Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[rakemeplz]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody should get at Gary Wise, who writes for ESPN, or other ESPN/ABC/Disney contacts. I'm sure ESPN might want to know that one of the sites buying major add time for their WSOP broadcasts is currently involved in this mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm WTF? How is absolute involved in this mess? As far as I know they were maliciously hacked and their business is in shambles and they are trying to resolve the situation...I dont understand why we should be notifying entities that have business relationships with absolute.

I'm probably wrong here, just looking for your point of view.

[pineapple888]

Excellent points, egj.

V1.1:

SECURITY FLAW AT ABSOLUTE POKER

Shortly after a recent software upgrade at Absolute Poker, several accounts with suspicious names and identical maniacal playing styles sat down at the highest-stakes games offered there, where tens of thousands of dollars change hands every hour.

The established high-stakes online players quickly noticed these "maniac" players at the tables, and lined up to get a chance to take their money.

Amazingly, the top online pros in the world all lost to these players, at an incredibly fast rate.

Since these people understand poker and statistics better than you or I ever will, they used various software tools to analyze how they could have fared better against these maniacs.

All of them came to the same conclusion: the only possible way these maniacs could have won money is if they could see their opponent's cards.

Now, there have been many, many people claiming "online poker is rigged" ever since it started. And these claims have always been dismissed easily and quickly by the statistics experts.

This time was different. The high-stakes players posted their findings on various online poker forums, and other experts who were not directly involved quickly validated their findings.

One thing stood out above all others. On the last round of betting (after all the cards had been dealt out), the suspicious accounts always raised or folded - they never simply called a bet. While some players with aggressive playing styles will often raise or fold, it is unheard of to *never* call. "The only time it makes any sense to never call in these spots is if you know if you are ahead or behind-- in other words, if you know your opponent's hole cards," said OnlinePro1. "These maniacs made the right decision in these spots dozens of times in a row. They were never wrong. This is as close to impossible as you can get," said OnlinePro2.

Others investigated these mystery players and found even more evidence:

- The maniacs had been "chip dumping", intentionally losing to other accounts as a way to try to launder their ill-gotten gains
- They had finished either dead last or in first place in a whole series of large online tournaments, another hugely improbable statistical anomaly, in an apparent attempt to cover their tracks

To any thinking player who has reviewed this evidence, the conclusion is clear and inescapable: Absolute Poker's server security has been compromised.

Now, this isn't a reason for anyone to conclude that "online poker is rigged" in general. This appears to be an isolated incident at a single online site (although highly unfortunate for the honest players involved who lost money). Absolute Poker has already suspended the accounts of these maniacs, and claims to be conducting a full investigation.

In the name of fairness, and to reassure the poker community about the safety of play at Absolute Poker and at other online poker sites, we call on Absolute Poker to remiburse the players who lost money to these scam artists, to publish a full analysis of the security leaks and how they have been sealed, and to commission a third-party audit of their internal security systems.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
what do you think about going to the media? I'm willing to go along with other people on either tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our show obv doesn't reach near as many people as the mags, but we do get 20,000 downloads/week. We touched on the topic last week, but it had only been a day or so since the story broke and didn't have as much info as we do now.

We could have someone on to talk about it with us. I could also email AP and offer to have one of their people on as well to discuss. Doubt they would come on.

Best if it was someone who was well-spoken and could talk about the nuances and implications.

Tuco.

[Redgrape]

http://forum.absolutepoker.com/lofiv...x.php/f19.html

lol it really seems like absolute is using accounts posing as poker players to do damage control.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the information in these threads needs to be provided to the poker media (Cardplayer, Bluff, etc.) but you have to let them analyze the facts and write the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Journalists LOVE having stories pre-written for them. An amazing number of published articles are slightly modified "press releases".

[egj]

[ QUOTE ]
We should keep in mind that the remarkable thing about the river aggression isn't merely that it is high, its that he's almost always right when he does it. Any monkey can jam the river, but the suspicious part is doing it correctly 20 or 30 times in a row. I felt that was getting lost in the accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're absolutely right.

On another note: Poker Tracker doesn't really give us exactly the statistics that would be most damning (although it comes close at times). Once we have cleaned up hand histories, someone should write a program that parses those histories and computes those statistics. I would be happy to do that, if no one else does.

[burningyen]

I would add the bolded part for more clarity:
[ QUOTE ]
From examining the data, one thing stood out above all others. On the last round of betting (after all the cards had been dealt out and determination of the winning and losing hand is no longer subject to chance), the suspicious accounts always raised or folded - they never ever simply called a bet. While some players with aggressive playing styles will often raise or fold, it is unheard of to *never* call. The experts asked themselves - in what circumstances would it make sense to always raise or fold, and never to call. The clear answer is that if you know your opponents' cards, then clearly you should raise (if you have the best hand) or fold (if you do not). Calling never makes sense if you are 100% sure of whether you have the best hand. For normal players who do not know what cards their opponents hold, calling is often clearly the best option when you think you may have the best hand, but you are not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, if we do get a pro to weigh in with a quote, it should be someone who's not affiliated with a competitor of Absolute.

[Pokeraddict]

[ QUOTE ]
I just registered for the Casinomeister forums, but it looks like they've got a moderator approval system for new accounts. Can someone with an account post the '21 of 26 hands' thing to make that troll on page 5 go away? I don't care about other forums, but CM actually has pull and the trolls need to be banished so that he decides to do something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not real concerned about that one troll. He could very well be another AP shill, who knows. In another thread where somebody was spamming an AP press release I made mention of all the shady things AP/UB have been up to and CM seemed to speak up that they were some serious things AP had done. I'm sure CM would like to see the results of this as much as the rest of us.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
We need a very convincing and dumbed down explanation of why exactly these hand histories proved the accounts were cheating. Ike's was much closer to this than the 2nd one.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the key elements of poker is the bluff. If you've ever played poker you will realize that it takes great skill to decide whether or not your opponent is bluffing. Even top players look foolish sometimes because they are unable to recognize a bluff, or incorrectly decide that someone else is bluffing. Online, it is made even more difficult by the inability to look someone in the eye.

These cheaters guessed correctly 100% of the time. They were always able to tell whether or not someone was bluffing, and never made a mistake.

[adanthar]

AP thread quote from bigdogpckt5's, referencing STEAMROLLER:

[ QUOTE ]
Sep 19 2007, 07:43 AM
Ok only once in my mind did I ever think its possible that people new what was going to come up or could see whole cards etc. I was playing the 100 f.o. in the afternoon when this guy i have never heard of comes up to me and says bigdog want to have a 1k last longer at this point i was cl I quickly looked him up on the db and he was 0-24 in multis on ap and never had a cash. But i refused the last longer anyway because i didnt no this guy. He went on to win this tourny 2 hours later he found me in the 150k for a 1k last longer again. I refused and he also won that tourny which i watched him make the most absurd moves all toury long and continue to suck out and win. It was the most bizarre thing I have ever come across. I even called AP vip to inquire about this because why would a guy who is 0-24 try to make a last longer with a person who is usually ontop of the tlb for 1k and he then goes onto win both tournys. I wish i could remember this guys name but the fact is i cant. Anyway read what you want into all that but it was defenetly extreamly bizarre.

bigdogpckt5s

[/ QUOTE ]