|
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Alobar- The goal isn't to put Abso out of business, it is to compensate aggrieved players and to work to have better security at the site. While I appreciate your concern for me playing at Abso, I play there because it would be wrong to let all those suckers keep there money. I have little faith in people like you or "the poker community" to gt my money back so the only thing i can do is to grind it back [/ QUOTE ] So why not grind it back at a different site where you know they have better security and arent run by liars? part of the problem is absolute knows it doesnt have to compensate aggrieved players or improve their security, because they have no incentive to do so, because it doesnt matter because everyone will still play there. If anything they have incentive NOT to do so because doing so actually costs them money and reputation, not doing so costs them nothing. If I went to a grocery store and got ripped off by the cashier and management basically told me they looked into it and there was no wrong doing even tho there was proof there was. I would stop going to that grocery store. I guess you've decided that even with the possibility of getting ripped off its still more profitable to play there, but IMO making that decision means you lose all right to bitch about getting ripped off. [/ QUOTE ] Have you spoken to absolute security reps? Have you been personally involved in the investigation at all? Because it seems totally plausible in my conversations that they really are that dumb. You really don't know what AP is thinking alobar Also, I'm on the lookout for suspicious activity now, and won't let something like that happen again. As for why I still play there, I [censored] RUN AT 7+ptbb/100 over 200k hands... jeeez [/ QUOTE ] How do we do this? Thanks gg |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
If so, it is exceedingly unlikely that this is a mistake. Out of the thousands of times people request tourney histories for their own purposes, the one time absolute accidently sends the 'god' version if the history, is when a super-user owned the tourney? It is far more likely that this confidential info was intentionally released, or that there is some other causative relationship between these clearly correlated unlikely events. [/ QUOTE ] Sigh, no. If you'd have read the thread, you'd know that several people have come out to say that absolute has also sent them similar excel files with all hole cards revealed. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Alobar- The goal isn't to put Abso out of business, it is to compensate aggrieved players and to work to have better security at the site. While I appreciate your concern for me playing at Abso, I play there because it would be wrong to let all those suckers keep there money. I have little faith in people like you or "the poker community" to gt my money back so the only thing i can do is to grind it back [/ QUOTE ] So why not grind it back at a different site where you know they have better security and arent run by liars? part of the problem is absolute knows it doesnt have to compensate aggrieved players or improve their security, because they have no incentive to do so, because it doesnt matter because everyone will still play there. If anything they have incentive NOT to do so because doing so actually costs them money and reputation, not doing so costs them nothing. If I went to a grocery store and got ripped off by the cashier and management basically told me they looked into it and there was no wrong doing even tho there was proof there was. I would stop going to that grocery store. I guess you've decided that even with the possibility of getting ripped off its still more profitable to play there, but IMO making that decision means you lose all right to bitch about getting ripped off. [/ QUOTE ] Have you spoken to absolute security reps? Have you been personally involved in the investigation at all? Because it seems totally plausible in my conversations that they really are that dumb. You really don't know what AP is thinking alobar Also, I'm on the lookout for suspicious activity now, and won't let something like that happen again. As for why I still play there, I [censored] RUN AT 7+ptbb/100 over 200k hands... jeeez [/ QUOTE ] How do we do this? Thanks gg [/ QUOTE ] the style, showdown perfection... yadayada frankly i don't give a [censored] if there is a superuser in there if i'm running at 10+ptbb/100 |
Re: lolz super accountz
hey ikestoys,
i havent seen any posts or screenshots about your recent results there. can you pls tell me if youve won or lost? also, not sure if im gonna check back into this thread so pls go ahead and post results in every new thread. |
Re: lolz super accountz
hello victor,
