[fred]

link to article

Note that Dean Strachan, deanrover6 on BBO, who is both an excellent poker player and a friend/student of Steve Levitt gets a hat tip at the end of this article.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jikl]

Damn there are a lot of comments after it.

Sean

[inquiry]

I like this quote:

"guys who aren’t that smart will figure out ways to cheat. And, with a little luck and the right data, folks who are a lot smarter will catch them doing it."

That is true enough of all online card games.

[jdonn]

Not to expose my mental shortcomings here, but what is a hat tip?

[jikl]

To tip one's hat, is a gesture of respect or thanks.

Sean

[Deanrover]

I think Sheri finally knows why you take all her money in BBO $ games

[Deanrover]

This is a scandal that I've found very gripping. Who knows how long it has been going on? They only got caught due to a few strokes of luck.

The biggest one of these was that the cheater was a complete imbecile. He played 'perfect' poker knowing their cards which was terrible poker otherwise. Kind of equivalent to playing AQx v JT98, with no information about opponents' hands by starting with the Ace from dummy, yet lo RHO has a stiff King wouldn't you know. Then failing to bid the grand slam which is stone cold barring 7-0 diamond split which just so happens to be the actual distribution. Repeat this over a hundred hands, without ever making a single mistake, and it's going to be pretty obvious what's happening.

AP continue to stonewall: This is their latest line

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21381022/

That might well be the worst lie/excuse I've ever heard. It's amazing just how incompetent/crooked this company is. If they had just told the truth from the outset this wouldn't be such a big deal. Yet the cover up the truth with lies, then cover up those lies with more lies. This just means that when the truth comes out, which it will, it's going to be slow an tortuous and in pieces which means more bad exposure for AP. Many of these sites which generated 9 figures in revenue per year are just so badly run. Their support is non existent, they have the same software glitches for years on end......... should make y'all appreciative of just how amazing BBO is!

[mike777]

Deanrover, on Oct 20 2007, 03:27 AM, said:

This is a scandal that I've found very gripping. Who knows how long it has been going on? They only got caught due to a few strokes of luck.

The biggest one of these was that the cheater was a complete imbecile. He played 'perfect' poker knowing their cards which was terrible poker otherwise. Kind of equivalent to playing AQx v JT98, with no information about opponents' hands by starting with the Ace from dummy, yet lo RHO has a stiff King wouldn't you know. Then failing to bid the grand slam which is stone cold barring 7-0 diamond split which just so happens to be the actual distribution. Repeat this over a hundred hands, without ever making a single mistake, and it's going to be pretty obvious what's happening.

AP continue to stonewall: This is their latest line

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21381022/

That might well be the worst lie/excuse I've ever heard. It's amazing just how incompetent/crooked this company is. If they had just told the truth from the outset this wouldn't be such a big deal. Yet the cover up the truth with lies, then cover up those lies with more lies. This just means that when the truth comes out, which it will, it's going to be slow an tortuous and in pieces which means more bad exposure for AP. Many of these sites which generated 9 figures in revenue per year are just so badly run. Their support is non existent, they have the same software glitches for years on end......... should make y'all appreciative of just how amazing BBO is!

Confusing statement

I thought:
1) one player cheats
2) owner of website cheats
3) auditors of site cheat


IN fact one gets the impression..almost everyone who was anyone cheated on this site.......

[Fluffy]

Deanrover, on Oct 20 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

The biggest one of these was that the cheater was a complete imbecile. He played 'perfect' poker knowing their cards which was terrible poker otherwise. Kind of equivalent to playing AQx v JT98, with no information about opponents' hands by starting with the Ace from dummy, yet lo RHO has a stiff King wouldn't you know. Then failing to bid the grand slam which is stone cold barring 7-0 diamond split which just so happens to be the actual distribution. Repeat this over a hundred hands, without ever making a single mistake, and it's going to be pretty obvious what's happening.

Well there is a lon sory about an Italian pair who were know to cheat by everyone, yet nobody ever had real proof of that, so nobody did anything, situation leading to what everyone knows.

[Winstonm]

As one with personal knowledge of poker cheating and cheats (15 years in Las Vegas either playing or working in card rooms), it amazes me that anyone plays online.

[Deanrover]

Fluffy, on Oct 20 2007, 08:03 PM, said:

Deanrover, on Oct 20 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

The biggest one of these was that the cheater was a complete imbecile. He played 'perfect' poker knowing their cards which was terrible poker otherwise. Kind of equivalent to playing AQx v JT98, with no information about opponents' hands by starting with the Ace from dummy, yet lo RHO has a stiff King wouldn't you know. Then failing to bid the grand slam which is stone cold barring 7-0 diamond split which just so happens to be the actual distribution. Repeat this over a hundred hands, without ever making a single mistake, and it's going to be pretty obvious what's happening.

