Foucault Just another PokerSavvy weblog

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. In September, I discussed Joe Sebok’s decision to join Team Ultimate Bet. In November, I examined a $50,000 $W swap gone wrong (or right, depending on which party you ask). This month, I consider the multiple accounts of Nick “Stoxtrader” Grudzien. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll state up front that I work for Poker Savvy Plus, a video training site that competes with Grudzien’s Stoxpoker. I also believe that I have played against several of Grudzien’s accounts without knowing that they were the same person. While I don’t believe either of these facts colors my view of the situation, I’ll leave the reader to be the final authority on that.

The latest scandal to rock the online poker world is Nick “Stoxtrader” Grudzien’s admission that he has played under multiple screennames on both Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker. According to his post in the 2+2 thread on the subject:

In the last few days various allegations have been made that I have played on multiple accounts on FTP and Stars and that by doing so I have violated the terms and conditions of the sites and also cheated in ways including colluding. The relevant facts are:

(1) At no point have I ever colluded. This is a categorical denial without exceptions.
(2) I played on a single account on FTP and a single account on PokerStars for the previous four year period through January 2010. The only exception to this was when I made instructional videos.
(3) In January 2010 I created one new account on FTP and one new account on Stars. I played on these accounts for roughly one month and have not used them since. During that time these were the only accounts on which I played at these sites. I have not played poker since March 7th, and will not play again until I receive communication from a pokersite that I am able to do so.

Since I have admitted to breaking the TOS of stars and ftp I don’t plan on playing any poker until I receive communication from the pokersites that it is ok to do so, and at that time I can share the details of any information I recieve from them. FTP and pokerstars are aware of the allegations and I have encouraged them to do a full and thorough investigation to confirm that what I say is completely accurate. I would like to have the opportunity to continue to be a contributing member of both stoxpoker and 2+2, I ask for your patience while these matters are sorted out over the next few days.

As Grudzien’s post suggests, there are at least three issues here, which I’ll address separately.

I have little to say about the allegations of collusion. Smarter people than I agree that the evidence looks pretty damning, and should they prove true, I don’t think there’s any question that this would be unethical.

Is it ethical to maintain a separate account for the purpose of making instructional videos, either to avoid providing potential opponents with information that can be used against you or to ensure that people do not play differently against you because they know you are recording the session? I would argue no on both counts.

Both Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker forbid players to play on more than one account. Lee Jones, the former poker room manager at Poker Stars, once suggested that online poker would be better off if everyone played under a new screenname every session, insuring anonymity for everyone. Regardless of what you think of the one-account-per-player policy, though, it is currently the rule and must be followed. To do otherwise is to gain an unfair informational advantage over opponents who play by the rules. In the current online poker environment, players have a right to know who they’re playing against.

Loss of anonymity is to some extent the price you pay for the opportunity to earn money as a coach or instructor Grudzien could have simply obscured his screenname in post-production, as I used to do in my videos. While this doesn’t provide total anonymity, it solves the worst of the problem without harm to one’s actual opponents in the video. Moreover, Full Tilt Poker provides special “educational” tables where its affiliated Cardrunners pros are allowed to make videos pseudonymously, and all players there understand in advance that this is a possibility. Given Stoxpoker’s relationship with Cardrunners, this ought to have been an option available to Grudzien as well.

Even obscuring one’s screenname in an instructional video is not entirely beyond reproach, though, which is part of why I stopped doing it. Grudzien’s customers and students deserve full information about the person they are paying. I don’t consider the practice downright unethical, because ultimately students can choose not to hire Grudzien if he refuses to disclose his screenname and results, but even this requires that they at least be aware that plays under another account than the one they know from his videos.

In Grudzien’s case, the problem is particularly acute since it seems his primary account was actually a well-known ratholer (ie, a player who buys in for the minimum, plays almost exclusively pre-flop poker, and quits if he doubles up). Regardless of what you think about ratholing, students paying for poker instruction have a right to know that the person they are hiring engages in the practice, as this potentially limits his experience and authority regarding post-flop play.