youre being an ass. thank you ikes |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with almost everything you say here but again I have to point out why when 100k+ (prob over 200k) was dumped to another person Absolute did not read flag it or it did not trigger some audit. That type of activity doesn't go unnoticed unless a few people inside do something. As JohnnyBax questioned how many runners did they get for these higher guaranteed tourneys. Was there so much overlay that they had to try and win it themselves to recoup? [/ QUOTE ] The chip dumping is interesting, indeed. I would put forth a few explanations: 1) Absolute is not too good at detecting it. Do we have past examples where they caught chip dumpers and reprimanded them? It may be that they just did not notice. 2) They saw it but the money had been cashed out before they could do anything. They may be covering their tracks since the funds may have been withdrawn immediately after the dumping. If I were the crooks, I would steal, dump, and withdraw as fast as possible. Regarding Absolute trying to recoup the big overlay, I think that is too speculative to be substantive (no offense). It would be a lot easier to just reduce the guarantee or come up with some promotion to get more people to play satellites. The overlay issue, the software update, and the 9% interest offered to high rollers are interesting data points but largely circumstantial. I actually think the anecdotal story about Seif is more damning than anything. It was posted on ITH by a player I have met and respect a great deal. The retraction felt like an attempt to stay the execution of the golden egg laying goose. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
hey ikestoys, i havent seen any posts or screenshots about your recent results there. can you pls tell me if youve won or lost? also, not sure if im gonna check back into this thread so pls go ahead and post results in every new thread. [/ QUOTE ] lmao |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The overlay issue, the software update, and the 9% interest offered to high rollers are interesting data points but largely circumstantial. I actually think the anecdotal story about Seif is more damning than anything. It was posted on ITH by a player I have met and respect a great deal. The retraction felt like an attempt to stay the execution of the golden egg laying goose. [/ QUOTE ] I feel the same way. The guy was not lying when he made that post two years ago. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you look at the Excel file, you can see that Absolute only gave a time stamp in minutes rather than to the second. [/ QUOTE ] That's actually incorrect. The excel file did contain the timestamp down to the second, it's just a matter of formatting. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks, I stand corrected. The way I was diplaying the Excel file only showed the minutes, but I see the seconds information now. The basic idea that sorting by the time stamp didn't always correctly resolve the order of the actions holds in this case, since the check behind and the turn card were stamped with 9:17:47. Have you looked for patterns in the amount of time it took POTRIPPER to act, to see whether the amount of time it took to play depended on the holdings of the other players for a fixed type of hand for POTRIPPER and previous action? There may be some internal delays which make the data unreliable, but the timing might be telling. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] didnt you get the memo, AP has looked at these hands and found no evidence of any cheating or being able to see whole cards [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: lolz super accountz
|
Re: lolz super accountz
lol whos that 22VIP with -350 bb/100
|
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
lol whos that 22VIP with -350 bb/100 [/ QUOTE ] Lol, thought the same but lets not worry about him [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
Wild guess: Does absolute write the tourney HH excel file in real time? Could someone have the access to the same excel file that waco recieved while it was being written in real time? [/ QUOTE ] http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...umber=12507826 |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you look at the Excel file, you can see that Absolute only gave a time stamp in minutes rather than to the second. [/ QUOTE ] That's actually incorrect. The excel file did contain the timestamp down to the second, it's just a matter of formatting. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks, I stand corrected. The way I was diplaying the Excel file only showed the minutes, but I see the seconds information now. The basic idea that sorting by the time stamp didn't always correctly resolve the order of the actions holds in this case, since the check behind and the turn card were stamped with 9:17:47. Have you looked for patterns in the amount of time it took POTRIPPER to act, to see whether the amount of time it took to play depended on the holdings of the other players for a fixed type of hand for POTRIPPER and previous action? There may be some internal delays which make the data unreliable, but the timing might be telling. [/ QUOTE ] I have looked at the timing down to the second and it appeared to me as if he was playing pretty normally timing-wise. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
Just found this: http://blog.absolutepokercheats.com/...-outliers.html http://www.absolutepokercheats.com-a...om/vpipvbb.jpg [/ QUOTE ] Can anyone with the raw data and some math skillz determine the p-value (chance) of the red dot belonging to the blue group? |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lol whos that 22VIP with -350 bb/100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lol, thought the same but lets not worry about him [/ QUOTE ] Honestly, the most likely cause for his deviation is that he sat down with red dot for too long. 'If I play long enough against this retard I know I'll get it back. [censored].' |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
lol whos that 22VIP with -350 bb/100 [/ QUOTE ] a microlimit stars player. i emailed stars asking them to look into that player. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
