Cheatas Gonna Cheat (1 Viewer)

Taghkanic said:
I agree. However, the full context of each case might be important, as with poster above who told the interesting story about “Cowboy” above.

As I read it, the poster had the dilemma that (a) surprisingly, the cheater played worse when cheating, and (b) in a very low-stakes game and the cheater would buy pizza for everyone to deflect from his cheating, the cost of which eclipsed the stakes of the game by a gigantic factor.

And (c) the poster had busted other players for cheating then gotten a lot of grief for it, so he felt pressure not to do it again. So I understand his rationale in that unique case.
Click to expand...

While I get why Tex didn't out "Cowboy" on his cheating (literally penny ante game with pizza provided by the cheat), in nearly any other situation I would say it was wrong to keep the cheat in the game...

Point (a) in immaterial. A cheating player does not necessarily affect everybody equally. Players may still have finished down because of the cheat - who may have donked the profits off to someone else.

Point (b) is why I think it is OK that Tex let him slide. I do not think it was the best path of action though. He would have been better off taking cowboy aside and talking to him. He may actually have a problem, and may need the wake-up call.

Point (c) I also get, lest Tex gets banned for calling everyone a cheat. However, the talk would still have been a better course of action. However, I speak fromn the wisdom of a 50 year old, and Tex was a college student at the time. There are a lot of things I would have handled differently, provided I had an extra 30 years of life-experience.
 
Poker Zombie said:
Palming a relatively useless T25? If the host is sloppy, it'll probably be rounded up anyway (in a race-off the extra chip would be immediately noticed) - but it would gain Vikram an edge.
Click to expand...

To be clear, Vikram was playing a cash game game and the green chip,was worth $25
 
WedgeRock said:
Are you speculating? Seems weird to buyin for $350 and get 10x$5 and 12 (or 13) x$25... Rebuy maybe?
Click to expand...

Nope, not speculating. I was told by the host that it was at initial buyin. But who knows... I am 100% sure it was a cash game.
 
WedgeRock said:
Are you speculating? Seems weird to buyin for $350 and get 10x$5 and 12 (or 13) x$25... Rebuy maybe?
Click to expand...
Perhaps a late entry, when there were already plenty of 1's on the table?
 
Taghkanic said:
So here’s an ethical question (inspired by the great Cowboy story above) ... If you see that someone is cheating, but you figure out how to exploit their sloppy cheating, do you have an obligation to tell the rest of the players about the cheat?
Click to expand...

If you’re the host, 100% obligated to shut that shit down.

If you’re not the host, not obligated at all. But it’s a nice thing to do.

Also, in general should be careful about inferring cheating from what you consider poor play or hand selection. Sometimes it is a legitimately poor strategy. Sometimes it has merits on a deeper level
 
ReallyGoodUsername said:
the video starts off by saying it's a cash game. was the video made by the host?
Click to expand...

Yes, the host has a camera in his game room. All players were aware. He’s in IT for a major tech company (as are several of the players.. I haven’t studied the footage, other than to see the cheating.. Vikram pockets a $25 chip. Points out to the host that he only received one less $25 chip than he should have.. whether it’s the initial buyin or a rebuy? Prolly doesn’t matter imho.

:).
 
A few years back I used to play in an underground card game that hosts Monte Carlos chips. On few occasions I told the owner if he wasn't worried about the integrity of the game since anybody can go online, purchase the same chips, and introduce them into the game. He replies with "nah, my game is secure." Well, during a $200 tournament that I was playing in, during the color up of 25s one of the dealers at their table noticed that there was an unsual amount of 100s. He calls the owner to verify, and just as they go over the count with a puzzled look on their faces, another dealer yells out "yo, I have an unusual amount of chips at my table too. 500s." Apparently, two of the regulars introduced the chips into the tournament. I just smirked. Haven't played there since......

.......Last week, when the owner was running a satellite into a WSOP game, where the winner gets 10k to the WSOP. I figured what the heck, turning $80 into a $600 seat won't hurt. Apparently he didn't learn his lesson, or didn't think much of the incident above, because he was using the same exact chips. Anyways, I'm seated in seat 5 and we're playing away when I notice seat 1 catching weird glances. I observe seat 1 and the dealer carefully to see what shenanigans they're up to. In one hand, when the dealer puts the flop down, with the deck in his palm I notice him flashing the burn card to seat 1 while everyone else is distracted. I don't say anything to see how long this goes on. Finally, after the 5th or 6th hand they're at it again and I yell to the dealer "yo, if you're gonna flash your buddy the burn card, can you show all of us?" Whole room perks up and goes quiet. The owner, redfaced, comes over and says if this is correct. Of course they deny it, but to save face the owner replaces the dealer and eliminates the player in seat 1. For the rest of the tournament the deck is kept down on the table. Never again.
 
