In this reboot of the discussion lets start by looking at the 2005 Gambling Act. We agree that case law is required to be certain as to what is or is not cheating. We also agree that a court would not accept that any and every breach of a sites Terms and Conditions is cheating. Some terms have nothing to do with the game, event or individual bet. Others however do relate to the rules of the game or the rules of an event that is bet upon and these are relevant to the question of cheating.
These are the objectives of the Act and are relevant to how the court would interpret cheating:
The licensing objectives
In this Act a reference to the licensing objectives is a reference to the objectives
of—
(a) preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being
associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c) protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or
exploited by gambling
It should also be noted that Section 42 of the Act on cheating is no after thought or add on. It is the only offence in the act that is not time limited - all others have a 12 month prosecution limit. Section 42 also carries the stiffest penalty with up to 2 years in gaol. This section deliberately carries the stiffest penalty and is deliberately broad in scope plus it deliberately changed the law to make it an offence even if there was no financial gain, a big change and a big evidential barrier removed. It also delibeately applies to everyone not just people licenced under the act
The act does not define cheating case by case - it is not a list of all methods of cheating, it is deliberately hugely broad in scope, but under the section giving the commission powers to void bets it does have stuff to say on what is unfair
In considering whether a bet was unfair the Commission shall, in particular,
take account of any of the following that applies—
(a) the fact that either party to the bet supplied insufficient, false or
misleading information in connection with it,
(b) the fact that either party to the bet believed or ought to have believed
that a race, competition or other event or process to which the bet
related was or would be conducted in contravention of industry rules,
(c) the fact that either party to the bet believed or ought to have believed
that an offence under section 42 had been or was likely to be committed
in respect of anything to which the bet related, and
(d) the fact that either party to the bet was convicted of an offence under
section 42 in relation to the bet.
Interestingly the act gives power to void bets for unfairness short of cheating, again this power is time limited unless there is a Section 42 offence.
Cheating
(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) cheats at gambling, or
(b) does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person
to cheat at gambling.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who
cheats—
(a) improves his chances of winning anything, or
(b) wins anything.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may,
in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in
connection with—
(a) the process by which gambling is conducted, or
(b) a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling
relates.
Clause 42 - 3 makes it clear that altering the result is cheating - throwing the fight, not having the horse run to its capability, bowling a no ball. It also makes clear that interfering with the process of the bet is enough - starting the dog race early so that bets can go on post event. The event does not need to be altered deception or interference in the process of the bet is enough. We are still left with the undefined act though- to "cheat". Which is why we can disagree as to what is cheating.
The Gambling Commission largely refuses to clarify what is and is not cheating and says that this is up to the courts. There has been an exception to this though. They were forced by the minister to consult on inside information. That is here:
Old / Expired Link
In here they have a table showing what they see as cheating
Awareness of criminality (or malfunction)
This could be described as „getting in on the act‟ ie where an individual identifies
actual or possible criminality in either betting or a sport or other event and attempts
to use that information to place bets. It could also cover an individual who becomes
aware of a malfunction in processes which enables them to have prior knowledge of
the outcome of an event:
a. spotting a trend of bets contrary to the odds in a location close to the home
of a primary player
b. identifying individuals connected to a group of players placing bets on their
team to lose
c. being aware of an attempt to dishonestly manipulate the odds or the event
although not themselves part of this attempt or having initiated or paid for
this manipulation to occur
d. becoming aware of a breach in sports rules which provides an advantage to
those with advance knowledge – eg races starting early
e. when an employee of a betting operator fails to protect the operator from
exposure to risk and fails to make a 15.14 report, and instead gains from
bets privately using their own privileged awareness of criminality.
Manipulation of the odds
This is a situation where a hustle or sting has occurred. An individual is using inside
information in a scenario where the odds have been dishonestly manipulated over a
history of events (eg outside the rules of the sport) or by issuing dishonest
information or failing to issue information in order to deliberately affect the betting
odds and uses that privileged information differential to place bets against the
market.
We wish to be careful to distinguish between common activities in some sports such
as controlling handicap marks, and activities which are deliberately dishonest and
contrary to the rules of the sport. A comparison to the financial sector may be
relevant. For example, issuing false information about a company‟s performance
would clearly be dishonestly manipulating the market. However, using common
accountancy practices to throw a positive light on a company‟s performance would
be acceptable, so long as accountancy rules were observed. Whilst it is difficult to
draw the line between the two, it is necessary to do so. We believe that the
example about issuing false information applies in the same way for sport.
A similar issue might be activity which uses weight of money (rather than
information) to manipulate the odds available in the market – we welcome views on
the extent to which this practice is appropriate in betting.
