[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm a late joiner to the party.. can anyone spare me 59 pages of data mining and tell me what the consensus is so far regarding what conclusions have been reached?

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

Three accounts - greycat, doubledrag and potripper - are able to view the hole cards of opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has this been established with certainty?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know whether you're deliberately being silly, or this is unintentional.

If you want to read the detail you can read the posts. I don't think there is any <u>credible</u> doubt that there was cheating.


[ QUOTE ]
Has AP commented on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
There seem to be a couple of reports of AP denying everything - even denying the chip dumping.

They seem to be taking AP's standard line on this - deny everything, even when the facts are quite obvious.

There is an obvious irony in the apparent locking of some people's accounts for no obvious reason on a hair trigger, and the slow response to lock these accused cheaters' accounts.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not until yesterday, when it happened almost every time. [ QUOTE ]

See, this is the real clencher for me. That is an obvious counter to his cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it is not an obvious counter to his cheating.

Here is the chain of events:

1) Villain, never* goes all-in while behind.

2) Thread and accusation of cheating goes public.

3) Villain repeatedly goes all-in while behind.


Like, for [censored]'s sake - Even the "not so damning" (as claimed by the sceptics) hand history of the final table posted by Adanthar covers 26 hands. The villain VPIP on 22 of those 26 hands.

Of the 22 hands where the cheater put money into the pot, NOT ONCE did an opponent appear to have a large pocket pair.

Of the 4 hands where the cheater did not put money into the pot, EVERY SINGLE TIME an opponent had a large pocket pair.



*except where he had very favourable pot odds to draw.