On the “Girah” Saga; or, Online Poker Tied Up in a Knot

Spent a little time this morning rooting around over on Two Plus Two and elsewhere, getting somewhat caught up on this “Girah” saga that appears to involve just about every form of cheating one can imagine in online poker, including multi-accounting, collusion, chip-dumping, and hole-card viewing. The story also features a lot of other examples of ethically suspect behavior, most of which appearing to involve the fabrication of identities online (both for playing poker and for other forms of interaction, including forum posting).

For those with an interest in learning more about it all, the “Cliff notes” post over on 2+2 is a good place to start. There you’ll find a readable synopsis that also links out to many other sources for the sordid tale’s various characters and episodes. Might also dial up the most recent episode of the Two Plus Two Pokercast (episode 184), where they talk a lot about the story as well as interview both Ben “sauce123” Sulsky and “King” Dan Smith about it.

I had started to write a post attempting to cover all the various ins and outs, but after fussing with how best to present the tale’s complicated twists and turns I realized I only had a few substantive observations to add. So rather than clutter the air with another (necessarily incomplete) account of what appears to have been going on over the last seven months or so with this José “Girah” Macedo character (pictured above), I’ll just fire off three observations about it before moving along.

The first concerns one of those involved, Haseeb Qureshi (a.k.a., “DogIsHead” or “INTERNETPOKERS”), loser of that crazy running prop bet with Ashton Griffin earlier this year and recently let go by CardRunners as an instructor.

One “WTF” moment among the many that crop up in this story comes amid Haseeb Qureshi’s BLUFF interview, posted late yesterday. In the interview -- after Qureshi has admitted to multi-accounting, chip dumping, posting multiple times under a different name on Two Plus Two, and getting caught in a lie about being Macedo’s “agent” -- Qureshi is asked a question about Macedo’s original story, the one suggesting the 18-year-old had won more than $1.6 million in a remarkably short stretch even though those results were never corroborated anywhere.

Qureshi (and others, among them Dan “jungleman12” Cates) had maintained in the forums that Macedo’s results were legit, though now that seems likely not to have been the case. Qureshi is asked why he insisted Macedo’s results were genuine without there being any evidence to support that claim.

He “believed them,” Qureshi says, “because people faking results is such a ridiculously rare thing in the poker world. I would never suspect that someone would do anything like that unless they were a massive con artist, which I obviously didn’t imagine.”

Faking results in poker “ridiculously rare”? Probably more accurate to say it’s rare for players not to misrepresent their results. (That graph to the left is one that Macedo -- and/or Qureshi, actually, who says he helped Macedo with the post -- shared early on to show his results, a screenshot that omitted reference to screennames or sites.)

And, it goes without saying, Qureshi himself has many times over shown a readiness to misrepresent, lie, obfuscate, fake, what have you. How does Qureshi himself believe such a statement, let alone expect others to do so?

What is rare, I suppose, is for players to get away with faking results in their online play, particularly in the high-stakes games that are mostly (though not always) tracked by external sites. That leads to my second observation, which is simply to express amazement at how many appear to have been duped by the story of the “Portuguese poker prodigy.”

Lock Poker gave him a sponsorship. Brandon Adams tried to hire him as an instructor at his new Expert Insight website. And numerous other high-profile pros and posters -- not to mention all of the poker media reporting on his dazzling yet undocumented rise to the highest-stakes games -- readily bought in as well.

Sure, in some ways the story resembled that of Isildur1, Cates, and others. And all the various “vouching” going on by others with regard to Macedo played a significant role here as well. But without screen names or any confirmation of accounts played by Macedo, how does it happen that so many accepted his story as legitimate?

Interestingly, it seems as though the great majority of interactions with Macedo took place over Skype or via other online methods of communication -- i.e., there was little face-to-face contact with him by anyone involved, including his most vocal endorsers. Thus does this story demonstrate how the “virtual” world of online communication provides ready opportunities for the creation of personas as well as the potential to build elaborate fictions that are plausible enough to be regarded as fact.

My third observation is simply to reiterate a point already made by others with regard to the “Girah” saga. Without regulation, online poker will certainly continue to attract scammers and others looking to take advantage of a still highly vulnerable environment for financial transactions. Even with regulation, attempts by some to cheat and/or angle-shoot will (unfortunately) remain “part of the game,” although one would hope the chances of their getting away with such would be reduced.

The story made me wonder what exactly “girah” meant, and so I looked it up. Used to refer to a unit of measurement (in India and Pakistan), though with the metric system it is no longer used. Can also refer to a short passage that has been inserted into a song, often an allusion to another song (a kind of “sampling,” one could say).

But apparently the word also literally means “knot,” which I guess would be the most appropriate reference here. A lot of untangling yet to be done with regard to the “Girah” story.

Also a good way to refer to online poker, generally speaking, circa summer 2011. One big messy knot.

Sick Bet: Griffin, Qureshi, and “the World of Poker Players”

Creative, crazy, even dangerous proposition bets have long been part of poker. A few spring to mind.

