Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IT Technology

After Chess, Cheating Rows Rock Poker and Fishing (bbc.com) 105

Posted by msmash from the growing-concern dept.
AmiMoJo writes: First it was chess -- now top-level US poker and match fishing have been dogged by their own claims of cheating. A casino is investigating after one player stunned poker fans by making an audacious bet to win a huge pot. Meanwhile, two fishermen have been accused of stuffing their catches with lead weights in order to win a tournament held on Lake Erie, Ohio. And world chess officials are probing whether a teen talent cheated in face-to-face matches -- something he denies. A row erupted following a high-stakes game held at the Hustler Casino in Los Angeles on Thursday night. Robbi Jade Lew stunned the table by appearing to successfully call a semi-bluff by her opponent Garrett Adelstein. Lew called an all-in bet by her opponent, risking her chips with an underwhelming hand, apparently convinced her opponent was bluffing and scooping a pot that had grown to $269,000. Pundits commentating during the livestreamed match expressed their incredulity at the gambit, while Adelstein gave his competitor an icy stare.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After Chess, Cheating Rows Rock Poker and Fishing More

After Chess, Cheating Rows Rock Poker and Fishing

Comments Filter:

  • the mob will put some lead weights on you when you cheat in there Casino

    • the mob will put some lead weights on you when you win in their Casino [ftfw]

      Cheating is not necessary to anger casinos, simply failing to give them all of your money is enough

      • You are not supposed to know your players hand unless it was called. Sounds like both had relatively band hands. Maybe he had a tell. The poker one is BS
      • Casinos don't mind if you win without cheating, not even the mob casinos. They have to have some winners as a form of advertising. When you win at the casino, they give you a free night in the hotel and a buffet breakfast to keep you there a day longer. They almost always get the money back.

        • Winners are never a problem. Most gamblers will lose it all and more on the next night. A winner is just a future loser.

          Winners' money is tied to an elastic band.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

          >Casinos don't mind if you win without cheating, not even the mob casinos.

          As long as they get to define what is cheating and what is not, of course!

          • The only thing I can infer this comment to mean is that the mob casinos tend to kick out card counters just like any other casino does. Even mob casinos don't want a bad reputation. I once played in a casino in St. Petersburg Russia where I not only counted but I found a confused dealer who would pay me half of my bet when I surrendered rather than take half of my bet. The pit boss eventually saw what was happening and came over furious. I figured that was my demise. He just yelled at the dealer. A te
    • I was walking around a casino, decided to stand and watch the blackjack tables. Turns out the pit bosses get really upset when you stand behind the dealer!

      • Turns out the pit bosses get really upset when you stand behind the dealer!

        No shit!

        LOL!

        • Pit bosses get annoyed when you watch in general. They know you're looking for a dealer on a losing streak or tracking cards so you know when to jump in. They'd rather you just find an empty seat, sit down, and play.
          • You don't need to stand behind the dealer to count cards. You can see them from anywhere in the casino. It might annoy the pit bosses but standing their and counting the cards isn't illegal.

            However, if you stand behind the dealer, you might see the dealer's hole card. Should you signal players at the table as to the value of that hole card, that's an illegal form of cheating.

            If you do stand there and see the card, you might have a visible reaction and the casino might deem you to be cheating. There

            • Yes, that was kind of the point I was trying to make. I realized why he didn't want me there as soon as he asked me to move, they don't want anybody to be able to see the dealer's cards.
              • They're afraid a collusion. If you can see the dealer's face down card, you can signal a player at the table to hit or stand.

          • Haven't been to Vegas in a long time but at local casinos it is not possible to stand behind the dealer. Tables are always back to back.

    • Not any longer. They will ask you to leave or state that you are not allowed to play the game they caught you cheating. Fishing on the other hand, one can get hurt, unless tournament organizers cheat themselves, which happens quite often.

  • The fish is smarter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday October 03, 2022 @03:09PM (#62934533) Journal

    CNN: "[Director of tournament said] he was immediately suspicious when one team's fish weighed almost twice what he expected" [emphasis added]

    What kind of dumbass cheater makes the weight double? When you cheat you gotta be subtle to not attract attention. Desperation? Drugs? Football concussions?

    • I read about the fishing thing elsewhere the other day and thought, as did apparently everyone else there, that it was an amateur-hour stupid move. Now these guys are being investigated by the police and about other tournaments in which they've participated.