Well there is a lon sory about an Italian pair who were know to cheat by everyone, yet nobody ever had real proof of that, so nobody did anything, situation leading to what everyone knows.

I'd guess it took so long because these guys were actually really good at bridge, and further didn't cheat like absolute morons. If they had set out to win every single tournament they played, they would have been nabbed pretty damn early imho.

[Mbodell]

I've been following this from 2+2 while it was speculated on and then as more evidence comes through. Online poker ethics are interesting, especially when compared to in person poker. And some of those differences may be interesting to think about with online bridge.

There are a bunch of online poker tools that help you profile opponents. Know things like how often they bluff on the turn, or how lose they play. Some people "data mine" by gathering huge amounts of data on opponents, way more than they'd get just from playing against the opponents. Online poker sites and online players generally think profiling software is ethical and legal; however, some are opposed to getting profiling information for hands that you weren't there (data mining).

What would bridge people think about bridge tracking software that would tell you exactly how sound someone has tended to preempt in the past or exactly how often they under lead aces in suit contracts or how often they play the higher honor from touching honors?

Another issue of concern in online poker is the "one person to a hand" rule which is a pretty fundamental rule in real life poker. But yet most places online are not opposed to people getting assistance from others on how to play a hand. And at least one large poker site as gone out of its way to say there is no problem with multiple people giving live advise on the hand as long as they aren't also playing a different hand at the table.

Would online bridge people think it is ok to get help on an opening lead or a difficult bidding judgment from other people?

Most people in online poker think it is illegal and immoral to have a bot play poker for them. Most sites ban automatic playing as well. This is one I don't fully understand since most of these places would think it ethical and legal if you had a script that you hired cheap labor to play for you. "Program" a person is legal, but "program" a machine is bad.

I guess the bridge equivalent would be to have Jack or GIB or some program play bridge for you.

[geller]

Quote

What would bridge people think about bridge tracking software that would tell you exactly how sound someone has tended to preempt in the past or exactly how often they under lead aces in suit contracts or how often they play the higher honor from touching honors?

If bridge ever became a fully professional sport, like professional football in the US, this kind of tendency analysis of opponents would become completely routine. I don't see anything wrong with it.

At the Bermuda Bowl and other world championship events in Shanghai all the bidding and play at all the tables was keyed in by monitors, so there's a great data base for anyone who wants to start developing software for tendency analysis.

The company ProZone does tendency analysis for football (soccer) for most of the English Premier League teams and many national teams.

It would be fun if bridge became similarly professional. Imagine, for example, if Meckwell spent Monday to Friday training for their televised (on cable or satellite TV) matches on the weekend, instead of having to play with students in random tourneys. Probably won't happen any time soon though....

-Bob

[glen]

Some World Championship teams have "tendency analysis" made on their opponents.

For example, see the Chip Martel Interview for this quote:

Martel said:

In fact, in an earlier tournament, a women’s pair played this convention. Later, when we looked at the hands they opened ...

Detailed study of the opponents does take place at the higher levels.

[geller]

Quote

For example, see the Chip Martel Interview for this quote:


QUOTE (Martel)
In fact, in an earlier tournament, a women’s pair played this convention. Later, when we looked at the hands they opened ... 


Detailed study of the opponents does take place at the higher levels.

If I read Chip's comment right, before the tourney they had access to the opponents convention cards, but not the hand records. It sounds like they only saw the hand records after the tourney (Bermuda Bowl) ended , or at least only after it was underway ("Later, when we looked at the hands they opened ... ").

The lack of accessible hand records (including all bidding and play) for F2F events is a major drawback to any attempt to do tendency analysis.

[glen]

Before the World Championships, some teams (via coaches, NPC, players, helpers etc.) review sites such as:

Vugraph Project

and

Swiss Fed hands

Thus there is access to hand records of other events held before the World Championships.

In addition online play will be watched. For example, when the Canadian pairs who were not that well known played on BBO in August and September, there was frequently a coach etc. from another team watching.

[Winstonm]

I don't know enough about computer security to speak of cheating protection online, but my experience in live play is that partnership cheating is common and nearly impossible to beat. I simply don't see how this form of cheating could be even slowed with online card play - seems a single person with two distinct ISP addresses and two computers could form a 1-man team, which really would make it easy. Next easiest and cheapest would simply be a cell phone connection to a partner at the same table.

No one has been able to explain to me how this can be prevented online, and it is hard enough to deduce and avoid in live play - hence, I have not and will not play online.


You simply cannot compare bridge with poker - in poker, bad apples are more of the norm than rarity - I would venture to say that more cheating occurs in a single day in Las Vegas poker rooms than has ocurred in the history of bridge.

