Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its probably some guy who got root access in absolute servers, and is able to access the memory of the server that is storing card information. very unlikely that absolute actually made accounts that displays all the cards, they cant be that stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but "superuser account" is like the coolest-sounding thing ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lunch today my girlfriend asked me if she should get soup or salad.. I was SOOOO stoked that Bob Evans had a Supersalad. Then, letdown. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

okay, dan druff's post:

[ QUOTE ]
I've played a whole lot on AP this year, especially over the summer.

Oddly enough, I missed out on most of the Greycat/Supercard/etc. games due to sheer coincidences of timing (basically I'd be out or sleeping when he'd show up). Still, I played about 10 sessions with the guy, including one heads up, and noticed exactly what everyone else is noticing:

1) His hand selection pre-flop is so bad (especially 9 handed) that he should be losing a fortune against the top-flight players he's been facing. Instead, he's been winning big almost every session.

2) It is very rare that he will fold if you miss the flop.

3) When you are holding a huge hand, he folds often.

Basically, yes, he plays like someone who can see your cards. But that's nothing new to anyone on this thread. I've played against legitimate players who have run so well that I'd swear they could see my hand if I didn't know better. We've also all seen examples of huge donks running up amazing short-term streaks that we never thought were possible -- including odd plays that leave us scratching our heads.

So what's the difference here? Perhaps nothing, perhaps something. But the evidence we've seen so far, some anecdotal, others more damning, makes this worth another look.

Before I go on, I can confirm that Greycat, Supercard, and the other suspect accounts posted here ARE indeed the same person. This isn't an assumption or a guess. It's a fact. PM me if you want me to explain this part further.

So we have this Greycat person playing on multiple accounts -- sometimes chipdumping between them -- and playing the highest games Absolute Poker has to offer. He plays both limit and no limit, yet top regular players from both games report the same suspicious experience with him.

He has won a ton of money (does anyone have the exact figures?), and rarely seems to lose.

If he is cheating, I think I know how he's doing it.

Long before Greycat showed up, there was some concern that AP had a "superuser" account, created by its software developers. This account, created strictly for testing purposes, would be able to see all cards of all players in all games. As a software programmer by trade, I can tell you that such an account would be very helpful in the development and testing process for a complicated piece of software like AP. I referred to there being "some concern" that such an account exists. I say this because I have some circumstantial evidence (which I can't share in public) that this is true, but I don't have any proof. Furthermore, prior to this Greycat situation, I had no reason to believe that this account ever fell into the wrong hands.

But what if it did fall into the wrong hands? Perhaps someone could have hacked it. Perhaps a rogue ex-developer of the software could have passed some info along to an accomplice. Perhaps a lot of things.

The fact is that, if Greycat did get access to such an account, he'd pretty much be doing exactly what he's doing now. Yes, maybe some subtlety would have done him better (so as to avoid this suspicion), but history is full of criminals whose otherwise brilliant capers were foiled by just a bit too much greed.

It's time to stop guessing and get some answers here. Obviously AP will never admit their system was compromised, even if it were true. That would pretty much be the equivalent of poker room suicide. We need to put together a concrete plan of action to either prove this guy is a fraud, or prove to ourselves that we're a bunch of paranoid fools. Either way, we need to prove something. In the next post, I'll give my suggestions on what I feel we should do next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

Biggest pot that he won that went to showdown against me was 3k. He seemed to bet the [censored] out of me at perfect spots.

STAGE #653194230: HOLDEM NO LIMIT $30 - 2007-05-10 03:38:38 (ET)
Table: DEERE AVE (Real Money) Seat #5 is the dealer
Seat 5 - GRAYCAT ($5779 in chips)
Seat 6 - MBLOOM1 ($5082 in chips)
GRAYCAT - Posts small blind $15
MBLOOM1 - Posts big blind $30
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to MBLOOM1 [Kd 10d]
GRAYCAT - Raises $135 to $150
MBLOOM1 - Calls $120
*** FLOP *** [5c Ks Qd]
MBLOOM1 - Checks
GRAYCAT - Bets $150
MBLOOM1 - Calls $150
*** TURN *** [5c Ks Qd] [10s]
MBLOOM1 - Checks
GRAYCAT - Bets $330
MBLOOM1 - Raises $1234 to $1234
GRAYCAT - Calls $904
*** RIVER *** [5c Ks Qd 10s] [Ah]
MBLOOM1 - Checks
GRAYCAT - All-In $4245
MBLOOM1 - Folds
GRAYCAT - returned ($4245) : not called
*** SHOW DOWN ***
GRAYCAT - Does not show
GRAYCAT Collects $3067 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($3068) | Rake ($1)
Board [5c Ks Qd 10s Ah]
Seat 5: GRAYCAT (dealer) (small blind) collected Total ($3067) All-In HI:($3067) [Does not show]
Seat 6: MBLOOM1 (big blind) Folded on the RIVER


STAGE #653190338: HOLDEM NO LIMIT $30 - 2007-05-10 03:28:46 (ET)
Table: DEERE AVE (Real Money) Seat #5 is the dealer
Seat 5 - GRAYCAT ($4659 in chips)
Seat 6 - MBLOOM1 ($6212 in chips)
GRAYCAT - Posts small blind $15
MBLOOM1 - Posts big blind $30
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to MBLOOM1 [Kd Ac]
GRAYCAT - Raises $135 to $150
MBLOOM1 - Raises $666 to $696
GRAYCAT - Calls $546
*** FLOP *** [9h 2h 4c]
MBLOOM1 - Checks
GRAYCAT - Checks
*** TURN *** [9h 2h 4c] [5h]
MBLOOM1 - Checks
GRAYCAT - Bets $630
MBLOOM1 - Calls $630
*** RIVER *** [9h 2h 4c 5h] [Qc]
MBLOOM1 - Checks
GRAYCAT - Bets $840
MBLOOM1 - Folds
GRAYCAT - returned ($840) : not called
*** SHOW DOWN ***
GRAYCAT - Does not show
GRAYCAT Collects $2651 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($2652) | Rake ($1)
Board [9h 2h 4c 5h Qc]
Seat 5: GRAYCAT (dealer) (small blind) collected Total ($2651) HI:($2651) [Does not show]
Seat 6: MBLOOM1 (big blind) Folded on the RIVER

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

this is crazy

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

I only have 16 hands on DoubleDrag and didn't notice anything abnormal.

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

in the other thread, is there mention of dan or someone contacting ap?

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

Also:

Brag: Up exactly $100,000ish after 200,000handsish
Beat: Can never play absolute higher limits after this thread
Variance: Dropped 10k playing the supposedly rigged limits a few days ago?!?!?!

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also:

Brag: Up exactly $100,000ish

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats only 537 hands. Also wasnt dan the guy who was convinced that pokerstars was rigged and because of that wouldnt play there.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are other screenshots, I'm just posting a bunch of stuff at random from that thread. another person who is convinced at this point is schneids.

[/ QUOTE ]

So. Basically you're saying this is how Schneids makes 3 BB/100? I'm starting to put the pieces together now.

Re: Beat: Absolute is *actually* rigged (serious) (read me)
 

Ap blackjack is rigged too!!.. I want Shaun deeb on the taskforce to test it out