lol whos that 22VIP with -350 bb/100 [/ QUOTE ] My bet is FGator. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lol whos that 22VIP with -350 bb/100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lol, thought the same but lets not worry about him [/ QUOTE ] Honestly, the most likely cause for his deviation is that he sat down with red dot for too long. 'If I play long enough against this retard I know I'll get it back. [censored].' [/ QUOTE ] lol that was me... more likely its just a small sample of someone who ran bad over 5 hands and left. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone with the raw data and some math skillz determine the p-value (chance) of the red dot belonging to the blue group? [/ QUOTE ] The red dot is winning at [censored] fifteen standard deviations above the rest of the sample. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
hello victor, youre being an ass. thank you ikes [/ QUOTE ] No, he's right. Also, you're a pretty huge [censored] to not only still be playing there and supporting the site but to be bragging about it at basically every opportunity you get. People like you should be at the front of this campaign, but instead you're just sitting in the back, blinded by money, making stupid "lol superusers" posts. You're obviously a good winning player and could make this kind of money playing on other sites, you're just choosing to be a jackass instead. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
lol that was me... more likely its just a small sample of someone who ran bad over 5 hands and left. [/ QUOTE ] No, they played 2,700 hands and lost $142 in stars microlimit action. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
more likely its just a small sample of someone who ran bad over 5 hands and left. [/ QUOTE ] I believe the sample is of players with between 500-800 hands. |
Re: X-Post from NVG and Internet Gambling
[ QUOTE ]
can we get an absolute poker t shirt contest going similar to the lol donkaments shirts? if we could get a dozen people showing up to tournament wearing shirts with a combination of - user #363 - superuser - i'm in your tournaments reading your hole cards - mark seif funny stuff (like admos grand theft holdem superuser edition) If it gets going i'll put at least 100$ towards it [/ QUOTE ] http://a.customink.com/designs/super...638263-1338544 obdizzleo on stars [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] lol that was me... more likely its just a small sample of someone who ran bad over 5 hands and left. [/ QUOTE ] No, they played 2,700 hands and lost $142 in stars microlimit action. [/ QUOTE ] lololololol |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think this thing will gain traction if we can get Cardplayer or somewhere to run the story. There are disincentives for them to run it, but on the other hand if say Bluff have it and they don't, that's likely to be a dent in their sales. [/ QUOTE ] cardplayer isnt going to run a negative scandal story on one of its advertisers. Neither is bluff [ QUOTE ] It's also possible some of the leading poker sites (FT or Stars) would be interested in helping disseminate the story. [/ QUOTE ] They arent going to help in anyway to spread word about anything involving the words "Cheating" and "online poker" used in the same sentence. [/ QUOTE ] then why has cardplayer already contacted me for an interview? |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Can anyone with the raw data and some math skillz determine the p-value (chance) of the red dot belonging to the blue group? [/ QUOTE ] The red dot is winning at [censored] fifteen standard deviations above the rest of the sample. [/ QUOTE ] If this is the actual number than ... lol wow. I was reading this thread and it is obvious its cheating. But adding this number lol It would be fun to compare it to something else that is so unlikely to happen. i.e. win lottery back to back or something like it. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
then why has cardplayer already contacted me for an interview? [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] Watch your interview get edited to make it sound like you support AP and the allegations are false. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think this thing will gain traction if we can get Cardplayer or somewhere to run the story. There are disincentives for them to run it, but on the other hand if say Bluff have it and they don't, that's likely to be a dent in their sales. [/ QUOTE ] cardplayer isnt going to run a negative scandal story on one of its advertisers. Neither is bluff [ QUOTE ] It's also possible some of the leading poker sites (FT or Stars) would be interested in helping disseminate the story. [/ QUOTE ] They arent going to help in anyway to spread word about anything involving the words "Cheating" and "online poker" used in the same sentence. [/ QUOTE ] then why has cardplayer already contacted me for an interview? [/ QUOTE ] Great to hear |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
