Honest Online Poker was a poker blog that first came online January 19, 2009, and for the next couple of years posted content related to online poker issues such as cheating, collusion and regulation. When the blog was listed for sale in June 2011, after a short period of no takers, Online Poker Sites decided to purchase this blog and retire it here, without edit.

Welcome to Honest Online Poker

Filed in HOP Stuff on Jan.18, 2009

Welcome to Honest Online Poker. We hope that we’ll become one of your frequently checked sites as we report on scams, cheating, and rigged games in the online poker world.

While we believe that 99.999% of all poker rooms are legit from time to time things happen that need to be highlighted so players can make informed decisions. That’s where we come in. We scour the internet looking in those nooks and crannies where stories about online scams, cheating, and rigged poker games are hiding.

The recent Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker cheating scandals have made it obvious that players and websites can put the pressure on the sites themselves, gaming comissions, and even the media to do something even when everyone wants to bury the story and make everything go away. We strive to be the type of site that keeps the heat on so the truth comes out and the players are protected.

Full Tilt Prohibits Chatting?

Filed in Angle Shooting, Cheating on Feb.26, 2009

There’s an interesting little thread going on over on 2+2 about Full Tilt Poker’s terms and conditions (T&C’s) prohibiting any sort of chat/IM while playing on their site. Though through my own experience I can attest that the T&C’s are not strictly enforced it does show that Full Tilt Poker is aware that certain types of cheating can be accomplished by players who collude over a third party application like Yahoo chat.

There are a couple of different ways that players could cheat using these third party chat applications:

1. Two or more players at the same table share hold card information to the disadvantage of all of their opponents.

2. Players could coach each other on how to play their hands.

The first form of cheating was an early concern of many online card rooms. Unfortunately, if you simply ban chat they can pick up a telephone and accomplish the same exact thing. So instead of banning chat most rooms have become rather sophisticated in being able to associate some sort of association between two different players. If the players have ever shared a computer or an IP address, are from the same city, seem to have similar playing habits (time of day, tables, stakes, etc), and so on are used to help the room determine whether or not two different players should be prevented from playing on the same table. It’s not a perfect system and sometimes the cheating is caught after the fact but it’s fairly effective in stopping the typical idiot who thinks he’s found a way to beat the system.

The second method is niether easy to catch nor 100% agreed upon in terms of whether or not it’s cheating. Poker rules state that only one player may play a hand. That means that you can’t call your buddy over in the middle of a hand and ask him how to play it. Once the cards are dealt you are supposed to be a big boy or girl and play poker by yourself. So if you happen to be buddies with Phil Ivey and you open up a chat session with him and he tells you how to play your cards then I think most people in the poker community would agree this runs afoul of the one player to a hand rule.

However it does become somewhat complicated when coaching is involved. Many players either pay for coaching services or receive advice for free from their poker playing friends. The coach observes the table and helps the player to think about the correct way to play the hand while the player communicates to the coach what his hole cards are. The goal isn’t necessarily to win the session or tournament per se but to educate the player on how to play poker in real life situations. So instead of directing the player on how to play the hands coaches typically are like sports commentators giving the player a more well rounded view of what they are doing.

For instance, an overly simplified chat session between a coach and his student might look something like this:

Coach: Okay, so what did you pick up?

Student: AQs

Coach: What’s your play here and why?

Student: I’m going to raise it up 4x the BB

Coach: Why?

Student: It’s still early in the tournament and I don’t want to see a flop with big unpaired cards right now.

Coach: What happens if you get called and you don’t improve? You’re building up a big pot that’s going to be hard to get away from later.

Student: True

Coach: And the button has been aggressive and calling a lot of hands with questionable cards.

As you can see, he’s not really telling the student what to do but he is forcing the student to think about what he’s doing. The student may still raise it to 4x the BB or he might back off to 3x or maybe he just min raises. The choice of how to play the cards still belongs to the student.

Now the question is; is that cheating? Well, it surely violates the one player to a hand rule. And I would find it hard to believe that every coach keeps their advice at such a Socratic level. Surely from time to time a coach is going to utter phrases like “Well you have to call with any two cards here because the pot is giving you the price to see a flop,” which clearly cross the line into telling the player what to do.

