Skip to main content

collusion in online poker - who'd have thought of that??

It's amazing that some people are naive enough to bet or play poker without thinking somebody else has more information than them. For sports betting, it's a fact of life - unless you should actually be banned from betting because of access to insider info, then there will always be somebody who knows more than you, usually because they have done more homework, or have access to wider sources of news.

In poker, you are betting against blank faces online. Who knows what they are up to? And, as proven in every form of life where prizes are involved, there will be crooked people out there trying to get ahead by cheating. It's easy enough to track IP addresses, money trails etc, but it will be nigh on impossible to catch players colluding over instant messenger, if they aren't stupid enough to do it again and again.

BBC 5 Live radio are on the case...

Can the world of online poker chase out the cheats?

.
.
.
The problem for the authorities and the gaming companies is that it is virtually impossible to prevent collusion like this, because players can share information about their hands via the phone or internet messenger without being detected.

Cheating is usually only discovered by the poker companies retrospectively when security experts establish regular patterns of behaviour involving the same players, although software is also used to flag up suspicious plays.

While most online poker games are safe, the scope for fraud is considerable, and the rapid growth of the online poker industry has left some companies struggling to keep on top of security issues.



The moral of the story - always keep your eyes and ears open, and if you suspect something is wrong, vote with your feet - go elsewhere for your gambling pleasure. (And complain if you believe you have a valid case).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

hope for investors in the Centaur scandal?

In a breaking story, it has been reported that directors of the failed sports investment fund Centaur have had their assets frozen in order to repay investors. It is believed that managing director Keith Sobey skipped town trying to avoid prosecution however he either naively thought Ireland was a safe enough place to hide or had a lingering feeling of guilt and sat waiting for that knock on the door. Sobey, the name behind Centaur ( read the original story here ), is believed to own four houses, worth more in total than the missing £1.6m. His willingness to sell them to repay investors is likely to keep the matter out of the courts, and at least one other director, Andrew Cork, will apparently follow suit. All this adds weight to anecdotal evidence that the collapse of the fund came down to mismanagement rather than fraudulent deeds. As costs grew (why would you set up a training academy in central London?), margins evaporated and keeping the business afloat went through money like