• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Annie Duke’s Interview with Pokernews.com on 6-27-08
Annie Duke's Interview With Pokernews About UB CheatingLink To Interview Also in UB Scandal StickyThis interview also inspired a thread on 2+2 called - Annie Duke Is A Liar Here is a link to that thread on 2+2 poker forum --Annie Duke/ UB thread
Question #1
Q:
When did you become familiar with what happened here? I know the date wasJanuary 12 (2008) when it was actually disclosed to UB and they informed the KGC,when were you made aware?
Annie – 
I sort-of became aware that there was sort-of rumblings about something goingon in late January-February, I didn’t become more fully informed of the issue untilMarch. That’s because my situation with UB, when UB initially changed ownership Ivery much just became an endorser. I was very much like a silent endorser in terms of any input into their business workings. In the fall when there was actually a lot of stuff going on I was actually looking to leave the brand. I was vey unhappy about what wasgoing on, so January-February I was still kind-of in that mode even though the newmanagement had come in. I wasn’t particularly trusting of the site so I was activelylooking to leave the brand. I was actually pretty much about to do it, when the newmanagement brought me down, really gave me a lot of transparency on what was goingon, talked to me on what was going on, and I not only developed a comfort level withthat, that made me want to stay with the brand. I then was willing to actually put myname on the cardroom, so my name is now on the cardroom, so that’s a big 180 for me.From there’s no way I would ever stay with this brand and I don’t want my nameassociated with it, to I want my name associated with it in a very stepped-up way where Ihave a lot of say in the business.
Question #2
Q:
So it’s fair to say you are very knowledgeable about the current ownership of UltimateBet?
Annie
– Yes
Question #3
Q:
Is it also fair to say that you are confident that if there were any “bad apples” at UBthat those “bad apples” have been eliminated from the process?
Annie
– If I weren’t confident about that I wouldn’t be there. Honestly this is acompletely new management change so they guy who’s running it, Paul Leggett is anamazing guy, incredible integrity. I think that they handled this particular issue not onlywith grace and integrity, but you know that people need to be made aware that thismanagement stepped up to the plate in a way that they actually didn’t have to from sort-of a legal standpoint. Because this is a problem that occurred long before they took over 
 
from a previous management that really should have been stepping up to the plate intaking care of the problem themselves once it was found out, because the company wassold with this issue in place.
Question #4
Q:
So do you think it’s fair to say, I’m not a huge, I don’t participate in online forumsmuch. Do you think it’s fair to say that some of the timelines of the situation have sort-of  been triggered by the online forums and by the investigations that have occurred on theonline forums? At least it would seem so to the untrained eye, I wonder if you could talk about that?
Annie – 
I’m not sure exactly. I mean what I can tell you that the problem was discovered by the online forums and that’s mainly because this particular superuser was a very smartsuperuser. So it wasn’t something that you were gonna pick up by just general fraud protection that you would have on the site. He or She, because I am not actually surewhich it was, I am assuming it was a “He” because most poker players are “He”, Well Iguess it could be a group of “He” but anyway they, he, whatever were very adept andsort-of not making it too obvious as to what was going on. So I think that this was muchmore of a long term play and I think that because of what happened with another scandal.People were very vigilant about sort-of tracking everybody, you know anything thatmight be unusual.
Question#5
Q:
Are you comfortable and confident with how UB responded with transparency, lets just stick with that word, are you happy with how they responded in a transparentmanner? Because many on the forums really believe that, I’m not saying the forums drivethis but…….
Annie
– You know I think that the forums, I think there’s a couple of things the forumsare upset about. I think that people are upset about the pace and I think that people shouldactually be encouraged by the pace. It means that the investigation was done in a verythoughtful way, and you know obviously there’s gonna be some people that are still goingto be making claims. But for the most part everybody was refunded and nobody wasmissed. There will be a few people that are missed, it was an extensive problem, but for the most part they got everybody, Ok. So that was really good. Number two. I think  people are upset that there wasn’t a name released. The fact is that, it’s not that UB is notconsidering pursuing legal actions, in fact they are investigating that. They’re lookinginto what kind of legal actions they have. But the issue is that there’s a lot of problemswhen you talk about internet fraud, and particularly internet fraud in an industry theAmerican Government wrongly refuses to regulate. So here’s the issue. Number One,How do you prove that it’s that person, you can prove that a certain computer has donesomething, right? But then you got to connect the person or people to the computer, ok?So that’s extremely complex, you can’t just go around saying you know John Doe did it, because you have to be able to prove without, you know, a shadow of a doubt that theywere at the computer at that time, and you have to be able to show that Number One. Number Two. Even if you did know who it was, then what jurisdiction did the crime
 
occur in? Did it occur where the servers are? Did it occur where the company is? Did itoccur where it is incorporated? Did it occur in the state or states that it happened in, or countries that it has happened in, right? So you have to be able to determine jurisdictionwhich is very difficult when you talk about internet fraud, ok? But even if you diddetermine jurisdiction, and lets say the jurisdiction was in the U.S. for example. How doyou go to the U.S. government and say, look somebody committed fraud in a companythat you, depending on who you talk to in your government, consider to be illegallyoperating in the U.S.?
Question #6 
Q:
You can’t, but it’s a good point. But back to the issue of how the information wasreleased. Really quickly, were you aware at anytime of it? Was there any thought to, or any plan of releasing some type of interim statement, or sort of………..
Annie
– Well there were some…… Well there were actually two interim statementsreleased. And the both basically said the same thing; there’s a problem, we’reinvestigating it, we’re working with Kahnawake.
Question #7 
Q:
You know you’re a credible person in the poker world. Have you at any point thoughtabout when all this stuff was going down, I’m at risk here? I’m putting myself at risk, andhow do you feel about that? I know what you said earlier that you don’t care what peoplethink about you, but today our brand is….
Annie – 
 No, but by the way, my integrity is very important to me and what people think about my integrity is. Here’s the situation. You know, I really practice what I preach. Youknow, I believe that this industry needs to be regulated. I believe that you need to supportcompanies that are essentially self-regulating because since there isn’t regulation now.You know I put myself at risk by getting up and testifying in front of Congress, but I feltlike it was the right thing to do. Because I’m willing to put my face out there for anindustry that some people in the federal government deem to be illegal and say that it’sright, because it is right.
Question #8
Q:
So lets talk about, lets shift gears to the testimony which you mentioned a little whileago. That’s something that I think has got to be particularly frustrating for you in a sensethat you went to the House Judiciary, you gave this testimony which many peopleconsidered to be the best of the day, and now you’re involved with a company…Does itever occur to you that maybe this is, with everything going on here, is going to givefodder to those who don’t like poker and who want to see it not do well?
Annie
– You know, Obviously it’s no fun that this happened and it’s not good for thefight for regulation that something like this happened. On the one hand, from thestandpoint of the people who are pro-regulation there’s no question that this is in somesense good that it happened. Because now you can show, and there’s other instances of this. Why online poker is actually safe, why you can take advantage of this datamining
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...