While coaching may not have malicious intent like collusion does it clearly gives the student an advantage over his opponents he might not otherwise have. One might argue that the player would have made all the same choices anyway but if that were the case then why does he need a coach in the first place? Even if all the coach does is force the player to think through his actions he may be preventing him from going on tilt or getting distracted reading emails which does influence the outcome of the game.

So I have to say bravo to Full Tilt Poker for taking such a stance. Even if it is difficult or impossible to police the fact that they have reserved the right to take extreme measures to prevent cheating demonstrates their commitment to providing a fair game to all players.

PokerStars to Begin Using RSA Tokens

Filed in Hacked Accounts on Feb.26, 2009

I was very pleased to see this 2+2 thread from a user who had recently received a RSA SecureID from PokerStars. I have long been a proponent of online poker sites offering players the choice of a more secure form of login. It’s a well known fact that hundreds – if not thousands – of players get scammed every year when someone else is able to access their online poker account. The hacker either transfers the money to another account and withdraws it or he goes online and loses it to another account which then withdraws it. Once the money has left the online poker site it is next to impossible to recover.

In fact, not too long ago there was a case of someone releasing some poker software that contained a hack that sent the hacker the username and password for the sites the player played on. Even big name pros like Greg Raymer aren’t immune.

For those of you who are unfamilir with RSA SecurID it is a small piece of hardware that is small enough to fit on a keychain. At some predefined interval (usually sixty seconds) it generates a new 6 digit number. That six digit number when combined with your other authentication information provides for a more secure login.

The way the RSA SecurID works is that each hardware device is manufactured with a specific key. That key is used to generate the six digit number which is displayed on the device. An authentication server which knows which keys have been assigned to which players would then be able to determine which six digit number was supposed to be appearing on the SecurID screen when the authentication information was entered.

Effectively what this does is eliminate someone hacking into your account should they discover your username and password. In addition to the username and password they need that six digit number which changes every sixty seconds and is generated by your specific SecurID device. Even if the hacker has their own SecurID device it will not generate the same six digit sequence at the same time as your device so in order to break into your account they would need to:

a) have access to your username and password

b) guess the six digit code (999,999 possibilities) within 60 seconds

This effectively makes breaking into your account impossible as most online poker sites would freeze your account for too many failed login attempts if a hacker were to set up an automated system to try all possible combinations.

I personally haven’t seen exactly how PokerStars is going to implement the RSA SecurID but I have used similar systems for banking and at work and they are very effective and very trusted.

Cheating Going on in Ongame’s Big Deal?

Filed in Cheating on Feb.28, 2009

There’s a question mark because nobody really knows. To save you the read of 8 pages on 2+2 it seems that professional Danish poker player Jonas Klausen finished first in the tournament and was awarded $42K. Soon after, Bwin (owner of Ongame) said that Klausen was disqualified due to suspicious activity and his account was closed and the $42K was distributed to the other players in the tournament.

Simple enough so far.

But then Klausen seems to have engaged the entire Danish poker community to speak out on his behalf and so suddenly 2+2 was full of posters who had never posted before attesting to Klausen’s innocence.

Klausen himself chimed in and said that from what he could piece together Bwin had found it suspicious that his account Tulkaz33 was playing from the same IP address as a friend of his staying at the same hotel in Paris who’s screen name just happened to be TulkazZzz (registered on EuroBet). According to Klausen they were both in town for a tournament and stayed at the same hotel but never played in the same room or even played on the same table against each other.

Eventually Ongame/Bwin and Klausen came to some sort of understanding and Klausen’s account was reactivated. Ongame/Bwin seems to be very careful in making the point that it was an understanding and not a settlement which might imply that Klausen received no monies. Klausen seems to have gone silent and after posting on multiple forums protesting his innocence he has had no comment after reaching an understanding with Ongame/Bwin.

We can only guess at things here as Ongame/Bwin did not divulge exactly why they viewed his activity as suspicious. It was Klausen himself who deduced that it was probably because he and his friend both had extremely similar screen names and were playing from the same hotel which likely showed up to Ongame/Bwin as the same IP address. The truth is that the situation does look suspicious. It would be perfectly reasonable for Ongame/Bwin to question this. But we don’t really know if there was more to it than that. That may have triggered an investigation in which other irregular activity was noted.

If Ongame/Bwin penalized him simply for that without any effort to hear his side of the story then it would seem that Ongame/Bwin acted a little hastily.