Thus far, Grudzien has been cryptic about why he changed screennames in January:

There are online poker players who have used 2nd screenames for the purpose of deceiving others into giving them action, evading taxes, collusion, entering multiple times into the same tournament, ghosting, to obscure previous results and stats, to clear extra bonuses, to circumvent affiliate CPA or rakeback rules, to bypass the pokersites shortstack buy-in time limitation, to teamplay, to share action with others at the same table, to chip dump or otherwise engage in underhanded actions I do not know about. I have never done any of these things. Beyond that I cannot and will not comment on the screename issue, nor can I say why I cannot elaborate further other than to say that my reasons for that are serious and personal.

Contrary to the demands of the bloodthirsty mob, Grudzien does have a right to privacy and does not have to out his “serious and personal” situation to anyone. Even without knowing the situation, however, I feel comfortable stating unequivocally that changing screennames is not an ethical response.

Regardless of Grudzien’s intentions, playing under a new account provides him with an unfair advantage over his opponents. He knows who we are and have data on their play, but we do not know who he is. I say “we” because, if Nick really is 40putts/bulltf0rdtuff on FTP and Knockstiff/gr3atvlewbr0 on Stars, as is widely believed, then I myself had a good deal of experience with all of these accounts. In fact, there’s some unintentional in “Dominating Short Stacks”, the most recent video I’ve published on Poker Savvy Plus, in which I play against a table full of short stackers on Poker Stars. One of the players was gr3atvlewbr0, who at the time was unknown to me.

At one point, I say, “bballjim and greatview, to the best of my knowledge, are not professional short stackers…. [T]hey very well might be recreational players”. I go on to contrast them with Littlezen and hibachi41, who are professional short stackers, and explain what I expect to be the differences between them. I specifically talk about adjusting my open raise sizing to gr3atvlewbr0 in a way that I wouldn’t against a professional short stacker because I don’t expect him to be able to exploit it as well. I talk through a hand where I lead the flop instead of going for a check-raise because I don’t expect a recreational player to continuation bet a missed flop as often as a professional would.

All of this indicates the kind of informational disadvantage I was at against this new account, while Grudzien had access to all the data and experience he had on my foucault82 account, the only screenname I’ve ever used on Poker Stars. No matter how serious the mysterious problem facing Grudzien may have been, he has no right to a solution that comes at the expense of myself and everyone else who played regularly with his old accounts.

It’s not really fair to call the Villain in this hand a nit, but he’s one of the tightest winning 5/10 regulars anyway. That’s part of the reason I bet the turn against him, rather than just check-calling the turn as I might against a more aggressive player.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

Hero (SB) ($2982)
BB ($970)
UTG ($969.50)
MP ($200)
CO ($275)
Button ($3271.65)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, 9
1 fold, MP bets $20, 1 fold, Button calls $20, Hero raises to $90, 2 folds, Button calls $70

Flop: ($210) 3, 9, A (2 players)
Hero bets $177, Button calls $177

Turn: ($564) 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $388, Button raises to $880, Hero calls $492

River: ($2324) K (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $2124.65 (All-In), Hero folds

Total pot: $2324 | Rake: $3

Results:
Button shows 4, 4 (one pair, fours).
Outcome: Button won $2321

I told him in chat that 4’s were the best hand, but really even Kdx beats 44 by the river, so I doubt he believed me.

It’s pretty unlikely that I’ll have a flush by the river, but against a nit I don’t really consider calling with less. That’s the problem with exploitive play: it is itself exploitable.

Villain on my right is kind of a fish, his turn lead is definitely strong. The guy on my left is a pretty decent reg, a bit on the TAGgish side in general but has a propensity to play back at me. I think he dislikes me, I probably said something to him at some point. I don’t expect him to slowplay much preflop or on the flop, but I also didn’t think he would jam too aggressively on the turn since the fish usually has two pair or better.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

SB ($1005)
BB ($1000)
Hero (UTG) ($1164)
MP ($1499)
CO ($1015)
Button ($1356)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A, 10
Hero bets $35, MP calls $35, 3 folds, BB calls $25

Flop: ($110) 8, Q, K (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $77, MP calls $77, BB calls $77

Turn: ($341) 10 (3 players)
BB bets $225, Hero calls $225, MP raises to $1387 (All-In), 1 fold, Hero calls $827 (All-In)

River: ($2670) J (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $2670 | Rake: $3

Results:
Hero had A, 10 (straight, Ace high).
MP had Q, K (two pair, Kings and Queens).
Outcome: Hero won $2667

