[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I would be all for a probably futile effort to put them out of business if it was clear they have retained their thieves."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's abundantly clear that they have done just that.

Had they not, you can bet we would have heard about the arrests and prosecutions shouted from the rooftops of Costa Rica. Did Barings allow Nick Leeson to chill on a Panama beach and still get paid?

Instead, AP continues to protect, cover and lie for the perpetrators. It has officially named and shamed NOBODY in any of its garbage statements regarding the scandal, except when claiming Scott Tom hasn't been involved with AP for over a year (a proven lie).

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.

Almost everybody has taken the wrong thing away from my post. Because they have focused on my off the cuff remark that you should might as well grab money off the site if you can.

But that wasn't the reason for my post. My post was actually a giant criticism of AP. And it stemmed from private conversations they had that were related to me. Conversations that were supposed to lead to our lawyers going down there. In those conversations they went into some detail about their innocence, their desire to fix things, their plans for the future etc. etc.

When some of the details were retold to me, my eyes glazed over and I retorted something along the lines of "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?"

Mason asked me to hold off, temporarily, on posting those words while they were in the middle of setting up the lawyer thing.

In other words I was saying that even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the remaining management is innocent, they are still such bumblers that you should only play there if your edge appears so great as to overcome the greater risk. You think AP rates those words an "eight"?

I never actually gave much thought to how high the probability is that the site is still infested with crooks. My gut tells me it isn't but I haven't read enough details to have a strong opinion one way or the other. My post was never meant to address that issue or the issue of what the thieves deserve to get as punishment. I was only looking at it from the viewpoint of a struggling poker player and what his best action is.

Absolute probably won't cheat anymore. Even if some of the dishonest owners remain. 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. On the other hand even if the remaining owners are completely honest, they have proved to be morons. And they apparently don't have software to catch colluders or other cheats. Thus the games have to be extra juicy to justify the greater risk.

If this Clarifying My Simplifying Post that Phil suggested gets me killed, I expect Mat to go through this thread and give a two week ban to all those posters who forced me to write it.