Huck Seed once bet Phil Hellmuth $10,000 that he could float in the ocean for 24 hours without touching the bottom, though Seed forfeited the bet before making an attempt. Erick Lindgren won $340,000 from Gavin Smith, Phil Ivey, and others after he played 72 holes of golf in one day, shooting under 100 each round, in the 108-degree Vegas heat in June 2007. And this past summer, Ted Forrest won $2 million off Mike Matusow after managing to go from 188 lbs. to under 140 (138, to be exact) in the space of just two months. Forrest fasted the final 10 days straight to win that one.

Trumping them all, I suppose, is Brian Zembic, also a poker player though probably more of a blackjack/backgammon player. In the fall of 1996, Zembic won a $100K prop for receiving breast implants, the story of which was subsequently chronicled in Michael Konik’s 1999 anthology The Man With the $100,000 Breasts and Other Gambling Stories.

However much some want to argue that poker is somehow not gambling -- that its significant skill component allows one to approach the game as a strictly intellectual and/or psychological competition -- it is, in fact, a game that involves chance and is therefore a gambling game. Even if it weren’t, poker’s frequently close proximity to all those other gambling games -- usually just a few steps away in the casino (or a click away online) -- would probably increase the likelihood for action-seeking poker players to seek further opportunities to gamble. Especially when they are encouraged by fellow, like-minded “degens” as they are sometimes described, usually with a semi-serious mix of reproach and wonder.

You probably recently heard about another such prop bet, one involving a couple of young poker players, Ashton “theASHMAN103” Griffin and Haseeb “INTERNETPOKERS” Qureshi. Both have emerged over recent years as part of the latest generation of tough, successful online players, with Griffin additionally enjoying some big live scores including winning the $25,000 High Roller Bounty Shootout event at NAPT Venetian in February 2010.

Like Griffin, Qureshi has been involved in some of the highest-stakes online games, including being an early combatant of Viktor “Isildur1” Blom last year. His well-considered thoughts about those battles and their significance were shared by Qureshi on his CardRunners blog last fall (alluded to here).

Here the two roommates bet whether the 22-year-old Griffin, formerly a college wrestler and by most accounts well-conditioned athlete, could run 70 miles on a treadmill within a 24-hour period. The bet incorporated various provisions, and ultimately went off with Griffin giving Qureshi 3-to-1 on a wager of $285,000, meaning that if Qureshi lost he’d owe Griffin $285K and if Griffin lost he’d owe Qureshi $855K. Griffin booked an additional $15K of action with others, meaning he was risking a total of $900K -- not to mention the physical trauma of running nearly three marathons in one day -- to win $300K.

As reported on many outlets earlier this week, Griffin incredibly succeeded in the task and won the bet. Meanwhile, his friend Qureshi appears to have been affected by much more than having lost a significant portion of his bankroll. Yesterday and today Qureshi published a lengthy two-part account of the bet on his blog: The Million Dollar Bet, Pt. 1 and Pt. 2.

It’s a harrowing read, one that should give a great deal of pause to those eager to celebrate Griffin’s accomplishment and/or the undeniably fascinating culture that seems to produce such rash, risky behavior. Qureshi is highly self-critical throughout, recognizing the absurdity of the situation of his having bet on his friend’s body to fail him physically -- perhaps even irreparably. The experience seems to have been unrelentingly hellish for Qureshi (who turns 21 this year), and he writes with the self-awareness and perspective that belies his young age (and which he appears to have been lacking when he agreed to the prop).

Near the conclusion Qureshi speculates about “the world of poker players” in which he has lived for a short time, wondering if perhaps there is something “fundamentally unhealthy” present there of which all should be wary. It’s not a new observation he is making. But perhaps it is being made in a new way here -- and from a different perspective -- and thus might capture the notice of some it might not otherwise have gained.

People complain about the overuse of the term “sick” to describe risky maneuvers at the poker table or the awe-inspiring exploits of some of the games’ most celebrated “degens.” Qureshi’s account perhaps invites us to reconsider the term’s applicability to “the world of poker players,” including considering its possibly literal significance for some who inhabit it.

$1,356,946.50

It is interesting sometimes to read theories about how the money flows in online poker -- that is, how the cabbage tends to move from the less skilled players to the more skilled players, and how that transfer tends to work relative to the stakes being played.

Those with a better understanding of economics, generally speaking -- and “poker economics” in particular -- can comment on this subject much better than I can. (Which is to say, most of you, probably.) But what I tend to hear is that the money doesn’t “trickle down” from higher stakes games to lower stakes games, but rather moves in the opposite direction. That is to say, the better players win at the lower stakes, then take the money out of that level and move it into the higher stakes games. There they either keep winning and moving up, or encounter still better players and lose, with the winners taking the money to the next highest level. And so forth.

Of course, this has to end somewhere, yes? A highest level where the money stays until someone leaves the game with it all?