Last edited:
Trihonda said:
Yes, the host has a camera in his game room. All players were aware. He’s in IT for a major tech company (as are several of the players.. I haven’t studied the footage, other than to see the cheating.. Vikram pockets a $25 chip. Points out to the host that he only received one less $25 chip than he should have.. whether it’s the initial buyin or a rebuy? Prolly doesn’t matter imho.

:).
Click to expand...
Just asking since if it was the host that made the youtube vid then we know when the video says it was a cash game its confirmed (and not a second hand video where someone else added the first info screen).
 
Wow, there are some interesting comments on the Cowboy situation. Zombie made a good point. Perhaps with more maturity, I’d handle it differently. In retrospect, I’ve come to feel much sorrier for him than I did at the time because I thought most of his problems were self-inflected. A pro taught me to play. He told me about some forms of cheating, how to beat them, and it worked. So in a way, it gave me a chance to test what I learned.

The primary way Cowboy cheated was by stacking the deck. That is somewhat easy to beat if you are aware of it. Folding early and taking more or fewer cards in draw would always mess up his hand. Sometimes I’d fold a good starting hand because I knew he was cheating, and then make a comment about what a bad hand I had. That confused him, I’m sure, because he was no longer certain I got what he intended. Whether stud or draw, that meant no more cards he was counting on going to me.

His secondary cheating method was picking up discards. That didn’t always work because he wasn’t always improving his hand.

It seems funny that he rarely won a hand when he cheated, though once he clipped me pretty big in relation to the game on a hand where he picked up a discard that was a winner. But in the big scheme of things, I avoided those hands.

His real downfall was the failure to play hands well when he could have, and to stay in way too long when he had a bad hand. Those were hands where he was covering up his cheating. That’s what cost him the money. The cheating, as best I could tell, didn’t have the positive effect he hoped because so often I would do the unexpected and mess up the deck for him.

More info on the Cowboy case ~
  • Cowboy had other issues outside of poker. He had more problems than a math book. He was closer to the other poker players than he was to me or than I was to them. I did consider talking to Cowboy, but I had every reason for believing it wouldn’t have accomplished anything except angry denials.
  • A friend had lived with Cowboy. He told me Cowboy didn’t do well when confronted. He didn’t think I should say anything. Cowboy had plenty of money, but no social graces.
  • Cowboy wasn’t as vocal as Lonnie (see below) about me calling out the cheaters, but he wasn’t happy about it. He was the most common victim of them based on my limited exposure. Not only did it save him from losing money on those hands, but he didn’t spend as much on pizza. I’m not sure he ever saw the connection. Maybe cheaters don’t complain about other cheaters, I don’t know.
  • In the group, I was originally a 6th player – the more the merrier. I suspect Cowboy wished I’d never come along, even though he and another invited me together. They did like the way I did the banking – always matched to the penny. They liked my easy-going style, though do see below about me being “too uptight” for the game, even though outside of the night I accused the two of cheating, I never complained about anything else. They never came to believe the first two cheated. I don’t think they ever wanted to see Cowboy as cheating.
  • “Lonnie” (the big loser) was the life of the party type. He lost $5-6 a night. He rarely folded – he thought I was crazy for sitting out so much. He was the most vocal in complaining about me calling out the other cheaters. He was the one guy who Cowboy’s cheating didn’t help, but it didn’t hurt him either. His per game average was about the same (within $.10-.20 per game) whether Cowboy cheated or not. Whether he was the loser because he didn’t take it seriously or just a bad player, I don’t know. Many times he said I needed to loosen up, it’s just a cheap game, and appreciate the fun. I’m a quiet guy, and he was the opposite. He couldn’t understand why I folded bad hands because he didn’t. He had a lot more money at his disposal than I did. I’ll also add Lonnie never liked me (unknown to me why) until I started playing and won him over with the banking he saw as well-handled. I guess I did way better than the prior banker because they all commented on that, but Lonnie did the most.
  • “Ned” was the host. He was a player who lost about $1 a night when Cowboy didn’t cheat, and won about $1.25 a night when Cowboy cheated. Cowboy’s cheating caused Ned to go from a slight loser to a slight winner. He and Cowboy invited me to the game, and Ned was probably Cowboy’s only real friend (that I knew of).
  • I won about $2.75 more on the nights that Cowboy cheated. My stats were winning about $3 on the nights he didn’t cheat to almost $6 when he did. While I benefited the most, part of that was I paid attention.
  • Lonnie, Ned, and I all got free pizza, though I didn’t always eat it since they ordered some I didn’t like. I never complained – just said to order what they want. I never accepted Cowboy’s offer to buy a second pizza so we could get one I could eat.
  • Lonnie and Ned did other stuff with Cowboy, and told me he was always buying stuff – taking friends to movies, buying dinner, etc. I was never part of that crowd so I didn’t see that side of him. Lonnie didn’t see anything except a somewhat annoying but generous guy. Ned was his friend, and I didn’t think open to his friend cheating him at all. My perspective was Cowboy was an annoying card cheat and back then, I thought he got what he deserved, but I was always polite and friendly to him.
  • I’d never invite him to my game, then or now. I’d risk talking to him now, but I’d also be prepared to walk away from the game. Then I was new, wanted to play, having fun, and winning. I would tolerate his cheating if it didn’t hurt others. Now I don’t know that I would. I doubt I’ll ever meet another player like him. All these years later his actions remain a mystery. I bet everyone on this board has more playing experience now than I did then. Telling someone their friend is a cheat still might not end well. Generally I’m willing to tell someone if they seem even slightly open to hearing it. However, if someone isn't open to hearing it, that could be the worst thing you could do.
 
