Talk:Cheating in poker

Just wanted to point out that most of this is guff. Most, if not all professional/targetted/plannned cheating nowadays, involves collusion and/or controlling just a couple of cards (neocheating). It definetly does not involve stacking an entire deck.

I'd prefer to avoid a revert conflict over the marked card thing: To learn about marked cards used to cheat at poker or other card games just search for "marked playing cards" xhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marked_playing_cards. I agree that the section on marked cards should have a link to the article on marked cards: I added a wikilink to marked playing cards. However, the bold-face single sentence paragraph with an external-style link to the article doesn't fit with the wiki style. I think the edit I made was adequate. Let me know if I can give any clarification.--Toms2866 19:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I merged the new content with the old card marking article where it should have been placed in the first place. 2005 20:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Any ways to prevent cheating? Some ways I can think of are, white borders on the backing to prevent bottom dealing, a plain colored back without much fancy design to counter card marking, and plastic so that stains don't occur. 70.111.224.85 15:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bear in mind that once plastic cards are marked they wil stay in play for a very long time. Casinos use paper decks and change them every few hours to make marked cards less effective. Even the casinos which use plastic cards in poker rooms will frequently change decks for the same reason. Therefore, it is advised that paper cards be used in private games and that you start a new deck every evening.

Hi guys,

shouldn't the section about the different type of cheats be moved to card game? Doesn't seem something poker-specific to me. --Gennaro Prota 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The second sentence seems like pure speculation: "Since poker has a wide variety of rules and procedures, hands are played fairly quickly, and numerous people are involved in games, the occurrence of cheating is common." How common? Common compared to what? Common where - casinos, home games, internet gambling? How is the frequency of cheating measured? In short, does this claim have any basis in fact at all? Does it belong in Wikipedia? Nasch 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't think there's any basis for this claim, and I don't think it belongs here. In my personal experience, mild forms of collusion such as soft-playing friends are indeed common (and tacitly approved of), but more serious cheating is quite rare in modern casinos. --LDC 06:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Using bots should be separated from collusion, as it is not necessarily an act of two or more players. Here is some proposed verbiage: --69.229.45.73 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Using Bots

edit

Bots are computer programs designed give a player a significant advantage over other players, and are generally forbidden by online poker sites. Bots may play the game entirely without input from a player, or they may assist a player in making decisions. For example, an autofolding program would fold undesirable hands, and alert a user when a playable hand is dealt.

Please have a look at these definitions, thoughts and discussions w.r.t. cheating and pokerbots. My main objection is that pokerbots should not be considered cheating (and this discussion is also valid for the Computer Poker Players page):

• http://pokerai.org/wiki/index.php/Cheating
• http://pokerai.org/pf3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianaV8 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bots are cheating by definition if they are prohibited, and they are at online cardrooms so there isn't much to discuss there. We aren't here to debate whether they should be illegal or not. 2005 07:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bots are not prohibited everywhere and there are many ways to break end user license agreement of a casino. For example, some casinos clearly state in their license agreement that you cannot play on their online poker room in a proffesional manner. This implies that playing in a casino to earn money, in a proffesional manner, is also cheating. If we accept pokerbots as cheating, we should specify that playing poker proffesionaly is also cheating. Please also note excerpt from a reference that is already existing on the Cheating in Poker page [1]: "Personally, I have no moral objection to any player creating a bot to play and using his bot in the public online poker rooms. I admire such players for their ingenuity. Unskilled players have to learn to play poker, and whether they are schooled in the fundamentals by a bot or a human who plays like a bot makes very little difference. The lessons cost the same." IndianaV8

That's an external link, not a reference, and your quoting a non-relevant bit of opinion. Snyder's article actually says: "There are two types of 'cheating' that online poker players most worry about. One is play by 'bots,'..." Bots are cheating everywhere, but there may be some small cardroom that doesn't say that explicitly so I changed the text to reflect that. Obviously though, the main cardrooms state they are against their rules and cheating so they are. 2005 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

My last response address issues on the discussed article, and does not refer to the external pages. I have modified the page as according to how you derive what is cheating, all players that play professionally on absolute poker (for example) are cheaters too, as they violate their license agreement [2], namely that the company can close your account if "If you have not played at AbsolutePoker on an individual basis for personal entertainment only (that is, you have played in a professional sense or in concert with other player(s) as part of a club, group, etc.);" IndianaV8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianaV8 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

And I have clarified that this is not the norm, for example, not prohibited by the three largest rooms. 2005 00:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will leave this like that for now, until I conduct some further research. But I honestly don't think it's reasonable to put in one paragraph, even in one page criminal activities (like collusion, which is most often used for money laundering or chip dumping, or multiple accounts that is done with conterfeiting documents) and in the best case give you also unfair advantage from game theory standpoint, NEXT to intellectual activities, like developing and running pokerbots, that give you no any advantage from game theory standpoint.