      Personally, I think fishing competitions are dumb and boring, but to each their own. However, with the amount of cheating in this "sport" (some people have put ice in their fish, to increase the weight, that melts after weighing) I suggest an update t

      • an update to make things more interesting where *everyone* cheats and the awards go to those who (a) can't be discovered and (b) are the cleverest

        Isn't this already the case in most sports?

    • I'm confused that any fishing tournament has a prize valuable enough to be worth cheating to win. I guess these guys aren't out there for the FUN of it!

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by chill ( 34294 )

        The organization involved gave out more than $500,000 in tournament prizes in 2021. Fishing is big business.

      • These guys that were busted had over $300k in winnings last year plus a boat and had professional sponsors.

        Like all sports, when you get into the upper tier level of competition there's money to be made. I personally rarely fish tournaments but even in the amateur level stuff I've won a few prizes of around $1k.

      • Some of these tournaments can bring in great prizes. People cheat, what are you going to do, but also organizers cheat too. I had a small tournament where my buddy was winning with a province record walleye caught, but about 10 minutes before the end, organizers announced that a small girl caught a fish off the dock which was a bit bigger than the leading fish up until this point. No girl or fish was ever produced, so everyone just went home. I still participate in Salmon Derby every year, usually the t
    • It's a fishing tournament. You expect smart?

    • "Doesn't everyone put the tackle in the bait?"

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday October 03, 2022 @03:15PM (#62934565)

    Robbi Jade Lew stunned the table by appearing to successfully call a semi-bluff by her opponent Garrett Adelstein.

    Calling a (suspected) bluff is now considered cheating? Maybe Lew just read Adelstein (correctly) and went with it.

    Lew called an all-in bet by her opponent, risking her chips with an underwhelming hand, apparently convinced her opponent was bluffing and scooping a pot that had grown to $269,000. Pundits commentating during the livestreamed match expressed their incredulity at the gambit, while Adelstein gave his competitor an icy stare.

    Apparently "pundits" aren't aware of the saying, "No risk, no reward."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by OverlordQ ( 264228 )

      Guys have done the exact same thing and it's been billed as a "smart play".

      So I think we all know why people are upset.

      • I actually hadn't considered what you're implying, but it seems pretty plausible.

        • I actually hadn't considered what you're implying, but it seems pretty plausible.

          Well if you're thinking along those lines keep in mind the accuser is a former Survivor contestant [fandom.com] who answered a questionnaire thusly:
          If You Could Have 3 Things on The Island What Would They Be and Why? One big picture of all the people closest to me in my life to prevent loneliness, one long chain email between myself and my four best friends for endless hilarity, and a naked picture of a girl I enjoy hooking up with, in case all the attractive girls get voted off early.
          Reason for Being on Survivor: Win

      • The one who is upset is Garrett Adelstein. That was NOT an "icy stare". That was a confused meme. [knowyourmeme.com]
        He tried to bluff her, going all-in, she read him, called his bluff - he had a minor stroke. [youtu.be]

        Then he apparently started harassing her off-camera.

        There followed an exchange of words on and off camera, with the two players giving conflicting accounts afterwards of what was said.
        Lew ended up returning Adelstein his chips, saying she had been "threatened" - something Adelstein denied.
        She challenged her opponent to a head-to-head match, tweeting: "After I'm vindicated, let's go heads up. The whole world can watch me read you all day."
        In his own tweet, Adelstein said he had been "clearly cheated", claiming that his suspicions were confirmed by reviewing previous playing footage of Lew.
        He speculated that his opponent might have been wearing a vibrating device that was used to communicate information to her, though conceded it was impossible to know.
        Match organisers are investigating, stressing there is not yet any proof of wrongdoing.

        Though granted, a lot of guys in the twitter thread apparently can't fathom that call and only way they can square that in their head is if she cheated. Cause they "feel like she cheated".
        Which says a lot more about them then about the reality of the situation.

        • Yeah, these two things are not consistent:

          • In his own tweet, Adelstein said he had been "clearly cheated", claiming that his suspicions were confirmed by reviewing previous playing footage of Lew.
          • He speculated that his opponent might have been wearing a vibrating device that was used to communicate information to her, though conceded it was impossible to know.

          If previous footage showed her cheating, he'd be able to point out the giveaway cues (or statistical analysis) to his audience, not aimlessly speculate

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          >He speculated that his opponent might have been wearing a vibrating device that was used to communicate information to her, though conceded it was impossible to know.

          So... she had a remotely controlled vibrator in her to tell her when he's cheating.

