COMPUTERS
November 30, 2008 11:05 PM PST

'60 Minutes' report: How online gamblers unmasked cheaters

Posted by CBS Interactive staff
  • Font size
  • Print

In the wild, wild west, when a poker player was caught cheating it was a capital offense, with the punishment quickly dispensed right across the card table. But today if you're caught cheating in the popular and lucrative world of Internet poker, you may get away scot-free.

At least that seems to be what is happening in the biggest scandal in the history of online gambling. A small group of people managed to cheat players out of more than $20 million.

And it would have gone undetected if it hadn't been for the players themselves, who used the Internet to root out the corruption. As a joint investigation by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post reveals, it raises new questions about the integrity and security of the shadowy and highly profitable industry that operates outside U.S. law.

Editors' note: Videos of the 60 Minutes segment are embedded below. The first is the full, 12 min., 53 sec. video. The five that follow are shorter excerpts. The text in this post is a transcript of the 60 Minutes segment. (For The Washington Post's full report, see "Inside Bet: Cracking the two biggest cheating scandals in the history of online poker.")

* * * * * * * *

If you had to pick the moment that the poker boom began, it was probably the day an unknown accountant named Chris Moneymaker won $2.5 million at the 2003 World Series of Poker.

Suddenly every amateur with a hat, sunglasses and a stack of chips saw themselves as the next big money maker. Nearly 7,000 competed in this year's tournament for $180 million in prize money. But the fever has spread far beyond Las Vegas.

It is the richest sporting competition in the world. And yet all this pales in comparison to the half million people who are playing on the Internet right now in the unregulated world of online poker.

As we learned in a tutorial, all you have to do to play is log on to the Web, click your way to an online gambling site, open an account with your credit card, choose your game and pull up a seat at a virtual table.

"These people could be playing from anywhere in the world. They could be here in the United States. They could be, you know, in India. They could be in South Africa," Australian computer security expert Michael Josem tells 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft.

We should tell you that this $18 billion industry is illegal in the U.S., but the ban is almost impossible to enforce since the Internet sites and the computers that randomly deal the cards and keep track of the bets are located offshore, beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement.

And unlike land-based casinos, there is almost no official regulation, enforcement or supervision. But it hasn't stopped thousands of mostly young men from making this their livelihood. Todd Witteles, a former computer scientist-turned-poker pro, says you no longer have to go to Vegas to find a high stakes game.

"You could do it from your own living room," he says. "You don't have to get dressed. You don't have to anything. It's right there on your computer."

Witteles says online poker is much different - faster, more aggressive and less personal.

"You're not lookin' at somebody sittin' across the table. You're just playing the cards that tumble out of the computer," Kroft remarks.

"Not only are you not looking at your opponents, you're not looking at the cards being dealt, you're not looking at who's dealing them to you. So, you don't know if the whole thing is legitimate, even if all the players sitting with you are just as legitimate as you are. Maybe the whole game isn't," Witteles says.

And as Witteles found out, it wasn't, at least on a popular Internet site called "Absolute Poker." His suspicions were first aroused in a high stakes game of Texas Hold 'Em, against what he thought was an incompetent, and lucky, amateur using the screen name "Grey Cat."

"This Grey Cat person was new. And at first, he seemed like a live one. He seemed terrible," Witteles remembers. "He seemed to play crazy. It seemed like he was giving his money away. Except the only thing was, he wasn't losing. He was playing in a style that was sure to lose, but he was killing the game day after day."

While Witteles was losing $15,000 to the apparent novice, other high stakes players began to notice improbable and endless winning streaks on Absolute Poker's sister site, "Ultimate Bet."

David Paredes, a Harvard grad who has made enough money playing poker to pay off his law school loan and live in an expensive New York apartment, got fleeced by a player called "Nio Nio."

Asked how much he lost, Paredes tells Kroft, "I'm probably down somewhere in the range of $70,000 to that particular player."

