Poker Poker card counting, cheating and what casinos know

[cyph]

The first substantial teference to the game of poker comes' from, a historically important book named Exposure of the Arts and Miseries of Gambling (Jonathan Green, 1843). Since this book is also the first cheating expose ever written in America, one could saw that’poker and cheating have been partners from the very beginning.

\1 The game as we know it today began to take shape when the industry moved from a round table format to c&t¥i-d^er.?T^e,'deal fio. lorig^p^etfi^dnfi' player:to placer.' The player no longer had to worry about the bottom deal, the spreadV'double discarding, and a host of classic cheating techniques most applicable to that format. This put the public at ease, cleaned up the game significandy, and pokers popularity began to soar.

When I first came to town in the late l?70s|! cheating in, some of the poker rooms was still rampant. Every scam imaginable, including slug scams, stacking, collusion, paper, and coolers, were all part of the day-to-day business. Some clubs were mob controlled, and certain cheaters and crews were given the green light', provided they came up with a fair share of the profits..

The times have definitely changed! Poker is experiencing a world wide explosion in .popularity, , with no slowdown in sight. Just look at the million-dollar tournaments, virtual poker sites on the Internet, television coverage, and the hundreds of publications detailing the intricacies of the game. You could never generate this level of player interest if cheating was widespread.

 

[cyph]

This said, it's equally naive to assume that the game is snow white. You cant get around the fact that every once in a while, some games, in various jurisdictions, will experience scamming at some level. Poker, in this respect, is no different from any other game, and it's dangerous to think otherwise. •: There are many practices, call them characteristics of the typical poker room, that may cause concern with many game protection advocates, especially pit personnel. First, many clubs still use a ||f|nOnlogo plastic card, and this lack of accountability can open the door to all kinds of problems and perceptions. Second, the dealer does all the shuffling and cutting, which gives him complete controls should he happen to be a top mechanic. Third, poker scams involving partners and signalling may be some of the most difficult of all the casino scams to detect. Fourth, if the same blackjack players! beat the same dealer every day, heat would be sure to follow. Yet the same poker! players can be seen? in the same games day in and day out, sometimes for years, and this is not unusual nor is it necessarily! suspicious. In those rare instances, however, where scamming does exist, it can go on for long periods without attention being drawn to particular player combinations.

Another common concern surrounds surveillance. Do they provide the same protection for the public as they do to protect their pit bankroll? Some have argued that the casinos don't really care if the players are cheated in poker, they generate revenue from cutting the games, and their bankroll is never at risk. This is partially true, but, overall, an absurd contention. Although most clubs do not exert the same amount of time and energy watching the poker games as they do their pit games, for the obvious monetary exposure, they definitely care and will aggressively investigate anylmpropriety. Smart management knows that even the rumor of cheating can have devastating consequences.! History has proven this to be the case as more than one poker room has closed down as a result of some damaging stories.

I Its a safe bet that cheating in today's poker rooms is rare,,especially in the( smaller to midsize games. As you jump up in limit, Overcoming the once notorious reputation has been slow. I've heard rumors pf virtually every top player doing something at one time or another, and there may be some truth to these rumors . . . twenty-five years ago! It was a different game back then. My friend and poker expert, Ron Conley, succinctly summed up the old days, stating, "Back then,, certain clubs and jurisdictions were governed by a coldblooded ultimatum, you were either in, or you were out." j Today, however, I contend that most rumors are spawned without substance. Most involve! some high profile players chopping up some sucker with a big bankroll. The stories inevitably permeate the industry and always with a tone of impropriety, but is this fair? What chance does a soft play have against the best players in the world? Why is the inevitable always reason for suspicion?

To better assess these issues, we'll focus on four essential areas: player collusion, holding out, dealer manipulation, and strong arm Cheating. Marked cards are discussed in chapter ten, "Universal Scams", which is the only practical way to handle marking systems that apply to many card games.

 

[cyph]

COLLUSION

It was called pokers dirty little secret by T. Nolan Dalla, author and contributor to Card Player Magazine. In his 1996 article titled,"On Cracking Collusion Artists and Busting Partner Scams" (The Intelligent Gambler, ConJelCo, 1996), he goes on to say:

It's a problem few may even be aware of. It's a subject even fewer will openly discuss. Inexplicably, there is no written advice nor printed guidelines in existence as to what course of action is appropriate : when faced with the stark reality that—on any given day, at any given table—you might be the target. We’re talking about collusion, or partner teams, which in todays cardrooms are the primary threat to the individual player and his or her bankroll.