then why has cardplayer already contacted me for an interview? [/ QUOTE ] http://www.vendlus.com/store/images/...roin_drama.jpg |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone asked Lee Jones if he (or any other PStars admins) can see the players' hole cards when he observes a table? While it might seem obviously exploitable, it wouldn't surprise me for there to be at least one 'master observer' account on every poker site. Lee? ---MM [/ QUOTE ] i remember a host being asked this in sundaymillion, he answered : no, only security. but, this was same weekend as this hole thing started idk one more thing ,i have been folowing this from start, and just think every file, hh , db ,excel be uploaded, and made available to all and a tread where ppl can sign: i agree 99.999% cheating happen/ed at AP , so people who try to get things done, can link to for 'support. -spiff |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
I have already posted my arguments in the threads: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/poke...oms-rigged.html http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...nos-cheat.html Anyway, I will briefly repeat them here: Why would the pokerooms have an interest in cheating poker players since they earn a large and steady rake? Because if all the players had about the same poker skill, then in the long run all of the deposited money would end up to the rake. But if some players because of their skill have an edge over the rest of the players which is greater than the x% rake, e.g. (x+1)%, (in many cases the rake is lower than 5% because of bonuses, rakebacks etc), then these players would keep taking a considerable percentage of the deposited money, and only the rest would be going to the rake. But if the casino cheats these players, then the casino will keep the 100% of the deposited money. You might say the casino can simply cheat the winners. Yes, this can be the case too. But what really matters is who is or will be a winner in the long run. Yeah, right, “they wouldn’t cheat because this would be exposed”. No, it cannot be exposed. A cheating of 1-3 out of 100 hands is perhaps enough to eliminate any edge a poker player can have after the rake (well, if not eliminate it, of course it decreases it) , and it is almost impossible to be statistically proven with a satisfactory degree of statistical certainty, even in the game of blackjack, imagine how impossible it is in the complicated game of poker. SO SINCE IT IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOVE SUCH A LITTLE CHEATING, THEN WHY WOULDN’T THE POKER ROOMS CHEAT A LITTLE? But most pokerooms do not even bother to cheat little enough in order to hide it. Obviously because so far, no matter how much they increased the rate of cheating, this was not getting exposed by player communication in the forums, and because this poor way of communication is so far the only way this could be exposed. And the casinos also took care to fill up the forums with shills and affiliates who would quickly fill up the threads with many and long posts so any accusing arguments would be difficult to find or to read and think on them. The owners of the forums themselves are affiliates. The casino adverts in them prove this. Now you are accusing Absolute for cheating, like you discovered America. And even then, you tried to present it is as the work of hackers who were common players and had no association with the casino. And not a word that the other casinos might cheat as well. Implying that if any other casinos cheated, this would be immediately exposed like the case of Absolute. Why did almost all of you attacked me as being out of my mind, that I lost because of my bad poker play, that “they have no reason to cheat”, etc etc, when I accused pokerooms of cheating? It is damn obvious that such arguments come from posters who have common interests with the casinos. The most amusing argument I read, is that it is we who have to prove that casinos cheat and not the casinos who have to prove to us they don’t cheat. Implying that without very strong statistical indications, the probability that they don’t cheat is almost 100% so we are out of our minds just because we give a considerable probability that they do cheat. Of course, the blinding obvious truth is that since they have an interest to cheat, and since it is not possible to statistically prove a little cheating, then the more probable case is that they do cheat a little, even if there were no statistical indications. I have played thousands of hands at William Hill and Sportingbet. But I have also played at 888.com, Ladbrokes, Grosvernor, and some others. Some preflop hands (e.g. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, etc ) as well as some flop hands (e.g. flopping a top pair when having such a strong preflop hand) are bound to produce profit in the long run even after a 5% rake, if you are not the most stupid player of the world. Therefore when after many hundreds of hands, exactly because of these strong hands, you end up with great losses (compared with the money you wagered) instead of great profits, then the probability of such an extremely bad luck happening is less than 5%, perhaps much less than 1%. This is statistical evidence for cheating. No, my losses were not because of the post blinds, as I chose to play no limit where the posts were 1/50 or 1/100 of the average pot. No, my losses were not because of the fact that I lost much when I lost and won little when I won because of my bad play. I am not the most stupid poker player of the world. Of course this thing happened, but not because of exceptional stupid play of mine, but because of cheating or very rare bad luck. But a very rare bad luck is itself the definition of statistical evidence for cheating. [/ QUOTE ] holy fkn [censored] that is the dumbest post in the history of the interweb |
Re: lolz super accountz
Okay, I can't really expand on this, but...