Paredes says there were other players who lost higher sums. "In the range of $250,000, $90,000, $70,000, $210,000."

Tracking old hands via software
Serge Ravitch, another lawyer-turned-poker pro, began using a software program called "Poker Tracker" to review thousands of old hands.

"What I saw did not make any sense," he remembers. "This account was simply winning too much money for the type of game that he was playing. And he was doing it by never having the worst hand. When the other person was bluffing, he would always go all in. When the other person had some kind of made hand, he would always fold."

Ravitch says it was like he knew what everybody's cards were.

"If you can see everybody's cards in poker, you could be the worst poker player in the world, up against the best poker player in the world, and you're gonna beat him just about every time," Witteles says.

Soon, the Internet poker forums, chat rooms and blogs were atwitter with fresh reports about suspect players. And when Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet failed to respond to complaints, the online poker community undertook its own investigation.

"We knew for sure there was cheating going on. We just didn't know who was responsible yet," Witteles says.

The most likely explanation seemed to be that someone had gotten access to an administrative or security account at Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet that would have allowed them to see all of the cards in the game as they were being played.

"Somebody with access to a server, a computer server that would give that information to them in real time?" Kroft asks.

"Yes," Ravitch says.

"So either a really good hacker or somebody on the inside?" Kroft asks.

"Exactly," he replies.

Late last year, the poker sleuths got lucky. When one of the players requested the hand histories of a suspected cheater known as "Potripper," someone at Absolute Poker inadvertently sent them an Excel spreadsheet with 65,000 lines of data that include all of the cards that had been played in thousands of games against hundreds of Potripper's opponents.

It allowed Michael Josem to recreate some of the hands, as the cheater would have seen them, in and turn them into a video that he posted online, along with a statistical analysis of the cheater's win rate.

"We have here a whole lot of people in the middle, which is pretty normal, they lose a little, they win a bit. A few people got lucky for a bit, a few people were losing a lot of money. Right up here, in the very top right hand corner, we have the cheater," he explains. "We did the mathematical analysis to find that they were winning at about 15 standard deviations above the mean, which is approximately equivalent to winning a one-in-a-million jackpot six consecutive times."

"Now, this sort of stuff just doesn't happen in the real world," he adds.

But more importantly, the Excel spreadsheet also listed the user account and the IP address of the suspected cheater, which the sleuths traced to the computer modem of an Absolute Poker employee.

The company, which is headquartered in a shopping mall in Costa Rica, was finally forced to acknowledge that a former employee had cracked their software code and cheated online players by looking at their cards.

But what really made the victims angry was that Absolute Poker cut a deal with the cheater to protect his identity, in exchange for a full confession of how he did it.

"Here, these people stole millions of dollars from their customers, from their best customers, from the high-limit players of the site, and in the official report released about what happened, not only did nobody get into any kind of legal trouble, their names weren't even publicized," Witteles says.

The Canadian connection
But in the murky world of Internet poker there was precious little the players could do about it. The companies were located in Costa Rica, and they couldn't really complain to U.S. authorities because online gambling is illegal. The only pretense of supervision--and the players only hope--lay with a tiny nation thousands of miles to the north that hardly anyone had ever heard of.

The virtual poker games are actually run on computers servers from a Canadian Indian reservation outside of Montreal. It's all licensed by the sovereign tribe of the Mohawk nation, which has no experience in casino gambling and doesn't have to answer to Canadian authorities.

The grand chief is Mike Delisle.

Chief Delisle says Internet gambling is illegal in Canada, but tells Kroft, "We're not Canadians. We're a member of the Haudenosaunee Five Nation Confederacy. And we're Mohawk Kahnawake people. We're not Canadian."

And that legal distinction has allowed the Kahnawakes to rake in millions of dollars a year by licensing Internet gaming sites and housing their computer servers on the reservation. They now register and service more than 60 percent of the world's Internet gaming activity from a highly protected and nondescript building that used to be a mattress factory. 60 Minutes drove by the former factory with The Washington Post's Gil Gaul.

