The politics of dealing with a cheater (6 Viewers)

[Hornet]

THIS!!!!

That's exactly why I'm saying you have no time for video! You do not have time to get all of that setup. You really should have addressed this "a couple months ago", but meanwhile, players have been losing money all this time because you couldn't figure out the right time to say something. No man, that's not right! I'm not sure how I'm responding after I get this information!

It seems reasonable to investigate whether the cheating is happening or not before taking action. Even mentioning the possibility of someone cheating can ruin the person’s reputation. Personally, I would understand wanting to observe the person before reaching a conclusion.

 

[saleen121212]

What if you sent out a message to everyone with no names and said:

"Members of our group have anonymously expressed their concerns that someone has been cheating in our game. After further research and due diligence it has been determined that their concerns were warranted. I would like to take a blind vote, should we ban the cheater or change the rules"

Explaining to them how he was cheating (stacking the deck or dealing from bottom) would go a long way as well instead of being vague about what was going on.

I have a feeling most of them would vote ban.

 

[shorticus]

I respectfully disagree. Here's why:

I host games often. If someone came to me and said [player x] was cheating, I wouldn't immediately take action without verifying the accusation personally. This unfortunately takes time and diligence.

The fact that a concern was raised 'a couple months ago' and has subsequently been corroborated by OP personally adds credibility to his decision to ban the cheater.

The only thing that would make me want to agree with you would be based on the frequency of the game. 8 weeks has passed, and if this is a weekly game, that's completely unacceptable. Monthly game, meh, maybe. But if you knew, and you shared that with someone else then you should have shared it with the entire group. Furthermore, you should have taken action immediately to remedy the issue. Not wait an watch it happen over and over.

To an extent, there's really no need to verify. There was an accusation, whether it's true or not, if it's possible, it identifies a hole in the measures you are taking to make the game secure. Fix it immeidately.

 

[1A25R]

The more I read, the more I think about Mike Postle case, as there still no real evidence even with the video footage and everyone still waiting to someone to confess while the "investigations and observations" started a while ago but nothing has been done about it.

I believe that you run this home game as a private game and not in a public place.
If you do not feel comfortable with the guy, you do not need more "evidence" than that to do not have him invited anymore under your roof.

 

[Trihonda]

I disagree. I'm the host. If "I" am sure that your cheating. Your not coming back.

I'm also not going to worry about politics. If the other players can't understand that banning a cheater is what is best for the game, then they are beyond help.

I agree with you. From MY perspective, he’d never see my felt again, and if people (other players) didnt respect that and stopped playing, no biggie. Not the kind of people I’d want to play with anyway...

I was trying to come at it from the OP’s perspective... he WAS worried about the politics (specifically).

Re: video: I’d need set-ups for both tables, and cameras which wouldn’t be obvious in a really minimal decor where small stuff sticks out.

I think the facts as they are are already solid, especially as the other watcher is an objective, no-nonsense guy who is close with the cheater and is a winning player in our game. He thus can’t be accused of either bias, or jealously.

in this case, proceed without haste. any concerns about waiting can be explained as “due to the very close relationships he has with everyone, and the gravity (and fallout) of a cheating accusation, I wanted zero question that it occurred, I would not make an accusation until there was no doubt, and I’m now at that point“.

 

[timinater]

I respectfully disagree. Here's why:

I host games often. If someone came to me and said [player x] was cheating, I wouldn't immediately take action without verifying the accusation personally. This unfortunately takes time and diligence.

The fact that a concern was raised 'a couple months ago' and has subsequently been corroborated by OP personally adds credibility to his decision to ban the cheater.

I agree with the above, however you'll note that nowhere did I say he shouldn't have done due diligence.

I'm suggesting he think about this when he goes to his players, because if I'm getting stacked for a $200 or $500 buyin, there had better be a good reason I've been allowed to play in a compromised game for months. It appears to amount to a guy peeking at the cards during the shuffle, it should take one or two laps to observe the behavior.