The other troubling aspect to this is that Klausen was quite adamant that his PR campaign on major poker message boards was about clearing his name yet once he and Ongame/Bwin came to an understanding both he and all of his defenders sort of disappeared leaving the poker community with only part of the story. And with Ongame/Bwin stressing that what they came to was an understanding rather than a settlement it does point in the direction that he had run afoul of the rules perhaps unintentionally.

That’s not to say that Klausen did something wrong. It simply means that without any additional information one has to draw conclusions based on what the available evidence might infer. Surely if he were found to be totally clean he would be triumphantly boasting his victory. And if he were 100% guilty of some form of cheating then Ongame/Bwin would have maintained their ban on him. The truth would seem to be hidden somewhere between those two possible outcomes. It would appear that whatever agreement that Ongame/Bwin and Klausen came to it involved some sort of privacy clause as neither seems to be talking about it.

Is there some sort of cheating going on in the Big Deal tournament? Unfortunately, you’ll have to decide for yourself.

Is TexasLimitKing a Cheater?

Filed in Cheating, Hacked Accounts, Rigged Games on Feb.28, 2009

The player TexasLimitKing on Full Tilt Poker is being accused of having a super user account similar to the types used in the Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet scandals. The accuser in this case is poker pro Neverwin.

The thread on 2+2 goes for at least 156 pages so we’ll save you the read and give you the facts.

Neverwin played against TexasLimitKing in 2006 and lost his shirt

TexasLimitKing was on a massive card rush for a period of time and was creaming some top name professional players

Based on the two points above, Neverwin is convinced that TexasLimitKing had some sort of unfair advantage. Neverwin seems to fixate on a specific hand where TexasLimitKing called him with a 4 high on a QQ662 board winning the pot (TexasLimitKing held 44 and Neverwin had 33 which awarded the pot to TexasLimitKing). There doesn’t seem to be any sort of concensus on the hand from the 2+2 community. Some say it was a horrible play. Some say it was an okay call. And yet others think he might have misclicked.

Regardless, no other evidence seems to indicate any sort of super user account at Full Tilt Poker. Several people pointed out that TexasLimitKing’s hot streak wasn’t so hot and have hand histories indicating that his win rate was not even close to being outside statistical norms. In fact, after a brilliant run he ran right into Phil Ivey who scalped him for several hundred thousand before TexasLimitKing threw in the towel and semi-retired from poker.

A major part of Neverwin’s accusation is that Full Tilt Poker have either been unable or unwilling to dig up hand histories from 2006 and provide them to Neverwin. He asserts that this is proof that Full Tilt Poker has something to hide. A representative from Full Tilt Poker eventually commented in the thread that the company is currently in the process of developing a system that will allow players to look up their hand histories from any period and due to the work on that project the data prior to March 2006 is not easily accessible but will be shortly. This sounds like a reasonable explanation and I have sources within the company who confirm that the data exists and will be made available shortly.

Is there any truth to the accusation? It’s highly unlikely. During the period in question TexasLimitKing was crushing games on several different sites so the likelyhood that he had super user accounts on all of them doesn’t seem plausible.

Also, one needs to take into account the reputation of the accuser. Neverwin, aka Dustin Woolf, isn’t shy about self-promotion and involving himself in all sorts of drama. These current accusations with no evidence other than he feels that he’s too good of a player to lose to TexasLimitKing (an assertion many players who have played with Neverwin scoff at) and that Full Tilt Poker won’t dig up hand histories from 3 years ago seems more like a cry for attention and/or an effort to drum up visitors to his website. For someone who has been involved with online poker for as long as he as been and as the owner of his own poker forum he should be expected to know that concrete evidence would be necessary to make such accusations. A single questionable call by his opponent is essentially his only evidence. Everything else he presents is easily explainable.

Casino Affilites Program Owner Linked to Poker Site Not Paying Affiliates

Filed in Cheating on Feb.28, 2009

This has little to do with players but it does impact the online poker industry.

One of the partners in Casino Affiliate Programs (CAP), Warren Jolly, has admitted that he has been actively involved in trying to cover up his ownership interest in online poker site CardSpike. CardSpike has been the center of controversy for either not paying their affiliates or being slow to pay them. Obivously, the partner in a company (CAP) that is supposed to use it’s weight to make sure that online casinos treat their affiliates well also being a part-owner of an online poker site that’s not treating it’s affiliates well is very troubling. Compounding the problem is that fact that his partner in CAP, Lou Fabiano, is also his business partner in CardSpike.