"This is nondescript," Gaul remarks.

"This takes nondescript to an entirely different level," Kroft comments.

The operation is overseen by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, whose three commissioners meet in secret. The commission is independent of tribal leaders, including Chief Delisle, and its investigation of Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet have been neither transparent nor particularly aggressive.

A lot of the players who were cheated suspect it's because the owner of the discredited sites is Joe Norton, a former grand chief of the Kahnawakes, who helped establish the gaming commission that cleared him of any wrongdoing in the scandal.

The commission fined the two sites a total of $2 million, ordered them to repay the losses to players who were cheated, but Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet are still in business.

"Here you had a gaming commission. It was originally set up by Joe Norton. And his two companies come before the board and they get a slap on the wrist," Kroft tells Delisle.

"Well, I don't think it's a slap on the wrist," Delisle replies. "We are comfortable in saying that through the gaming commission, they have done the investigation, saying that he didn't have a part in the cheating scandal."

Asked why the commission didn't suspend his license, Delisle says, "Well, they were afraid that if that was happened and the rug was pulled out from under them, so to speak, that the players wouldn't be paid."

Neither the gaming commission nor Joe Norton would talk to us, but in a statement the companies said they were victimized by insiders and former employees and accepted blame for overlooking the security problems with its software.

The only clarity in the investigation was provided by Frank Catania, a former director of New Jersey's Gaming Enforcement Division, who was hired by the tribe to look into the cheating that the players themselves helped expose.

"We owe it to the players themselves for finding this out," he says.

Catania found that the scam at Ultimate Bet went on for four years, and says the mastermind appears to have been a former giant in the world of poker.

No charges filed
Asked if he knows who did the cheating, Catania says, "Well, the one name has already been released by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. That's a fellow by the name of Russ Hamilton."

Hamilton is a former champion at the World Series of Poker.

In 1994, Russ Hamilton won $1 million and his weight in silver for winning the main event at the World Series of Poker.

According to the gaming commission, Hamilton and five unnamed conspirators used multiple screen names and accounts to cheat online players out of more than $20 million. And so far they seem to be getting away with it. Because of jurisdictional issues, no criminal charges have been filed, and no one even seems to be conducting a criminal investigation.

"We're willing to work in collaboration with anyone who wants to bring these people to justice," Delisle says.

"In this case, you have somebody who you know was cheating. It's like the person's gotten away with it," Kroft says.

"I believe that anyone else, named or not, will be brought to justice," Delisle says. "If they can be found. That's really the defining factor."

But we didn't have that much trouble locating Hamilton. He seems to be holed up at his home in Las Vegas behind the security gates of an exclusive golfing community.

Last week, we called his house and were told by a woman that answered the phone that he would be back in a little while. We left a message, but he hasn't returned the call.

"If you hadn't investigated this on your own, you think it'd still be going on?" Kroft asks Witteles.

"I'm sure it would be going on," Witteles says. "The people who did this were very greedy and very blatant. But the scary thing is there may be other accounts out there like this, maybe even on other sites that are not being done with the same sort of recklessness. And maybe this has been going on, on more than just Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet. Maybe it's going on in several other places. And maybe it's even still going on in these sites."

"I'm sure there're people out there right now figuring out, 'Here's a way we can do it again,'" Catania says.

Produced by Ira Rosen.

Recent posts from Digital Media
Opera's new SDK: Better browsing on the Wii?
Cisco adds social networking to its forte
$9 million for SpotMixer's video ad service
Yelp user faces lawsuit over negative review
Google grab bag: Chinese lawsuit, 9/11 ASCII art
Upgrading to a DRM-free iTunes library will cost you
SlingPlayer Mobile for iPhone announced
Online video viewing jumps 34 percent
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 23 comments
by mikeburek December 1, 2008 12:01 AM PST
I like the way CNet writes to an informed audience. The reason I don't watch 60 Minutes and other TV news programs is because they talk to a mindless audience.