 

[shorticus]

Think about this from the players perspective in the game who are the victims. It really took you 2 months to identify that this guy was peeping at cards? You really only need to see it one time. As the host, that's more than enough proof. As a player, I have serious concerns with this. Why do you need to see this action repeated for 2 months. This should take 2 sessions. The one session in which you were told, and THE EXACT MOMENT that you saw it occur. Forget the number of games, how many orbits did you see this guy do this? At what point are you like, "okay, you've done this 37 times now, it's time for everyone to know." The more we discuss this, the more it seems clearly apparent that too much time has passed to wait any longer to do anything. If the people at your game can't trust your word, then why are they even attending your game in the first place?

 

[Lemonzest]

Think about this from the players perspective in the game who are the victims. It really took you 2 months to identify that this guy was peeping at cards? You really only need to see it one time. As the host, that's more than enough proof. As a player, I have serious concerns with this. Why do you need to see this action repeated for 2 months. This should take 2 sessions. The one session in which you were told, and THE EXACT MOMENT that you saw it occur. Forget the number of games, how many orbits did you see this guy do this? At what point are you like, "okay, you've done this 37 times now, it's time for everyone to know." The more we discuss this, the more it seems clearly apparent that too much time has passed to wait any longer to do anything. If the people at your game can't trust your word, then why are they even attending your game in the first place?

When the cheater was found out in our group the person brought it up on day 1 and then on day 2 we switched to using a single deck and started having the deck cut prior to dealing. It basically stopped the problem within 24 hours. This just so happened to occur on a poker weekend where we were playing non stop more or less for the weekend.

 

[DoubleEagle]

But given the OP’s question, with the politics involved, I’d get video proof. Especially since it’s subtle enough of a cheat that it took months for the OP to come to the definitive conclusion.

I like this idea.

Here is a camera several of us are using. Wyze Cam

 

[Taghkanic]

I appreciate all the thoughts and suggestions.

I’d also like to try to bring the discussion back to *how* to take action, not whether.

But to review the specifics first, so that we’re not arguing over details which are not clear:

* When this first came up a few months ago, everyone was reminded about the rules on shuffling and cutting.

* At the time, it was not clear how an edge was being gained, or even if one really was—only that it was suspected to involve the handling of cards before the deal.

* It was important to ensure that suspicions were not based in jealousy of the player’s success or incomprehension of his skills (the Stones defense of Postle initially).

* Another trusted, impartial member of the group who is a winning player was enlisted to help observe the suspected player so that it wasn’t only the host’s word against the player’s, and to deflect any suggestion of chagrin/jealousy motivating any findings.

* There have been about five “watched” games; this game happens twice monthly. This is not a scientific inquiry, but I have a ton of faith in my fellow watcher’s integrity and objectivity.

* Both of us concluded that there is an issue with the player shuffling in a way intended to previews cards for him, which gives a thinking player a significant edge.

* The player does not shuffle with a standard two-hand riffle. His method involves holding the deck horizontally with one hand, with the cards facing the shuffler. The other hand picks up bunches of cards from the deck and rapidly mixes them forward or back, allowing a view of multiple cards, and allowing some cards to be roughly positioned.

* This overhand technique sounds weird, but it is not an uncommon method among people who are bad at shuffling correctly, or just are casual about card handling. (This player certainly can shuffle properly if he had to.)

* His edge is conferred whether the cards are cut or not, though the player clearly prefers to try to avoid cuts.

* Example: If you see while shuffling, or arrange it as such, that there are two black aces and a bunch of diamonds in the bottom 1/4 of the deck, that would give extremely valuable info either way. If it is not cut, aces and diamonds can be discounted. If it is cut, you can significantly adjust your strategy depending on what winds up in your hand and on the flop.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I like this idea.

Here is a camera several of us are using. Wyze Cam

Did you read the Amazon reviews of this camera? Some real tinfoil hat shit right there

 

[toynoob]

I must admit this while it's on mind. @Taghkanic you have an amazing ability to create a thread and in half a day have 6 pages of material for a question that needs a answer like this. "Hey Tom, GTFO of my house. If any of you pipe pushers want to defend him you can GTFO out too. If not let's deal.

