Eric Rizen Lynch

Ask Rizen - special 'online cheating' edition

Well, either in my first entry I covered everything really clearly not leaving very many questions to be asked, or there isn't a whole lot of interest in the topic as a whole. I did get a few questions though, so I definitely want to get to those. Also, for those of you who don't already know I finished 4th in the FTP 750k this weekend for just over $41k. December has been a huge month for me so far, and while I've definitely run hot I also just really feel in the 'zone' right now. That being said, I do need to watch it a bit. I made a pretty bad call in the UB $20k last night and I think I made it mainly because I've been running hot. When you run hot you get used to things going your way, which can lead to some poor decisions at times if you're not careful. On to the questions:

Q: Do you feel a player like Imper1um should be banned from all online sites for buying an account, or do you think he should only be banned from the site he was caught at?  Isn't it safe to assume that these young kids are probably doing this on other sites as well?

A: Kind of a multi-parter. And I altered the way it read a little for clarity. I think the punishment for what Imper1um did was pretty fair. As far as I know, this is the one and only time he has done anything like this. It's unlike both the JJProdigy and ZeeJustin instances in that in both of those cases they were able to go back and show repeated offenses of multiaccounting for both users over a period of time. This was an isolated incident. I actually think the complete banning from Full Tilt might have been a bit harsh. I think definitely he should have had all money confiscated for that win, however I really think some sort of temporary ban would have been more appropriate. That being said, online sites really can't afford to say they caught someone violating their Terms of Service and then let them play on the site again. That would instantly raise suspiciouns as to the fairness of games on their sites (rightly or wrongly) and the integrity of a site's games are the most important part of their business IMO (just ask Absolute Poker).

As far as other sites go, if I were running another online site, I would have my security team look into the past behavior of the player in question, look for suspicious money transfers etc, but if I couldn't find any evidence of wrongdoing on that site I would continue to let him play. I would argue that one bad choice does not show evidence of a pattern of behavior, but at the same time would proceed with a very watchful eye. If this had been a player with any history of questionable behavior though, I would be much quicker to act if i were running another site.

Q: My question is in regards to auditing of poker sites. Im not among the many who think that anything is "rigged", but it does occur to me that a lot of action would certainly increase the rake. Curious about the kinds of checks that are in place and how strengent/transparent they are.

A: All the random number generators (often referred to as RNGs) are independently audited by outside companies for 'randomness'. I have no idea what goes into this audit or how reputable the companies are that run it. That being said, at all the tables on all the major sites the rake is capped after the pot gets to a certain size, and while generating 'action' hands would help get to that threshold more often, the sites have *SO* much to lose if they ever got caught doing this that I can't see any of them committing the potential suicide a bad RNG would cause for what little benefit they would get. What actually helps the sites out more is streamlining their interface so that players can play more hands in the same amount of time, thus increasing both the 'natural' occurence of action hands and raked hands in general. Short handed tables actually help a lot too since those typically move faster and generate more action. A focus on short handed tables and interfaces designed to keep the game moving along are much more worthwhile than anything a site could do to try and generate more action artificially, if that makes sense.

Those are the only two actual questions I received on the topic. I got numerous other ones with the correct subject line but the content of the question had nothing to do with the topic, so I moved those into the more general 'Ask Rizen' queue to be answered on a later Friday. As kind of a 'final word' I would like to say that most of the 'cheating' that goes on in the current landscape of online poker is fairly minor compared to what goes on live. The occurences are fairly infrequent in both and I think the game is largely cleaned up in general from where it was 10-15 years ago. That being said, ANY amount of cheating is bad. The best thing that can be done for US players is the legalization and regulation of US based online poker. This would create rules that would be in place across all sites that would be the same as well as allow for one unified effort towards fighting cheating and other forms of dishonest play. As it stands right now I think all the major online poker sites do a generally good job of combating the problems we face today. They would be able to do a much better job though if regulation had them all working together to implement safeguards for online poker.

-Rizen