The Mistake Is Still There

I am so ready for football. Neither the MLB nor golf is doing it for me these days. I again kind of wish the World Series of Poker would fill this dead period in the sports calendar somehow -- ideally with televised coverage of the conclusion of the Main Event, with the November Nine becoming the August Nine (or something). But that ain’t happening.

Without any games yet to watch, I’m finding myself diverted by the various off-the-field stories swirling about as the season nears. Speaking of, I was diverted a little this afternoon listening to Chris Mortensen, ESPN’s longtime and much respected NFL reporter, talking to Dan Le Batard on his radio show about having been thrust into the middle of this “Deflategate” story involving the defending Super Bowl champs New England Patriots and their quarterback, Tom Brady.

Brady, as you’ve no doubt heard, has been suspended for four games by the NFL following a lengthy investigation into allegations that footballs used by the Pats in the AFC Championship game versus the Indianapolis Colts were underinflated. That investigation culminated in the so-called “Wells Report” in early May that concluded “it is more probable than not” than a couple of equipment assistants for N.E. “participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referees,” and also that it is “more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities.”

Five days after that report was released, the NFL announced Brady’s suspension, with the NFL Players Association promptly appealing it. The team was also fined $1 million and lost a couple of draft picks, penalties which were not appealed.

Thanks to the somewhat absurd procedure previously agreed to by the NFLPA, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell -- who handed down the suspension -- was the one getting to hear the appeal, and last week he upheld the ruling that Brady would be suspended for four games. Now it sounds like Brady will be trying to take the NFL to court over the matter.

Anyhow, backing up to the beginning of all of this there was an article by Mortensen on ESPN on January 21 -- after the AFC Championship game and before the Super Bowl -- appearing under the headline “11 of 12 Pats footballs underinflated.” The article remains on the ESPN site, including the much repeated statements that “The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots’ 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL’s requirements” and that “The investigation found the footballs were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what’s required by NFL regulations.”

For a few days there, “Deflategate” was all anyone was talking about. In fact the story more or less eclipsed all of the talk about the upcoming game between the Pats and Seattle.

That “Wells Report” in May clarified that apparently neither of those statements were correct. Problems with both are outlined in detail over on the NBC Sports’ Pro Football Talk site, if you’re curious. Balls were underinflated, it seems, though not as drastically as those inaccurate statements suggest.

But since the statements were referenced so much from January to May (and then even after May when they were shown to be incorrect), they affected how most viewed the whole episode. And since the NFL often operates like a political candidate insofar as it tends to lean this way or that according to how the public appears to stand, it’s reasonable to think the punishment and denial of the appeal were influenced (indirectly) by the way Mortensen’s report was taken to be true. (That the sources for his reporting -- undisclosed, of course -- no doubt emanated from the NFL itself, provides further reason for outrage among conspiratorial-minded Pats fans.)

Anyway, I didn’t mean to get carried away with summarizing all of that. Mainly I just wanted to respond briefly to Mortensen’s strange self-defense on the DLB show today, where he explained how he had compiled information from multiple sources to deliver his statements about the number of footballs that had been inflated “significantly below” the required levels. When asked what needed to be corrected in his article, Mortensen answered “What needs to be corrected has been corrected,” adding “I didn’t correct it on Twitter, which was a mistake by the way.”

But the article hasn’t been corrected. That’s a screenshot of the opening of it above, captured today (click to embiggen). The mistake is still there.

Later Mortensen gets asked “Is there a need to retract the original story?” and after answering no, he defends using the adverb “significantly” as a judgment call (which is fair) but repeats that “the two pounds PSI, that was obviously an error and clarified and corrected.” Again, it is strange to hear him insist the article has been corrected when it hasn’t been.

