Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

David Sklansky:
[ QUOTE ]
"...what do they say about the fact that they had no software that flagged suspicious play or that they didn't realize that the hand histories trumped any computer engineer's opinion about the possibility of seeing hole card's?"

[/ QUOTE ]


I can confirm that this was the gist of David's deleted $200,000 post.


apefish:
[ QUOTE ]
David- that last post was good.
I hope people actually read it.

[/ QUOTE ]


gTg

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you know, I hope you will stand by your statement and help to drive these cheating scumbags out of poker forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I do.


And there is almost certainly nothing a small group of players can do to punish the guilty. So to not play there if it is profitable, is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not a small group of poker players, but now that you, an intelligent, powerful, and well-respected poker spokesperson, have stated that you will take up the cause of Absolute Poker being driven out of business maybe it will become achievable. However, the place to start is admitting that it may not be easy but it can be achieved.

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
"even if all that is true, what do they say about the fact that they had no software that flagged suspicious play or that they didn't realize that the hand histories trumped any computer engineer's opinion about the possibility of seeing hole card's?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, AP had poor systems in place to detect cheating?

Pretty much everyone who has taken a cursory interest in this case knew that three weeks ago. With all due respect, you're clearly way behind the 8-ball when it comes to the pertinent issues of this case. Given what we all know about the cheating at AP, what you clearly consider to be your key insight into the matter is in fact just inane.

The most fiercely debated point of contention since we all discovered that AP cheated and covered it up has been whether or not it is in any individual's interests, or the interests of online poker in general, that people continue to play at there. On that front, you stated categorically that you believe there is nothing that can be achieved by boycotting AP, and that the principles at stake don't warrant it either. Now that's fine, and everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but don't act surprised when that is the part of your post that gets peoples attention, not your startling observation that AP's security system was exploitable.

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

That also wasn't the main thing about my post. The main thing is that the present owners must address the fact that they denied the hand histories proved cheating. They can throw everybody in jail and fix all the software they want. If they can't explain that, they can never be trusted.

But you should still play there if you have an edge.

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
That also wasn't the main thing about my post. The main thing is that the present owners must address the fact that they denied the hand histories proved cheating. They can throw everybody in jail and fix all the software they want. If they can't explain that, they can never be trusted.

But you should still play there if you have an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been explained in these forums before: Scott Tom, one of the owners, issued those statements (along with who knows who else). Scott Tom is still one of the owners of Absolute Poker. That is why Absolute Poker can not address this issue, because the owner who cheated players is still the owner.

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That also wasn't the main thing about my post. The main thing is that the present owners must address the fact that they denied the hand histories proved cheating. They can throw everybody in jail and fix all the software they want. If they can't explain that, they can never be trusted.

But you should still play there if you have an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been explained in these forums before: Scott Tom, one of the owners, issued those statements (along with who knows who else). Scott Tom is still one of the owners of Absolute Poker. That is why Absolute Poker can not address this issue, because the owner who cheated players is still the owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is certainly a significant point.

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you should still play there if you have an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that you're not really advocating playing there, because players really don't have an edge there, due to lack of security.

But lets assume there is an edge to playing there, morals should come into play somewhere here.

Here's a philosophical question I just made up for you, Mr. Sklansky:

Lets say some owner of a pizzeria purposefully poisoned all of his customers' food one day, almost killing someone. You caught him doing it but couldn't prove it in a court of law or to anyone else, and he promised you he'll fire the cook and he'd never poison the food again. Most customers dont even realize this and still come back and eat there and there is nothing you can do to stop them. But his pizza tastes so great and its pretty cheap. Do you continue to eat there, or do you refuse to and try to warn everyone else of his evil actions?

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
That also wasn't the main thing about my post. The main thing is that the present owners must address the fact that they denied the hand histories proved cheating. They can throw everybody in jail and fix all the software they want. If they can't explain that, they can never be trusted.

But you should still play there if you have an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they throw themselves in jail?

<font color="white">Lori </font>

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

Lori:
[ QUOTE ]
Why would they throw themselves in jail?

[/ QUOTE ]

For personal safety?

gTg

Re: Simplifying My Absolute Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lori:
[ QUOTE ]
Why would they throw themselves in jail?

[/ QUOTE ]

For personal safety?

gTg

[/ QUOTE ]

where? in Costa Rica?