I wish that both the American public could learn to think and that TV could expect their audience to be educated. This is a chicken and egg problem. There is not a practical reason to spend time debating how it started. But if one starts, the other will follow, and things will improve.
Reply to this comment
by nfrengle December 1, 2008 1:31 AM PST
@Mikeburek--Psych! This story is directly from 60-minutes, not C|Net. Mindless indeed!
Reply to this comment
by thelemurking December 1, 2008 8:39 AM PST
LMAO! Nicely done sir, nicely done!
by mikeburek December 1, 2008 9:05 AM PST
Yes. And I was at first disappointed in the sudden "dumbdown-ness" of the article, but then realized it was the text from 60-minutes, not a CNet report on the same thing.
by rapier1 December 3, 2008 9:36 PM PST
Nioce save MikeBurek! Oh wait, no its actually a pretty terrible save. Sorry.
by cgallaway December 1, 2008 6:56 AM PST
I don't really feel sorry for those that get cheated playing internet poker. I am always suspicious of putting my money down on a "game of chance" when somebody has to program that game. I guess it just doesn't make logical sense, which these players purport to have to use in face to face games. The other thing is the probability of cheating. Let's face it, it's easy to cheat. Granted, there may be more security on pay sites than, say, Yahoo Games (no gambling), but all it takes is to have a partner or multiple screen names (or accounts) that would allow you to log in and watch. And then the kibitzer could instant message the player other's hands. It's been done on Yahoo many times. And the theory is, if people are willing to cheat to win a game with no bets (nothing to win/lose besides the game itself), why wouldn't they cheat when there is a motive (actual, real Money)?

And then, since it is illegal in the US (Which I don't believe it should be), I feel these people who got cheated got what they deserved. They decided to break the law, and therefore they have no safety net for their grievances (like someone who has had a bag of marijuana stolen from them). They obviously didn't do their homework on legit sites that have measures in place to avoid such issues (as the flow of money always causes cheating concerns)

Point being, the online casinos don't pass the sniff test when it comes to the probability of a fair shake (company made computer programs, hidden identities, ease of cheating) that these online "Card Sharks" got taken like the proverbial "out of towner" in a hussle. They didn't do their homework first, and therefore have only themselves to blame.
Reply to this comment
by crunchy_pickle December 4, 2008 1:15 PM PST
lmao. You can't watch other players hands whether you're a player or a spectator. Why would you even assume that in real money games? I hate to laugh at the expense of someone else, but that was really dumb.
by jerljr December 1, 2008 12:03 PM PST
Keep in mind. Internet poker is not illegal. But it is illegal for a bank to except a deposit or withdrawal directly from a gambling site. So people that play online are not breaking the law. Plus the websites, in their advertising and statements made as your sign in, say that they protect the players from cheating and make it as fair as can be. They have responsibilties to protect the players that our on the website. and the players have no choice but to trust them.

Plus, its harder to cheat then someone else signing in to watch and be able to see the other players cards because when you do that you still cant see the players hold cards.

I cant stand cheating whether its for money or not.

But, I wish someone would investigate the sites themselves. Because if you play real poker then go to these sites and play. You realize that very strang situation come up. Pecular situations occur more frequently then in real poker. You expect strange " bad beats" every once in a while but not at the same frequency as happens on these sites.

Only a card player would understand what I was talking about but set over sets two ore three times a night, people hitting one outer, two outers, three outers almost at a 50% rate.

Just seems like the randomness isn't as random as its suppose to have.

You could say. well what would be the advantage to the websites to tweak with this. Well it keeps bad players form losing all there money and not putting more in. plus it would up the amount of tables played by good players as they get "knocked out" when they were ahead to get there money back that they lost even though they made a "good move" but it didn't work out so well.

