Re: Absolute Cheating
 

pineapple888:

[ QUOTE ]
Shortly after a recent software upgrade <and an offer to Elite members of a 20% deposit bonus (with play requirements?) to 9% interest bearing accounts with balances of up to $500,000.00> 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bolded part from this thread



Lori:

[ QUOTE ]
"...Pokertracker, a tool that pro players use to check for collusion...using river aggression, a statistic that effectively tells us how well our opponents are reading our play..."

[/ QUOTE ]

I <3 this...or am I just sweet on Lori?

gg

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

a) how often does suspect call a bet when he cannot possibly win the hand. E.g. the suspect put money in the pot when he could not win x out of y times (z%).
b) how often does suspect bet or raise when he currently has the best hand. E.g. the suspect added money to the pot when ahead x out of y times (z%).

A note on 'proof.'
I think previous posters are on the money when suggesting that a statistical representation of how unlikely the given outcomes can be is pretty important. I feel like a mere random chance expectation is adequate given how vast the discrepancy should be. Alternatively a 60/40 analysis could be done to adjust somewhat for the effects of skill. Eg. If an opponent consistently folded with the worst hand 60% of the time the odds of him folding the worst hand 45 out of 50 times would be 1 in x.

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

[ QUOTE ]
a) how often does suspect call a bet when he cannot possibly win the hand. E.g. the suspect put money in the pot when he could not win x out of y times (z%).

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly one time (the Q2 hand where he calls an all in from what he thinks is 7 high and misses the backdoor flush)

[ QUOTE ]
b) how often does suspect bet or raise when he currently has the best hand. E.g. the suspect added money to the pot when ahead x out of y times (z%).

[/ QUOTE ]

he slowplays vs. unpaired hands very often, but never when the hero has top pair or better

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

Can the "won at SD%" = 50 really be explained by checking behind and losing? Everyone here's W$SD is in that same area and a lot of that is from calling and losing at showdowns.

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

Adanthar,

Do the latest stats include his dumping session the other night where he called a ton of rivers?

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a) how often does suspect call a bet when he cannot possibly win the hand. E.g. the suspect put money in the pot when he could not win x out of y times (z%).

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly one time (the Q2 hand where he calls an all in from what he thinks is 7 high and misses the backdoor flush)

[ QUOTE ]
b) how often does suspect bet or raise when he currently has the best hand. E.g. the suspect added money to the pot when ahead x out of y times (z%).

[/ QUOTE ]

he slowplays vs. unpaired hands very often, but never when the hero has top pair or better

[/ QUOTE ]

is it possible to get these numbers just for river play?

I think they would be much more compelling for the non poker tracker savvy crowd that AF.

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can the "won at SD%" = 50 really be explained by checking behind and losing? Everyone here's W$SD is in that same area and a lot of that is from calling and losing at showdowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

he went to showdown about 40 times in total and won ~20 of them. of the other 20, 5-6 were PF shoves and bluff shoves that got called, 5-6 were dumb minbet bluffs into scare cards (he loves minbetting when an ace hits and the other guy has 2nd pair, etc), and a bunch more were hands like:

DAVIDP18 - Raises $90 to $90
XAJA1 - Folds
DOUBLEDRAG - Calls $90
IKESTOYS - Folds
FRISCOMELT - Raises $420 to $420
CASH369 - Folds
DAVIDP18 - Folds
DOUBLEDRAG - Calls $330
*** FLOP *** [6d 8d 5h]
DOUBLEDRAG - Checks
FRISCOMELT - Checks
*** TURN *** [6d 8d 5h] [9s]
DOUBLEDRAG - Checks
FRISCOMELT - Checks
*** RIVER *** [6d 8d 5h 9s] [Kd]
DOUBLEDRAG - Checks
FRISCOMELT - Checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
DOUBLEDRAG - Shows [4d 4c] (One pair, fours)
FRISCOMELT - Shows [As Ad] (One pair, aces)
FRISCOMELT Collects $972 from main pot

where he doesn't put $ in postflop when behind.

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar,

Do the latest stats include his dumping session the other night where he called a ton of rivers?

[/ QUOTE ]

no obv

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, as a lawyer, I would completely eliminate from this discussion all of the allegations about Mark Seif being involved in the cheating. I have not see anything in these threads other than various circumstantial stuff implicating him. The fact is that there is evidence here of cheating, but it is impossible for the people in these threads to determine who was/is doing the cheating. Absolute is in the best position to do that. I am not a litigator, but I have to believe that accusing a professional poker player, and semi-public figure, of cheating in the game that is his profession is pretty serious and could lead to a libel lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound like his status as a public figure makes it riskier to implicate him than if he were a private individual. Was that your intent? Because it's the other way around.

[ QUOTE ]
*weasel disclaimer: the following is not legal advice, just off the cuff ruminations*

I think we need to be responsible about discussing Seif's involvement, but I'm pretty sure he falls under the NY Times v. Sullivan definition of a "public figure" at least WRT poker, and certainly WRT to a site he actively promotes. So as long as we don't make knowingly false statements or act with reckless disregard to the truth, we're probably ok. The aspect of poker being his profession goes to the amount of damages, if any, rather than whether or not the statements made are libelous. (Essentially, disparagement of professional reputation is per se damaging, whereas in most libel cases it's somewhat difficult to demonstrate actual loss).

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds right. Definitely with respect to whether Seif would be deemed a public figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not legal advice either: I am indeed saying that it is "riskier" to allege that a poker pro, involved in a poker site from which presumably he makes money, is cheating people at poker at the very poker site with which he is affiliated. It is "riskier" to make that allegation than to allege that some completely unknown person with no public persona and no affiliations with a poker site whatsoever is cheating people at online poker. DUCY? (Haha - I've been waiting to use that one!)

But hey, the truth is always a defense, right?!>!

Re: Absolute Cheating
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can the "won at SD%" = 50 really be explained by checking behind and losing? Everyone here's W$SD is in that same area and a lot of that is from calling and losing at showdowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shoving or calling with best hand and getting sucked out on/Shoving with worst hand and getting called/Checking behind with worst hand when a bluff is deemed -EV

I think the ability to go to showdown and win obviously has an upper-limit especially when one's vpip is 80+. Don't underestimate how much money would have been won by a superuser without a showdown, it boggles the mind.