new more damning absolute evidence

[sixfour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read this whole thread to see if this has been noticed before but why doesn't Potripper show up on the flop action of this particular hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Turn line should obviously be one line lower, i.e. so it shows PR as checking behind on flop

[traxamillion]

If you watch the PokerXFactor replay it just becomes even more blatant. It becomes extremely apparent that not only does he never get his money in behind but his bet sizing is totally based on the strength of his opponents hand and what he wants his opponent to do.

[traxamillion]

when he limp folds versus kk early on i literally think that was because he is just that bad of a poker player; he may have though there was a chance opponent would check his kk preflop.

[traxamillion]

lol overbetting 5x pot to get opponent off 34 on a kk3x board.

[Pasterbator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read this whole thread to see if this has been noticed before but why doesn't Potripper show up on the flop action of this particular hand?

Stage #896584233 Tourney ID 1883389 Holdem Multi Normal Tournament No Limit $20 - 2007-09-12 21:17:06.011 (ET)
Table: 13 (Real Money) Seat #4 is the dealer
Seat 5 - POKERME420 ($10300 in chips)
Seat 7 - DZ00NUTS ($8292 in chips)
Seat 8 - KOOLKEITH13 ($9960 in chips)
Seat 9 - SCARFACE_79 ($9970 in chips)
Seat 1 - BIGREDAK86 ($9940 in chips)
Seat 2 - JOSIAHW ($7466 in chips)
Seat 3 - POTRIPPER ($24137 in chips)
Seat 4 - POTR0AST ($9865 in chips)
POKERME420 - Posts small blind $10
DZ00NUTS - Posts big blind $20
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to BIGREDAK86 [Kc Qh]
Dealt to JOSIAHW [7d Js]
Dealt to POTRIPPER [10c 5d]
Dealt to POTR0AST [10s 2s]
Dealt to POKERME420 [6h Qs]
Dealt to DZ00NUTS [7c Jh]
Dealt to KOOLKEITH13 [10d 6c]
Dealt to SCARFACE_79 [9d Ad]
KOOLKEITH13 - Folds
SCARFACE_79 - Raises $50 to $50
BIGREDAK86 - Raises $180 to $180
JOSIAHW - Folds
POTRIPPER - Calls $180
POTR0AST - Folds
POKERME420 - Folds
DZ00NUTS - Folds
SCARFACE_79 - Calls $130
*** FLOP *** [4h 9s Ah]
SCARFACE_79 - Checks
BIGREDAK86 - Checks
*** TURN *** [4h 9s Ah] [2h]
POTRIPPER - Checks
SCARFACE_79 - Bets $280
BIGREDAK86 - Folds
POTRIPPER - Folds
SCARFACE_79 - returned ($280) : not called

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
if i had T5o and could see their cards id probably play it the same

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was asking why he didn't do ANYTHING on the flop.

Probably bc the action was all scrambled in the email. POTRIPPER was actually in position on this hand, so his check on the turn, first to act, was supposed to be last to act on the flop.

Then he folds the turn.

There ya go.

[T Kiriakopoulos]

I have already posted my arguments in the threads:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/poke...oms-rigged.html
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...nos-cheat.html
Anyway, I will briefly repeat them here:

Why would the pokerooms have an interest in cheating poker players since they earn a large and steady rake? Because if all the players had about the same poker skill, then in the long run all of the deposited money would end up to the rake. But if some players because of their skill have an edge over the rest of the players which is greater than the x% rake, e.g. (x+1)%, (in many cases the rake is lower than 5% because of bonuses, rakebacks etc), then these players would keep taking a considerable percentage of the deposited money, and only the rest would be going to the rake. But if the casino cheats these players, then the casino will keep the 100% of the deposited money. You might say the casino can simply cheat the winners. Yes, this can be the case too. But what really matters is who is or will be a winner in the long run.

Yeah, right, “they wouldn’t cheat because this would be exposed”. No, it cannot be exposed. A cheating of 1-3 out of 100 hands is perhaps enough to eliminate any edge a poker player can have after the rake (well, if not eliminate it, of course it decreases it) , and it is almost impossible to be statistically proven with a satisfactory degree of statistical certainty, even in the game of blackjack, imagine how impossible it is in the complicated game of poker.
SO SINCE IT IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOVE SUCH A LITTLE CHEATING, THEN WHY WOULDN’T THE POKER ROOMS CHEAT A LITTLE?