The problem of players teaming up and signalling information is not a new concern. Almost fifty books on the game had surfaced pre-1900 containing many references to the possibility and ramifications of player collusion. Yet you will never come across any reference of substance on this subject, because none exists. Poker, when played on the square, is incredibly complex and one of the most difficult games on the planet to analyze. Even the correct way to play a single hand in a particular situation is subject to much debate and individual interpretation. After working out the essential mathematics, one must factor in a multitude of variables dealing with the human element, and multiway pots can be a nightmare. Now add the possibility of collusion between two or more players, and you will quickly see why this form of cheating has an intangible quality that is difficult to assess.

Its a controversial subject. Many will argue that the problem is blown way out of proportion, while others support the notion that the threat isreal. You be the judge, here are the basics.

Lets set the tone with a true story. I suspect it will surprise a lot of readers, and take you to a part of the game unknown to the vast majority of players and gamers.

Local Courtesy

Some years back I'm in a seven-card stud game. A tough local stud player bets out on seventh street, a tourist calls, and it comes to me. It appears unlikely that the local is bluffing because he can get called in one or both spots. To make a long story short, I decide to muck my hand, and, as it turns out, I threw away the best hand (I didn't hit my kicker, and backed into two small pair).

About fifteen minutes later, another local pro, who happened to be watching the hand, pulls me aside. He asks me if I noticed the single check in the local's hand when he bet out. I thought about it for a second, and said, "Yes, I may have noticed it, but so what?" The player went on to explain that the single check indicated that the player had bet out with one big pair—essentially a bluff. I was

 

[cyph]

puzzled. Here’s a player I’ve never talked with, but for some reason hes trying to signal me. Why?

Playing with a single check Was his way of saying, "Were both locals, I just bluffed with one pair and got caught by the tourist, don't throw away any marginal hands, lets keep the money in the game." I was told that his unsolicited signal was just a local courtesy’.

The most common form of this unwritten generosity occurs when a player attempts to signal, "I've got aces, get out of the way." There are many traditional signals that indicate aces, and most deal with the action or placement of the first finger. It could be the only finger on the short end of the holecards, the finger may be tapping, it may be the only finger pouching the center of the card, and so on; Another variation of this ploy occurs when a player raises in the middle of the table with an ace, and a weak player tails. So the initial bettor signals to any street smart player that he's through with the hand, don't be afraid of the ace as it was just a one-shot play. This can be conveyed by slightly crossing the index fingers of both hands as if saying, "I got crossed up," or resting the hand on the side of the cards, which signals, "I’m ready to throw my hand away."

If you ask most players if they have ever been involved in collusion, they will quickly say no. But then ask them if they have ever had a buddy sitting next to them bump their knee or tap their foot under the table to warn them, “I've got a big hand." Whether they will admit it or riot, this has happened to most players during their careers.

I In our first example of collusion, notice that there are no prearranged signals, just an accepted way of playing the game with:some pros, rounders, and cheaters.

Top Hand

Consider this situation. Player A has two aces> player B has two kings, and players A and B are partners. The aces signal their strength and the.two kings are mucked, but player C wins the spot with a flush. Even though player C wins, he has been cheated! Instead of winning 2 to 1 on his. money, he just wins even money. This is what playing 'top hand’ is all about. Only the best hand plays, and the husders never give up 2 to 1> or any odds, on the money. The impact can be magnified when more than two players are working this arigle> and it really figures to make a dent in shorthanded games.

« Additionally, playing top hand allows the. partners to put on a show when they are the only players in the pot. They can ram and jam, creating the illusion of a fast game, which may entice others to loosen up.

The offices are typically given for one pair, two pair, trips, and pat hands. In shorthanded games, medium pairs, small pairs, and ace-high may alio be signaled. The detail provided by signalling depends on the sophistication of the cheaters, and the specific game and conditions.

I have always contended that playing top hand may be one of the most undetectable scams in gaming. In our example, once those kings hit the muck, what proof does anyorie have of a scam? Interestingly, Internet poker may have finally found a way to! detect these as some sites monitor

 

[cyph]

unusual actions, such as a Hold’em player discarding two kings before the flop with two aces out there. Those hands are saved in a file for future corroboration should an investigation ensue. Despite the subdeties of playing top hand, one tell persists, the absence of action between suspect players. This is particularly true if the crew is 'deep', that is, with three or more players.

Crossfire/Whipsawing/ Middling

The ruse is well-known and involves two or more partners raising and reraising to 'middle' an unsuspecting player. Although a rank approach when used in the latter rounds of any game, as its more blatant, it can look perfectly natural on the early streets in stud, or before the flop in Hold'em, especially when the game is fast. When players are in these traps they’re always looking at two bets and sometimes three. If its a setup with three players sitting next to one another, or in close proximity, one sees three different raise and reraise combinations (AB, AC, BC). The primary goal of this scam is to put heat on marginal hands with weaker hands, and it can be difficult for legitimate players to fade the represented strength of the upcards, flops, positions, and action.

