[apefish]

One of the problems with a site posting a response like this is we have no idea what sample of hands/sessions they looked at in making these determinations.

If they looked at the sessions that were eventually plotted on Josems plot against other known databases they would have a hard time explaining the sessions, because quite simply they are unexplainable in the context of everything good players know about the game.

But I have no doubt that in situations like this- the first thing sites tend to do is seek any miniscule plausibility instead of seeking to determine how implausible it is.
In other words- I am almost certain Absolute looked at the incredibly suspect sessions and then said "well let's find minor details we can latch onto that don't fit the theory people are operating under."
All in river calls or turn all in calls while marginally ahead in which they get drawn out on would be some of these factors.

Another factor they likely used but will never let us know explicitly is the other sessions in which it was clear the player knew he was suspected of cheating (the night half of 2+2 was aware he was on and playing) or isn't within the period of suspected cheating. In short- I am almost certain they used sessions where the accounts lost money as evidence in favor of not cheating without looking at the underlying play.
This way they can come back and say "well the person played the same unorthodox poker in another session and lost- therefore your claim cannot be true."

That they use the words unorthodox/fortunate result/etc to me indicates either a vast misunderstanding of the game or a attempt to tell us the same.
You can have fortunate results while playing "unorthodox". But unorthdox isn't a catch-all for all suspicious/maniacal/otherwise inexplicible styles of play.
And it certainly shouldn't be used as a phrase when the sessions in which the account was already exposed in these threads and loses are "unorthodox" in a much much different way than the winning sessions were.

When I sit down and do flips with other 2+2ers surely that is "unorthodox" play. And I can have a "fortunate result" with my unorthodox play of hands in them. But it is explainable given context of that single session.

Absolute has failed to address that these winning sessions tend to be unexplainable on their own, and that is a mild shortcoming on Absolute's part.

But the big failure is they have completely missed the sequential context of all the actions of the suspected accounts. And that is unforgivable.