I need 31% equity to make the call. I think the straights are pretty unlikely except maybe Js9s. I’m almost exactly breaking even against a strong range without straights:

equity     win     tie           pots won     pots tied
Hand 0:     30.682%      30.68%     00.00%                243             0.00   { AsTs }
Hand 1:     69.318%      69.32%     00.00%                549             0.00   { KK-QQ, 88, KQs, KQo }

Against a much wider range that includes straights but also pair + draw:

equity     win     tie           pots won     pots tied
Hand 0:     33.285%      32.93%     00.36%               1246            13.50   { AsTs }
Hand 1:     66.715%      66.36%     00.36%               2511            13.50   { KK-QQ, 88, AJs, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, AJo, KTo+, QJo, J9o+ }

The absolute worst case scenarios for me are Js9s or AxJs, against which I’m only 22%. I’m not sure he’s calling Js9s pre-flop or AJo on the flop, though. Of course, any chance of him being on a pure draw improves my equity a lot, though I also think that’s unlikely. All in all, it’s very close, and I’m glad I spite called.

I should be shoving the turn (for value), but this was still fun:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (4 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

BB ($1296.75)
UTG ($1000)
Hero (Button) ($2015)
SB ($4327)

Preflop: Hero is Button with A, 4
1 fold, Hero bets $25, 1 fold, BB calls $15

Flop: ($55) J, 3, 2 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $33, BB raises to $154, Hero calls $121

Turn: ($363) 9 (2 players)
BB bets $300, Hero calls $300

River: ($963) 2 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks

Total pot: $963 | Rake: $2

Results:
Hero had A, 4 (one pair, twos).
BB had 6, 4 (one pair, twos).
Outcome: Hero won $961

The Ad is a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, I block one of his outs, but on the other hand, the nut flush draw is the most likely draw for him to have. Since he can’t have that, it does reduce the number of flushes in his range. I was just so sure based on his flop bet sizing…

A commenter on yesterday’s re-squeeze hand remarked that even at high stakes he felt like Villain would pretty much always have AK when he overcalled the first pre-flop raise and then shoved over a re-raise and a call. Having just played this hand, I couldn’t resist posting it:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $4.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

SB ($400)
BB ($400)
UTG ($385.80)
MP ($484.40)
CO ($515.90)
Hero (Button) ($421.90)

Preflop: Hero is Button with K, 10
2 folds, CO bets $12, Hero calls $12, SB raises to $52, 1 fold, CO calls $40, Hero raises to $421.90 (All-In), 2 folds

Total pot: $160 | Rake: $0

Results:
Hero didn’t show K, 10.
Outcome: Hero won $160

Granted I wasn’t an overcaller, which means I can rep a monster more credibly, but then the pot’s also a lot smaller, meaning my risk: reward ratio is greater and I shouldn’t be light as often.

Just as a quick follow-up to yesterday’s review of GoGo Wireless on AirTran, I thought I’d let everyone know that the free wireless internet at Boston’s Logan Airport is also quite suitable for poker playing:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $80.00 BB (5 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

BB ($5680)
UTG ($20005)
Hero (MP) ($8120)
Button ($11344.55)
SB ($16116)

Preflop: Hero is MP with Q, Q
1 fold, Hero bets $240, 1 fold, SB raises to $880, 1 fold, Hero raises to $1888, SB raises to $16116 (All-In), Hero calls $6232 (All-In)

Flop: ($16320) A, J, 3 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Turn: ($16320) 4 (2 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($16320) 9 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $16320 | Rake: $3

Results:
SB had 10, 10 (one pair, tens).
Hero had Q, Q (one pair, Queens).
Outcome: Hero won $16317

I’ll tell you up front that I hate flying AirTran. The flights are late, the seats are cramped, and the snacks suck. However, they offer wicked cheap flights even at the last minute, so I find myself flying with them from time to time. Since hearing that they now have wireless internet on all their flights, I’ve been curious to try it out. Yesterday, I got the chance.

It was just a short hop from Baltimore to Boston, but I gladly dropped $5 to get access to the WiFi for the duration of the flight. If it was actually reliable enough to play poker, it would be well worth the investment and could make future flights a lot more palatable (and profitable).

