Bob Several people playing the same money in the same game has always been one of the top forms of cheating (after holding out cards, marked cards, having confederates tell you what cards your opponents have, dealer cheating, etc, etc). The Internet takes it a giant step further, and lets one person play multiple hands in a single game, and, if done by a talented individual is pretty unbeatable!
The programs that track how players play are also very strong and give those who use them a big edge. But here is one thing to consider. Almost every one of the online poker sites was started by people who were deeply involved in Vegas poker and Vegas cheating. Now MAYBE they all became "choir boys" and got religion when they started the sites, but then again maybe not! What if SOME selected players in some games can see EVERYONE'S cards? That would be unbeatable, and if the people with that ability used it sparingly (not that often, and only in big money situations, and just once or twice a session) then they would never get caught. Online poker depends on the complete honestly of those who run it. Of course, for a while there can be so many "suckers" that a sharp player can make a living in spite of the cheating (as I did in Vegas for many years) but eventually the suckers start quitting or going broke, and then the cheaters start cheating everyone. That's how it worked in Vegas, and that is likely how it will work online. You were smart to quit when you did! Bruce On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Bob Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, I knew you were a good player, but I didn't know you were that > good! I never did play any razz or stud (no-limit or nothing here). And, > actually, I never played seriously until online-poker came about (I prefer > speed poker and like to play at least 4 to 8 tables at the same time, even > though that makes it much harder to win). I should also mention that the > reason I quit is exactly the same as your's. For the last 5 years, online > poker has been completely and utterly corrupt (and the sites don't care > about stopping the massive amount of cheating, as it makes them tons of > money). I stopped playing shortly after I found out that the largest online > poker site wasn't even checking to see if multiple players at the same table > were playing from the exact same IP address (meaning multiple players could > play from the same house and share info with each other and never get > caught). At the time, they were advertising that they had something like > 100 million players registered, and I was ranked #4 in their tournament > rankings (and I was working another job at the time too). Yet I just walked > away from all that money, it pissed me off so much. If they weren't doing > the very basic things about security, how were they going to catch the > professional cheaters? They set up a system where they would only catch the > most egregious violators. When I mentioned that those industries were > honorable, I was more referring to private games. Perhaps casino games. > The old west. But, after what you posted, I guess that's not really the > case unfortunately (I always tell people that I'm absolutely shocked how > every single industry I learn about, I find them to be absolutely shamefully > crooked upon closer inspection)... That's why every major poker player > claims themselves to be unlucky - they actually are unlucky. They don't win > quite as much as they should thanks to all the collusion, etc... And, > there's no way you'd know without doing a massive, in-depth statistical > analysis of your expected winning percentages vs. your actual winning > percentages (I actually did that once and found that I didn't win nearly as > much as would be expected based on the odds, although I was still making > decent money)... For instance, this is what you're facing when you play > online poker nowadays: Multiple computer programs will follow you to > whatever table you play on and watch, literally, every single hand you ever > play. Not just today, but every hand you have ever played. It will > database all that info and analyze every move you ever make - in every > possible situation. Those programs will then give the cheater every > possible odd he might need to know - and tell him how to play everyone at > the table to his best advantage (based on the spying). The programs are > designed to be pretty-much unbeatable (how can you beat a computer that has > analyzed every move you've ever made at a game with a small amount of > permutations). The only way to beat that is to set elaborate traps... And, > that's assuming that the cheater isn't also part of a world-wide collusion > ring... > > Good point, I wouldn't want to imply that poker was honest anymore. Just > slightly more so than many other industries I've been involved with > (Hollywood seems to be far seedier). > > Cheers, > > Bob > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bruce Hershenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* Bob Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 1:26 PM > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - Can we clear up another > difference of opinion? > > Great post, Bob, and I applaud you for it! The hatchet is completely buried > as far as I am concerned, and I imagine Dave will say the same when he sees > this. > > It *ABSOLUTELY* is the good guys against the good guys in most of the > bickering, and the true bad guys (the handful who have sold staggering > amounts of repros as originals) have surely been laughing themselves silly > over this, and it would be so great if the bickering would completely end > and we can focus on the real enemy. > > I do want to slightly correct something you wrote, which is about poker > (maybe add on is more accurate). I don't know if you know that I was one of > the very first "modern day" full time pro poker players in Las Vegas (from > 1972 to 1982). I got there before Chip Reese and all the other modern guys > (who are now old timers!), and about the only people there before me were > Doyle Brunson and a bunch of other real old guys who are mostly dead now. I > did not care about the tournaments until 1979, when I played in Amarillo > Slim's 1st Super Bowl of Poker (a friend of Slim's asked me to