Not really cheating, per se, but last night in a 5/10 mix game we had a new player that we'll call Danny. Danny is a poker dealer at a different room in town.
Danny, from the start announces that he can't really play for long. He buys in about $300 (pretty usual in this game) and runs it up to about $500 in 90 minutes or so (again, not usual for this game). Another player felts (call her Francine* the eternally felted) and Danny sells her $140 in chips and puts the cash on the table, but never calls for chips. Sunday's are a little slow in this room and the floor is relieving a dealer for a break.
I look around a little while later and there's no cash around Danny's stack.
I'd been up from the table a couple times so maybe I missed him buying. However his stack is still about $300.
I can't prove it, but I know this bastard is rat-holing the cash.
Anyway, Danny proceeds to lose most of the $300 he had on the table; about half to me and half to another guy. A little while longer he does leave and the organizer shows up and takes his seat. At that point I ask around the table if anyone ever saw Danny but chips with the cash he got from Francine (the eternally felted). Everyone, including the dealer (we only really had one all night) says no. So now everyone can watch for Danny to pocket cash.
I guess I'm glad Danny never got felted because them I would be obliged to say something about him being a rat-holing bastard. Danny was good for the game. Like I said, he is a dealer and he plays like one.
* Francine is a terrible player but is usually good to lose $700 - $1000 a night in a 5/10 game. I think she may (heavily) self-medicate because her attention wanders (hell, it take vacations) and she can't remember what game we're playing or follow the action.
 
Last edited:
Man that is brutal. Sad to hear about someone trying to take money from friends. Pretty disgusting to think about as poker is a lot more than gambling or trying to win the pot. The math and theory behind poker are so interesting and combining that with the occasional tell to make good reads is such a rewarding feeling.
 
jazzV3 said:
Vikram is a dick.

No cheating found at our game, but I may have overlooked it and might need some help sorting it out. Guess we're just lucky.

:cautious:

That said, not too long ago we randomly counted one deck and discovered we had been playing with 48 cards. We assumed host's daughter had gotten a hold of the deck. Now we count every deck before starting.
Click to expand...
I always count both decks (and double-check starting chip stacks) before anyone arrives for my home game. I've never found a card (or even a chip) to be missing, but I figure it's my job as host to make sure we start off with a level playing field.
 
Last edited:
If I was playing 200 NL or higher I would just play in a casino. Pay the rake and ensure the integrity of the game. As it is with our 20 NL game people's beers are more at risk than the chips on the table or money in the box.
 