At least 10 people have emailed me since this whole thing went down claiming to have access to various amounts of info. Most of them have kinda said, oh, I talk to so-and-so at AP and I can get such and such info. They all say they want to remain confidential and that their source doesn't want to get in trouble. Most of the convos haven't gone anywhere and it basically has been like "I will be emailing you with such and such" or "I will be talking to my contact later on" but one piece of info in one of the convos has me thoroughly convinced this was an inside job. Most of the other people are supposedly about to get more info or are prying into things. I can't say what the info was or who told me it, but I believe the guy to be credible for various reasons and I think his source sounds credible. I don't want to blow up his spot though, so that's all I can really say. I just wanted to let people know that it's VERY likely in my mind that it was an inside job and there are multiple people at AP who know exactly who did it. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I can't really expand on this, but... At least 10 people have emailed me since this whole thing went down claiming to have access to various amounts of info. Most of them have kinda said, oh, I talk to so-and-so at AP and I can get such and such info. They all say they want to remain confidential and that their source doesn't want to get in trouble. Most of the convos haven't gone anywhere and it basically has been like "I will be emailing you with such and such" or "I will be talking to my contact later on" but one piece of info in one of the convos has me thoroughly convinced this was an inside job. Most of the other people are supposedly about to get more info or are prying into things. I can't say what the info was or who told me it, but I believe the guy to be credible for various reasons and I think his source sounds credible. I don't want to blow up his spot though, so that's all I can really say. I just wanted to let people know that it's VERY likely in my mind that it was an inside job and there are multiple people at AP who know exactly who did it. [/ QUOTE ] this is like an episode of CSI or somethin' |
Re: lolz super accountz
n82,
keep up the good work waco, namedrop me in your cardplayer interview as "inspector chuddo" pls, thks |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I can't really expand on this, but... At least 10 people have emailed me since this whole thing went down claiming to have access to various amounts of info. Most of them have kinda said, oh, I talk to so-and-so at AP and I can get such and such info. They all say they want to remain confidential and that their source doesn't want to get in trouble. Most of the convos haven't gone anywhere and it basically has been like "I will be emailing you with such and such" or "I will be talking to my contact later on" but one piece of info in one of the convos has me thoroughly convinced this was an inside job. Most of the other people are supposedly about to get more info or are prying into things. I can't say what the info was or who told me it, but I believe the guy to be credible for various reasons and I think his source sounds credible. I don't want to blow up his spot though, so that's all I can really say. I just wanted to let people know that it's VERY likely in my mind that it was an inside job and there are multiple people at AP who know exactly who did it. [/ QUOTE ] Nat - everyone here is superbly supportive of everything you've done on this so far, so I'm sure that everyone will give you the breathing room you're asking for on this issue. That being said, a lot of people here (myself included) lost a lot of money to these cheaters, and titillating posts like this have us curious and chomping at the bit to know what you're referring to...so if you decide that there's a way to divulge *some* info without compromising the source or what-not, I hope you choose to do so. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
If this is the actual number than ... lol wow. I was reading this thread and it is obvious its cheating. But adding this number lol It would be fun to compare it to something else that is so unlikely to happen. i.e. win lottery back to back or something like it. [/ QUOTE ] Using Google, I tried to find something else that occurred at fifteen standard deviations. I couldn't find anything. The Wikipedia entry on Standard Deviation lists the confidence interval of 7SD at 99.99999999974%. That is to say, that on a normally distributed data set, 99.999999999,74% of the results will be within standard deviations - or, to put it another way, 26/100,000,000,000 - twenty six in every hundred billion. I haven't seen any calculations on the confidence interval on fifteen standard deviations, but as a reasonably intelligent layman, I estimate/guess it is something in the order of 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put that into perspective, we're not talking about winning the lottery twice in a row (1 in a million events) - we're in the realm of talking about a random person winning a one-in-a-million lottery six consecutive times. |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have already posted my arguments in the threads: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/poke...oms-rigged.html http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...nos-cheat.html Anyway, I will briefly repeat them here: Why would the pokerooms have an interest in cheating poker players since they earn a large and steady rake? Because if all the players had about the same poker skill, then in the long run all of the deposited money would end up to the rake. But if some players because of their skill have an edge over the rest of the players which is greater than the x% rake, e.g. (x+1)%, (in many cases the rake is lower than 5% because of bonuses, rakebacks etc), then these players would keep taking a considerable percentage of the deposited money, and only the rest would be going to the rake. But if the casino cheats these players, then the casino will keep