[David Sklansky]

So I am now allowed to make some observations. But before I do, I would like to make sure I have my facts straight. I pretty much just skimmed earlier posts. The following is what I understand to be the simplified version of the events in approximately chronological order. Kindly let me know if I have gotten anything wrong or left out something important.

1. A two plus twoer comes second in a tournament at AP and is supicious of how the winner played his hands.

2. He asks for hand histories and AP provides them.

3. For the most part this tournament winner can be seen to be playing his hands almost perfectly GIVEN he knew most or all of his opponent's hands, but TERRIBLY if he didn't.

4. The information provided by AP included stuff that is not supposed to be given out. This extra information was even more incriminating than the normally given out information would have been. It included the fact that there was someone who was observing the winner for a long time. And that this observer was known to once be a part owner of AP.

5. AP has now claimed that the observer went from being an owner to a consultant.

6. The play of the winner made it so outlandishly obvious that he could see cards that one would think that he was hoping to get caught. Perhaps to discredit AP, perhaps for other reasons. If that wasn't the case, the guy had to be either an idiot or high on something. Because if he was just a poker cheat, he stood to win millions if he was less obvious about knowing the hole cards.

7. The information was disseminated to other two plus twoers and AP was confronted with the ridiculously obvious hand histories. But NOT the evidence about the observer.

8. AP replied that in spite of the suspicious hand histories, they were sure that no one could see the hole cards. They based this view on the fact that their engineers said it was physically impossible.

9. It is not known whether AP showed their engineers the hand histories, allowing them to apply Baye's Theorem before offering their opinion.

10. When the observer evidence became known, AP claimed that they investigated further and did indeed find the software glitch that allowed someone to see the hole cards. They claimed to have corrected that glitch.(Physically speaking. Not through the use of observing hand play.) And they reimbursed people for the incident and others they claimed to have uncovered. Many two plus twoers think that AP already knew that there was the glitch but wouldn't admit it until the observer evidence was made public.

11. We still do not know why someone sent out hand histories with extra incriminating evidence.

12. We still do not know why the cheater made things so obvious

13. We do not know the nature of the software tinkering that allowed someone to see the hole cards. Or whether something similar is scientifically possible on other sites.