AP Visit: I'm going to Costa Rica

[nsj]

[ QUOTE ]
While I realize that this will anger the "burn AP to the ground" crowd, has anybody stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, not EVERYBODY at AP (or online poker rooms, in general) is an unethical, dishonest, criminal? Isn't it quite possible that many of the higher-ups in the company were fooled just as badly as AP customers by POTRIPPER and friends and that they are simply guilty of being blind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very accurate, and thought so long before the issue of Nat going to CR on Absolute's dime ever came to light. Not everyone at Enron was in on cooking the books... and 99.9% of the company's employees were far angrier than the rest of the public.

[ QUOTE ]
dlks9s,
I don't believe management is necessarily bad, but they denied him access to the accounts. Game set match.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's conceivable that because a full audit is in process, Gaming Associates has exclusive access to that material written into the policies and procedures of how they work.

I'm not trying to defend Absolute in any way, but everyone seems to think that AJ and Scott represent all AP employees and their business ethics.

Is it so hard to believe that everyone else at the company is furious with what has happened, and want the auditing company and independent consultants to come in and not only figure out where they went wrong, but provide legitimate advice on how they can tidy their operation and maintain their market share?

[FoxInTheHenHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
While I realize that this will anger the "burn AP to the ground" crowd, has anybody stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, not EVERYBODY at AP (or online poker rooms, in general) is an unethical, dishonest, criminal? Isn't it quite possible that many of the higher-ups in the company were fooled just as badly as AP customers by POTRIPPER and friends and that they are simply guilty of being blind?

I'm not saying that the big shots at AP aren't covering things up, as they very well may be, but it is frustrating to me that people automatically assume that everyone who is involved in the operation of an online poker room (especially one that is not PokerStars) is a crook.

I completely understand the opinion that AP is just inviting Nat down as a sort of publicity stunt so that they can feed him the information that they want to be made public. But with very, very few exceptions, nobody here knows who exactly it was who extended the invitation to Nat. While it could very well be someone who simply wants to get Nat to report that AP is doing everything correctly from here on out, it realistically could also be someone who honestly had no knowledge of the cheating, was not involved in the initial denials, and legitimately wants to get everything cleaned up, even if it means that AP looks even worse in the short run.

Again, I'm not saying that AP isn't just trying to pull the rug over everyone's eyes, but I also think it's silly to automatically assume that everyone who works for an online gambling company that is not based in the U.S. is an unethical savage.

Alternatively, Nat could be part of a rogue splinter group at AP that enlisted the cheaters, outed them, and "investigated" the improprieties to earn the trust of the poker community, all to get the executives fired so that they could install their own regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[ammbo]

Nat,

My personal opinion is that it is only fair to give AP a chance to tell their side of the story. They may have perfectly good explanations for everything. I would want perfectly good explanations for the following:

What is the relationship of the following companies to AP:
<ul type="square">[*]Innovative Data Solutions/IDS Technical Consulting - Costa Rica[*]Absolute Entertainment S A - Belize[*]Tokwiro Enterprises ENRG - Quebec[*]Blast Off Limited - Malta[*]Absolute Poker - Miami[*]Arizona Bay Inc. - San Francisco[*]Riviera LTD - ??[/list]Ask how each is related to AP in the past, present, and future, who owns each company, who the principals of each are, and what the primary business of each is.

People of interest:
<ul type="square">[*]Scott Tom[*]AJ Green[*]Oscar Hilt[*]Curtis Olson[*]David Clanier[/list]Ask what responsibilities each had and at what time. Specifically, whose responsibility was it to detect/stop this type of abuse? Ask what their role is/was/will be with AP. I would also want to know what kind of oversight there is. Is there a board of directors? Do the original investors have any say in things?

If they say there is no superuser and show you the exploit, as they have promised, ask how long it has been exploitable and who knew about it and when. I am sure I left people and companies out, feel free to fill in the blanks.

Finally, ask for my dollar back. That popcorn was stale.

[timmay28]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that an important part of determining whether such a problem is going to happen again is in understanding the culture of the place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only problem with that is when they expect a visitor they want to impress, the culture will be different than normal. If this is the primary reason for going down there, it'd be better to just go without them knowing ahead of time when it would be. Kinda like when restaurants get inspected; they have a general idea of which month they'll get checked on, but they don't know which exact day.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]

This is wrong and partly shortsighted. I'll be the first to admit I *do* have an interest in seeing online poker survive. Personally, I'd much rather just have it US-regulated, but in the absence of that as an option, I'd much rather have a market including a clean, reformed AP than a market with a dead AP and a horror story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar,

I have the utmost respect for the selfless work that you and Nat have done staying on this issue and communicating so effectively to the 2+2 community.

It is also apparent that you are doing it for the health of online poker in general.

But it is wrong to think that the death of Absolute Poker at this point would be bad for online poker.

In every industry, companies have dissolved when they have performed poorly, let alone criminally. It usually results in a more vibrant industry by restoring public trust, and opening opportunities for companies managed well and operating in a trustworthy manner.

In fact, as others have pointed out, it could create a very bad precedent if Absolute were able to shake this off with denials, delays, and a feel good PR campaign.

