Wtf no brrrrrrrrrrreaking news? Disappointed

Another way to interpret this is that they don't currently have a working security team and doubling 0 is pretty cheap but seems impressive when the value is unknown

"GG has confirmed there was a player that was using some kind of hack in order to see people's hole cards."

no hole cards were seen, but the equities were.

every star is just one of his many sperm, every planet a phallic skin cell

Yesterday's security update was their first blog post (out of 563) that didn't include a bunch of tags, as if they don't want you to stumble on it from a random google search. I'm sure it's an honest mistake my funds are safe there.

Identifying a Cheater

I have now come to a topic which I’m a little reluctant to write about. The reason for this is that writing about it can help a potential cheater defeat this method of detection. This assumes he’s aware of this chapter and understands what is being said. And in the past, whenever I told anyone about this approach, my request was always not to repeat it.

On the other hand, today there always seems to be a new and current cheating accusation. Most of these, in my opinion, are probably just “sour grapes” because someone got lucky. But we have seen in the past a few of these possible cheating events where it was clear that real cheating did take place, and it was quite costly to the honest players. Also, my best guess is that this pattern of constant cheating accusations will continue in the future.

So, the question arises, is there a good way to identify a likely cheater? And the answer, in my opinion, is yes. Let’s see what it is.

To start, this book has been constantly talking about expectation, which in this case we’ll refer to as the win rate, and the short-term luck factor, which most players today refer to as variance. But for this discussion, we’ll talk about the short-term luck factor in terms of the standard deviation (which, again, is the square root of the variance).

But for this discussion, we’ll be looking at the relationship between the win rate and standard deviation. That’s where the key information lies.

This leads to the following question. What will happen to these two parameters, win rate and standard deviation, if the cards were marked and someone could accurately read these marks? The first is that their win rate would be very high. I think the reason for this is obvious.

But what about the standard deviation? The answer here is that the standard deviation would be very low, especially when compared to what we normally see relative to the expectation (in the short run). However, it won’t go to zero since there will still be some luck in the game since an opponent can always draw out. But when this happens, the cheater can always save the bet on the end, and in no-limit hold ’em, this can be a large amount.

Now what would happen to an honest player, particularly one who plays too many hands and goes too far with their hands, if they have a streak where they do exceptionally well. The answer is that their win rate, as with the cheater above, will also be very high, but the difference is that their standard deviation will be high as well. So, the ratio of their win rate to their standard deviation won’t look (too much) out of balance.

Today, when I see accusations of possible cheating, if the standard deviation is mentioned, something like, “His results are several standard deviations above where they should be, hence, this must be a cheater” is often stated. But this is wrong.

And the reason it’s wrong is that with lots of people playing poker, there must be someone, in some period of time, who was the luckiest. And you can expect this player to not only be a big winner, but to have results, from a standard deviation perspective, that is way above the mean for a typical player. But this does not mean he was cheating.

In fact, in my opinion, if their expectation was very high and their standard deviation was low, this, in itself, does not mean they were cheating. That’s because an excellent player, who’s also an outstanding hand reader, should have this profile, at least to some degree. But it does make them, again in my opinion, a possible candidate for cheating if the results are extreme.

Now to clearly show that they were cheating, I think you need to look at specific results of their play. This is something an Internet poker site can do or perhaps something that could be done if the player in question was a longtime participant in a live poker show where video of all their plays is available.

Specifically, look to see if they were lucky. That is, in the run of great results, did they flop sets at a higher rate than expected and/or did they make more than a fair share of flush/straight draws. And on an Internet site, they could look at things like did their flop top pair hold up at a higher rate than what it does for a typical player and did their big pair (under aces) win at a higher rate when an ace flops than it does for a typical player.

If the answer to the above (and similar) questions is no, that is they don’t appear to be lucky, and the ratio of their win rate to their standard deviation is way off the charts, there’s a good chance you’re looking at someone who probably should not be allowed to play.

They went on to apppoint jason koon and a few other known pros as new GGPoker Anti-Cheating Commission

https://cardmates.org/jason_koon_to_...ing_commission

no offence to these guys, im sure they are knowledgeable about poker, but why not be transparent about appointing a proper security team with the knowledge that can work with said players?

they were contacted by a cyber security expert whom they dismissed help from.

i really think this anti cheating commission needs to be doing something, looking to work with cyber experts, maybe then we can go forward with possibly making online poker a safer place to play (if that will ever be a thing as the cat and mouse game of hacking is ongoing)

I do envisage/hope cryptography sha52 ect would be possible as ways to secure certain things, but then you need a security team thats adept, a business who wants its best for its players (i miss you Isai Scheinberg <3 ) and a world where corrupt government officials dont keep taking

If your level of technical literacy is so low that you think that the EddieKing stuff is at all related to this exploit, then you should probably not be posting in this thread. That goes for a number of people who have posted here, not just you.

EddieKing reported a possible man-in-the-middle from GG's network traffic being unencrypted. To exploit it, you would need to be able to intercept the network traffic of a person playing on GG and sit at their table, and then you would have access to that one person's hole cards. It's a legitimate security issue and fair play to EddieKing for finding and reporting it, but this kind of attack is difficult to execute and GG fixed it in any case, and it's completely different from the security hole we're discussing here.

My Good sir, did you not read the guys screenname?

MoneyTaker69..........

For the love of god let that piece of data be part of your statistical denial of reality

See post 296

Anyone is welcome to debate me. It's the insults where I draw the line.

Mason

The above image shows the NL50 leaderboard on GG poker for the last 6 months, Its not just moneytaker69 its multiple accounts across a bunch of limits. 220bb/100 lol, NL500 leaderboard is littered with them too.

That seems pretty crazy. I mean if this does turn out to be some sort of whitehacker group who made it look super obvious they were cheating to expose the exploit you have to imagine it was something known within the hacker community at some level which means other people would have been using it less conspicuously.

It could mean this user is just the tip of the iceberg.

You know what's next, 50k GG users try to withdraw all their money. GG slowpays them until they go bankrupt and half of the people who try to withdraw get nothing.

So Mason are you really just gonna ignore the screenname "Moneytaker69"?

this

way worse to be negligent/incompetent

holy ****

Post the screenshots for the other leaderboards too. The Moneytaker effect is alive and real.

"Additionally, we are actively recruiting to double the size of our technical security team and are enlisting help from renowned security professionals to ensure that online poker is safer than ever."

GG's current rake too cheap to afford such expensive security measures and professionals, and you have the community to police the games for free. I mean, they have to run as lean as possible to survive right? If they are really serious with this, I can only see veeeeeeeeeery big rake hikes coming, BRACE FOR IMPACT!!!!!!!!

Let's not ignore this, this might be a serious problem...

sadly even xenoblade did the whole "so you just gonna randomly choose all the high winrate low volume players to say theyre cheating" quip

sigh

anyone with their own database can see very quickly those winrates are impossible amongst so many players all with the same stats/graph

Especially weird they all quit after 15k hands? Is this related to GG forcing people to play with their real name after certain winnings?

Watched Doug's video on this. I don't online poker anymore so what is the thumbs up/thumbs down feature that he exploited.

not to mention all the ones that arent 28-45 bb are in the 0 to 10 range lmfao

also not to mention nobody else on that leaderboard has played less than like 80k hands lmfao

xenoblade I shed a tear for you sir

yet another way to emote/interact with your opponents.

How the hell would that feature capture hole cards or equity? That makes no sense.