Latest cliffsnotes on Absolute soulreading.

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the week following the story break on absolute there wasn't any noticeable difference in traffic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this surprises anyone, and it's why we can't give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was telling my girlfriend about this story, and she could not believe that this hadn't crossed over into the newspapers. Although honestly, I'd hate for it to hit the mainstream and have every casino donkey railing on and on (even more) about the riggedness of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

But think about it. Isn't she right? If this can happen on 4th or 5th whatsoever biggest poker site what will stop it from happening anywhere? So is online poker rigged ...?

We need to move on with this case, otherwise no excuse for the damage. At the same time, for sure you cannot ignore the case as otherwise thre will be no stop for a site (e.g. another one) to do it too, or don't care as much as they should whatever.

My feeling is that the current situation is far away from good ... on one hand we have "online poker is rigged" on the other hand "site(s) took no lesson". so it's the worse of both !?

indiana

[suzzer99]

If you think about it, at Absolute things will be no different from the casual player's POV. Someone is always taking his money, but instead of pros it's the house.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, this is BBV! Who wants to confess being the guy in the bottom left?

[/ QUOTE ]

that player in the far-bottom left is a stars player.

given his result is also so far outside the norm, i've reported him to stars asking them to look into it.

unfortunately, HM is being sub-optimal, and won't let me look at his hands, but I think that he's a player who normally plays higher (and has normal stats) but dropped a few buyins going crazy at microlimits (and hence has bad bb/100 levels). if it counts for anything, he only lost $142 or so.

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]

Narrowing that database to players who have 500 hands or more, over 5,000 players remained.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it look like if you include only players with <500 hands?

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Narrowing that database to players who have 500 hands or more, over 5,000 players remained.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it look like if you include only players with <500 hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't looked (since there's going to be a much larger number of people who fit into that category, and the 5,000 players created a 6mb excel file of data alone)

However, the results are obviously going to be much more disparate than the chart above. Take the example of one hand, where a player wins a stack on their first hand - they're going to have a VPIP of 100%, with a winrate of 10,000bb/100. I don't think there's much value in that.

Besides, we have around 500 hands on the cheater, so it makes sense to compare like with like.

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Narrowing that database to players who have 500 hands or more, over 5,000 players remained.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it look like if you include only players with <500 hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't looked (since there's going to be a much larger number of people who fit into that category, and the 5,000 players created a 6mb excel file of data alone)

However, the results are obviously going to be much more disparate than the chart above. Take the example of one hand, where a player wins a stack on their first hand - they're going to have a VPIP of 100%, with a winrate of 10,000bb/100. I don't think there's much value in that.

Besides, we have around 500 hands on the cheater, so it makes sense to compare like with like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I meant plotting only dbases ~500 hands. Can you filter it to use only sets of say 250-1000 hands. This should plot a LOT wilder, but it should still illustrate how ludicrous the suspected accounts played.

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Narrowing that database to players who have 500 hands or more, over 5,000 players remained.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it look like if you include only players with <500 hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't looked (since there's going to be a much larger number of people who fit into that category, and the 5,000 players created a 6mb excel file of data alone)

However, the results are obviously going to be much more disparate than the chart above. Take the example of one hand, where a player wins a stack on their first hand - they're going to have a VPIP of 100%, with a winrate of 10,000bb/100. I don't think there's much value in that.

Besides, we have around 500 hands on the cheater, so it makes sense to compare like with like.

[/ QUOTE ]

but isn't this the relevant comparison? at least something like 400 - 700 hands?

[Josem]

OK - I see what you're asking now.

I had thought I was asked for the stats of only players who have under 500 hands.


Below is a graph of VPIP vs BB/100 for players who have played 500-800 hands.

The cheater is again marked in red.

Also, I realised that I can improve the graph my reducing the size of the dots for each data point to give you a better idea of density etc.



(To go below 500 hands requires me to pull the data out of HM again, which is a bit of an exercise and I can't do immediately; if someone can make a compelling reason for why this data would be more valuable and worth the time, I'll go and get it)

[Josem]

BTW, that is 2067 data points in blue.

[nath]

I think I found the outlier in your graph