          Someone needs to watch less weird porn.

      • I would upvote if I could
      • That is such a bad, against-the-odds bet that most people who have ever played poker think either that she is incomprehensibly dumb or is cheating. She says she is a good player. She has gone from playing at low level tournaments to a small string of significant wins at big cash games. Only really, really bad players would make a bad bet like that.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      Apparently "pundits" aren't aware of the saying, "No risk, no reward."

      If you read TFA there are actual accusations of cheating by one player.

      In his own tweet, Adelstein said he had been "clearly cheated", claiming that his suspicions were confirmed by reviewing previous playing footage of Lew.
      He speculated that his opponent might have been wearing a vibrating device that was used to communicate information to her, though conceded it was impossible to know.

      But there is no way to tell from TFA whether there actually was cheating in this case.

      However, the fish story is proven cheating.

    • Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday October 03, 2022 @04:02PM (#62934751)

      Robbi Jade Lew stunned the table by appearing to successfully call a semi-bluff by her opponent Garrett Adelstein.

      Calling a (suspected) bluff is now considered cheating? Maybe Lew just read Adelstein (correctly) and went with it.

      Lew called an all-in bet by her opponent, risking her chips with an underwhelming hand, apparently convinced her opponent was bluffing and scooping a pot that had grown to $269,000. Pundits commentating during the livestreamed match expressed their incredulity at the gambit, while Adelstein gave his competitor an icy stare.

      Apparently "pundits" aren't aware of the saying, "No risk, no reward."

      I don't know poker well enough, but the specific accusation is that her play and resulting explanation made no sense (even in the sense of bluffing). His conclusion was that she must be cheating [twitter.com], an alternate explanation I think she's made is that she thought her 4 was a 3 (meaning she had a pair) so she was playing with the assumption that her hand was stronger than it was (and she was too embarrassed to admit the error after). Of course there could be other reasons.

      He then apparently confronted her after the hand and she gave him back the money she won off of him. He framed this as her being caught in the act and giving up her ill-gotten winnings in an effort to make the problem go away. She framed this as being bullied and physically intimidated, so she gave him the winnings in an effort to make him go away and deescalate.

      Honestly, I tend to believe her side of the story. His explanation sounds a lot like sour grapes over loosing the hand, not to mention his bafflement that her friend got mad at him after the confrontation that resulted in her giving the money back [twitter.com] speaks to some very weird judgment and someone who might have bullied her into refunding and them convinced himself otherwise after the fact.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        There's an interesting similarity with the chess case. Unusual play throws another player off, and they accuse their opponent of cheating.

      • When there is $269k at stake, isn't there security at these events? I don't buy that as the reason she returned that kind of money. Screaming for security and calling 911 would seem to be a better option. Now admittedly people do all kinds of things in a panic. But poker players, in a situation with security, should be able to keep their cool enough to not just give away a quarter million dollars.

    • Robbi Jade Lew stunned the table by appearing to successfully call a semi-bluff by her opponent Garrett Adelstein.

      Calling a (suspected) bluff is now considered cheating? Maybe Lew just read Adelstein (correctly) and went with it.

      Lew called an all-in bet by her opponent, risking her chips with an underwhelming hand, apparently convinced her opponent was bluffing and scooping a pot that had grown to $269,000. Pundits commentating during the livestreamed match expressed their incredulity at the gambit, while Adelstein gave his competitor an icy stare.

      Apparently "pundits" aren't aware of the saying, "No risk, no reward."

      Yea. Sometimes the tells all point to a bluff and you have to decide wether to go with your gut or fold based on probability. He made a bad bluff, and she called him. With televised matches and tiny electronics, cheating is possible. But absent strong evidence, just accept you made a bad bluff and play the next hand.

      • But absent strong evidence, just accept you made a bad bluff and play the next hand.

        Too much ego for that. Some politicians, not naming any names, should take your advice ...

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by crt ( 44106 ) on Monday October 03, 2022 @05:21PM (#62935041)

      The reason this is so suspicious is the idea in poker that "you can't call a bluff with a bluff" - that is, even if you think someone is bluffing, you can't call them if you don't have "some kind" of hand yourself.
      You can raise them, and try to get them to fold (even if you have nothing)... but you never call a bluff if you have nothing yourself.
      She had about as close to nothing as you can get - one over card and very few drawing outs. You can see from the percentages she was actually behind (even though she had the high card).
      This really means 1 of 3 things happened:
      1. She cheated - I don't know anything about the game/setup - apparently it was live-streamed but I have to believe they have a tape delay otherwise cheating would be trivial. No idea if there were spectators in the room, etc...
      2. She misread her hand (thought she had a 3 for example). This happens more often than you would believe, even for experienced players.
      3. She just made a bad call. I don't know anything about her, and crazier things have happened even if high stakes poker, but usually top players avoid calling with such a poor hand and poor outs.