The job of companies like CAP is to vet out affiliate programs, use their network of affiliates to negotiate higher payouts from the casinos, and to use their weight to make sure that the affiliates promoting online casinos are treated fairly and paid promptly. The fact that the partners running CAP would start their own online poker site and encourage affiliates to promote it without disclosing the conflict of interest is startling. It’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Both Jolly and Fabiano vehemently denied any sort of involvement with CardSpike when affiliates began to complain about slow payments. But not everyone was completely satisfied with taking their word and J Todd from the Association of Players Casinos & Webmasters (APCW) and others began poking around and discovered court documents listing CAP partners as owners of CardSpike.

To say that this didn’t sit well with the partners in CAP is an understatement. At the CAP convention in London earlier this year Fabiano challenged J Todd to a fist fight outside of the hotel and used hotel security to physically remove the son of Michael Corfman who heads the Gambling Portal Webmaster Association (GPWA) which competes with CAP and had a hand in disclosing the ownership interest of Fabiano and Jolly in CardSpike.

But up until this point there was some plausible deniability as neither Jolly or Fabiano ever admitted to the ownership interest and claimed that the whole thing was a misunderstanding and was something cooked up by the GPWA to damage their business for their own gain.

When the soldiers begin scaling the castle walls you can either stick together and watch each others back or you can turn on each other. It seems Jolly and Fabiano have chosen the later. According to Jolly, Fabiano has been circulating false accusations about him within the online gaming community and more or less setting him up to be the fall guy for all the bad press should the entire story unravel. So, according to Jolly he took the nuclear option and put all his cards on the table regarding the incident and has asked for the online gaming community to show him some mercy.

Unfortunately, only coming clean when your back is against the wall and you’re avoiding your partner trying to shoulder you with all the blame isn’t really the same as doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Russ Hamilton Refuses to Answer Questions About Ultimate Bet Cheating

Filed in Cheating, Rigged Games on Feb.28, 2009

The guys over at RawVegas caught alleged Ultimate Bet cheater and WSOP main event winner Russ Hamilton in the parking lot of a golf course and tried to get him to discuss the Ultimate Bet cheating scandal.

Watch RUSS HAMILTON UltimateBet Super-User Cheating Scandal (Exclusive Video) on RawVegas.tv

As you can see he not only has no comment but he actually never says a word.

The video has been circulating around the online poker community with varying reactions. While Honest Online Poker is of the belief that Russ Hamilton is absolutely guilty of ripping off Ultimate Bet players this video is really a non-event. The guy says nothing! Many people have worked themselves into a frenzy saying that only a guilty person wouldn’t saying anything but let’s face it; if someone surprised you in a parking lot and shoved a camera and microphone in your face while asking you accusatory questions in a unprofessional manner what would you do?

As was previously mentioned, at HOP we believe he’s guilty but this is far from the smoking gun that the Raw Vegas and Wicked Chops people are promoting it as.

“Like, not even a word. And if you’re innocent, even if your lawyers tell you not to talk, really, don’t you just have to talk? How do you not?

Just another online site hyping a story that isn’t there.

Ultimate Bet Awards Pot to Wrong Player

Filed in Rigged Games on Feb.28, 2009

Ultimate Bet contends that a software glitch caused the pot in a recent online poker game to be awarded to the losing player. While Honest Online Poker believes it was simply a glitch, for the glitch to happen at a card room which was recently the center of attention for having super user accounts that allowed players to see their opponents hole cards this isn’t exactly comforting.

There are a lot of bugs/glitches that are acceptable in online poker. While it might be frustrating if opening more than four tables crashes your computer at least you expect that the game is being played correctly. When the online poker site can’t even properly conduct a hand you have to question the integrity of the entire system.

Many online poker players become accustomed to the software taking care of play of the game. In fact, watching an experienced online poker player the first time he plays in a live casino can sometimes be a humorous experience as they “learn” to count the amount of money in the pot themselves (nope, you can’t just wave a mouse over the pot and see the total) and acting in turn. How many of these online poker players just assume that the pot will be awarded correctly?

Below you can see the hand that caused the controversy. Phil Hellmuth is awarded a pot he obviously lost. Having one of your premiere spokespeople be the beneficiary of this glitch also doen’t help build any credibility.