When it comes to online poker, that level appears to be the so-called “nosebleed” games over on Full Tilt Poker. There the site has designated five different stakes: Micro, Low, Middle, High, and Ivey’s Room. The latter, named after Full Tilt pro Phil Ivey, of course, is where we find the toppermost games such as $500/$1,000 no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha.

Those who play in such high-stakes games are generally known quantities, either Full Tilt pros like Ivey, Patrik Antonius, Gus Hansen, or Tom Dwan, or other non-Full Tilters whose identities are generally understood by those involved. Thus it was a somewhat novel development a few weeks ago when a new player -- named “Isildur1” -- showed up relatively unannounced to challenge poker’s current royalty.

Even more curious, the player (from Sweden, it seems) began winning. Big time.

Isildur1 had first arrived on the site sometime in September, starting out at the $25/$50 NLHE tables. By October he had moved up to challenge the likes of Cole South, Brian Townsend, and Brian Hastings at the $200/$400 and $300/$600 PLO and NLHE tables. At the start of November, he appeared to have settled into Ivey's Room, ready to take on all comers.

By last week, Isildur1 had become the talk of the virtual town, having amassed over $5 million in profit while occasionally seen taking on Ivey, Antonius, and Dwan simultaneously at multiple tables. One particularly epic session of multi-tabling took place between Isildur1 and Dwan in which the unknown Swede took more than $3 million off of Dwan.

The player Haseeb "INTERNETPOKERS" Qureshi keeps a well-written blog for CardRunners where he is one of the site’s stable of pros, and early last week he wrote a thoughtful post (dated 11/17/09) about the Isildur1 phenomenon. Qureshi played (and lost) to Isildur1 as the latter was on his way up in stakes, and shares some thoughts about their match. But he also speaks thoughtfully about the significance of Isildur1’s sudden rise to prominence and how it affects the “mythology of online poker.” If you are at all interested in the Isildur1 phenomenon, Qureshi’s post is a good read.

On Saturday night I found myself railing the games in Ivey’s Room. I saw Isildur1 playing multiple tables versus Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey while also participating in the $25,000 buy-in PLO heads-up tournament from which Isildur1 eventually busted in the quarterfinals. The games went back and forth for a while, then Isildur1 went on a big downswing, highlighted by a record-setting $1,356,946.50 pot won by Antonius (pictured at the top of the post).

In the hand, Antonius started with almost $1.26 million, while Isildur1 had just over $678,000. The buy-in at these $500/$1,000 PLO games is $200K, so that gives some indication of how well Antonius had been doing at this particular table versus Isildur1.

Most every hand between these two began with a pot-sized raise from the small blind/button, and this was no exception, with Isildur1 raising to $3,000. Antonius reraised pot to $9,000 -- something that happened, say, every fourth or fifth hand or so. Then Isildur1 reraised pot again to $27,000. That was relatively rare to see, but would happen every once in a while.

Then Antoinius reraised again to $81,000. I’d been watching the pair play four tables for the last hour or so, and I hadn’t seen that happen once. After thinking for a while, Isildur1 made the call.

With the pot already $162K, the flop came . Antonius requested time, then bet $91,000 -- a little over half the pot. Isildur1 then also requested time, ultimately raising to $435,000. Antonius reraised to $779,000, and Isildur1 called with his remaining $162,473.

Antonius held for a five-high straight. Isildur1 turned over for a big draw to a higher straight. Two Dimes says Antonius is 54.6% to win here and Isildur1 45.4%. The turn was the and the river the , and the Finnish pro’s hand had held. Total rake for the hand? Fifty cents.

By the end of Saturday, Isildur1 would lose something in the neighborhood of $3.3 million -- $2.1 mil to Antonius, and $1.2 mil to Ivey. Apparently he was back on last night to take on both Dwan and Ivey once again, and along the way won a $1,127,955 pot himself (vs. Ivey). Reports are Isildur1 got back something like $650-850K or so yesterday, all told.

Pretty surreal stuff, watching more than a million dollars sliding across the virtual felt like this. These games still haven’t quite reached the level of those “Andy Beal vs. the Corporation” limit hold’em matches of 2001-2004 in which the stakes got as high as $100,000/$200,000. Single pots frequently exceeded a million clams in those games, and multi-day sessions ended with swings of $10-15 million. Still somethin’ to see, tho’.

Who is Isildur1? Will he fully recover from Saturday’s setback? Or is he destined to go busto? If not, and the Swede takes all the big boys’ money, where will it go? Finally, to pose a question Qureshi does a good job addressing, what does it all mean?

Questions without answers, as yet. But we’ll keep watching.

Meanwhile, I’ll stick to my $25 buy-in PLO games. It’s relatively rare, but once in a while I’ll get involved in a pot as big as $135. I only have to win 10,000 of those to make what Antonius did in that one hand Saturday night.

(EDIT [added 1/3/10]: Per Pokerati, here is a cool video showing the big hand, plus a couple leading up to it as well as commentary:)