My First Time Catching a Cheat (Yes, Really) (4 Viewers)

[Davism72]

It’s so long but I’m so excited to read this

It's been a while. You guys think he's still reading?

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

It's been a while. You guys think he's still reading?

Still haven’t started it but sure it’ll take a while on a phone screen. Likely this weekend on a hammock.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I think it was @ekricket that said it first... You should have been overt about it when you first noticed it... If he's that good of a guy, maybe he mends his ways and this issue never comes up.

I'm not saying I would've handled it any different, but its something to think about.



So, you kinda backed him in a corner... I doubt he ever reflected on how he would handle it if he got called out on it. His insta-reaction was to lie/deny, and then he got married to that position.

What if he came back to the group, told everyone everything he had been doing and asked to play again, and you guys took a blind vote and if it was unanimous, he'd be allowed to play again...would you agree to that? If yes, would you vote for him to sit, or continue to oust him?

To be fair to myself, I wasn't planning to back him into a corner. He barged into my conversation with the host in a way that made it virtually impossible to pretend everything was okay. So I reverted to my default when confrontation is inevitable: the direct truth.

If he were to come around to confess and genuinely apologize, I would forgive him. But I would not vote for him to come back into the game after what I saw him do. If he were to get back in anyway, I would leave.

One of the main points of trust I need to play cards with someone in a home game, especially self-dealt, is that the person would never manipulate the cards or otherwise undermine the integrity of the game. Not just because he got caught, not just because he doesn't want to make people mad, but as a matter of principle because he understands it's wrong.

If someone doesn't get that it's wrong, or thinks he's above such moral questions, he can find someone else to play with. He abused the trust of everyone who's ever played in that game for a lot of years. I do think there's a good guy somewhere in there, but I'm a betting man, and you'll never catch me betting that a known cheat will play honest.

 

[WedgeRock]

To be fair to myself, I wasn't planning to back him into a corner. He barged into my conversation with the host in a way that made it virtually impossible to pretend everything was okay. So I reverted to my default when confrontation is inevitable: the direct truth.

Absolutely. I guess my point is he was put in a position where he was not expecting to be interrogated and in a knee-jerk reaction, he lied/denied (which maybe speaks to his character and the ability to rationalize cheating). I don't find fault with your direct approach, just trying to get in his head... Did you really expect he would come clean?

I had some empathy for this guy at first (mostly because you described him as a good guy that was well-liked), but my feeling are waning. This guy is a crook and a cheat. What's worse is that he didn't need to be in this room... Sounds like he could beat the game straight-up.

 

[BGinGA]

The truth is, you'll never really know how good (or not) of a player he might actually be, since the extent of cheating he went to over the course of time is unknown (and will remain so).

It's entirely possible that nearly ALL of his winnings were due to his illegal actions of some sort. If he cheated via viewing and/or swapping the stub cards, it's almost guaranteed that he also cheated in other ways, too. Having multiple small edges can easily result in being a winning player over time.

The only thing he may really be good at is cheating.

 

[Taghkanic]

Cheating is toxic to poker. It shows total disrepect to the game and the other players.

It was pointed out to me as I wrestled with how to deal with cheating accusations (which were eventually confirmed) that as a host you have a responsibility not just to deal with the cheater himself, but also to the other players. I couldn’t keep inviting people in good faith to play in my game if I had such suspicions.

Obviously one can’t always pull the trigger immediately if there is some doubt. But better not to let things fester.

 

[PlayerADK]

That's crazy - such a small time game to be cheating. Definitely doing it for the thrill of cheating I guess?

I'd be pissed too - doesn't matter what kind of money it's for. No idea how I would handle something like that

e/ reminds me of golf cheaters. I encounter way too many in league play and it kills me xD

 

[72o]

I'm not sure how to feel now. I host a game in this same region. I have one regular whose name is Chuck and another Chuck who I have kicked out of the game (just for being a dick). Maybe there is something behind the name and I should be watching this other Chuck?

We play small stakes ($60 max buy-in) and everyone is friendly with each other...so similar to this game. I can not for the life of me figure out why someone would want to cheat in a game like this. Screwing friends over in general tells me A LOT about his character. NOT a good dude. I think you handled it as well as possible man.

 

[WedgeRock]

e/ reminds me of golf cheaters. I encounter way too many in league play and it kills me xD

I golf with a guy...(I *may* have married his daughter) who constantly improves his lie, takes Mulligan's, doesn't count penalty strokes, etc.

Him: "I shot 85 today."

Me (in my head): "So like 103 for realsies?"