Here are a few things I learned over the years at live play:

1) That buddy-buddy gal or girl next to you that is so friendly and chatty and you let peak at your cards - well contained in that chat are code words that reveal to her partner what you hold. "Too much heat for me. I'm glad I got out of this pot" - out means 2-pair. "All I get are bad cards and bad flops" - bad means 3-of-a-kind. It's easy and when they are good it sounds like nothing but table chatter.

2) Many times that guy sitting there talking non-stop to the dealer or whoever else is next to him will be telling his partner in code what hand he holds.

3) For the non-chatty, card and chip position can be meaningful. If the cards are sitting right on top of each other, it's a big pair. If one is slightly off center, two high cards. If on top of each other but the bottom card is slid out to be partially visible, a small pair. Or if they really want to get fancy, they can combine card position with number of chips and the chip's placement on top of the cards for even more finite description.

If you can figure out a way to win with top pair, top kicker, when the guy behind you has flopped a set and his partner in front of you knows it and bets into you with nothing, well, then you deserve your seat at the World Series final table. However, from practical experience I can tell you a good team is nearly impossible to beat.

[JanM]

geller, on Oct 21 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

Quote

For example, see the Chip Martel Interview for this quote:


QUOTE (Martel)
In fact, in an earlier tournament, a women’s pair played this convention. Later, when we looked at the hands they opened ... 


Detailed study of the opponents does take place at the higher levels.

If I read Chip's comment right, before the tourney they had access to the opponents convention cards, but not the hand records. It sounds like they only saw the hand records after the tourney (Bermuda Bowl) ended , or at least only after it was underway ("Later, when we looked at the hands they opened ... ").

The lack of accessible hand records (including all bidding and play) for F2F events is a major drawback to any attempt to do tendency analysis.

At the World Championships there is a serious effort to record all of the bidding and play. In Paris, I got copies of the bidding and play records from the Round Robin in order to try to figure out which hands our future opponents opened 2♥ (weak 2 in either Major) and overcalled 2♥ (weak in either Major). In Shanghai those bids were not allowed in the Round Robin, but we did look at the KO play records for the Netherlands to get the same sort of information. It was easier in Shanghai because the records were available electronically. Hopefully it will become even easier in the future when those electronic records are available someplace other than the playing site (the tournament IT people were not able to connect the tournament network to the internet, but I think that will happen in the future). Thanks to BBO Vugraph, we actually were able to do a lot of "scouting" from the comfort of our hotel room .
Scouting is also useful when people aren't playing unusual methods. We want to know which pairs are aggressive and which are conservative, which pairs tend to signal honestly all the time and which don't. So we watch a lot of the play both before and during a major event. I'm sure that a computer could analyze bidding and play records and provide useful data, but I have a feeling that the programming for scouting wouldn't be a lot easier than that for bidding and play. It just isn't that clearcut what exactly you want to look for. I think it's going to continue to be done by people and not computers in the near future.

[mike777]

JanM, on Oct 22 2007, 12:57 AM, said:

geller, on Oct 21 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

Quote

For example, see the Chip Martel Interview for this quote:


QUOTE (Martel)
In fact, in an earlier tournament, a women’s pair played this convention. Later, when we looked at the hands they opened ... 


Detailed study of the opponents does take place at the higher levels.

If I read Chip's comment right, before the tourney they had access to the opponents convention cards, but not the hand records. It sounds like they only saw the hand records after the tourney (Bermuda Bowl) ended , or at least only after it was underway ("Later, when we looked at the hands they opened ... ").

The lack of accessible hand records (including all bidding and play) for F2F events is a major drawback to any attempt to do tendency analysis.

At the World Championships there is a serious effort to record all of the bidding and play. In Paris, I got copies of the bidding and play records from the Round Robin in order to try to figure out which hands our future opponents opened 2♥ (weak 2 in either Major) and overcalled 2♥ (weak in either Major). In Shanghai those bids were not allowed in the Round Robin, but we did look at the KO play records for the Netherlands to get the same sort of information. It was easier in Shanghai because the records were available electronically. Hopefully it will become even easier in the future when those electronic records are available someplace other than the playing site (the tournament IT people were not able to connect the tournament network to the internet, but I think that will happen in the future). Thanks to BBO Vugraph, we actually were able to do a lot of "scouting" from the comfort of our hotel room .
Scouting is also useful when people aren't playing unusual methods. We want to know which pairs are aggressive and which are conservative, which pairs tend to signal honestly all the time and which don't. So we watch a lot of the play both before and during a major event. I'm sure that a computer could analyze bidding and play records and provide useful data, but I have a feeling that the programming for scouting wouldn't be a lot easier than that for bidding and play. It just isn't that clearcut what exactly you want to look for. I think it's going to continue to be done by people and not computers in the near future.

Who is this Chip Martel guy everyone keeps talking about? Perhaps he is related to the wonderful and very pretty player Jan or went to Uni High?

Jan did what in Paris? I was just there but I do not think I focused enough on bridge as she did.