Lemonzest said:
If I was playing 200 NL or higher I would just play in a casino. Pay the rake and ensure the integrity of the game. As it is with our 20 NL game people's beers are more at risk than the chips on the table or money in the box.
Click to expand...

In your case the chips are more valuable than the buy in they represent! Love it you scrub donkey.
 
I was talking with an older player who ran self-dealt firehouse tournaments forever. He said he caught people cheating only very occasionally, but that he remembers three main ways people did it:

1) Players who would be very helpful at tables pushing pots to winners, who palmed/slid chips back to themselves from those pots. He remembered one woman in particular who he busted doing this.

2) Bottom dealing.

3) One guy, from more recent years, who had an iPhone with a mirrored back which he kept in front of him on the table, so he could see cards as he dealt them.
 
Taghkanic said:
I was talking with an older player who ran self-dealt firehouse tournaments forever. He said he caught people cheating only very occasionally, but that he remembers three main ways people did it:

1) Players who would be very helpful at tables pushing pots to winners, who palmed/slid chips back to themselves from those pots. He remembered one woman in particular who he busted doing this.

2) Bottom dealing.

3) One guy, from more recent years, who had an iPhone with a mirrored back which he kept in front of him on the table, so he could see cards as he dealt them.
Click to expand...

Even the most minor of controls can prevent all three, especially the last two. A dedicated dealer would prevent all three, too.
 
Gobbs said:
Even the most minor of controls can prevent all three, especially the last two. A dedicated dealer would prevent all three, too.
Click to expand...

Sure. But though I don’t play in this type of game very often, I really doubt that in a $100 firehouse/VFW-type game where the buy in is typically $100 and the house is already raking $20-$25, that either the host or the players are going to spring for 4-6 dealers. It would effectively reduce the prize pool to a point where it wasn't worth it to anyone.

I did sometimes find in these games that the host would deal the final table once it got down to 8-9 players.

In any case, the old guy said he felt he did catch all of the cheaters eventually. (But then again... How could he be sure?)
 
Taghkanic said:
Sure. But though I don’t play in this type of game very often, I really doubt that in a $100 firehouse/VFW-type game where the buy in is typically $100 and the house is already raking $20-$25, that either the host or the players are going to spring for 4-6 dealers. It would effectively reduce the prize pool to a point where it wasn't worth it to anyone.

I did sometimes find in these games that the host would deal the final table once it got down to 8-9 players.

In any case, the old guy said he felt he did catch all of the cheaters eventually. (But then again... How could he be sure?)
Click to expand...

Cut cards are cheap and a “cell phones off the table” policy is free.
 
Ya, I don’t know any self-dealt games that don’t use cut cards. But when the player pool is relatively amateur, old, and inattentive, I could still see someone getting away with bottom dealing. (These games frequently feature players who lift their cards off the table, say stuff like “I see your bet... ... and raise you”, don’t fully understand minimum raise sizing, etc.)

Likewise, trying to get this same player pool to keep their phones off the table would require constant nagging.

Then again, bothering to cheat in low stakes games seems hardly worth the bother. A true mechanic should seek bigger fish.
 
Highli99 said:
Mechanics have to start somewhere. The first cheating attempt is not at high stakes.
Click to expand...
Indeed; it may have to do with mental disorder as well, rather than with rational greed/corruption.
I have known of a couple of people who, in their professional lives, have honestly handled millions, but, psychiatrically, just could not resist stealing a cheap pen, or shop-lifting a $25 T-shirt:(
 
Coyote said:
Indeed; it may have to do with mental disorder as well, rather than with rational greed/corruption.
I have known of a couple of people who, in their professional lives, have honestly handled millions, but, psychiatrically, just could not resist stealing a cheap pen, or shop-lifting a $25 T-shirt:(
Click to expand...

Screenshot_20191001-173206_Google.jpg
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

TheYeti
Progressive Bad Beat - should new players be immediately eligible?
Replies
5
Views
220
kingdeuceoff
K
Random Phish
Private game experiences?
2
Replies
50
Views
1K
Senzrock
Senzrock
Deklan
Home Games in Portland, OR?
Replies
2
Views
269
Deklan
Deklan
UncleMilty
Poker Hand Cheat Sheet
Replies
6
Views
1K
Colquhoun
Colquhoun
TheYeti
A nice problem to have, but...
Replies
29
Views
1K
TheYeti
TheYeti
Back
Top Bottom