Regarding his failing to issue any kind of correction over Twitter, that he seems desirous to defend as an oversight caused by a lack of familiarity with social media. I was just writing on Friday about how Twitter remains for me a kind of ephemeral way of communicating, which tends to make me a lot more forgiving of mistakes, lack of clarity, or other faux pas occurring there. But as I mentioned, Twitter is still a form of communication, and obviously journalists still must adhere to the same ethical practices regardless of the medium they are using for their reporting.

Mortensen almost sounds unaware of the fact that his article wasn’t corrected. Or perhaps it was corrected somewhere else (in another article? over the air on ESPN?) and he’s operating under the assumption that covers it (when, of course, it doesn’t).

Almost sounds like a poker player recounting a misplayed hand who having figured out his mistake early on, begins incorporating self-censure when telling the story of the hand thereafter (“I checked, but I meant to bet half the pot. Anyway he checked, too, and the turn came...”). However, by telling the story in that way he makes the error less apparent to himself, to the point where the correction becomes more obvious to him than the original mistake.

Thoughts About Not Thinking

Was writing yesterday about going deep in that $1 tourney on PokerStars which ended -- for me -- with what seemed a disproportionately small payoff for having outlasted exactly 1,201 players (98.36% of the field!). I kind of deserved it, though, having jumped into the sucker like I did without really thinking.

Football was on when I’d begun the tourney, and it was still playing when I finished, now having switched to that New York Jets-Miami Dolphins game. I left it on, but didn’t really pay close attention, and in fact made a run to the grocery as it headed toward its conclusion in order to pick up some dinner for Vera and myself.

Among the items I got for us were a couple of roasted chicken leg quarters. As we ate, I told Vera a little about the tourney and how I’d won five bucks for my efforts. “Winner winner chicken dinner,” she grinned, noting how I’d won just about what the meal had cost.

The Jets-Dolphins game ended as we ate, and we noticed afterwards on the post-game how they kept showing a replay of a certain play involving a Miami player running down the sideline. Eventually we’d figure out what had happened on the play.

It was late in the third quarter when Miami, leading 10-3, punted to the Jets. Miami player Nolan Carroll was racing down the sideline, having been blocked out of bounds by a couple of feet, when he suddenly tripped and fell. When the play concluded, Carroll remained on the ground, apparently injured.

The replay showed that -- incredibly -- a Miami assistant, Sal Alosi, appeared to stick his knee out slightly as Carroll had run past, thus causing Carroll to fall! The video from NFL.com shows that announcers spotted the action immediately:

After the game, Alosi did not try to deny or explain away the incident, but rather admitted he’d done exactly what it looked like he’d done, and was apologetic and unreservedly self-critical in his statement.

“I made a mistake that showed total lapse in judgment,” said Alosi shortly after the game. “My conduct was inexcusable and unsportsmanlike,” he added, saying that he alone “accept[ed] full responsibility for [his] actions as well as any punishment that follows.”

Luckily Carroll was not injured. (That Alosi is a strength and conditioning coach only adds an extra layer of “wtf” to the incident.) Yesterday Alosi spoke to the media again and once more apologized.

“I wasn’t thinking,” he said. “If I could go back and do it again, I’d sure as heck take a step back.”

Last night Vera and I had a vegetable medley (peas, corn, greens, and mac & cheese). Among the topics of our dinner conversation, we discussed the incident with the Jets coach who’d acted without thinking and had made a regrettable mistake.

We talked about how the incident might be compared to certain kinds of cheating or “angle-shooting” that occasionally come up in poker that perhaps could be described as analogous to what Alosi had done.

I mentioned a recent poll on Two Plus Two asking posters what they would do if they “stumbled” onto a so-called “superuser” account and could see opponents’ hole cards while they played, and how the great majority of those who responded chose “profit” over “inform site about the glitch.” Vera pointed out how that didn’t really correspond to Alosi’s having acted “without thinking,” although it did perhaps say something similar about human nature.