I found it to be quite quick, far better than the WiFi provided at most hotels. I had no trouble connecting to Full Tilt Poker and playing several tables of Rush Poker, and none of the flight attendants hassled me about it or anything. Not that there’s actually anything illegal about playing anyway, but I was prepared to tell a fretful attendant that I wasn’t playing for real money just to avoid some overly paranoid reaction.

Of course, sometimes it pays to be suspicious:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $2.00 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

UTG ($111.80)
MP ($283.95)
Hero (CO) ($201)
Button ($246.65)
SB ($681.95)
BB ($200)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A, Q
2 folds, Hero bets $6, Button calls $6, 2 folds

Flop: ($15) 2, 6, J (2 players)
Hero bets $9, Button calls $9

Turn: ($33) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $33, Hero calls $33

River: ($99) 7 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks

Total pot: $99 | Rake: $3

Results:
Button had Q, K (one pair, sixes).
Hero had A, Q (one pair, sixes).
Outcome: Hero won $96

I was calling river too, obviously.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $4.00 BB (5 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

Hero (BB) ($400)
UTG ($400)
MP ($300)
Button ($414)
SB ($425)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 10, A
2 folds, Button bets $12, 1 fold, Hero calls $8

Flop: ($26) 6, J, 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $20, Hero calls $20

Turn: ($66) K (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks

River: ($66) 9 (2 players)
Hero bets $44, Button raises to $116, Hero raises to $368 (All-In), 1 fold

Total pot: $298 | Rake: $2

Results:
Hero didn’t show 10, A (nothing).
Outcome: Hero won $296

I called the flop thinking A-high would be good often enough, but by the river I felt like there was more value in turning my hand into a bluff by leading out.

I must say, the raise surprised me. I really had no idea what to make of it: could be a thin value raise with J9/89, could be QT, could be turning something into a bluff. I actually thought flushes were less likely since the turn is such a good double barrel spot (unless she has the Jd or 8d, I suppose), and anyways she can’t have the nuts (not that I expect her to fold any flush).

If you’re ever going to bluff here, and quite possibly you shouldn’t, but if you’re ever going to, then Adx is the hand to do it with. Come to think of it, Jdx and 8dx are good candidates too, though it’s not so likely you’d be bluffing the river with those.

My range for 3-betting an UTG raiser from UTG+1 isn’t going to be all that wide, and by the river, AK is probably closer to the bottom of it than the top:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $50.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

CO ($4925)
Button ($6246)
SB ($3023)
BB ($7794)
UTG ($5000)
Hero (MP) ($5000)

Preflop: Hero is MP with K, A
UTG bets $150, Hero raises to $450, 4 folds, UTG calls $300

Flop: ($975) J, 2, A (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $650, UTG calls $650

Turn: ($2275) J (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero checks

River: ($2275) Q (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero checks

Total pot: $2275 | Rake: $3

Results:
UTG had 10, A (two pair, Aces and Jacks).
Hero had K, A (two pair, Aces and Jacks).
Outcome: Hero won $2272

This check also assumes Villain is a good hand reader and all-around good player, capable of a disciplined fold and of checking hands stronger than AK here. I didn’t know any of that for sure, but I thought it was likely. He probably would have called the river with AT, though that doesn’t necessarily mean I should bet. Frankly, I don’t think his pre-flop call is all that good, and while AT is obviously the most likely hand to pay off a value bet, I wasn’t at all sure he even had it in his range.

I think the turn is a pretty clear check. I can’t expect to get three streets from AQ or AT, and I think if anything they are more likely to put money in on the river rather than the turn. I think I can value bet any river except a Q.

On the plus side, that hand may have helped me get paid on the river in this one:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $50.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

UTG ($4925)
MP ($6071)
CO ($3078)
Button ($7203)
SB ($5297)
Hero (BB) ($6565)

Preflop: Hero is BB with J, A
4 folds, SB bets $150, Hero raises to $400, SB calls $250

Flop: ($800) 2, J, 10 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $555, SB calls $555

Turn: ($1910) Q (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

River: ($1910) 3 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $1234, SB calls $1234

Total pot: $4378 | Rake: $3

Results:
SB mucked 9, 10 (one pair, tens).
Hero had J, A (one pair, Jacks).
Outcome: Hero won $4375

If he decides that I won’t make thin value bets on the river, then he can put me on a polarized range here and expect to see either a bluff or two pair plus, many of which would have bet again on the turn.