These angles are commonly combined with playing top hand. When the weaker players start to loosen up, the cheaters will slow down, be more selective, and revert back to just playing top hand.

There are standard countermeasures against this form of collusion, and they are, (l) limiting the number of raises per round, found in all forms of legalized poker, and (2) allowing players the right to ask that a hand be shown to the table following a bet and call; or check-check in some dubs. But even with these safeguards in place, the scam still surfaces, and it can still be effective,

Prearranged Strategies

Lets say that you and I decide to get into the same stud game, and we agree to follow a particular strategy. The strategy may consist of numerous rules based on position, upcards, and players. For our purposes, lets assume that our agreement is simple. If I raise you, I can beat your upcard; if you reraise, you can beat my upcard; and a call means that you’re on a.draw, the same for me. Our prearranged strategy, albeit simple, is clearly cheating, yet no signals are used at any time. One obvious disadvantage to the players is that they can never win 2 to 1 when the partners each hold two big pairs. Prearranged strategies are no different than prearranged signals.

Playing Cousins

When a player will mix it up against certain players, but not others, it's often referred to as playing cousins'. You see it every day in the rooms. A player may raise my queen with a king and no legitimate hand, but the same play against his buddy could only indicate split kings or better—there’s no deception.

 

[cyph]

When two players are locked into this kind of playing relationship, youjean forget about bluffing, check raising, and aggressive ante stealing, just a lot of saved bets as they're playing each other soft and straightforward with no razzle-dazzle. Playing this; predictably is no crime, as we all have the right to play our hand in any way we see fit. This kind of playing relationship, however,1 may>jmpacf ithe game negativelydnother ways.

Here's what the experts have to say. In Winning Concepts in Draw and Lowball (Mason MalmutHf? 1988), the author pointed out:

mBffl)pe$)ayers often agree not to bluff each other and not to,bet.many hands Myalueintofeach,

^Mother. Whiskas the effect of changing the tempo of the game.in'.

'[ Malmuth also pointed out that the inexperienced player tends to notice these playing-patterns, such as certain players releasing their hands early. This prompts a more aggressive posture from the ' inexperienced player, only to find out that these actions are only consistent when ceruirvplayers afeuq the pot. It follows that playing cousins may p6;interpreted asJaTorm of partnershipjywhich it is, and, when viewed as a, form of cheating, it may drive the liyepnes^iway. This is not good tor the club or*; the players.

I Mike Caro supports these views, only stronger. In am early Poker Player (27 July, 1987) article, he said:

^^^^howingfappritism at the poker table is unethical' When you taked seat youreplayingyour ‘ mmfyips and nf one: elsesf Even the slightestperversion of this concept ruins poker. For everyone.

Interpretation of these approaches often hinges ;on the money. When two oYmoreplayersare playing out of the same pocket, a conspiracy is firmly in place, and when they're playing their own money, the waters are muddied.

No finer discussion of the^sociological aspects and interaction of poker players exists than in Professors David Hayano s marvelous work, Poker Faces — the Life and Work of Professional Poker Players (Hayano, 1982), He addresses the cloudy issue of cardroom morality, and provides us with the likely finotivation behind collusive play.

W^fsemjendships oftenidevelop between players who day after day spend long hours together in mutual epjoyment and suffering. These friendships, which may sometimes be solidified by ^feciprocalmpncylending, borrowing, and personal obligations, directly affect at-the-table play.

frollusive cheating, more soithanapy other method, is one of the most practiced and least detected ikxcardroom scams. There are two types: thefirst is aninformal arrangement between friendswho usually ^appropriately and playfridependently but who ascertain times develop a collusive understanding; the second type is a more formal collusion, built on aSecretive; working partnership...

 

[cyph]

He then relates a disturbing, though humorous, conversation with a floor person. I've included it to show just how far these combinations, or combines', can go.

It really got bad because of all the scamming. I’m not talking only about two people. I mean they were three and four deep, involved in signalling and trapping other players in the pot, It got to the point where they practically had to issue knee pads, there was so much knocking under the table.

I bet you at least three of the players had to go in for knee surgery after those games.

