[CalvinHobbes]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel there should be some sort of compensation as well, you were cheated and deserve some justice. However how do you come up with a different formula than what they are employing? What can you really base it on? I mean who says repayment+30% is any more fair than repayment+10% (current as you say, which would be 1.1 not 1.01).


[/ QUOTE ]

Ten percent annual interest over the time period in question is about $1.01 per $1.00(and I certainly didn't receive 110% of my PokerTracker losses)

I'm not sure that there's an ideal repayment formula, but let's compare the way Absolute has handled tournament vs cash game play.

In the multi-table tournaments, Absolute refunded EVERY BUY-IN FOR EVERY PLAYER, regardless of whether that player ever even sat at the table with a cheater. Additionally, they let every player who won money keep the money they won, and they bumped up every player in the pay scale who finished below the cheater.

Also, while I'm not sure if this is true, at least one player claims to have been refunded for single table heads-up tournaments. In his case, he claims to have been refunded not only the buy-ins he lost, but additionally the money he would have received had he won the tournament.

In these two cases, Absolute is implicitly acknowledging that losses in unfair games are illegitimate, regardless of whether those losses were directly to the cheating player. Additionally, by paying out more money than was directly lost, they are acknowledging that it is their responsibility to go above and beyond merely "paying back" in order to make amends for what has transpired.

However, in the case of cash game players who were most victimized by the cheating accounts, Absolute is trying to get away with paying the minimum amount they feel they can justify.