Stage #XXXXXXX: Holdem (1 on 1) Normal $200/$400 – 2008-12-20 04:15:23 (ET)
Table: FIR AVE (Real Money) Seat #4 is the dealer
Seat 4 – PHILHELLMUTH ($4495 in chips)
Seat 6 – DOUBLEBALLER ($7494 in chips)
PHILHELLMUTH – Posts small blind $100
DOUBLEBALLER – Posts big blind $200
*** POCKET CARDS ***
PHILHELLMUTH – Raises $300 to $400
DOUBLEBALLER – Raises $400 to $600
PHILHELLMUTH – Raises $400 to $800
DOUBLEBALLER – Calls $200
*** FLOP *** [Js Kc Kh]
DOUBLEBALLER – Checks
PHILHELLMUTH – Bets $200
DOUBLEBALLER – Raises $400 to $400
PHILHELLMUTH – Calls $200
*** TURN *** [Js Kc Kh] [2h]
DOUBLEBALLER – Bets $400
PHILHELLMUTH – Raises $800 to $800
DOUBLEBALLER – Raises $800 to $1200
PHILHELLMUTH – Calls $400
*** RIVER *** [Js Kc Kh 2h] [9c]
DOUBLEBALLER – Bets $400
PHILHELLMUTH – Calls $400
*** SHOW DOWN ***
DOUBLEBALLER – Shows [Kd Qh] (Three of a kind, kings)
PHILHELLMUTH – Mucks
PHILHELLMUTH Collects $5599 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($5600) | Rake ($1)
Board [Js Kc Kh 2h 9c]
Seat 4: PHILHELLMUTH (dealer) (small blind) won Total ($5599) HI: ($5599) [Mucked] [2s 10s]
Seat 6: DOUBLEBALLER (big blind) HI:lost with Three of a kind, kings [Kd Qh - B:Kh,P:Kd,B:Kc,P:Qh,B:Js]

photo by styleserver

Full Tilt Refund

Filed in Cheating on Apr.09, 2009

I recently received an email indicating that one of the players I was playing against on Full Tilt Poker had been in violation of their Terms of Service so I was given a refund deemed by Full Tilt Poker to be appropriate. Unfortunately, since they don’t share any information about who the player was or what rules he broke it’s difficult to tell whether or not the amount being refunded is adequate compensation. Though they do use the language “some of your opponents” which makes me think this was collusion.

At least their pro-active. I didn’t notice anything fishy myself so I’m happy to get the unexpected windfall.

Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

The Full Tilt Poker Security department has recently concluded an extensive investigation and we have determined that some of your opponents were in violation of our site terms during a Limit Holdem ring game you played in.

We have permanently closed all of the offending accounts. In cases of proven cheating, 100% of the confiscated funds are returned to the players who were victimized. The reimbursement calculation is based on the number of tournaments or hands played against the offending players, and the amount won or lost against them.

We have determined that you are entitled to a refund of $XX.XX which will be placed in your account in the next 72 hours.

For a number of reasons, we are unable to provide any other additional information regarding this case, including the players involved. We thank you for your understanding in this regard. The vigilance of our players in reporting suspicious behavior is an important addition to our ongoing diligence against unethical conduct, and we carefully investigate every concern of suspicious activity.

If you believe you have witnessed unfair play at our tables, please don’t hesitate to contact us at security@fulltiltpoker.com. If there is any other way we can be of assistance, please let us know.

Full Tilt Poker Security

eCOGRA Heads Towards Independence

Filed in Uncategorized on Mar.29, 2011

Play protection and industry standards body eCOGRA has been acquired by the organization’s management shedding ownership by founding companies, Microgaming, 888, and bwin. The buyout will give eCOGRA extra credibility as it no longer is owned by companies it may be evaluating. Furthermore eCOGRA has committed to avoiding any software or other service providers in their ownership structure.

The management buy-out was led by CEO Andrew Beveridge. Beveridge was executing the goals of the independent board which were seeking to increase the credibility of the organization.

eCOGRA was launched in 2003 by Microgaming, 888, and bwin as an independent source that could certify software and best industry practices. They developed the Safe and Fair seal which was given to operators who demonstrated best industry practices in regards to offering fair gaming.

As the industry has evolved the founders became increasingly aware that their involvement with the organization could cause some people question the impartiality of eCOGRA’s findings.

This announcement should remove doubts by the public that eCOGRA is committed to providing an impartial accreditation and certification for online gaming companies that wish to earn the Safe and Fair seal.