 

[shorticus]

I appreciate all the thoughts and suggestions.

I’d also like to try to bring the discussion back to *how* to take action, not whether.

But to review the specifics first, so that we’re not arguing over details which are not clear:

* When this first came up a few months ago, everyone was reminded about the rules on shuffling and cutting.

* At the time, it was not clear how an edge was being gained, or even if one really was—only that it was suspected to involve the handling of cards before the deal.

* It was important to ensure that suspicions were not based in jealousy of the player’s success or incomprehension of his skills (the Stones defense of Postle initially).

* Another trusted, impartial member of the group who is a winning player was enlisted to help observe the suspected player so that it wasn’t only the host’s word against the player’s, and to deflect any suggestion of chagrin/jealousy motivating any findings.

* There have been about five “watched” games; this game happens twice monthly. This is not a scientific inquiry, but I have a ton of faith in my fellow watcher’s integrity and objectivity.

* Both of us concluded that there is an issue with the player shuffling in a way intended to previews cards for him, which gives a thinking player a significant edge.

* The player does not shuffle with a standard two-hand riffle. His method involves holding the deck horizontally with one hand, with the cards facing the shuffler. The other hand picks up bunches of cards from the deck and rapidly mixes them forward or back, allowing a view of multiple cards, and allowing some cards to be roughly positioned.

* This overhand technique sounds weird, but it is not an uncommon method among people who are bad at shuffling correctly, or just are casual about card handling. (This player certainly can shuffle properly if he had to.)

* His edge is conferred whether the cards are cut or not, though the player clearly prefers to try to avoid cuts.

* Example: If you see while shuffling, or arrange it as such, that there are two black aces and a bunch of diamonds in the bottom 1/4 of the deck, that would give extremely valuable info either way. If it is not cut, aces and diamonds can be discounted. If it is cut, you can significantly adjust your strategy depending on what winds up in your hand and on the flop.

I'm not sure what actions you take to remedy this situation. I know the guy needs to be removed, and there needs to be some transparency with this situation. Due to the length of time taken to remedy the situation, I definitely think you will receive some (warranted) backlash.

I just want to reiterate that I'm not attacking you by any means, I'm just speaking from a players perspective. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the players and it's making me get all emotional about it! I'm in my office chair making faces at the computer and what not LOL! I actually feel bad for your guys.

 

[Taghkanic]

All that having been re-stated, let me put it this way:

Assume you are confident that someone is cheating your game.

Recognize that this is a valued friend of the solid regs in your game—people who are going to very upset by the news.

Acknowledge that however ironclad the accusation, some are going to want to deny or downplay it, because that’s just human nature.

The question them remains:

What’s the best way to deliver the news to the player and the group, to protect both the integrity and cohesion of your game?

I’m especially grateful to those who have already commented on that crucial aspect and think more suggestions would be awesome.

 

[moose]

I'm sure that while he is 'shuffling' he is also looking at the folded cards to see what cards people were playing.

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. Given the history and friendships in the group — ten years for most of us — I can say that people would be much more offended if such a serious accusation were made without due diligence and investigation. A reminder and warning about shuffles and cuts was made to the whole group when this came up. We’ve taken a half-dozen games to make sure it wasn’t imaginary. I think that was responsible.

 

[saleen121212]

I appreciate all the thoughts and suggestions.

I’d also like to try to bring the discussion back to *how* to take action, not whether.

But to review the specifics first, so that we’re not arguing over details which are not clear:

* When this first came up a few months ago, everyone was reminded about the rules on shuffling and cutting.

* At the time, it was not clear how an edge was being gained, or even if one really was—only that it was suspected to involve the handling of cards before the deal.

* It was important to ensure that suspicions were not based in jealousy of the player’s success or incomprehension of his skills (the Stones defense of Postle initially).

* Another trusted, impartial member of the group who is a winning player was enlisted to help observe the suspected player so that it wasn’t only the host’s word against the player’s, and to deflect any suggestion of chagrin/jealousy motivating any findings.