But most pokerooms do not even bother to cheat little enough in order to hide it. Obviously because so far, no matter how much they increased the rate of cheating, this was not getting exposed by player communication in the forums, and because this poor way of communication is so far the only way this could be exposed. And the casinos also took care to fill up the forums with shills and affiliates who would quickly fill up the threads with many and long posts so any accusing arguments would be difficult to find or to read and think on them. The owners of the forums themselves are affiliates. The casino adverts in them prove this. Now you are accusing Absolute for cheating, like you discovered America. And even then, you tried to present it is as the work of hackers who were common players and had no association with the casino. And not a word that the other casinos might cheat as well. Implying that if any other casinos cheated, this would be immediately exposed like the case of Absolute.
Why did almost all of you attacked me as being out of my mind, that I lost because of my bad poker play, that “they have no reason to cheat”, etc etc, when I accused pokerooms of cheating? It is damn obvious that such arguments come from posters who have common interests with the casinos. The most amusing argument I read, is that it is we who have to prove that casinos cheat and not the casinos who have to prove to us they don’t cheat. Implying that without very strong statistical indications, the probability that they don’t cheat is almost 100% so we are out of our minds just because we give a considerable probability that they do cheat. Of course, the blinding obvious truth is that since they have an interest to cheat, and since it is not possible to statistically prove a little cheating, then the more probable case is that they do cheat a little, even if there were no statistical indications.

I have played thousands of hands at William Hill and Sportingbet.
But I have also played at 888.com, Ladbrokes, Grosvernor, and some others.
Some preflop hands (e.g. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, etc ) as well as some flop hands (e.g. flopping a top pair when having such a strong preflop hand) are bound to produce profit in the long run even after a 5% rake, if you are not the most stupid player of the world. Therefore when after many hundreds of hands, exactly because of these strong hands, you end up with great losses (compared with the money you wagered) instead of great profits, then the probability of such an extremely bad luck happening is less than 5%, perhaps much less than 1%. This is statistical evidence for cheating.
No, my losses were not because of the post blinds, as I chose to play no limit where the posts were 1/50 or 1/100 of the average pot.
No, my losses were not because of the fact that I lost much when I lost and won little when I won because of my bad play. I am not the most stupid poker player of the world. Of course this thing happened, but not because of exceptional stupid play of mine, but because of cheating or very rare bad luck. But a very rare bad luck is itself the definition of statistical evidence for cheating.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
I have already posted my arguments in the threads:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/poke...oms-rigged.html
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...nos-cheat.html
Anyway, I will briefly repeat them here:

Why would the pokerooms have an interest in cheating poker players since they earn a large and steady rake? Because if all the players had about the same poker skill, then in the long run all of the deposited money would end up to the rake. But if some players because of their skill have an edge over the rest of the players which is greater than the x% rake, e.g. (x+1)%, (in many cases the rake is lower than 5% because of bonuses, rakebacks etc), then these players would keep taking a considerable percentage of the deposited money, and only the rest would be going to the rake. But if the casino cheats these players, then the casino will keep the 100% of the deposited money. You might say the casino can simply cheat the winners. Yes, this can be the case too. But what really matters is who is or will be a winner in the long run.

Yeah, right, “they wouldn’t cheat because this would be exposed”. No, it cannot be exposed. A cheating of 1-3 out of 100 hands is perhaps enough to eliminate any edge a poker player can have after the rake (well, if not eliminate it, of course it decreases it) , and it is almost impossible to be statistically proven with a satisfactory degree of statistical certainty, even in the game of blackjack, imagine how impossible it is in the complicated game of poker.
SO SINCE IT IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOVE SUCH A LITTLE CHEATING, THEN WHY WOULDN’T THE POKER ROOMS CHEAT A LITTLE?

But most pokerooms do not even bother to cheat little enough in order to hide it. Obviously because so far, no matter how much they increased the rate of cheating, this was not getting exposed by player communication in the forums, and because this poor way of communication is so far the only way this could be exposed. And the casinos also took care to fill up the forums with shills and affiliates who would quickly fill up the threads with many and long posts so any accusing arguments would be difficult to find or to read and think on them. The owners of the forums themselves are affiliates. The casino adverts in them prove this. Now you are accusing Absolute for cheating, like you discovered America. And even then, you tried to present it is as the work of hackers who were common players and had no association with the casino. And not a word that the other casinos might cheat as well. Implying that if any other casinos cheated, this would be immediately exposed like the case of Absolute.
Why did almost all of you attacked me as being out of my mind, that I lost because of my bad poker play, that “they have no reason to cheat”, etc etc, when I accused pokerooms of cheating? It is damn obvious that such arguments come from posters who have common interests with the casinos. The most amusing argument I read, is that it is we who have to prove that casinos cheat and not the casinos who have to prove to us they don’t cheat. Implying that without very strong statistical indications, the probability that they don’t cheat is almost 100% so we are out of our minds just because we give a considerable probability that they do cheat. Of course, the blinding obvious truth is that since they have an interest to cheat, and since it is not possible to statistically prove a little cheating, then the more probable case is that they do cheat a little, even if there were no statistical indications.