We talked about the common occurrence of catching a glimpse of one’s neighbor’s hole cards at the table, but that, too, seemed to fail as an analogy. I suppose you could say that having someone failing to protect his or her cards sitting next to you presents an opportunity to try to cheat -- sort of like that Dolphins player running down the sideline toward you as you stood there coaching the other team -- and you either “get out of the way” or don’t.

But again, it’s hard to draw a perfect comparison here. Alosi described his action as somehow instinctive or irrational. “I wasn’t thinking,” is what he said. He also has described what he did as “an illogical act by a logical person.” In other words, it almost doesn’t sound like his action was a genuine attempt to “cheat” per se, but rather an example of someone having gotten carried away by his own competitiveness -- an overly emotional, “heat of battle” kind of response.

Which is sort of understandable, I guess. Although the more I think about it, I can’t help but believe most of us would have acted differently there. That is to say, our instinct would have been to follow the rules, to protect ourselves and each other, to get out of the damn way...

And to have done so without thinking.

I might be wrong, though. Too Pollyannaish for my own good. Four out of five posters in that Two Plus Two poll say they’d cheat if they could. Maybe there’s something about competition that necessarily turns us against one another, especially when the stakes get really high.

What do you think?

Robot Rights (and Wrongs)

I enjoy playing online poker. Strictly small stakes, natch. Been doing so for several years now, and hope to continue playing in the future, too.

With online poker, there’s always a leap of faith. One can never know with 100% certainty that one is not being dealt a crooked game. But I can say that almost every time I’ve ever sat down to play I’ve felt reasonably sure the games have been on the up-and-up.

How long, though, can online poker -- as we’ve been enjoying it over these last few years -- survive in its current form? Have to admit, this recent “bots” business has me wonderin’...

Some News About “Some of your opponents”

Over the weekend there was quite a lot of chatter on the forums, Twitter, and elsewhere in response to the fact that on Friday a large number of players had received some sort of refund or compensation from Full Tilt Poker.

Most of those receiving money were sent emails which began by announcing that the “Full Tilt Poker Security department has recently concluded an extensive investigation and we have determined some of your opponents were in violation of our site terms.” The email went on to note that the offending accounts had been “permanently closed,” the money confiscated, and refunds awarded to affected players “based on the number of tournaments or hands played against the offending players, and the amount won or lost against them.”

The emails provided no other specifics, only adding that “for a number of reasons, we are unable to provide any other additional information” regarding the violations of the site terms. It looks as though some players might have begun receiving refunds as early as late September, actually, then late last week came an especially high number of refunds, prompting players to congregate on the forums and elsewhere to figure out why exactly they were getting money returned to them.

By Friday afternoon, an explanation had been found, thanks primarily to the fact that those responsible for the site term violations had posted a complaint on their website about their accounts being shut down and funds confiscated. That’s right -- the cheaters have a website, and a forum, and what appears to be a thriving little community of bot-promoters and -users.

Turns out “some of your opponents” were not who you thought they were. There was a reason why that dude always seemed to three-bet from the blinds following your late-position attempts to steal. “He” was programmed to do so!

Beware the Bots

The site where the complaint appeared is called “Bonus Bots” and is operated by a group that identifies itself as “Shanky Technologies.” They have apparently been up and running for more than two years now, selling a number of different “poker bot” products that play all sorts of games and work on various sites. A bit of poking around shows one can download demo versions of the programs that’ll run for a couple hundred hands (for hold’em, Omaha/8, pot-limit Omaha, and even blackjack), then unlock them by purchasing licenses which range from $99 to $149.

The “bot” programs are obviously functional, playing both cash games and tourneys for the players who run them. Whether they have been programmed well enough to win consistently is difficult to determine, but it appears as though they had at least enabled many of those who were using them to profit via rakeback.

And while the number of players and accounts that had been using the Shanky Technologies bots is not known, from the forums it appears there were a lot of them, primarily hanging out in the lower buy-in SNGs, MTTs, and ring games, especially Rush Poker where they perhaps could more easily go undetected by players playing against the bots.