Perception

One of the problems in the game is the perception of impropriety. I remember walking into a room one time and asking the floorman," What’s happening in the big game?" He responded:

The bookmaker is in the one seat, his runner is playing in the two seat. The three seat is a pro, his' ‘ cousin is playing in the four seat, who also has a piece of the five seat. Everyone knows the six seat, he’s being staked by the same guy staking the seven seat, who also owes the bookmaker $200,000from last year’s foootball season. And the guyiri the eight seat, he’s the live one and the list is a mile long.

True story? Perhaps, but it definitely could be, as the scenarios along these lines are not uncommon. The story highlights the difficulty of convincing the vast majority of legitimate players that poker exists in its purest form. Unfortunately, this is a tough proposition to sell as poker is rarely played in its purest form. Poker is not a team sport, never has been, and never will be. Each time someone violates the true intention and spirit of the game, that is, the complete independence of a players mind, his actions, and his bankroll, then the game changes, and most will argue that it changes for the worse.

Its worth pointing out that in most of the bigger games, the pieces, the deals, and who’s staking who, is generally known to all players, somewhat mitigating these issues at these levels of play—at least in the minds of those who play these stakes.

Other Methods

There are many other forms of collusion. For example, 'getting action with the nuts' is where one : player signals his partners that he has the best hand and they should do everything they can to build a pot. When signalling for 'dead cards', a player is trying to evaluate the strength,of his hand, and, with two kings, he may ask his partners if they have discarded any aces, 'Ganging up with draws' is where two partners will attempt to squeeze out the big pair. Even when they can’t bully the big pair, the first cheater to make a his hand signals the other to muck his hand (sometimes only the livest

 

[cyph]

hand will give action). With many forms of collusion, only three actions need to be signaled: fold, call, or raise.

Certain games are more prone to this type of cheating. In split games, just knowing whether your partner is playing for high or low can be a tremendous amount of.information. Some contend that collusion scams work best in games where the final strength of a hand is known very early, such as getting dealt a pat hand in draw br lowball. A game like Hold’em may be less vulnerable since the flop can completely change the direction of an individual hand. Others claim that the scam works best in stud, at least according to one early source. Although the following comments were made in reference to five-card stud, they may hold true in seven-card stud as well. In Poker to Win (A1 Smith, 1931), the author ’contends that:

Playing signals in stud poker gives the partners an even greater percentage than in draw oh .account : of the fact that there are so many times a hand is a cinch to win... cross-firing is also more successful in stud because the man with a pair of kings cannot stay in the pot with two experienced cheaters I each of whom has an ace showing.

To most gamers who have only worked the pits watching blackjack, craps, and roulette, the poker room can be foreign. The players,; bosses, game structure, even the revenue process, all contribute to a completely different gambling experience. No game protection topic better illustrates the differences than the topic of collusion.

In the end, similar views of this form of cheating have persisted for over a hundred years. In one of the true classics on card sharping, The Expert at the Card Table, the author had this to say about collusion. It was referred to as confederacy back then, and I've paraphrased it. I
I There are, hundreds of small but ultimately certain advantages to be gained Jrom collusion and no single player can defeat a combination even when the cards are not marked or manipulated.

..Tournaments

Tournaments are entirely different animal, subject to their own whims and practices. Issues have been raised about trading pieces, buying pieces, numerous players getting staked from the same money, and final table arrangements for chopping up the prize money. Other forms of collusion can occur when the money is manipulated, such as the case when a short stack feeds it to his partner, (that is, purposely loses) when its unlikely that he can place in the money, or has litde chance in a "one player wins all" freezeout satellite or tournament.

Numerous authorities have publically denounced these practices, but to date, they've proven difficult to stop.

 

[cyph]

SHUFFLE SCAMS

In most shuffle related pit scams, the legitimate player is not a factor. This is not the case at the poker table. The psychology, the techniques, they all change when a legitimate player sits directly in front of the dealer, watching his every move. If the shuffle is compromised at the poker table, its happening right in front of legitimate players. It must be deceptive. One might assume that this factor adds an inherent layer of protection to the game,' /It can, but not always. Although it takes more skill to fake the shuffle in casino poker than in blackjack, baccarat, or other casinp card games, the best false shuffles can be so convincing that even a knowledgeable player burning the procedure can be fooled. To get a grasp on what's possible, here are some of the basics.

Culling

■Culling is the act of securing certain cards. Generally, the dealer must know the positions of certain cards before he can manipulate them, and culling is the first step. Its important to understand the logic, because with many of these scams, thisphase is the best bppdrhinity for detection.

Culling usually takes place: prior to the shuffle.1 Any faceup card can be culled to the top or bottom of the deck with the intent to control it. The faceup cards most targetted are the exposed hole cards, the board cards in Hold'em and Omaha, and the upcards in stud and Razz.