Manipulation of the event
In this case, an individual has manipulated the conduct of an event to achieve a
result or an occurrence within the whole event and uses that information to place
bets. For example:
a. „spot fixing‟ – we use this term to refer to fixing individual elements of a
match, race or event (but not necessarily the overall outcome) for the
purpose of speciality bets, such as first penalty
b. match or event fixing – deliberately losing or being part of a collusion to fix
the match, race or other event, and using information about the fix to place
bets.
This consultation is really just background as to what the UKGC sees as cheating, it gives us some indication of where they see the line but again we are left with a one word offence and the need for case law.
The UKGC in their review of in running betting have had a look at bots used on betting exchanges to automate bets. Crucially these bots are allowed by the exchanges - this BetDaQ Ts and Cs document makes their attitude clear:
10.19 Programs may be used by some Members in order to automatically make offers into the Exchange and enter into binding contracts with other Members based on certain specifications and variables set within the program ("Bots"). Members, whether they use Bots or not to make offers on the Exchange, should be aware that any offer could be susceptible to exploitation by other Members.
Essentially it is buyer beware - the bot may give someone an advantage but they are a legal part of the betting process under the Ts and Cs. The UKGC have essentially agreed that for now this is OK but they clearly think that with additional evidence of unfairness they might need to act, even without sites banning them.
Old / Expired Link
Betting customers using ‘bots’ obtain a number of advantages over other customers who
either choose not to use a ‘bot’ or do not even know about them. The use of ‘bots’
automates the process of betting and turns it into a process more akin to trading on the
stock exchange. Interest in, or knowledge of, the sporting event is unnecessary as the ‘bot’
enables the user to make decisions and place bets in order to make a profit by trading on
their betting position using market fluctuations.
3.21 While there remains some concern on the part of commentators about the breadth of
awareness among in-running betting customers about differential feed speeds, the risk of
betting on different information and the possible use of ‘bots’, the level of awareness of
variable time delays appears high and the availability and use of ‘bots’ is publicised. As
with the fast feeds and variable time delays, it is the case that such equipment is publicly
available, at a cost, and used for benefit in these particular markets. The limited evidence
we have received indicates that the level of awareness of variable time delays and other
technological advantages is high among in-running betting customers and there is no need
for further information requirements relating to these issues at present.
3.22 The Commission would not take action against technological advances per se unless the
risk to the licensing objectives were proven or probable. On the basis of our information to
date there is an insufficient case in relation to any threat to the licensing objectives for
regulatory action over the use of technological advantages such as differential feeds or use
of bots.
So for the UKGC it is whether the licencing objectives are challenged that matters on technological aids.
Now a Poker Bot run on a site that bans them - pretty much all of them - is clearly not "open". The human poker player is deceived, the bot operator is deliberately breaking the sites Ts and Cs and deceiving the site. Running such a bot is clearly against the licencing objective of open gambling.
As for whether it is "fair" - the deception itself is unfair to the site and the human opponent. The whole point of the bot is to make a profit. That profit comes from the human player in what is an even odds game. Even if it is a terrible bot and makes a loss the bot operator is trying to gain an unfair advantage. That advantage comes from pitching programming, likely including data analysis of the opponents play and adaptive algorithms against a human. The expectation of the human is that they are playing a human not a programme and so they bet as against a human.
It is also relevant that the typical target of the bot operator is the low stakes, inexperienced and generally worst players. Having a human play at these stakes professionally is not viable, the hourly earn rate would be too low. The expectation is that the opponents are similar inexperienced or relatively bad, amateur players...not a sophisticated computer programme operating as a professional agent and made financially viable at these low stakes because the betting is automated. The whole proposition - similar humans playing at a similar level in a skill based game is altered, the bets become between the human and a sophisticated, adaptive computer programme. The whole game is different, the skills required different and the competition different - instead of recreational inter-human play you have professional programmer pitched against amateur recreational player. The imbalance is obviously unfair, clearly against the rules of the bet and so clearly and undoubtedly cheating.
I'm glad that you accept that collusion can be cheating. At an 8 player table of 7 card stud 16 down cards are dealt. The non colluder knows their two only. In the worst case scenario of all 7 others colluding they all know 14 of the cards dealt. It is as with all online poker a single deck game. Knowing 14 of the remaining cards not available in future rounds rather than 2 is a huge advantage, it is also possible that the 12 extra revealed cards are crucial to interpreting the marks bets. It could be immediately clear that they cannot have three of a kind for instance or that the pair of Aces they are representing is impossible. By the final round of betting the mark has 3 down cards and 4 revealed cards. Here certainty that they do not have a straight or a flush can easily be worked out if the 12 extra known cards are the important ones - their hope of winning by bluffing is thus removed - any bluff bet is a certain and known losing proposition because of the colluders inside information.
Now, bots that share data and so actively collude are more than just a theoretical proposition. Such a bot meets your definition of cheating as well as mine.
Sorry this is so long but I wanted to get the relevant stuff I have from the UKGC docs in one post.
Do you still think running a poker bot is not cheating?
