In these 173 hands, only once does he call a river bet with a worse hand (
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489653 occurring on Aug 14th, before the AP updates near the end of the month) and only once does he call a river bet with the best hand. The only time he bets the river and gets called by better is when his hand has no showdown value to begin with.
In these 173 hands, not once did he ever come close to paying me off when I flopped something good, and he checked behind when I flopped pairs quite often, unless he had my pair beat. This hand is the most money I won in a pot ever, against him (would be curious for AP to check and see what he called with; it seems most likely he has a ten in his hand, yet he doesn’t pay off river):
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489803
In these 173 hands, in only 16 of them does he lose at least $1000. Yet, he has played 67.05% of them and raised 57.23% of them. Of these 16, you would think that means he has paid off with a second best in a lot of them. However, not once has he. In the most expensive one, he lost $2400, and folded to a single river bet in a HU pot on this board (after he was the aggressor in other streets): *** [3h 6c 5s Kd] [4c]***. In his other $2400 loss, he had 5 high and 3 bet the turn against two opponents (and bet river), one of who has A5 high and the other has K9 high. The next one, -$2200, is also a pure bluff against 1 hand which does not have a pair (but called down). The next, -$2000, is tough to gather much from:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489830 The next, -$1800, he again puts in a lot of action on the flop on a draw heavy board, and then folds for 1 bet on the river when a draw hitting card comes. I could keep going like this, but the basic point is graycat always manages to lose the minimum if he’s beat, unless his opponents themselves have marginal hands and he tries and fails to blow them out of the pot with even worse. He never loses money with second best hands.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489646 is not a hand that seems synonymous with someone who plays a hand like this:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489653
Very suspect amount of action:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489661
Very suspect postflop play unless you can see your opponent has an underpair to the board:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489669
Questionable preflop line that lacks congruence with postflop line when you are as big of a maniac as he is. Would make sense to cap preflop if you see other’s hands and know you have live cards. Anyway, the fact he check calls flop and turn is telling that he knows he’s drawing and is no longer is going to continue with his “bluff” (most maniacs in my experience would bet this flop with their OESD):
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489674
Tough river bet for someone to make who has yet to not play every river perfectly:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489682
Yet another strong river value raise by a guy who has never bet/raised a river and been called and lost unless he is on a bluff 5 hi bluff:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489695
He has insanely aggressive stats, yet knows to check and call flop here with flush draw:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489702
His only check call with the best hand (goes against cheater theory):
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489715
Made perfect postflop decisions:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489726
Played JUST like someone who know’s his opponent’s hand:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489735 NOTICE comparatively, he has nothing here, yet gives up on the river once he gets called on the turn:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489744
Three-bets pf and checks flop, opponent has him beat:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489771
Does not prove anything but it would be interesting to have AP check to see what Graycat folded:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489778
Again would be interesting to have AP check to see what Graycat folded (also, SCHDNFRD what did you have here? IF you had a draw that got there, this is more support for graycat seeing hands and simply pounding at your draw, hoping you miss):
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489785
Don’t know what to make of this hand other than betting the flop isn’t that bad of an idea when the guy after you has 66 and the next guy has KQ:
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489793
I feel like what I have here is not enough to *prove* Graycat cheats; though, I feel like if we combined our databases and were able to find more proof of perfect postflop decision-making over a larger sample of hands, we get him. In my hands, I did not see any actual postflop *mistakes* by him -- ie, it does *feel* like he's playing with extra knowledge.