The use of “poker bots” of course violates one of Full Tilt Poker’s “site terms,” the one stating that “the use of artificial intelligence including, without limitation, ‘robots’ is strictly forbidden.” Full Tilt also states that by playing on the site one agrees to allow FTP to “take steps to detect and prevent the use of prohibited EPA [external player assistance] programs,” including the “examination of software programs running concurrently with the Full Tilt Poker software on a player’s computer.”

Other sites have similar restrictions, although the policing against bots is inconsistent. Some have noted that PokerStars appears to be the only U.S.-facing site that has remained constantly vigilant in detecting bots and keeping them off their games.

“An Incredibly Unethical Move”

The complaint from Shanky Technologies is fascinating for a number of reasons, including the fact that it begins by noting that Full Tilt “came out of nowhere” with “no warning” to stop the use of the bots, “and this was after years of tolerating us to such an extent that most of us felt they welcomed us with open arms.”

Indeed, the unapologetic manner in which the bots are discussed on the site’s blog and forums does suggest not only that they’ve been able to use their programs for some time, but that Full Tilt and several other sites -- not including PokerStars or PartyPoker -- have turned a blind eye to their use for quite some time. And some continue to do so, apparently, including UB and Bodog.

The complaint goes on to mention that “hundreds of us” had been using the programs without incident. The move by Full Tilt Poker to freeze their accounts and confiscate their funds is described as “a very sudden and calculated move on their part.” “It would be difficult to describe their actions as anything other than stealing,” says Shanky Technologies, “if you understand the environment.”

They go on to describe Full Tilt’s decision finally to enforce their site term as “an incredibly unethical move” and suggest players stay away from the site, even those who might wish to play there “manually” (i.e., without a “bot”).

Pretty friggin’ audacious, eh? Kind of reminds me of some of those sci-fi stories which try to explore the subject of “robot rights.” Usually such stories involve the development of consciousness or “feelings” in the robots, thereby raising questions about whether or not they might or should be treated similarly to humans and/or afforded the same “rights,” including the right to live.

But Bots are People, Too!

While acknowledging the fact that they’ve been violating one of Full Tilt’s site terms, the makers and users of the poker bots adamantly believe the use of bots to play online poker does not affect the game’s integrity. In other words, they appear ready to argue for the “right” of their bots to compete against humans, even if the humans -- both the players and those ones running the site -- do not wish to allow such to occur.

One of the users of the Shanky bots started a thread on Two Plus Two over the weekend defending their use as “a legit form of poker,” claiming “it’s my mind dictating my bot’s actions” and even going so far as to describe using the bot as “a form of poker at its purist.”

Hard to know for sure whether the poster was being truthful or simply provoking. As you might imagine, most of those responding to the post disagreed with its argument, pointing out how poker “at its purist” is a game between people, not a competition to see who can construct the best poker-playing program.

Even so, online poker has always been different from the live game. Sure, it’s a game between people, but we each are operating a machine in order to compete with one another. To what extent are those machines representing us?

Are you human? Am I?

The more I think about it, the more I find the whole incident troubling. Some are suggesting that at certain levels (NL2 and NL5), the games at Full Tilt were “saturated” by these poker-playing bots prior to last week’s action. Again, it is hard to know what to believe, but one assumes that those creating the programs will work further to try to develop ways of running their programs without being detected (“stealth measures,” as the Shanky guys put it).

I keep thinking of that one statement, the one where the makers of the bots try to characterize Full Tilt suddenly bringing down the hammer as “stealing,” explaining that it would appear as such to you, too, “if you understand the environment.”

The reference there is to the lackadaisical enforcement of site terms, although the line makes me think in broader terms about the game we have enjoyed for so long. And we thought we knew.

How well do most of us playing online poker really “understand the environment”?

