«

More Problems at UB?

Hellmuth shown to have won without winning

by , Dec 20, 2008 | 4:22 pm

Comments (7)

The hot topic at 2+2 at the moment involves everyone’s favorite whipping boys: Ultimate Bet and Phil Hellmuth. Seems a player by the name of DOUBLEBALLER was playing $200/400 limit holdem with Hellmuth this morning when the following hand comes up:

Hellmuth wins hand without showing cards at showdown.

According to the hand history, Hellmuth has 10-2, while Doubleballer has KQ.

As you can imagine, all sorts of heck breaks loose on the Internet when a glitch like this happens. The person who was affected by this would post on 2+2, saying he contacted UB support, who would only credit $2300 for now (he would later post in the thread that he had to make another call to support to get the rest of what he lost).

While it was supposedly a software glitch (that UB support says has already been fixed), it’s peculiar that the problem happened with the player most synonymous with UB in the hand in question. More details on the situation as things happen.

Update: COO Paul Leggett blogged briefly about the incident over at the Ultimate Bet blog.


Tags: , , ,

7 Comments to “More Problems at UB? ”


  1. California Jen     says:
    December 20th, 2008 at 7:49pm

    Is ANYONE shocked by this?


  2. DanM     says:
    December 21st, 2008 at 9:11am

    It’s SOOOO blatant and the chatter suggests to me it had to be some sort of disconnect issue. You know, some tables people choose to play on are not disconnect-protected … so a disconnect is an automatic fold.

    That’s the only plausible reason I can come up with.

    BTW, this is not Phil’s first online poker boo-boo, you may recall:
    https://pokerati.com/2005/10/02/online-poker-pro-scandal/


  3. DanM     says:
    December 21st, 2008 at 10:36am

    Oh, wait, now I’m confused … I thought the pot was shipped to him WITH his hand shown down, meaning everyone saw his blatantly losing hand.

    That’s what would seem like a true technical guffaw. But the fact that his cards weren’t shown? Yikes, not good …


  4. DanM     says:
    December 21st, 2008 at 10:38am

    I woulda thought a flat-out hoax might be possible … but Leggett’s response on the UB Blog pretty much disqualifies that.

    Yikes-yikes … very bad, no!?!


  5. Kevin Mathers     says:
    December 21st, 2008 at 10:58am

    If you look at the hand at tableratings, it doesn’t show his hand. If you see the thread as it initially appears in the 2+2 thread, the hand shows he had 10-2.


  6. Pauly     says:
    December 21st, 2008 at 11:57am

    You can’t be serious, Cereus?


  7. Pokermario     says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 10:45am

    So weird the way the hand plays out with no showdown UB really dropped the ball big time here software glitch huh? I’ve honestly never seen a computer make a logic error before….sounds really fishy to me