This time it's one of the most widely known professionals: Mike Matusow. Everything I know about the situation comes from this post from Short-Stacked Shamus, at Hard-Boiled Poker: http://hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com/2008/02/wrong-focus-another-cheating-pro.html
I have only one observation to add. I propose a simple test for determining whether Matusow acted unethically and/or in violation of the rules of whatever site this occurred on (he hasn't identified it yet). Whenever and wherever Matusow does his next interview, he should be asked directly to name the site, the date, and the player who he worked with.
If he refuses, then he should be asked why he won't disclose this information. All of the possible reasons he could give--at least all of the ones that I can think of--would be negative. The mildest would be something like "I don't want to embarrass the player I helped." But if there was nothing wrong with what they did, there should be no embarrassment. More likely, he'd have to say that he won't provide the details because he's worried that the site would investigate, determine that its terms of service were violated, and take action, such as reclaiming the prize money and banning both Matusow and his partner. He might also worry about his own sponsoring site, Full Tilt Poker--whether or not that is the site that was involved--deciding to terminate its relationship with him.
But that's the rub, isn't it? No reputable site would take such actions unless its rules were violated. So if Matusow et al didn't violate any rules, they don't have anything to worry about.
In other words, if Matusow admits that he is concerned about adverse fallout (whether just the disapproval of the poker world or the tangible effects of action by the site), then he is admitting that he knows or at least suspects that he acted in violation of the rules. If he is confident that he did nothing wrong, then he should have nothing to hide.
As far as I am concerned, Mike Matusow is and should be branded a poker cheater unless and until he publicly provides the details of the incident, which would presumably result in an investigation by the site. If such investigation finds that he and his co-conspirator did not break any rules, then I'll accept that decision and revise my opinion. But for now, he's a cheat and should earn the derision of other players and banning by every online site and brick-and-mortar casino, for both cash and tournament play. If Matusow were suddenly unable to make his living at poker (except maybe for private games), it would send a powerful message to the scummy players who think there is no downside to their cheating and collusion. Besides, he has a fallback career: He can always go back to selling drugs. (For the best profile and bio of Matusow I've ever seen, check out http://www.totalgambler.com/theplayers/playerinterviews/1259/me_and_my_big_mouth.html.)
So far a Google search of blogs finds only one other posted comment on l'affaire Matusow: http://randomshuffle.blogspot.com/2008/02/cockroach-theory-of-online-poker.html. I'll check again in a couple of days and see whether this is making any waves.
On a slightly related note, see Daniel Negreanu's comments on the "J J Prodigy" affair, at http://tinyurl.com/yplr98. I appreciate that he not only condemns the culprit, but comes down pretty hard on his friends at Poker Road for a softball interview:
Questions should have been more direct, a la, "What is wrong with you? You
cheat, get caught, give the poker world a lame apology, only to go right back at
it and keep cheating? Why should anyone believe you are suddenly reformed? Why
should live poker events even allow you to play?" Those are tougher questions
posed in such a way that isn't all mushy. The tone from all of the guys was just
way too apologetic to this kid.
Well said, Daniel. I hope you will soon be just as forthright about denouncing your friend Mike Matusow, however difficult and painful that may be.
I hate that I have to have a whole label for posts on the subject of cheating: http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/search/label/cheating
Addendum, February 22, 2008
As far as I can tell, there are only three other bloggers who have picked up on this story:
http://kickasspoker.blogspot.com/2008/02/poker-ethos-part-whatever.html
http://randomshuffle.blogspot.com/2008/02/cockroach-theory-of-online-poker.html
http://www.pokerblog.com/poker-cheating-online.html
http://www.pokerroad.com/_/pokerazzi/2-14-08/
Posts
6 comments:
theres a large gray area here. if you look at stars rules http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/tournaments/rules/
"You are playing in a tournament and lose power in your home due to a failure of your power station. You call a friend and he takes over until your power is returned. This is permitted."
its a well known fact that players share accounts.
the idea that is prohibited is also outlined there in the 4th example
"You have progressed to the final few tables...somebody offers you cash equity for your seat. this is prohibited."
imo if mike doesn't offer a set amount of cash to his friend for sole rights to the tournament winnings, he didn't break the rules. real gray, open to interpretation here.
I agree that there are gray areas. There is no one-player-to-a-hand rule in online poker. And since we don't know what site this occurred on, we can't check what the rules say against what Mike says happened to see if there was a clear violation or not. But his own description sounds like taking over play, rather than coaching or filling in while a friend had a power outage. That is at least unethical (for reasons that I hope are too obvious to need spelling out), and possibly against the site's rules. But the ambiguity is exactly the reason that I propose leaving it up to the site involved to investigate, and I'm willing to abide by their conclusion, at least in regard to whether there was a rules violation. I'll still maintain that it was unethical, however. It was cheating in the larger sense of doing something that is an unfair advantage over opponents, even if it can't be proven to have been in technical violation of the site's rules.
I think that many people before JJ Prodigy was busted had multi-accounted before. Also, I don't think many people htought there was anything wrong with it. There are different levels obviously. We've all recieved the phone call from a friend who is deep in a tournament. You start watching of course, sometimes going over their house or just stay on the telephone and talk through the hands. I think that it's the same thing whether you verbally tell him what to do or actually take over the mouse. However, I wouldn't have ever thought before these reports of multiaccounting, that suggesting what his next move should be was cheating. Obviously in live poker there is a one player to a hand rule. I don't think the same is true for online poker. At least I know advice is given whether you want it or not by those watching you play.
I also would never have thought to purchase his equity to take over in his spot either. But, if this same friend would have asked me to take over because he had a commitment to be at and couldn't finish, I wouldn't have thought twice about it before. Although now, I can see where this could be considered an unfair advantage.
There are tons of gray areas, and I don't think we need to witchhunt with this thing. I think going forward if someone does this type of thing, then they should pay the consequences. Obviously any serious poker player has seen the stories and realizes the rules now. But previously, I think there could have been honest mistakes where the player never really thought about what they were doing as cheating. I think this is the case with Mike M.
Careful with the "we've all received the phone call..." language. I've never been on either side of such a situation.
Some years ago I sat in a now well known players house while he and several buddies played a tournament. As one busted out they all shared the time working through the long tournament. At one point they were at a table and knew several other players who played in another boiler room where players did the same thing. At one point they called each other to check on which "team" had the most horses still in the race. My point? No one then and no one now thinks this doesn't go on all the time online in big tournaments and since there is no way to regulate or control such behavior... Why when someone mentions its existence are they suddenly evil cheaters. Are we not punishing the honest and letting the quiet liars go free?
"No one then and no one now"
Well the short time I played online I never once thought there was a boiler room approach.
Just like the "we've all" language I find it interesting how those who participate in unethical behavior minimize their actions by placing their unethical behaviors on everyone else.
No! Not everyone acts in the same ways as you. Not the good things you do or the bad things you do.
I'm also amazed by the logical fallacies so many use.
The number of people that do something or think something does not make it right.
Are we supposed to reward honesty? Isn't honesty just expected, demanded?
Are we supposed to ignore indiscretions because someone told the truth?!
Post a Comment