On the (So-Called) “Poker Mentality”

I saw the Poker King’s report yesterday that online whiz Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy has recently signed on as an “UltimateBet Pro,” joining a few other online pros as well as Annie Duke and Phil Hellmuth as representatives of the online poker site. Also noticed how the report instantly produced high-volume buzz over at Two Plus Two and elsewhere. At the moment a thread regarding the matter sits atop the “News, Views, and Gossip” forum at 2+2, having garnered hundreds of responses in just twenty-four hours.

Predictably, most of those posting are quite critical of Josephy for having joined with Ultimate Bet, particularly in light of the site’s continued delay in responding to what appears to have been an Absolute Poker-like cheating scandal on the site in which players possibly using “super-user” accounts managed to bilk opponents of at least $1.5 million.

On May 6th, Annie Duke posted on Pocket Fives what she described as “Good News Regarding the UB Investigation,” noting that she was pleased with how the UB “management team” had been looking into the matter, and expressed her hope “that all the details will be released very soon . . . perhaps within two to three weeks.” It has been just over three weeks since Duke’s post, so while some of us remain skeptical, it is nevertheless possible we may well be hearing something from Ultimate Bet in the near future.

Of course, if it is the case that a report from UB on the scandal is indeed imminent, why in the world wouldn’t the announcement of Josephy joining the UB team have been delayed until after that report had been made?

However one feels about UB or Josephy, it seems to me that it would’ve made much more sense from a public-relations standpoint to have waited until after the report to announce Josephy’s signing, when the news would’ve sounded more like the online pro and co-owner of PokerXFactor -- a person with quite a bit of influence in the online poker world -- was endorsing the site’s integrity by joining the team.

Too logical, probably. Two other brief points on the subject . . .

Earlier today, Mark over at Plan3tGong raised an interesting question regarding the issue when he asked “Has Anti-Absolute / UB Sentiment Gone Too Far?” In his post, Mark primarily questions “the militancy of those who believe that this group of poker sites is ‘evil’ and anyone associated with them has ‘lost all credibility.’”

Mark makes a worthwhile point, although he doesn’t directly touch upon what for me has always been the primary issue, namely, the lack of upfront communication from either site with their customers regarding the serious breaches of security that definitely occurred at AP and almost without a doubt occurred at UB. Doesn’t make ’em “evil,” necessarily, but most certainly does affect their credibility pretty severely, in my view.

Finally, I noticed someone in the 2+2 thread making this argument in response to the “militants” (as Mark characterizes those spewing vitriol in Ultimate Bet and/or Josephy’s direction):

would anyone of you care to elaborate what exactly should he [Josephy] be doing with his reputation? this is poker and the poker mentality is to get yourself in as many +ev situations as possible.

getting sponsored by a big online poker site >>> having a good reputation which by itself is worthless

take a deep breath and lay down your double standards (i know this won[’]t happen)... actually just keep on lying to yourselves and riding on your high morales [sic] while in reality you would make the same choice in a hearbeat [sic] if you were in his shoes.

Pretty bleak stuff, wouldn’t you say? I’ve written before about this notion of the “poker mentality” inviting a different system of ethics on human behavior, one based primarily on greed, selfishness, and a lack of respect or concern for others’ welfare. All applicable at the tables, of course (if winning is yr goal). But hardly transferable without adjustment to all other situations.

I’m obviously none too enthused by Josephy’s becoming an UltimateBet pro, primarily because for some it seems to endorse that anything-goes, screw-em-if-you-can-get-away-with-it, “poker mentality” the poster (and a lot of other online players) seem readily to champion.

As also happens when sites where cheating has occurred don’t respond in a serious and timely manner.

(EDIT [added 5/28/08]: After posting, I saw via California Jen that Josephy posted deep in the 2+2 thread that apparently his “signing with UB is contingent upon a satisfactory resolution of the ‘superuser’ issue.” Which makes the timing even stranger, to me -- if that’s case, why announce now and not later?)