The next point that I will bring in the discussion is how many players are cheating, based on your definition, by violating the EULA by making "damaging comments with regard to the Company's operation in any media or forum".

In a poker tournament, when one player is all in and two other players are active in the pot, it is common for the two players with chips left to "check it down". Unless they explicitly communicate an agreement about checking it down, this is not collusion.

What does "check it down" mean? I left my crib sheet in my other shoe. MaxEnt 01:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Check it down" means to check each round of betting through the end of the hand. I'll clarify in the article. Nasch (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What happened to the info on the Absolute Poker cheating scandal. There are many sources:

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21381022/
• http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Absolute_Poker_Cheating_Scandal_Blown_Wide_Open
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/18/absolute_poker_cheating_allegations/
• http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3752500&page=1
• http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12478109&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1

but nothing at all here.Myth America 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

in the video game Gun you can cheat at cards. similar to red dead redemption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

A section is clearly needed for when a computerized poker machine is rigged in the house's favor 24.207.135.48 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm cleaning up the Glimmer dab page, and found the below content. This seems to be the closest place for a home for it, if anyone wants add it to this page or weigh in otherwise.

• Glimmer (or glim), a reflective device used for cheating at cards. The glimmer or glim, which normally will be an unassuming item such as a shiny Zippo lighter, is placed on the table in such a way that the reflection of cards being dealt can be seen by the shill.

Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, shortstacking and ratholing is not cheating as it isn't punished by poker sites and thus doesn't belong on this page. Yes, it is frowned upon by some players but that doesn't mean it's illegal. You won't get banned for ratholing, although there are timers to make sure that you can just exit and buy in short right away. Rymatz (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

ratholing is against the rules. It's purely a brick and mortar concept, as it is slipping chips off the table so no one sees you do it. Shortstacking is a different (online) phenomenon, and is an angle, not against the rules. So, shortstacking doesn't belong on this page (other to contrast it and say it is not cheating) while ratholing does belong on the page as it is illegal in every casino. 2005 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually afaik going south is what the article describes it is (impossible to do online), while in online poker ratholing is simply cashing out from a table and then buying back in with less money after a period of time, and shortstacking is simply buying in for a short stack (like 20-40 bb deep). There are ratholing timers both on online sites and, in a sense, live, and it can be regarded as angle, but all instances of shortstacking don't have to be combined with ratholing and don't necessarily carry advantages from differing stack sizes (there are short stack tables or cap games available online). Also, whether these advantages make it an angle is also a matter of discussion. I'd rather see some reliable sources about it and I doubt Bill Rini's blog, no matter how professional, falls under that category Rymatz (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, there are always some places (newbie ones especially) that uses phrases incorrectly, or with their own personal definition. For example, some people would use angle and cheat interchangeably (or trips and set), even though the words exist to create a distinction. Going south and ratholing are the same thing, strictly b&m concepts: slipping a chip(s) off the table down/south into your pocket or purse. That is always against the rules. Ratholing is unrelated to buying back into a table short. The best thing with Wiki articles of course is to completely ignore the slang, and instead use plain English... "in casinos it is against the rules to secretly or otherwise remove any chips from play, except to buy drinks or food, or tip employees." Something like that. The angle (or not-an-angle) of online short buys isn't cheating so it doesn't have to be mentioned at all. The basic concept of angling as distinct from cheating should probably be explained briefly, but we don't need to use repeated short buying as the example. 2005 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The addition regarding this Ongame cheating accusation is potentially libelous, so removing it is not a violation of the 3RR. (Cheating at gambling is illegal in almost all jurisdictions, so accusations of this sort need a reliable source.) It also seems to be a COI edit. I've tried to communicate with the user regarding the policies regarding reliable sources, but I don't seem to be able to get the message across. Rray (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, I did search Google for reliable sources of information in case some of the information in this edit could be kept, but I was unable to find anything other than the "Poker Guardians" website on blogspot. Rray (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cheating in poker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510190703/http://www.rgpfaq.com/tournament-implicit.html to http://www.rgpfaq.com/tournament-implicit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018025915/http://www.absolutepoker.com:80/support/userAgreement.asp to http://www.absolutepoker.com/support/userAgreement.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011075553/http://ultimatebet.com:80/user-agreement to http://www.ultimatebet.com/user-agreement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018231416/http://www.playwinningpoker.com/poker/cheat/ to http://www.playwinningpoker.com/poker/cheat/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheating in poker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016204347/http://www.partypoker.com/about_us/game_fairness/unfair_advantage.html to http://www.partypoker.com/about_us/game_fairness/unfair_advantage.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Any effective tips for cheating? Chris Webb (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply