X-Ray Vision in Online Poker
No doubt many a poker player have wished for a pair of X-Ray Specs during their poker career once or twice. Well in the case of Potripper on Absolute Poker, no extra eyewear was needed.The Backstory
Just to get everyone up to speed on the whole Potripper fiasco that hit the news a couple months back…
On September 12, 2007, a really funny game of poker happened. Talk had begun about some very suspicious patterns of play on Absolute Poker, but some of the net’s most well-known card players weren’t dissuaded by that, or the $1,000 buy-in. Too bad for them, because one of the players was using an account that allowed them to see everyone’s cards.
Online poker players took to the 2+2 poker forum to cry foul. Something was clearly up with certain users of Absolute Poker, and players began to investigate.
The amateur investigators caught a break when someone at Absolute Poker “mistakenly” sent them a massive spreadsheet of hand histories for the match, complete with the IP addresses of Potripper, which originated from within the company running Absolute Poker.
What this means to online
This controversy asks some serious security questions about online gambling. The implicit rule in all forms of poker (including online poker) is that you can’t see the other players’ cards; you don’t have access to that information. How do you know players can’t see your cards? Simple, they’re only printed on one side, you keep them close to your chest, and there’s no superuser account. Clearly, there was such a thing available to whoever was responsible for the shady play on Absolute Poker.
I’m inclined to shrug this off, since I’m not a serious online poker player. But it does raise some serious questions as to what the rules of any online game are. Essentially, players are assuming that they aren’t competing against superusers, especially with real money on the table.
The Aftermath
In the fallout of the Potripper scandal, Absolute Poker claimed that Scott Tom hadn’t worked at the company in over a year. Shortly after, they claimed that he wasn’t involved—that he was framed by a disgruntled hacker. The company requested a seal of security approval from 2+2 Publishing (the company behind the online forum where wrongdoing was discovered), which was denied. 2+2 requested that an independent intermediary oversee the investigation, but Absolute Poker preferred that they deal directly with Gaming Associates, an Australian company that was paid by Absolute Poker to assess security. The report from Gaming Associates, promised by December 7, 2007, has not materialized. Instead of the report, press releases from Absolute Poker this week are more focused on the celebration of WIN1313’s winning of the one billionth hand of poker played on the site. Congratulations, Absolute Poker.
Leave a comment