play) and I > won the 7 stud event there, and then I won the 1981 World Series of Poker 7 > card razz event, and soon after I left Vegas. > > So I *REALLY* know what I am talking about when it comes to pro poker (at > least in terms of 1972 to 1982). You say, "you're expected to lie in poker, > you'll also get shot for cheating", but nothing was further from the truth > in Las Vegas the 1970s! Almost *EVERY* top pro in the highest games in Las > Vegas at that time was *VERY* involved in massive cheating, and I wanted > no part of that, and that is why I did not play in the highest games at that > time, and why I left Vegas. > > I had been planning for years to write a "tell-all" book about the massive > cheating that went on then, naming names, but of course I have been waiting > for the really heavily involved guys all to die first, as my revelations > would not go over well in certain quarters. But as they have been dying off, > I have been thinking I should just let them take their secrets to the grave, > for I could only reveal the truth about a few dozen famous names, and there > would surely be hundreds more who were also crooks but who I did not have > personal info on, so why tarnish the reputations of just some of them? > > Anyway, my point is that high stakes poker is actually *JUST LIKE* our > current situation in the poster world. There are major crooks who operate > openly, and no one does anything about it. I think it is only if all the > "good guys" quit bickering and get together on exposing these outright > crooks that things will change. I have written of the dozens of lobby card > titles that have recently joined the inserts. We need to get together and > spread the word about these many counterfeits (through sites like mine and > Dave's and LAMP, and hopefully Dan's intended book) so that the bad guys > sell so few of their fakes that they will find some other hobby to try to > ruin. > > Thanks so much for this great fence-mending post, Bob! As Victor Lazlo > said to Rick Blaine at the end of Casablanca, I say to you "Welcome back to > the fight. This time I know our side will win." > > Bruce > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Bob Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Dear Bruce, et al: >> >> Yeah, I should probably apologize as well. As you say, every time we have >> one of these arguments, both sides get lumped in with the true 'bad guys' in >> this hobby (and there are sooooo many of them that it's not fair to either >> of us). Same with Lieberman. I try to point out (yet it's probably never >> very clear, as I do tend to be a bit of a know-it-all asshole) that I don't >> consider you two the bad guys. I may have issues with your marketing and >> promotion methods, and we may snipe back and forth, but that's a whole other >> sport than what the real bad guys are doing. Not even comparable in the >> slightest. Again, it's really a shade of grey and not worth arguing about. >> Both of you have done far more good for the hobby than bad (much more so >> than I). I think it all stems from the fact that over the years, I've been >> (arguably) a professional gambler in several different disciplines (poker, >> billiards and horses). While all of those industries are thought to be >> dishonorable, I have found them all to be probably far more honorable than >> any other. I'm old-school. So, while you're expected to lie in poker, >> you'll also get shot for cheating. So, whenever I see a company stretch the >> truth when they're trying to get someone's money, I get my panties in a >> bunch. But, again, that's arguable, as you don't expect *any* marketing >> materials to be the God's-honest truth... Which, again, is why I'm saying >> that any problems I have with Dave or Bruce are absolutely miniscule >> compared to the real problems in this hobby. I love to argue (and so do >> B&D), so it always seems much worse than it actually is. The real bad guys >> have long since learned to keep their mouths shut (leaving the good guys to >> fight amongst themselves and take the pressure off them). So, you're >> absolutely right. We really need to join forces and start bickering about >> the *real* problems out there. The inserts we are (stupidly) arguing >> about are still circulating. Same with all the other bootlegs. The bad >> guys must be sitting there laughing at us. So, I shall cease and desist >> too, and focus my energy where it belongs, on the real bad guys (plus, I'm >> moving right now, so most of my computer equipment is in boxes)... >> >> "Are you talking about Thomas Loce here: >> "And, I've never, ever slandered anyone on the internet, not even Loce" >> I ask this because I'm curious about what you or others have on him." >> >> While I won't go into detail, let's just say that if he ever decided to >> make good on his threats and sue anyone in the poster hobby (even >> Lieberman), that I'd probably be on the first plane to the courthouse with >> what would likely be enough to get the case dismissed on the spot (and >> perhaps make for some serious counter-claim issues that would make his life >> a bit miserable). But, then, he's been threatening lawsuits for years to no >> fruition (not a surprise there, considering)... And, actually, I should >> point out that even though Dave and I have our differences, I do have a fair >> bit of respect for him for being one of only a tiny handful of people >> willing to go on the record about Loce/Richter (and he was probably the most >> vocal of the group). He deserves wicked props for that. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bob >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Bruce Hershenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:49 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - Can we clear up another >> difference of opinion? >> >> I am glad you weren't long-winded. I will make this simple. I should not >> have said you "slandered" me because I am not a lawyer, and did not even >> take law in college, which I guess is about the same. I publically apologize >> for that. >> >> You now say "I don't think Bruce ever sided with the minty whites per se, >> but he sure did make fun of us for claiming that they were fakes". I will >> cease arguing whether you ever said otherwise. Please simply show me one or >> more examples of when and how I "made fun of you" for claiming they are >> fakes, and I will apologize for that as well. >> >> I am just trying to finally put this to rest, and I will gladly apologize >> for any "making fun" I may have ever done of you, once you can establish >> that you are not confusing something I said with something someone else >> said. >> >> Once that is established, I will gladly cease to ever mention you or >> contact you in any way, if that is your preference. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Bruce >> >> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:01 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Mopo: >>> >>> I wrote a big, long-winded reply to this, but decided not to post it >>> (needless to say, it didn't make Bruce look good). Despite what Bruce seems >>> to think, I don't wish him ill-will. Despite some iffy things, I don't >>> consider him one of the 'bad guys' (Lieberman either). So, over the years, >>> I've with-held some information that doesn't make him look good. I have >>> bigger fish to fry. But, if he keeps it up, I may just post it anyways (he >>> didn't listen to me the last time I gave him this kind of warning, to his >>> grave detriment)... >>> >>> I shall simply point out my very last exchange with Bruce here on Mopo >>> (he must have forgotten how bad he looked). This is a quote from a Mopo >>> email (around 6pm on January 31st of this year, in case anyone wants to >>> check) of mine after Bruce had (falsely) accused me of slander (what he >>> actually meant was libel - which was a false accusation as well, but I >>> hesitated to point out his mistake, as I didn't want to make him look too >>> stupid): >>> >>> "And, I've never, ever slandered anyone on the internet, not even Loce (I >>> took law in college, so I know how to frame criticisms). So, before you >>> accuse me (aren't false accusations slander?), why don't you post my >>> 'slanderous comments' here for everyone to see? That's right, you won't..." >>> >>> You will notice that Bruce disappeared after that and never posted again >>> in the thread. The so-called proof should have been easy to find (it wasn't >>> from over the course of years, almost a decade ago - what he was referring >>> to was recent and from one or two short threads that would have been easy to >>> track down). So, isn't it a bit hypocritical of him to ask me for proof >>> (that's not the least bit feasible to track down and doesn't exist in the >>> Mopo archives, on archive.org or in google's cache) about my beliefs as >>> to his opinion about posters I don't care about from years and years ago, >>> when he refused to provide proof of his public accusations of criminal >>> activity against me?!? >>> >>> If Dave has balls the size of small planetoids, Bruce must have balls the >>> size of whatever's causing dark-flow... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> PS. I don't think Bruce ever sided with the minty whites per se, but he >>> sure did make fun of us for claiming that they were fakes. So, if you make >>> fun of someone for stating an opinion, that sure as hell implies that you >>> disagree with said opinion... >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Bruce Hershenson >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - Can we clear up another difference >>> of opinion? >>> >>> >>> In thsi spirit of "clearing the air", I thought this would be a great >>> time for Bob Brooks to confirm or deny something he has posted repeatedly, >>> namely that I (Bruce Hershenson) at one time defended the "minty white" >>> inserts as genuine, and that it was only after Bob and Dan exposed them as >>> fakes that I changed my tune and denounced them. >>> >>> I am not calling Mr. Brooks a liar, but I have no memory of the above >>> events happening, and I am wondering if it is possible that Mr. Brooks is >>> either mis-remembering the series of events, or perhaps confusing me with >>> some other person. >>> >>> I ask him to produce the evidence of his repeated statements to the above >>> sequence of events (posts from forums, my e-mail club, private e-mails, >>> etc). >>> >>> If he can, I will publically apologize to him for ever having doubted >>> him, and for ever saying these fake inserts were real. If he can't, I don't >>> care if he apologizes, but ask that never again post something along these >>> lines, since he would have no factual proof of what he said. >>> >>> I know that I was first warned about these inserts long before Bob or Dan >>> ever posted about them, for I was privately contacted by two major dealers >>> who were offered them soon after they first appeared (were printed), and who >>> turned them down and who called me to warn me about these fakes. According >>> to Bob's memory of events, I would have had to then go on and begin >>> defending these after that time, which seems to me to indicate a clear >>> memory lapse on his part. >>> >>> I am very much hoping to settle this, because I think there are clear >>> "bad guys" in this hobby (who repeatedly sell fakes as real) and I think it >>> hampers efforts to stop them or at least slow their criminal behavior when >>> some of the "good guys" fight amongst themselves. >>> >>> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >>> ___________________________________________________________________ >>> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >>> Send a message addressed to: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >>> The author of this message is solely >>> responsible for its content. >>> >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___________________________________________________________________ How >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF >> MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1773 - Release Date: 11/7/2008 >> 9:08 AM >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___________________________________________________________________ How >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF >> MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1773 - Release Date: 11/7/2008 > 9:08 AM > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ How to > UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF > MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
