same way people distribute malware to pwn the computers of bank customers and extract data, and with the same result - the victims lost money. If I install someone's virus and it watches me type my Bank of America password, and phones home with that information to a guy who uses it to take my money, would you describe this as "someone hacked Bank of America"?

Meh. There's really no way to know if Stars catches much collusion. If they don't catch it, they don't know or care about it, so they can't measure it. I don't know how they catch it when it involves 100 accounts. And of course, according to you and them, a lot of collusion is just "standard." But maybe their software does a better job than I imagine off the top of my head. Quite possible.

Most recreational players would consider that stuff cheating. The Cirque de Solei guy considers what happened to him cheating. I mean, if I think I'm sitting at a table and playing against 4 guys playing for themselves, but in reality they are sharing bankroll and sharing info on me with the specific aim of targeting me and chopping up my money, then, if we are all of equal ability, I have no shot. That's collusion, if the word means anything. I'm going to lose and they're going to chop up my money. I think if you asked 100 people who knew very little about poker, at least 85 of them would agree. Of course, people can twist words and ethics pretty well when it's in their self interest to do so.

HUDs were pretty much the same thing. Obviously, you can come up with some story about how it's the fault of the victim for not being completely vigilant. But in reality, it is not realistic to expect someone who is just playing for fun to learn about and implement that kind of stuff. I used them, myself, but I knew it was an unfair advantage. I wished they were banned, but they weren't, so what are you gonna do?

You walk into a pool hall with legal gambling. Everyone but you is using pool cues that use computers to help them aim. The pool hall makes no mention of it. But, if you were in the know, you would know that a store down the street sells them. Of course, nobody is going to tell you that. After you lose all your money and discover your disadvantage, someone says, "oh yeah, it was on you to buy this product you had never heard of and use it in the game." "I thought we were just shooting pool." "Yeah, that's YOUR fault." Please.

Now, should you assume people are scamming you, playing more than one player to a hand and colluding online? Probably. But that doesn't mean it isn't cheating. Especially when it violates the written rules of the site! Indeed, in this thread, you'll see that most recreational players came to the conclusion that online was dirty.

And we haven't even touched on all of the "famous" players who endorsed and profited from UB and FTP.

Live players also engage in soft playing, sharing info and stuff like that. Some play with common BRs. But just because people do it, doesn't change the definition of the word. It's also less effective live, as there isn't as much info to share. It's more situational and psychological. You can look at people and see if they might be together. And, there's much more money to be made online, so that's where the most effective cheaters are. But this stuff always has been and always will be a part of the game.

Quote: Boz

Years ago during the poker craze I was lucky enough to buy a few drinks at Flamingo to get a local to tell me how much he and a few friends made off tourists who came to Vegas and thought they could win playing Texas Hold Em like they see on TV.

Yes I lost my share but the info was eye opening and worth the losses and the beers.

I was always a cynical person and never trusted online but he opened my eyes so much to live games and online poker. I probably missed some opportunities online based on my cynical nature, but I know he saved me more than I would have ever made.

Honestly, I think this guy was mostly full of hot air. He wanted to think of himself as a hustler beating up on the tourists or something and enjoyed playing the role in your eyes.

Vegas locals softplay each other a fair amount, mainly just to reduce variance. But also because many of them are such nits, grinding out small money, that there's not that much to be made off them.

I've been asked to swap action in a game once or twice and refused. Maybe more people do it. At higher limits I think it's very likely.

Occasionally, someone will tell me a tendency or tell on an action player. They might not be right about their observation, but sometimes it's useful. A lot of the time, it's because the player beat them and they are pissed off.

I don't think these last two things are the norm.

A lot of locals are losers or break even.

I don't think merely being an outsider is a big disadvantage at 2/5 and certainly not at 1/2. I came to Vegas as a tourist for years and I think I did better back then because I was excited to be playing and was zeroed in the whole time.

It's another story if you're talking about a location with 1 or 2 tables. e.g. The Bike used to have a 20/40 stud high lo game. Half the table was the same every day. I wanted to play cuz I like the game, but I knew it would be shady. I heard players away from the tables sharing extensive observations about their marks and so forth.

But if you just walk into the venetian and sit at a 1/2 or 2/5 table on a Friday I wouldn't worry too much about it. 2-3 people will probably recognize each other, maybe know names. They might softplay just because they don't see an edge and there's no reason to increase variance. If people really seem too familiar or like decent regulars, like say, 2-3 guys the same age and chat, you should switch tables. Even if they aren't doing anything it's probably a good idea.

Another thing to consider. Any good player would rather play with 8 recreational players than 4 recs and 3 buddies who he is going to softplay against.

I see nothing wrong with soft-playing someone in a CASH game when its HEADS UP.