      Odds are it's probably #2 or #3, but I can understand why the other player would immediately jump to #1.
      (also, for what it's worth, he really wasn't bluffing - it was a semi-bluff - that is, he hadn't made his hand yet, but he had a LOT of outs and was 50% to win against a huge number of possible hands.. thus a bet to take the pot was probably the right move to make).

      • Odds are it's probably #2 or #3, but I can understand why the other player would immediately jump to #1.

        Some have speculated #1 because she's a she.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

          Please point to the people who said that they suspect she was cheating because she's a woman, or because woman are not good at poker.

          I'm sure since you claimed there are you can give a link?

          Thanks.

          • Please point to the people who said that they suspect she was cheating because she's a woman, or because woman are not good at poker.

            I'm sure since you claimed there are you can give a link?

            I never said it was anyone at/from the tournament. Someone else on /. replied [slashdot.org] (quoted below) to my original comment, implying that people may be upset because she's a woman.

            Guys have done the exact same thing and it's been billed as a "smart play".
            So I think we all know why people are upset.

            So get off your high horse...

      • Thank you. This is, so far, the best post in the thread. Clear we don't have many serious poker players here (including me)

      • Just watching that hand it doesn't seem like she's a particularly smart or tight player, and she went all-in far too early for it to be cheating - it would have been very much a coin flip whether the turn and river would give him a winning hand. All she knew was that she had the top end of the straight that was building off the flop, which is why she commented at the end (slightly incoherently) that if the jack hadn't been a club she wouldn't have won. I think what she was trying to say is that without th

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by crt ( 44106 )

          Yes, this is a good point. Even if she knew exactly what he had (and especially if she did) the right move would be to fold, not call. The fact that she called is actually a strong indication she wasn't cheating.

        • Just watching that hand it doesn't seem like she's a particularly smart or tight player,

          Wouldn't a god(dess)-level poker player want to give people that very impression?

      • > 2. She misread her hand (thought she had a 3 for example).

        She looked at her hand before calling, so that's probably out.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by brunes69 ( 86786 )

        The idea she cheated is ridiculous because the river card had not been dealt. In fact IIRC the turn was not even dealt.

        Even though she was technically ahead after the flop, she had MUCH LOWER odds of winning.

        IE - if she WAS cheating, she never would have called.

        The fact is, it was a bad call, and she got lucky. That's why poker is still called gambling, even though skill is involved over a long time period, in any given hand, it is still random.

      • "You can raise them, and try to get them to fold (even if you have nothing)... but you never call a bluff if you have nothing yourself."

        The guy was all-in, so calling or folding is then the only option. An all-in is incapable of folding, or contributing more chips, so raising an all-in is pointless.

  • Other than planting a camera behind one's opponent?
    • Using a computer to keep track of all the cards and probabiliites to give yourself an advantage.
      • Good poker players keep track of all of the cards and probabilities without computers. If you need a computer to do that, you don't qualify as a poker player.

    • It looks like the players' cards can be seen on live TV, so the only issue is how can an accomplice transmit the information.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        If the broadcast wasn't on a time delay, then both players should sue the broadcaster. Leaks from inside a control room with live feeds should be the only possibility, but nobody should be able to view the feed from the table cameras. The only possible way should be a computer program that's intercepting the video feed and using recognition to read the cards, and then transmitting it to the cheater.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      The allegation is that there was a radio-operated vibrating device that allowed an observer who could see the opposing hand to signal what the cards were.

      This was apparently deduced from watching video footage of other games.

      Not sure if there's anything resembling proof, but this would certainly be cheating if true.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

        >This was apparently deduced from watching video footage of other games.

        If this was the case, then surely the guy could point to chapter and verse and his analysis of it? No? Hmmm.

  • I know these are one-offs, but it seems generally that personal integrity and truth have been thrown away in exchange for something less valuable.

    • personal integrity and truth have been thrown away in exchange for something less valuable

      For most people, the values of these seem to be zero; and all regrets upon being caught are a display because of lost reputation.