This is a concern of mine.
Reply to this comment
by cgallaway December 1, 2008 12:57 PM PST
Of course it isn't as random......in real life, someone shuffles the cards, and when they do, the deck is is not split exactly in half and shuffled in a 1 card from column A and 1 card from column B order. Even though real life casinos typically use a different deck each game (possibly each hand---forgive me, I don't gamble often, so I don't know the technicalities), the decks are not always shuffled in the same way, and therefore seat 1 does not always get the same cards every hand or at the same hand every game.

Online, however, is a PROGRAM! There is no randomness to a program despite what any computer programmer will tell you (there are randomization programs, but they are created to mimic true randomness, but are not truly random) And remember, the program may not be just for one table. It could be a program written for the entire site, so that a royal flush, for example, is set to happen (for the sake of arguement...not real figures) 1 hand out of every million dealt, well, now that you have say 100,000 people on the site at one time (as opposed to 5 people at a table), the odds of getting a royal flush are dramitically decreased. Remember, online is not a real deck of cards, it is a program. It is the same as a slot machine. The programmer can dictate the deal, or the even the "randomization" of the deal. The programmer can write it so that certain results happen than would happen in real life. The programmer can write the program so that the house (or any beneficiary) could get the second round of dealt cards based on the first round as there is no physical deck that has a finite order. And no registration in the world (particularly politically appointed/elected officials) are going to interpret 5 million lines of source code and understand it all just to make sure that the computer program is "Fair"

This is what I mean when I say in my previous post that these online gamers aren't doing their homework to know how it works. They rely on what they have learned in real life. In real life, observation is key. You can see someone dealing from the bottom of the deck. You can see if someone reaches into their shirt to get a card. You can see, if you pay really close attention that there are 52 cards in a deck. When something is programmed, and debugged, it is precise. It will only be checked enough to ensure that the same card is not give to two people at the same table at the same time. Or that when one "Card" is dealt, it will not be dealt again that hand. But it will not be checked to ensure that the same card will not be dealt to someone else in 20 consecutive hands.
Reply to this comment
by philipq December 1, 2008 4:05 PM PST
http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/
QUOTE
SHUFFLE

"Anyone who considers arithmetic methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." - John von Neumann, 1951

We understand that a use of a fair and unpredictable shuffle algorithm is critical to our software. To ensure this and avoid major problems described in [2], we are using two independent sources of truly random data:

* user input, including summary of mouse movements and events timing, collected from client software
* true hardware random number generator developed by Intel [3], which uses thermal noise as an entropy source

Each of these sources itself generates enough entropy to ensure a fair and unpredictable shuffle.
/QUOTE

lulzyoufail.jpg
by auto98uk December 2, 2008 5:43 AM PST
cgallaway - i think you will find it actually creates a "virtual deck" rather than creating each card at the time of dealing.

You talk about the odds as though there is something wrong there - clearly in RL poker the more tables there are being played (and therefore the more hands being dealt) the higher the likelihood that someone will get a particular hand - it doesn't increase any individuals odds of getting a particular hand though, because more hands are being dealt. Also, of course the program would not be checked to see if someone has got the same card 20 hands in a row (that WOULD be cheating) in RL it is perfectly possible, just unlikely, as it is online. You have kind of misunderstood what is meant by "randomness" i think

Frankly i find it hard to beleive that the software (at least on the big sites) cheats, not because of the threat of regulation, but because there are PC geniuses playing online who would eventually rumble them and the bad PR would basically stop players coming to their sites (those in the article got away with it because the players realised it wasn't "the site" but individual staff)
by patrickarose December 1, 2008 2:00 PM PST
If there is any future investigation in this horrific incident please include me in your information and you can rely on me for my support. Thanks to 60 minutes for your investigation in this serious matter where many of us honest players may have lost our money to cheaters, who should be jailed.

Patrick
Reply to this comment
by mikeburek December 2, 2008 3:47 AM PST
Was there any investigation by 60 Min or Wash Post? It seems like all they did was discover a story and publish it. Yes, that's good, and valuable to society. But they say it was a joint "investigation," which makes it sound like this was something so huge it took 2 news agencies to break into this ring of crime.
by jpmays December 3, 2008 6:26 PM PST
I'll second that motion Patrick!

