[admiralfluff]

[ QUOTE ]

You did not respond to the post, though. The poster asked for "some hands that are especially suspicious." You're response, that Potripper "never misplayed post-flop" was non-responsive.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a single independent hand that Potripper played that indicates cheating. I think the most suspicious hands are the KQ fold in an unraised pot with AA to act behind, and the last hand all-in call with T high and no draw.

What is most suspicious, is that he never misplayed postflop. This is next to impossible over a 100 hand sample. Never misses a bluff, never misses a valuebet, never calls when second best. And even this, on it's own, does not indicate cheating.

Then there are the cash game results, showing either near infinite river aggression, and extremely high W$SD rates, or stats indicating chip dumping. These are also anamolous events, but in are not in themselves proof of cheating.


If cheating were 100% impossible, then we would have to accept this occurance as an incredible, 1 in 1 trillion event of dumb luck.

However, as illustrated in the evidence threads, an alternative, plausible, and reasonable method for this occurance has been detected: cheating.

Even if we estimated that the chance someone could gain access to this type of information at 1/1million, because we observed this anamolous occurance, the chances of NO cheating will be exceedingly small.