On the Poker Haters

Was thinking a bit about why so many folks find poker such an objectionable activity. Probably because I heard the fellows over on PokerRoad Radio talking about the issue over the weekend (on the 3/1 episode).

In a brief “Poker News” segment they mentioned how Barney Frank had managed to secure a 46th co-sponsor to sign on to his Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046). I’d heard that last week. Incidentally, I’m not sure why Julia Carson’s name continues to appear on the list of co-sponsors (She died in December.) I suppose the deceased still count as co-sponsors (?).

Anyhow, co-hosts Joe Sebok, Gavin Smith, and Ali Nejad mentioned that bit of news, then goofed around a little while, trying unsuccessfully to determine just how many individuals actually comprise the House of Representatives. Such information would be helpful when trying to determine whether 47 supporters of the IGREA (including Frank) signified a meaningful number. (Answer below.)

Then they briefly lamented the UIGEA, the general prejudice against gambling, and the particular demonization of poker. Sebok pointed out how a segment of society believes “gambling -- it’s evil, it’s wrong.” Gavin Smith brought up the old bingo argument, asking why bingo is okay when poker is not. “Because it’s socially acceptable,” answered Sebok.

What makes poker socially unacceptable for so many? There are probably other explanations, but off the top of my head I came up with three different reasons why. Incidentally, all three arguments assume poker is gambling (a view with which I don’t happen to disagree), although all three also minimize or altogether fail to acknowledge poker’s skill component (a view with which I take issue).

The first objection comes from those who believe playing poker indicates the possibility of some kind of psychological disorder -- a symptom, perhaps, of a serious malady in need of correction. Those who make this objection tend not to distinguish between poker and other forms of gambling. I’ve written about this idea before in a post where I talked about mentioning to a co-worker that I played poker and his response was to ask if I thought I could develop a gambling problem. In the documentary No Limit: A Search for the American Dream on the Poker Tournament Trail, Mike Sexton says he believes “gambling is inherent in our blood.” Those who believe the person who gambles is exhibiting a psychological disorder may in fact agree with Sexton; the difference, though, is that while Sexton accepts this condition as a part of who we are, those others believe it a flaw that needs to be rectified.

The second objection is the moral one -- that poker playing is an example of an activity that fails to conform to societal codes of conduct. This objection also frequently is made with regard to other forms of gambling, although as Sebok suggests, one is more likely to see it directed toward poker than toward bingo or the lottery. There are various factors potentially in play here (including faith/religion), but it is the law -- the most patent influence on our notions of “codes of conduct” -- that has the most relevance in this context. Whereas poker is legal in certain places and under certain conditions, other forms of gambling enjoy a great deal more legal sanctioning, thereby causing them to be viewed as conforming to society’s mores -- to be morally unobjectionable.

The third objection is the ethical one, and I think this is the one that more often applies to poker than to other forms of gambling. With ethics we start talking more particularly about “good” and “bad” conduct. There are some who view all forms of gambling as “bad” because of the potential for it to cause harm to those who gamble and to others. Then there are those who especially object to poker because of how the game is played. To succeed, we must take money from other poker players; thus is our welfare dependent on others’ suffering (in a sense). Unlike the lottery or other games where we all play against the house (a faceless, unsympathetic foe), poker pits us against one another, encouraging what some believe to be “bad” forms of treating one another. An irony: that which we poker players might say makes poker more of a skill game than other forms of gambling -- the fact that we are competing against others, and not solely subjecting ourselves to chance -- is precisely that which some say makes poker ethically dubious.

By the way, there are 435 members of the House, meaning at the moment Frank still needs another 171 of the remaining 388 Congressmen and women to come along to have a majority. A long, long way to go . . . .

And, to be realistic, I gotta believe most of those remaining 388 are gonna be held back from supporting the IGREA by one or more of these objections. Don’t you?