I, too, am an online player of poker. I first started playing on a site called EmpirePoker.com back in 2003, and this was my preferred site as I had a fairly decent win/loss ratio during 2004. My first year I lost almost $1000, however, in my second year (2004) I made a profit of $7,500 over a four-month period. Then the bottom sort of dropped out when President Bush signed the the Internet gambling law. EmpirePoker.com stopped accepting real money deposits from US players, and as a result, I was forced to find another poker site. AbsolutePoker.com was that site, and I never experienced the win/loss ratio that I had while playing at EmpirePoker.com. I no longer play on AbsolutePoker.com because of the bad beat after bad beat. In fact, I no longer play for real money, because since having to find other poker sites that would except US deposits, I have lost almost $10,000 over a four year period.

John Paul (a.k.a. JPRiver)
by potracker December 1, 2008 2:13 PM PST
Ha Ha, This story is a joke. I can take you anytime you want to bet. :)
Reply to this comment
by carterqi December 2, 2008 4:57 AM PST
er.. you can choose play with no money just for fun...

still think online stuff is not secure.. even Internet bank...

too conservative? ?
Reply to this comment
by xman0000 December 2, 2008 6:03 AM PST
DOES any know the word IRS, its still income and he better be paying taxes on it. Drop a dime to our favorite terrorist group , and let them have some fun, If he not been reporting this, good chance, he mail hafe filed false returns, fraud and lets see there a bucjmore things they can tack on and by the time they done with these guys, thye wish never palyed a hand of OLD MAID in there life. Seems like some of these guys have done the IRS work for them so it be a easy office audit, fair is fair they cheated you then it time to pay.....
Reply to this comment
by fogarbre December 2, 2008 9:54 AM PST
After reading the above posts by people there are a few items that come to mind. First, there is a very large grey area around the legality of internet poker inside the US. I believe this will change because there is tax revenue that is not being tapped. Second, I also agree that a computer programmed RNG is not a random event at all. This is something that has been well documented by statisticians for many years year now. If you ?randomize? values then it is no longer a random event. Third, there are 160 million poker players worldwide. There are only 9 million poker players playing online right now. So that means that there are approximately 150 million or 94% of the poker players worldwide do not play online! WHY? Well, I think part of the issue is that people do not trust the web sites because of issues like this and maybe like the idea that has been put forth by Gene Gioia. Continue reading his thoughts on what might be happening.
The Online Bad Beat Phenomena
An editorial from Gene Gioia, Founder of Gioia Systems, and architect of the Cut N? Shuffle? and Game Check? systems
Many online poker players have observed noticeably more bad beats online then in live poker room games. The common explanation for this is that online players see more hands online then in live games.
Many online poker players believe that the starting hands online are noticeably better then their experiences in live games.
When taking these two factors into account, along with the fact that all online poker rooms generate their revenue from the size of the pots at games (the larger the pot, the more the rake), I can come up with an alternate theory for the seemingly larger number of ?bad beats? and ?draws? experienced by online poker players.
I am told that the Nevada Gaming approved that standard Random Number Generators (RNGs) have 12 lines of code. Online poker operators claim to be spending millions on the development of random number generators. Why?
Considering the recent news that Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet had software installed that gave certain players the ability to see other players? hole cards, why should I think that programming random number generators to appear random while creating significantly more ?draw? hands is out of the realm of possibility?
A random number generator is, after all, a computer program, that will do whatever it is programmed to do. Poker is such a unique game because it creates a virtually unlimited number of possible outcomes. This opens the door for any number of possibilities for anyone wanting to exploit this fact to their advantage.
What is preventing online operators from developing or using RNGs that are programmed to create, whenever desired, a series of hands that encourage a greater number of players participating in any given game, to stay in because of the possibility of achieving a really ?monster? hand? If you have played online for any length of time, you probably can relate to what I am saying and why I am saying this.
By using computer programming to create desirable starting hands, it stands to reason that you would also be creating a significantly higher number of finishing hands. In the process, the pots for those games would be significantly higher; therefore the amount of rack per game increases.
Three years ago, Sports Illustrated published, in their May issue, an article about online poker. That article pointed to an April study by an online tracking company. This study concluded that there was approximately $200 million dollars per day being bet in online poker pots. It also estimated that online sites were generating about $5 million per day in rake revenue. At these levels of pots, an imperceptible change could result in a huge increase in annual revenue. If the average rake is 2.5% of the pot size (as the April study suggested), the effect of one quarter of 1% (very possible and easily done with programming) results in an increase of $500,000 per day or $182.5 million dollars annually in rake revenue. And who pays for this, the players of course. The rake is a necessary part of the game, but should not result from manipulation of any kind.
This is one of the reasons, the Cut N? Shuffle? and Game Check? systems were created. Our sole mission is to provide online poker players with a game that leaves no doubt about its fairness and integrity. We look forward to opening the RealDealPoker.com flagship site for poker players and fulfilling our goal to bring provable honesty and integrity to the online poker player. Our system also spells the end to robotic programs. Wait until you see what we have done to them.
Gioia Systems is all about Real Cards, Real Poker, and Real Fun for Real Players. Come join us when we open. You?ll see what we mean.
Please send your comments, gene.gioia@gioiasystems.com.
Reply to this comment
by fdunn3 December 3, 2008 4:58 AM PST
I find it ironic that these servers are in areas that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over yet the players are giving their credit information to these same sites.