I'm sure that you and Nat will report back with integrity and with the health of online poker in mind. But please know that the death of Absolute Poker, if it happens, would also meet those goals.

Sincerely,
Steve Grantz

Edit to Add -

Reading more of the thread, I want to add two comments.

1) You and Nat have every right to compensation for your time, from Absolute Poker, if you travel to Costa Rica at their invitation, just as any auditor would be paid. Your integrity is unquestioned. People saying otherwise should really stop to consider your actions over the last month.

2) I want to clarify that I do not think your motivation should be to bring down Absolute Poker. As stated, your goal of the health of online poker is reasonable and the right objective, really. Rather, I wanted to point out that if Absolute goes down, that is not necessarily bad for the health of online poker, and may actually be good for it.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Adanthar,

I have the utmost respect for the selfless work that you and Nat have done staying on this issue and communicating so effectively to the 2+2 community.

It is also apparent that you are doing it for the health of online poker in general.

But it is wrong to think that the death of Absolute Poker at this point would be bad for online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this sentiment.

For those looking for reform: what would it take for you to be convinced enough of the trustworthiness of AP that you personally would play there again? I'm biased because I haven't played there, but I don't think they could convince me to start at this point no matter what they did.

[crashjr]

Some random observations:

Glo: OK, so a Big 4 firm is not likely interested in performing an audit of an online gaming company. There must be a trustworthy Latin American or European accounting firm with experience in internet gaming operation auditing that would be interested.

Nat/Adar/snagglepus: I really don't see the downside to accepting the invitation from AP, with the possible exception of a loss of credibility from some of the retards in this thread. If the goal of your trip is to appease the masses, that obviously isn't going to work.

Phil: Think before you post. More than 5k unreasonable?? I bill $300/hr plus expenses, which is nowhere near the high end of the scale. A week of a professional's time costs a lot more than 5k.

Re Mason: He is protective of his brand for good reason. Perhaps when dealing with any situation likely to garner outside attention, the posters here should simply refer to themselves as the "online poker community". I am not suggesting that the 2+2 posters are not largely responsible for bringing the AP cheating scandal to a head (along with ITH and P5s), but yes, Mason, your brand is valuable and should be protected.

w/r/t the ownership and other legal issue confusion: Ownership interests are divisible. Just because Chief Norton has a 100% interest in something does not mean he actually holds the equitable ownership interest. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for setting up a holding in this manner, as any of you trust fund kids reading this should realize. Also, the initials S.A. following a company name are equivalent to "Inc." in English. Just because it translates literally into "anonymous society" does not mean that there is anything inherently shady about this type of business entity.

[traz]

This is probably the first and only post I'll make on this issue. I've read all the threads but haven't posted because it's all too much of a clusterscrew for my liking.

My thoughts are largely similar to El D's. Clearly Nat will get a distorted, whitewashed view of the company and it's operations. That being said, there's really no harm in him going. If he comes back and says "they all seemed like stand up guys"...is that really going to change anything? It's not like all of us are going to be OH OK, SWEET WE TRUST ABSOLUTE NOW.

We all KNOW they're going to put their best foot foward. Despite that, there's an opportunity for some interesting questions to be answered (such as details of the corporate organization, structure and some of the other things that have been suggested here).

We won't find out anything earth shattering or incriminating. The most we'll get is an insight into how open and forthcoming Absolute is willing to be with respects to various unclear or shady issues.

I see this as a situation with little upside but no downside. Whether it's worth anyone's time to take up such a venture is his own business.

-traz

[jakrpanda]

Next time just tell people you are going to ask them some questions, might make this type of thread a bit shorter [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]


Anyway Im gonna grunch and pose a question that needs an obvious answer:

what is the purpose of the super use accounts and how do they function? I'd insist on seeing this in person. I'd also grill them on why this is needed. I've worked in very "data secure" environments and I've never seen a tool that could be so obviously exploitable. Sure it _could_ be useful, but it exposes way to many holes for abuse. It's downright bad design and I'd like to know who was responsible.


Simple fact is we trust these "black box" poker sites with our cash. It's not asking too much for a little transparency.

[cyc]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not read all the replies in the thread so some of this may have already been said.

The thing nat found out without access to AP is outstanding so I think him actaully being able to access AP he should find a lot more info.

The things you may be able to check.
1. Get a list of all HH where an account ID &lt; 2000 was viewing the table.
2. Get a list of HH where account ID &lt; 2000 has been playing at the table.
3. I can understand how this could have happended without a HOLE CARD account. eg sniffing all the data getting sent to the ip addresses of the people on the table. We need to get confirmation that the data is somehow encrypted.
4. Can AP software get a screen shot of our computers and can this be viewd real time.

Thats all I can think of at the moment if there is anything else I will put it in this thread.

Mark,

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mark,

If NAT can get these details from AP, nothing like it, however do you think AP would give NAT access to these details?

It would be awesome if NAT can get some confirmation that AP will give him access to some of these data points before going there.

Dont get me wrong, I would like NAT(or anyone else) go and meet AP, but if they are not giving much access to critical data, then it shouldn't help his cause.

Cheers!
Cyc