[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is how often he could be expected to play perfectly with an infinite river aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

People also wants to believe that this guy plays several hundred hands perfectly. But to know he played perfectly we must also must know he never folded the best hand and ideally that he had 100% showdown winnings (or that we know for sure that he lost only with a bluff which might be hard with a guy that may think his T high is good).

edit: I also beleive that all estimates of playing perfectly on the river will have a very large uncertainty in them because IT is exremely difficult to models it taking into account hole cards, prior betting and board texture.
If the stimates are based on a random board, they will be way off for someone that runs hot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same guy that, in a 190 hands stretch, never showed down a losing hand calling a riverbet (since he never called unless opponent was allin and in those cases he always won, save one exception), started calling some huge bets on the river with the worst possible hands (with one call he loses to 6 high on 25xxx, he had 34) after the alleged cheating was exposed.

Under you assumption this could all be coincidence.

So your assumption is that a player who will sometimes call with the worst possible hand on the river, can randomly have a 190 hand stretch where he never calls the river with a losing hand because he is running hot?

edit: corrected some grammar