* There have been about five “watched” games; this game happens twice monthly. This is not a scientific inquiry, but I have a ton of faith in my fellow watcher’s integrity and objectivity.

* Both of us concluded that there is an issue with the player shuffling in a way intended to previews cards for him, which gives a thinking player a significant edge.

* The player does not shuffle with a standard two-hand riffle. His method involves holding the deck horizontally with one hand, with the cards facing the shuffler. The other hand picks up bunches of cards from the deck and rapidly mixes them forward or back, allowing a view of multiple cards, and allowing some cards to be roughly positioned.

* This overhand technique sounds weird, but it is not an uncommon method among people who are bad at shuffling correctly, or just are casual about card handling. (This player certainly can shuffle properly if he had to.)

* His edge is conferred whether the cards are cut or not, though the player clearly prefers to try to avoid cuts.

* Example: If you see while shuffling, or arrange it as such, that there are two black aces and a bunch of diamonds in the bottom 1/4 of the deck, that would give extremely valuable info either way. If it is not cut, aces and diamonds can be discounted. If it is cut, you can significantly adjust your strategy depending on what winds up in your hand and on the flop.

See now I feel differently about the entire situation. Stacking the deck vs sucking at shuffling are different. No doubt he can gain an edge from this, but a simple talk may fix this issue. If you still want to ban him this doesn't feel like enough evidence to prove to his friends he is cheating, as the host you can invite/ban anyone you want and you don't really need a reason.

This made it a lot tougher, maybe below would work?

"Hey, John, I don't want to be that guy, but people have brought it to my attention that you might be gaining an advantage with the way you shuffle, can you please shuffle in a way that you can't see the cards" or something along those lines could avoid the entire issue.

 

[Taghkanic]

It’s definitely not that he sucks at shuffling. It’s a choice.

 

[timinater]

I think @Moxie Mike had the most clear and effective approach.

Here's what happened ----> it has been decided. Done. Do it right fucking now.

Your "friend" has abused the trust of his other friends to steal an advantage in a regular game. In a 1/2 and 2/5 game that adds up to real and significant dollars.

He's no friend of mine.

 

[Coyote]

I think stakes matter but I can understand why some people would say that they don't. Because those cash and tourney stakes are significant to most middle class people I think a ban is in order.

At small stakes there is just more space to say "ah you caught me but I was just fucking around..." It is like cheating at monopoly. The higher the stakes the less space there is to say "haha I was just messing around".

Is it a friendly game or a game where people are taking the money serious? IMO cheating in a game "for fun" is different than cheating "for money". It is kind of splitting hairs but it matters to me.

People morally capable of cheating for dimes among friends are the absolute moral bottom and can steal any amount of money, up to billions, from anyone. Not the other way round (from top to bottom).
People who steal some thousands or millions of dollars might at least need them

The tourney is two tables. Finding two dealers who can make it every time in a rural county is going to be difficult.

At these stakes, dedicated non-playing dealers are a must, sorry. And, because I wouldn't trust anybody, including professionals, I would pay them by the hour and have the cost shared by all players, even if rake were legal at homes, to avoid the dealer's being tempted to spread explosive hands.

If you are indeed SURE about the guy, just ban him politely for not observing shuffling and dealing procedures and explain this to everybody.
At any rate, switch to dealers paid by the hour, IMHO.

 

[shorticus]

P.S. Given the history and friendships in the group — ten years for most of us — I can say that people would be much more offended if such a serious accusation were made without due diligence and investigation. A reminder and warning about shuffles and cuts was made to the whole group when this came up. We’ve taken a half-dozen games to make sure it wasn’t imaginary. I think that was responsible.

Out of curiosity, are you trying to protect friendships in this matter? In my mind, I feel like you want to do the right thing, but you are afraid of confrontation. I don't want to accuse you of such things, and that's why I'm asking.

 

[saleen121212]

See now I feel differently about the entire situation. Stacking the deck vs sucking at shuffling are different. No doubt he can gain an edge from this, but a simple talk may fix this issue. If you still want to ban him this doesn't feel like enough evidence to prove to his friends he is cheating, as the host you can invite/ban anyone you want and you don't really need a reason.