  • People cheat in poker? I've never heard of such a thing! Certainly it hasn't been happening since the 1700s or longer!

  • But now the media is fixated on it.

  • On the poker subject... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Monday October 03, 2022 @03:59PM (#62934733)

    It does seem suspicious that the accused returned the money. That's a lot of cash to cough up because somebody threatened you in a hallway.

    • I came here to say the same thing. I would not give back $269K unless ordered to do so by a court.
    • I find it suspicious that he threatened her in the hallway. If he thought that she was cheating, why not take it up with the organizers?

    • It does seem suspicious that the accused returned the money. That's a lot of cash to cough up because somebody threatened you in a hallway.

      I agree that is the most suspicious thing to me. Though I don't know how wealthy these people actually are... nor whether those chips are actually real dollars*.

      * I know at least some of those competitive poker games play for hundreds of thousands of "dollars", but it's not real money and it's just used for rankings or gets cashed out to a much smaller amount.

    • Kind of depends on whether you find replacing the cash easier than dealing with the threat. If she's losing her winnings to a threat though, it certainly will encourage future threats.

    • It's suspicious that a mugging victim gave up their money?

      If she was legitimately scared, giving up the money to get out of an immediate threat is rational.

      If she is a cold and calculating cheater, she can now accuse him of a crime to counter his accusation of a tort.

      Either way, it makes sense to give up the money.

  • Rock Paper Scissors?
    Rows Rock Poker and Fishing
    Sounds kinda red-neck.... Which leads to Orange Man!

    • the trick in Rock Paper Scissors table game is to do what will kill the dealer hands as the dealer will make there hand kill the big better.

  • What's next... (Score:3, Funny)

    by magnetar513 ( 1384317 ) on Monday October 03, 2022 @04:07PM (#62934779)
    cycling?
  • Why not have them compete in a Faraday cage? Just a single cable going in for the cameras.

    • Maybe, but there are still ways around that, such as ultrasonics. Maybe they would have to couple that with having a very limited live audience and a 3 move broadcasting delay. But that might turn people off chess; how are you going to run lesser tournaments like that?

  • People Will Cheat at Anything (Score:3)

    by Tempest_2084 ( 605915 ) on Monday October 03, 2022 @05:18PM (#62935031)
    I've always been amazed at the dumbest things people will cheat at. I understand when there's money or fame involved (I don't agree with it, but at least it makes sense), but I've seen people cheat at games where there was absolutely nothing at stake (or at least nothing of value). I think some people have to win at any cost or they think that the world will look down on them somehow.

    At my office I can remember during a training session there was a game to see if everyone understood the lesson, so people were divided into to teams and some questions were asked. There was no prize or fame involved, it was literally a learning tool and nothing more. At least two of the four teams were caught trying to look up the answers on their phones when they thought no one was looking and were called out by the instructor (to his credit, the instructor did try to keep the admonishment lighthearted). But still, people were cheating during what amounted to a company mandated class that no one really wanted to be at for absolutely no gain. I still can't believe that those people were my co-workers.

  • I thought it was usually just by length, from tip of snout to the fin.

    I mean, when you hear fish stories, they always say "I once caught a fish ... *this big*", holding their hands apart to give you a visualization, you never hear people talk about them in terms of weight.

    • Pretty much all fishing tournaments and records are done by weight - though usually most regulations on what fish you're allowed to keep versus required to throw back are based on length.

      And amongst other anglers you often will hear them talk about fish in terms of weight. EG bass fishermen will always talk about their personal best catch in terms of "My best is 8 lbs" or "By best is 10 lbs". Its just that to non-anglers its often hard to mentally visualize a fish based on a weight description, so they ju

  • It's not Lake Erie Ohio, it's just Lake Erie. It's an international body of water. No one would say, Atlantic Ocean, USA.

    • The tournament organization & weigh-in were not on Lake Eerie - they were in Ohio. Realistically the Ohio part gives more detail.

      To use your own example if you had a really good tuna catch you wouldn't respond to "Where did you catch that?" with just "The Atlantic Ocean" - you'd say something like "In the Atlantic off the coast of Massachusetts.".

  • You are not playing against half a dozen strangers, you are playing against a dorm-room.

  • Fake lips, fake tits, fake everything.

  • OK I can understand how to cheat at chess or at poker. But fishing? Do fish accept bribes or something?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. Hate me because I'm beautiful, smart and rich." -- Calvin Keegan

Close