the 100% of the deposited money. You might say the casino can simply cheat the winners. Yes, this can be the case too. But what really matters is who is or will be a winner in the long run. Yeah, right, “they wouldn’t cheat because this would be exposed”. No, it cannot be exposed. A cheating of 1-3 out of 100 hands is perhaps enough to eliminate any edge a poker player can have after the rake (well, if not eliminate it, of course it decreases it) , and it is almost impossible to be statistically proven with a satisfactory degree of statistical certainty, even in the game of blackjack, imagine how impossible it is in the complicated game of poker. SO SINCE IT IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOVE SUCH A LITTLE CHEATING, THEN WHY WOULDN’T THE POKER ROOMS CHEAT A LITTLE? But most pokerooms do not even bother to cheat little enough in order to hide it. Obviously because so far, no matter how much they increased the rate of cheating, this was not getting exposed by player communication in the forums, and because this poor way of communication is so far the only way this could be exposed. And the casinos also took care to fill up the forums with shills and affiliates who would quickly fill up the threads with many and long posts so any accusing arguments would be difficult to find or to read and think on them. The owners of the forums themselves are affiliates. The casino adverts in them prove this. Now you are accusing Absolute for cheating, like you discovered America. And even then, you tried to present it is as the work of hackers who were common players and had no association with the casino. And not a word that the other casinos might cheat as well. Implying that if any other casinos cheated, this would be immediately exposed like the case of Absolute. Why did almost all of you attacked me as being out of my mind, that I lost because of my bad poker play, that “they have no reason to cheat”, etc etc, when I accused pokerooms of cheating? It is damn obvious that such arguments come from posters who have common interests with the casinos. The most amusing argument I read, is that it is we who have to prove that casinos cheat and not the casinos who have to prove to us they don’t cheat. Implying that without very strong statistical indications, the probability that they don’t cheat is almost 100% so we are out of our minds just because we give a considerable probability that they do cheat. Of course, the blinding obvious truth is that since they have an interest to cheat, and since it is not possible to statistically prove a little cheating, then the more probable case is that they do cheat a little, even if there were no statistical indications. I have played thousands of hands at William Hill and Sportingbet. But I have also played at 888.com, Ladbrokes, Grosvernor, and some others. Some preflop hands (e.g. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, etc ) as well as some flop hands (e.g. flopping a top pair when having such a strong preflop hand) are bound to produce profit in the long run even after a 5% rake, if you are not the most stupid player of the world. Therefore when after many hundreds of hands, exactly because of these strong hands, you end up with great losses (compared with the money you wagered) instead of great profits, then the probability of such an extremely bad luck happening is less than 5%, perhaps much less than 1%. This is statistical evidence for cheating. No, my losses were not because of the post blinds, as I chose to play no limit where the posts were 1/50 or 1/100 of the average pot. No, my losses were not because of the fact that I lost much when I lost and won little when I won because of my bad play. I am not the most stupid poker player of the world. Of course this thing happened, but not because of exceptional stupid play of mine, but because of cheating or very rare bad luck. But a very rare bad luck is itself the definition of statistical evidence for cheating. [/ QUOTE ] holy fkn [censored] that is the dumbest post in the history of the interweb [/ QUOTE ] *Absolute* bull**** right? |
Re: lolz super accountz
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Okay, I can't really expand on this, but... At least 10 people have emailed me since this whole thing went down claiming to have access to various amounts of info. Most of them have kinda said, oh, I talk to so-and-so at AP and I can get such and such info. They all say they want to remain confidential and that their source doesn't want to get in trouble. Most of the convos haven't gone anywhere and it basically has been like "I will be emailing you with such and such" or "I will be talking to my contact later on" but one piece of info in one of the convos has me thoroughly convinced this was an inside job. Most of the other people are supposedly about to get more info or are prying into things. I can't say what the info was or who told me it, but I believe the guy to be credible for various reasons and I think his source sounds credible. I don't want to blow up his spot though, so that's all I can really say. I just wanted to let people know that it's VERY likely in my mind that it was an inside job and there are multiple people at AP who know exactly who did it. [/ QUOTE ] Nat - everyone here is superbly supportive of everything you've done on this so far, so I'm sure that everyone will give you the breathing room you're asking for on this issue. That being said, a lot of people here (myself included) lost a lot of money to these cheaters, and titillating posts like this have us curious and chomping at the bit to know what you're referring to...so if you decide that there's a way to divulge *some* info without compromising the source or what-not, I hope you choose to do so. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I don't think this is divulging anything that would reveal my sources, but multiple people at AP have hinted at knowing who user 363 is. In addition, one person indicated that people within AP know the relationship between the cheating accounts. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.