This made it a lot tougher, maybe below would work?

"Hey, John, I don't want to be that guy, but people have brought it to my attention that you might be gaining an advantage with the way you shuffle, can you please shuffle in a way that you can't see the cards" or something along those lines could avoid the entire issue.

We have a few shitty shufflers in our game and we have someone else deal for them. Banning them without even talking to them would be overkill in our situation, not saying the same for your situation, but I overhand shuffle and never even considered it may be a problem, I would much prefer the host to talk to me 1 on 1 about it and give me a chance to shuffle in a different way first if they see an issue with it.

Now if he was caught dealing from the bottom or stacking the deck that would be a lot easier of a decision.

 

[Taghkanic]

We have two weeks until the next game. I’m going to sit down with my fellow “watcher” to discuss it in depth. We may also bring in another member (a former host of the game). The question is not whether to act, but how.

 

[saleen121212]

Keep us updated. Following with interest.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I'd have an email ready to be sent out to the group explaining the whole situation in detail. Explain that you didn't come across this accusation lightly, that a couple people mentioned something to you and after a couple sessions of observation by you and another play that you trust, you determined that without a shadow of a doubt person X was looking at the cards while shuffling. It hurts to say this, because its a close-knit group, but the integrity of the game has to rise above everyone else.

Then I'd call the person who's cheating, explain that he's not welcome to play in the game anymore (and why), and as soon as you're finished with your phone call click send on the group email.

 

[Kain8]

After poring through all of this I've come to two conclusions:

1. It sounds like your game is (pardon the pun) built on a house of cards because of this individual and their actions. Your current game isn't dead in the water, but it sounds like it very well could be if you expect the mass exodus that could ensue once you take action.

2. If their propensity is to cheat out less familiar players than regulars, he's cancerous to the game in both growing it with new blood, as well as YOU HAVE A KNOWN CHEATER STILL SITTING AT YOUR TABLE.


Hard realities need hard truths. Do you want to host a game where you know insidious actions are taking place (of which you could be blamed for as well for being complicit) or start over from scratch? If your game really does die out because everyone will follow the cheater out the door like lemmings, I say good riddance from a poker perspective. Let the cheater infect some other game and be happy that you've wiped your hands clean of it all.

 

[shorticus]

We have two weeks until the next game. I’m going to sit down with my fellow “watcher” to discuss it in depth. We may also bring in another member (a former host of the game). The question is not whether to act, but how.

Whatever you do, please do not let another game go by without taking action or being transparent with your group.

 

[Taghkanic]

Out of curiosity, are you trying to protect friendships in this matter? In my mind, I feel like you want to do the right thing, but you are afraid of confrontation. I don't want to accuse you of such things, and that's why I'm asking.

I think this has been already addressed. The “confrontation” with the player doesn’t concern me at all; in my work I’ve dealt with far more harsh situations many times. (I’ve been involved with a lot of political campaigns, and don’t shy away from telling either opponents or allies what I think.)

The concern, as stated in the OP, is to address this in a smart, clear way that avoids losing significant players even though the guy is in the wrong. For example, as noted, many in the game are going to his wedding soon. That’s the level of mutual history and connection here.

 

[saleen121212]

I think this has been already addressed. The “confrontation” with the player doesn’t concern me at all; in my work I’ve dealt with far more harsh situations many times.

The concern, as stated in the OP, is to address this in a smart, clear way that avoids losing significant players even though the guy is in the wrong. For example, as noted, many in the game are going to his wedding soon. That’s the level of mutual history and connection here.

Did you see my blind vote post? Wondering if that would work. People would be voting on banning a cheater without knowing who it is. Would be funny if the cheater voted to ban also.

 

[Taghkanic]

I saw it, but was a bit confused by it. You proposed a vote to either ban him, or change the rules. Our rules already include no cheating, in general, and standard shuffle behind/mandatory cuts.

What rule change did you have in mind?