A subtle method occurs when the.,dealer;'s partner takes a hand to the river with no callers!; They are then mucked in a way that signals m&dfealer,^-“Lets '.work with this hand." The dealer can now false shuffle and control these culled cards in af variety jof (ways!without ever knowing what cards are being manipulated.

Culling can also take place by the dealer or player during the scramble or shuffling procedure. Cards can be exposed following a scramble or.wash asithe dealer turns the muck bpjits^sideto square the cards, with one or more cards being.memorized by the dealers partners. A dealer may.look down into the shuffle during the riffling action ro peek one Qr mo very sophisticated approach occurs

when the dealer purposely riffles in a mariner! that enables his partner, sitting!brthis',immediate right, to peek one or more cards as they are riffled. See the Peek Stack for, the details. . ' ,

Even marked cards have been used to facilitate culling. .Assume the aces are marked and the dealer is shuffling honestly. Each time he breaks the deck for the riffle, he can read the top card of each half. If no ace is spotted, he strips and breaks the.deck for another shuffle. Two more caras are read. If an ace is spotted, the appropriate half is riffled' last, bringing the ace to. the top. This single card can now be stacked for the dealers partner in a:shorthande4 Hold’em or split game—a significant advantage.

Another method utilizes one, or more 'in-strippers'. These are specially prepared cards: that are lightly shaved in the center to give them a barely perceptible hourglass shape. The cards can be

 

[cyph]

legitimately riffled and stripped, but when it comes time for the cut, its relatively easy for the dealer to cut a stripped card to the top. If the in-strippers are aces, and the dealers partner sits in the one-seat in stud or Razz, this technique guarantees an ace as his starting card.

Scramble / Wash
Many shuffling procedures require a scramble, especially those with bad-beat jackpots. Even when the scramble is not part of the routine procedure, the players can generally request a scramble at any time. Numerous methods have been developed to attack this procedure.

One technique is called 'weeding. It appears that the dealer ‘I picks up the winning hand kills it ‘into the center of the muck, where a series of short, random scrambles follow. What actually occurs is that the left hand opens up the muck like a book (Fig; f1), but closes quickly as the winning hand is tossed on top (Fig; 2).

The muckvis spread as the right hand grabs a few cards from the center, makes some random insertions (Fig; 3), and then scoops up the cards and squares. The winning hand remains on top.





The following method of fooling the sky was used to take off bad-beat jackpots, and its bold, but all the players were part of the scam. Just before the scramble, the top half of the deck was palmed as the remaining cards were spread and a normal scramble began. As the cards were moved under the left hand in preparation for squaring, the entire palmed half is added to the top. All the other cards were gathered to the bottom, beneath the slug. The muck was turned on its side, the cards squared, and the false shuffles began.

 

[cyph]

The following method of fooling the sky was used to take off bad-beat jackpots, and its bold, but all the players were part of the scam. Just before the scramble, the top half of the deck was palmed as the remaining cards were spread and a normal scramble began. As the cards were moved under the left hand in preparation for squaring, the entire palmed half is added to the top. All the other cards were gathered to the bottom, beneath the slug. The muck was turned on its side, the cards squared, and the false shuffles began.

 

[cyph]

From above, the deck shortage isn't as obvious as you might suspect. The scramble looks real, because it is, but only for half the deck.
For another method of faking the scramble, the winning hand starts on top of the muck, and the entire muck is spread tossed to the left (Figs. 8 and 9). The right hand kicks out the center of the spread (Fig. 10) as the left hand immediately slides the original top of the spread back to the right hand. These cards will slide on top (Fig. 11), and then both hands move together, gathering the cards, adding a few at a time to the bottom of the muck. The process continues until the muck is tight enough to turn on its side and square (Fig. 12). Again the winning hand remains on top during the move.





False Shuffles
In the chapter on blackjack, we've already talked about the lopsided riffle shuffle, a fundamental tool for controlling a relatively small slug of cards. The same move is used in poker. A lopsided riffle is generally combined with a false strip to set up a method for nullifying the cut. Here are just a few of the many possible scenarios.

Top Slug

After the desired cards are culled to the top, the first two lopsided riffles control the slug by simply allowing the slug to fall last. The bottom third of the deck is now legitimately stripped with the first packet stepped slightly to the right, setting a brief (Fig. 13). As the cards are squared, the stepped cards are angled out the back. The left thumb hits this jog, creating a break, and cuts the top two-thirds to the left for the last riffle (Fig. 14). The left hand drops the slug first, and the rest of the shuffle is normal (Fig IS). As the deck is squared, the right side is once again pushed in and angled back, again creating