I knew there had to be a reason why I was so bad at online poker. It's got nothing to do with my skill level at all. It's that the winners are cheating. Really, it's the only explanation, right?
Laugh all you want, but in the case of Absolute Poker, this really seems to be the case. The details of how the cheating was discovered make for exhausting but fascinating ongoing reading (and they involve a possible whistleblower from inside the company), but the short of it is that someone on the inside was feeding information to one of the players about what other people in a large tournament had in their hands. (And in fact, if you read the detail thread, it might have all been the work of a single player who cracked his way into a supervisory account.) The betting pattern by the cheater (who eventually won the tournament) really has no other possible explanation (and there were suspicions to begin with), and now there's forensic proof, too. As cheaters go, this one was, to be frank, patently stupid (or just got greedy in the end).
Online poker cheating takes many forms (collusion among players conversing through IM is a common one), but to date I've never seen a poker site operator implicated as implicit in the crime, even if it's through just having poor security. As the Freakonomics guys note, "online poker is a game of trust," and any trust in Absolute Poker's operation now has to be completely shattered. The company has yet to offer a response, though the accounts in question have been frozen. Now, as Freakonomics notes, the only way to keep their company intact is to sacrifice the cheaters and see that they're locked up tight, then issue copious apologies and free money galore. But even then, would you continue to trust the company?
Maybe it's for the best that lawmakers are cracking down on these games... Sigh, has it really come to this? Kudos to the sleuths who tracked them down, and for bringing this all to light.
Laugh all you want, but in the case of Absolute Poker, this really seems to be the case. The details of how the cheating was discovered make for exhausting but fascinating ongoing reading (and they involve a possible whistleblower from inside the company), but the short of it is that someone on the inside was feeding information to one of the players about what other people in a large tournament had in their hands. (And in fact, if you read the detail thread, it might have all been the work of a single player who cracked his way into a supervisory account.) The betting pattern by the cheater (who eventually won the tournament) really has no other possible explanation (and there were suspicions to begin with), and now there's forensic proof, too. As cheaters go, this one was, to be frank, patently stupid (or just got greedy in the end).
Online poker cheating takes many forms (collusion among players conversing through IM is a common one), but to date I've never seen a poker site operator implicated as implicit in the crime, even if it's through just having poor security. As the Freakonomics guys note, "online poker is a game of trust," and any trust in Absolute Poker's operation now has to be completely shattered. The company has yet to offer a response, though the accounts in question have been frozen. Now, as Freakonomics notes, the only way to keep their company intact is to sacrifice the cheaters and see that they're locked up tight, then issue copious apologies and free money galore. But even then, would you continue to trust the company?
Maybe it's for the best that lawmakers are cracking down on these games... Sigh, has it really come to this? Kudos to the sleuths who tracked them down, and for bringing this all to light.