/threadjack

 

[upNdown]

as a host you have a responsibility not just to deal with the cheater himself, but also to the other players. I couldn’t keep inviting people in good faith to play in my game if I had such suspicions.

Yeah, mostly.
If you’re hosting an underground, raked game, you have a duty to put on a 100% secure game.
If you’re hosting a home game with friends, you have to do your best, but if you just snap off every time you have a suspicion, you’re gonna lose your friends and your game.
I am 100% in agreement with how he handled this and how you handled yours. You have to be sure before you start accusing.
And let’s not forget that every player, but ESPECIALLY home game players, have a duty to protect themselves from cheats. If the stub occasionally went under the table, and these guys didn’t notice or care, then they’re fools, and if they got cheated out of a hand while the host was “making sure” then oh friggen well.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I'm not sure how to feel now. I host a game in this same region. I have one regular whose name is Chuck and another Chuck who I have kicked out of the game (just for being a dick). Maybe there is something behind the name and I should be watching this other Chuck?

We play small stakes ($60 max buy-in) and everyone is friendly with each other...so similar to this game. I can not for the life of me figure out why someone would want to cheat in a game like this. Screwing friends over in general tells me A LOT about his character. NOT a good dude. I think you handled it as well as possible man.

Because he can do it and he doesn't have any moral qualms about it, or for the thrill of doing something he knows is wrong. Those are the two options that seem most feasible. Maybe it's even an abused-becoming-the-abuser situation, where he got cheated previously and feels compelled to do it himself now.

Whatever. I don't know. Don't care too much either. I can't imagine what made this worth risking so many long friendships AND his career over.

 

[Jimulacrum]

You have to be sure before you start accusing.

This has been my guiding principle. I was wrongly accused of cheating once in the past (there's a whole 2+2 thread about it), and it sucks. I let a lot of instances of riffling and under-the-tabling pass without saying anything because they didn't hit that certainty threshold. And I'm glad I did, because I couldn't have confidently taken the firm stance I did without being so sure.

I only wish I'd filmed some of it. I might have been able to collect some proof to show others. Right now, it's all on the word of me, the host, and the other player who spoke up. And of course Chuck won't be producing any more evidence.

 

[johnnycnote]

... I let a lot of instances of riffling and under-the-tabling pass without saying anything because they didn't hit that certainty threshold. And I'm glad I did, because I couldn't have confidently taken the firm stance I did without being so sure...

You don't have to make sure that someone is cheating to point out that they are mishandling the deck. This whole thing could have been avoided from day 1

 

[Jimulacrum]

You don't have to make sure that someone is cheating to point out that they are mishandling the deck. This whole thing could have been avoided from day 1

I get what you mean, and in general when there's no suspicion of cheating, this is the best approach.

But you don't warn a suspected cheater you're onto him unless you want to help him avoid getting caught.

There has been a pretty thorough conversation about this already in the replies.

 

[grebe]

I am surprised by the number of "you shoulda's" and "if only you did this" in this thread. Holy hell, I can't imagine having to be put in this situation! Sounds like you did right by yourself and the host, so props to you for what you actually did. Right there, in the heat of the moment with emotions pumping on overdrive, it would be really easy to get carried away with something that you would regret for a long time....and I am happy you won't have to deal with that. Props to you, and the best of it, @Jimulacrum .

 

[toynoob]

You don't have to make sure that someone is cheating to point out that they are mishandling the deck. This whole thing could have been avoided from day 1

For you and the others who keeping saying this could of been avoided from day one etc. I'd like to question you something. Let's say day one the deck goes under table and Jim says hey keep stub on table at all times. Do you seriously believe in your head that's it?

Here's what runs through my head, if he's intentionally trying to get any edge whatsoever, he will do anything because CLEARLY his moral compass is broke. So he stops cheating that way who cares. Now you have a cheater in your game and you have to wonder how his next edge will come from.
@Jimulacrum you did exactly what you should have done. Waited for the time you knew for sure he cheated. Hopefully this assclown gets called out by everyone and the whole region bans him from playing anything. Then he has to lie to his wife why he "quit" poker haha

 

[Jimulacrum]

For you and the others who keeping saying this could of been avoided from day one etc. I'd like to question you something. Let's say day one the deck goes under table and Jim says hey keep stub on table at all times. Do you seriously believe in your head that's it?