Quote: AxelWolf

I see nothing wrong with soft-playing someone in a CASH game when its HEADS UP.

I don't worry about others doing it. A husband and wife for example can do it very openly and it doesn't bother me.

I softplay some other locals HU occasionally just because it's easier and I kind of know them and know they don't have much money. But I'll pick my spots to steal against them so I sheer off a few bucks here and there. It's nothing prearranged or formal. I'll do the same thing against tourists too sometimes. I want everyone to be relaxed and having fun.

It's a very small advantage, in that you are reducing variance and therefore things like tilt against each other, but not against the outsider. But the stuff I described as far as soft playing is nothing I would worry about as a tourist. Now, if you are swapping action and you have multiple people in the same game who can't really lose against each other, that's a much bigger advantage. That's collusion.

When people play a multi hand way aggressively, and the shut down the minute they bet you out, that can be frustrating and is a little shadier, but even then, 80% of the people who do it don't even understand what they are doing and don't mean anything by it. This is true of a lot of ethical breaches. It's not that they are angling, it's that they don't even know the angles are there.

At higher limits, maybe a different story. At 1/2 and 2/5, you have very little to fear as a tourist. I'll put it this way. I'd much sooner back a tourist I knew to be a good player over a mediocre local.

Once in a blue moon you might play against some friends who are colluding badly, trying to squeeze you out of pots or something. It's easier to see what is happening live and you can even turn it to your advantage. Let them try their squeeze, just don't fold and take all the money. But, again, this is extremely rare.

Quote: Rigondeaux

One I recently found out about is top players buying tournament seats from lesser players who go deep, in events. So, you think you're playing against joe schmoe. You've got a history with him. Notes on his tendencies. Then, unbeknownst to you, he is replaced by a top player. If that wasn't bad enough, sometimes, they were playing multiple seats in the same tournament.

I think we find out about it maybe 5% of the time at most. The first time, out of multiple times, Brian Townsend (I think hat's his name) was caught cheating, it was because he openly admitted to it on ESPN. Because in his mind, it was not cheating at all, but "standard" to collude against someone and relieve them of 2 million bucks.

It's a cesspool. Really, in any sane system, HUDs would be considered cheating. But the sites allow them, so technically they aren't. I'm sure people who lost thousands not knowing that their opponent was using a program that tells them how to play were fine with it, if/when they found out.

Anyway, HUDs aside, I'd say the % of top players who have done some form of cheating is about the same as top baseball players who used steroids during the 90s.

I haven't read through this whole thread, so if this has already been responded to, my apologies.

For any of the big tournaments on PokerStars (the Sunday tournaments and their series games), they review IP addresses of the big winners to make sure there wasn't a switch. Doesn't mean someone couldn't be ghosted though.....

I figured it couldn't be too hard to hack poker sites. I was on SB one time, shoved AA, guy calls me with 3-9 OS and flops two pairs. Wish they would regulate this stuff better because 25 cent Sit N Go's make good practice when they're fair.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I mean, if I think I'm sitting at a table and playing against 4 guys playing for themselves, but in reality they are sharing bankroll and sharing info on me with the specific aim of targeting me and chopping up my money, then, if we are all of equal ability, I have no shot. That's collusion, if the word means anything. I'm going to lose and they're going to chop up my money.

Of course. Several people at the same table working together to take money from a target is the very definition of collusion. Everyone agrees on this.

Quote:

HUDs were pretty much the same thing.

No. HUDs have nothing to do with collusion. Sharing information away from the table has nothing to do with collusion. Collusion has a very specific meaning and you are trying to conflate a wide range of behaviors you don't like in with it, and you're just wrong.

(Also, you are grossly overestimating the impact of HUDs on the game.)

Quote:

Live players also engage in soft playing, sharing info and stuff like that. Some play with common BRs.

You sound like those casino people who talk about "marking cards, counting cards, playing in teams, stuff like that". Soft playing is absolutely cheating. Sharing info is absolutely not cheating. (Playing with common bankrolls is not cheating in itself, but it can create incentive to cheat if the players are at the same table.)

Quote: Zer0

I figured it couldn't be too hard to hack poker sites. I was on SB one time, shoved AA, guy calls me with 3-9 OS and flops two pairs. Wish they would regulate this stuff better because 25 cent Sit N Go's make good practice when they're fair.

Well I don't know how easy or hard it is. But I don't think I would judge anything on that hand.

I have had many people do similar things in live casino games. I remember someone did that exact same hand for $400 in a 1-2 no limit at the Orleans.

Quote: AxelWolf

Well I don't know how easy or hard it is. But I don't think I would judge anything on that hand.

I have had many people do similar things in live casino games. I remember someone did that exact same hand for $400 in a 1-2 no limit at the Orleans.

I've had really suspect things like that happen a lot more than just that time on SportsBetting though.