[West]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Whichever of the possibilities above is true, there is no question that Absolute was remiss in not having software that flags suspicious play.

[/ QUOTE ]

However important having software that flags suspicious play may be, if bigwigs at a site want to cheat players, I think most of us will assume that they can end around such software. Whatever the finer points of collusion are, and however good of a job sites do in catching other types of cheating, it pales in comparison to being cheated by players who can actually see your hole cards. And it wasn't lack of cheat catching software that allowed the cheating to happen. It was bad apples at the top, because they were the ones doing the cheating. Anyone following the story moderately closely knows that. That's why no one cares about your #4. And it's a pathetic reflection of the poker occupation that players would consider returning to the site just because they think they might up their "hourly" by playing there.

[ QUOTE ]
I would be all for a probably futile effort to put them out of business if it was clear they have retained their theives and were still trying to rob us. But it is not clear.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the "and" in this sentence that is surprising and no doubt pleases the guilty parties. Whether it's clear that they have "retained" their thieves or not, it's crystal clear that they would only have ever 'given them up' if they had no alternative whatsoever, for obvious reasons.