Here's what runs through my head, if he's intentionally trying to get any edge whatsoever, he will do anything because CLEARLY his moral compass is broke. So he stops cheating that way who cares. Now you have a cheater in your game and you have to wonder how his next edge will come from.
@Jimulacrum you did exactly what you should have done. Waited for the time you knew for sure he cheated. Hopefully this assclown gets called out by everyone and the whole region bans him from playing anything. Then he has to lie to his wife why he "quit" poker haha

Thank you.

The funny thing is that I have, on plenty of occasions, called out players for taking the stub or their hole cards under or away from the table. It's easy to do because I approach new and very recreational players (basically the only sober people who do this innocently) the same way, like they understandably don't know all the rules. I'm quite on board with calling out cases like this on the spot.

This was a very different case that called for different handling. This guy has been playing poker his whole life and obviously knows better, and there was a significant indication from the first observation that it was not just an honest mistake or a drunken fumble (he doesn't really drink at poker).

 

[Taghkanic]

The truth is, you'll never really know how good (or not) of a player he might actually be

I agree... unless you have multiple opportunities to play with the same player in, say, a casino setting, where it is more difficult to cheat than in a self-dealt home game without cameras. Then you could compare whether they play differently, and have significantly different results. But it would require a pretty big sample size.

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. The only players I encounter who do stuff like lift their cards to their face, hold them off the table, totally mishandle the deck, etc. tend to be much older players. These are guys who have seldom if ever played in anything but small-time home games. Maybe they played for years with the same guys in one game, and that was their whole experience of poker, with no one ever knowing or enforcing many rules except that a straight flush beats quads.

These are the same guys who, when if you politely mention some totally basic rule (not holding cards off the table, not putting the deck in their lap, even something as rudimentary as needing to open for twice the big blind), act like they are Doyle Brunson... and you are some whippersnapper who doesn’t know the game. “I’ve been playing this game for decades and no one ever did it that way!”

 

[GenghisKhan]

I know it might not be normal, but when I finish dealing and have to wait on action, I like using the dealer button itself as kind of a card guard for the deck - I put the deck down and put the dealer button on top of it before I do anything.

I have a similar rule at my place.
But it started due to numerous problems thinking the dealer was in the hand when they weren't.

It goes: Deal the cards, place the deck in front of you, put the dealer button on top. Just so no one knocks the deck over. From here on out deck stays on the table.

Next, burn a card, turn the flop, put the dealer button on the burn card.

This is to diffetentiate between all the cards face down in front of the dealer.

If you look at dealer and all you see is some cards under a dealer button, it's the burns and it means dealer folded his cards.

Step 3: shame those that get this wrong like the great friends we are.

 

[johnnycnote]

For you and the others who keeping saying this could of been avoided from day one etc. I'd like to question you something. Let's say day one the deck goes under table and Jim says hey keep stub on table at all times. Do you seriously believe in your head that's it?

Yes, because he won't be invited back for day two

 

[PlayerADK]

P.S. The only players I encounter who do stuff like lift their cards to their face, hold them off the table, totally mishandle the deck, etc. tend to be much older players. These are guys who have seldom if ever played in anything but small-time home games. Maybe they played for years with the same guys in one game, and that was their whole experience of poker, with no one ever knowing or enforcing many rules except that a straight flush beats quads.

These are the same guys who, when if you politely mention some totally basic rule (not holding cards off the table, not putting the deck in their lap, even something as rudimentary as needing to open for twice the big blind), act like they are Doyle Brunson... and you are some whippersnapper who doesn’t know the game. “I’ve been playing this game for decades and no one ever did it that way!”

I play with too many people like this. Not cheaters but the old "this is the way we do things and we're not changing it"

(per universal poker etiquette) I offer the person to my right the option to cut the deck and they get mad because "it's a waste of time" lmfao

 

[WedgeRock]

[Another threadjack coming]

Super casual game. All great guys. Realtively tight ship, most players know the rules and etiquette. But a social game, not cut throat.

So the house rule is that Seat 1 will shuffle while Seat 2 deals. When Seat 2 is done dealing, he takes the deck that Seat 1 shuffled, cuts it, then passes it to Seat 3 who then starts the deal of the next hand. One guy shuffles, another cuts, and a third person deals.

There's an older guy that plays. He's not super old, but he gets grief from everyone for being the oldest. Call him John.

John never cuts. I don't know if he's superstitious, sees it as an unnecessary waste of time, or just completely trusts the group (which would be a fair position to take).

So when John is to my right, I'm always left with the dilemma if I should self-cut it or just deal. Being one of the newer guys in the game, I take my cue from the regulars... They just deal it out.

How would you handle it?

[/threadjack]

 

[Taghkanic]

[Another threadjack coming]

Super casual game. All great guys. Realtively tight ship, most players know the rules and etiquette. But a social game, not cut throat.

So the house rule is that Seat 1 will shuffle while Seat 2 deals. When Seat 2 is done dealing, he takes the deck that Seat 1 shuffled, cuts it, then passes it to Seat 3 who then starts the deal of the next hand. One guy shuffles, another cuts, and a third person deals.

There's an older guy that plays. He's not super old, but he gets grief from everyone for being the oldest. Call him John.

John never cuts. I don't know if he's superstitious, sees it as an unnecessary waste of time, or just completely trusts the group (which would be a fair position to take).

So when John is to my right, I'm always left with the dilemma if I should self-cut it or just deal. Being one of the newer guys in the game, I take my cue from the regulars... They just deal it out.

How would you handle it?

I would self-cut. Or invite the player to your left to do so.

 

[Jimulacrum]

[Another threadjack coming]

Super casual game. All great guys. Realtively tight ship, most players know the rules and etiquette. But a social game, not cut throat.

So the house rule is that Seat 1 will shuffle while Seat 2 deals. When Seat 2 is done dealing, he takes the deck that Seat 1 shuffled, cuts it, then passes it to Seat 3 who then starts the deal of the next hand. One guy shuffles, another cuts, and a third person deals.

There's an older guy that plays. He's not super old, but he gets grief from everyone for being the oldest. Call him John.

John never cuts. I don't know if he's superstitious, sees it as an unnecessary waste of time, or just completely trusts the group (which would be a fair position to take).

So when John is to my right, I'm always left with the dilemma if I should self-cut it or just deal. Being one of the newer guys in the game, I take my cue from the regulars... They just deal it out.

How would you handle it?

[/threadjack]

I second the motion to self-cut. I'd almost want to insist that John cut and refuse to deal until he does. Almost. But I know how fights with stubborn old men can go.

The cut in this game seems like an integral (and perhaps mandatory?) part of the dealing procedure. It ought to be a well-oiled machine, but this guy feels the need to gum it up for less-than-rational reasons.

My insistence on a cut comes from my (very limited) experience using cards for parlor tricks. Setting up a stacked packet in a deck of cards is nowhere near as difficult as people think it is. You should really cut all the time, or at least often enough that it's not worth a cheat's while to go through the trouble of stacking a deck.

 

[Sunshine]

[Another threadjack coming]

Super casual game. All great guys. Realtively tight ship, most players know the rules and etiquette. But a social game, not cut throat.

So the house rule is that Seat 1 will shuffle while Seat 2 deals. When Seat 2 is done dealing, he takes the deck that Seat 1 shuffled, cuts it, then passes it to Seat 3 who then starts the deal of the next hand. One guy shuffles, another cuts, and a third person deals.

There's an older guy that plays. He's not super old, but he gets grief from everyone for being the oldest. Call him John.

John never cuts. I don't know if he's superstitious, sees it as an unnecessary waste of time, or just completely trusts the group (which would be a fair position to take).

So when John is to my right, I'm always left with the dilemma if I should self-cut it or just deal. Being one of the newer guys in the game, I take my cue from the regulars... They just deal it out.

How would you handle it?

[/threadjack]

I would try and avoid self cutting (in more ways than one, I guess, now that I see the phrase!) in the interest of avoiding having that become the new standard. While it's more efficient the way you described, as long as someone shuffles, someone else cuts and a third person deals, I don't much care who they are. If the "cutter designate" doesn't want to, just wave the cut card at someone (anyone) until you get an "unaffiliated" cut.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If the "cutter designate" doesn't want to, just wave the cut card at someone (anyone) until you get an "unaffiliated" cut.

Ahh, I like this solution the best. Doesn't really matter who cuts as long as it's not the guy who shuffled (and in this style of shuffle management, the guy who's dealing too).

 

[tabletalker7]

Ahh, I like this solution the best. Doesn't really matter who cuts as long as it's not the guy who shuffled (and in this style of shuffle management, the guy who's dealing too).

I had one guy who didn't like to cut in my games. Then he spent a night in the seat next to me. Every time he turned down the cut, for some weird reason, he got slapped in the back of the head, and when he turned to see who slapped him, his beer magically disappeared. The problem kinda solved itself after that

 

[WedgeRock]

I should have also mentioned that John fills the hot dog roller... every week...

 

[ando5k]

Without reading through the entire thread, the way we solved this is that the dealer doesn't play the hand and the button is used. You still get the position, just not when you are physically dealing. We have also noticed it decreases misdeals as well because the person doesn't have to focus on playing and dealing.