[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
what i struggle with is figuring out how one maniacal session is not cheating and another one is. it seems to come down to how much $ he won.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the histories, it's remarkably easy. Limit hands all go to showdown, so the first question is: "is he betting into a better hand, and if so, can he get it to fold?" I could actually be wrong and he *is* cheating - he does a bunch of marginal stuff like bet K9 vs. 52 on a 96275 board. No cheater that's any good at limit would ever in a million years try to get 52 to fold there, but we already know he sucks at poker.

but onto the wider point...a bunch of you guys have been playing devil's advocate for the last few hundred posts and it's driving both myself and most of the other high stakes players nuts, because you have good intentions *but you're wrong*. I'm not going to flame any of you like I do in strat forums, because this is a serious accusation and, of course, people are not going to want to believe it, but I'm honestly getting tired of explaining super basic ideas like "yes, schneids, cts, actionjeff, yellowsub, the entire who's who list on p5's, 2+2, AP and myself are good enough at poker to know when someone's cheating and when they're not from looking at hundreds of hands that span the entirety of high stakes limit, NL, and MTT's, and these are not just the only 5 donks in the history of poker who got this lucky on one site over a three week period." complete with challenging well known players to last longers and ten high no draw calls on the turn, ffs.

again, I'm not particularly mad at you for playing devil's advocate, but enough is enough. it's cheating.