Since the U.S. has no jurisdiction a site could open for a year and be a perfect poker site but then close down and sell all credit info on the black market.

These "Gamblers" are not only gambling at the table, they are also gambling that their credit info won't wind up being used against them at a later date.

As far as I am concerned the U.S. should ban all of these sites from ever reaching the U.S. Internet. I know they have tried and the World Court found it a violation. Well all I have to say is that we shouldn't abide by their position for the good of the U.S. population unless they can be held accountable by U.S. laws and enforcement.
Reply to this comment
by rapier1 December 3, 2008 9:40 PM PST
First you'll need to wrap the entire US in a giant firewall. That's the easy part.
by expobuyer December 3, 2008 3:20 PM PST
Hi,

I beleive cheating is going on with the gameing sites in the Uk. How can approach this matter and who do I contact to investigate the matter. Thanks
Reply to this comment
by sunilverma011 December 14, 2008 11:41 PM PST
Ever since ultimate bet and absolute poker's cheating scandal was revealed, online poker's market has suffered a bit. But mind you still there are lots of other poker rooms which provide better security when compare to these downgraded poker companies who cheated millions of real money from innocent poker players. You guys can visit http://aboutpokerplayers.blogspot.com/ to get latest information on online gambling market.
Reply to this comment
by justinmacgonal December 23, 2008 1:14 AM PST
I have been following this news for a while now and this is the best dissertation of the incident so far. I have been playing online slots and poker for a long time now and I have seen many people get away with cheating. When I started there was nothing much one could do about it and only a seasoned player would generally catch the cheater. I decided to move on to more secure sites like Slotland. They've been around for 10 years and most players are familiar and trustworthy. It's is usually a player who spots the cheat. I am glad that these were bought to justice. Well written and cheers!!..
Reply to this comment
 See all 23 Comments >>
advertisement

In the news now

Apple: DRM-free tunes, unibody MacBook Pro

roundup At Macworld, Phil Schiller touts 10 million songs sans DRM, plus 69-cent songs, a unibody 17-inch notebook, iLife updates, and more.


Countdown to CES

special coverage The tech community descends on Las Vegas as the Consumer Electronics Show gets ready to kick off in all its gadgety glory.


About Digital Media

The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Digital Media topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right