I have played thousands of hands at William Hill and Sportingbet.
But I have also played at 888.com, Ladbrokes, Grosvernor, and some others.
Some preflop hands (e.g. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, etc ) as well as some flop hands (e.g. flopping a top pair when having such a strong preflop hand) are bound to produce profit in the long run even after a 5% rake, if you are not the most stupid player of the world. Therefore when after many hundreds of hands, exactly because of these strong hands, you end up with great losses (compared with the money you wagered) instead of great profits, then the probability of such an extremely bad luck happening is less than 5%, perhaps much less than 1%. This is statistical evidence for cheating.
No, my losses were not because of the post blinds, as I chose to play no limit where the posts were 1/50 or 1/100 of the average pot.
No, my losses were not because of the fact that I lost much when I lost and won little when I won because of my bad play. I am not the most stupid poker player of the world. Of course this thing happened, but not because of exceptional stupid play of mine, but because of cheating or very rare bad luck. But a very rare bad luck is itself the definition of statistical evidence for cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] are you talking about?

[e_phemeral]

Watching this video of the Potripper tourney with all the hole cards on display made me sick. There is no doubt in my mind that this guy could see all of the hole cards. Either that, or he guessed right every single time he made a big retarded bet to get someone off 2nd pair and every time he folded preflop to KK or AA behind him. This video is so sick. You can even see him adapt his style as the tourney goes on. The only time he loses is when someone "sucks" out on him. In the beginning of the tourney, he loses 1 or 2 decent sized pots because he let the pot get too big on the flop/turn when he wasn't a huge favorite, and ends up losing on the river. He then kind of adapts and doesn't make that mistake again. On those hands where he is not way ahead and his opponents aren't folding, he keeps the pots generally smaller until the river when he knows he has won or else has a better idea of whether he can get his opponent of his/her hand.

Watching this video makes me think that it is foolish to think that this is only an isolated incident at Absolute. This same kind of thing could be going on at every single poker site every minute of every day. In the hands of even a moderately skilled player, having the ability to see everyone's hole cards is devastating. Skilled players in cash games could use the tool liberally, but still have the good sense to lose a few hands every now and then. It could be that up until now, the cheaters have been smart about it, only picking on bad/loose/tilty players at low and mid-stake games and not risking the potential fall-out of cheating a high stakes game.

There are plenty of times when I have been playing online and felt the same way as I bet those poor bastards at that table with Potripper felt - that all of their bluffs get picked off, that they can never get paid on their big hands and that they are constantly being pushed off of their moderately strenghted hands. And when they call, the lose. Fold, lose. Call, lose. Get a big hand, get no action. I have had that same feeling. Now it could be that I just suck at poker. Or it could be that there are hundreds/thousands of cheaters out there with the same ability as Potripper clearly had in this tournament, but who are just 1000 times smarter about how they use their edge.

Call me crazy, but this is one fish who will no longer be playing online poker. I will take my $ to the B&M instead.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
I have already posted my arguments in the threads:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/poke...oms-rigged.html
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...nos-cheat.html
Anyway, I will briefly repeat them here:

Why would the pokerooms have an interest in cheating poker players since they earn a large and steady rake? Because if all the players had about the same poker skill, then in the long run all of the deposited money would end up to the rake. But if some players because of their skill have an edge over the rest of the players which is greater than the x% rake, e.g. (x+1)%, (in many cases the rake is lower than 5% because of bonuses, rakebacks etc), then these players would keep taking a considerable percentage of the deposited money, and only the rest would be going to the rake. But if the casino cheats these players, then the casino will keep the 100% of the deposited money. You might say the casino can simply cheat the winners. Yes, this can be the case too. But what really matters is who is or will be a winner in the long run.

Yeah, right, “they wouldn’t cheat because this would be exposed”. No, it cannot be exposed. A cheating of 1-3 out of 100 hands is perhaps enough to eliminate any edge a poker player can have after the rake (well, if not eliminate it, of course it decreases it) , and it is almost impossible to be statistically proven with a satisfactory degree of statistical certainty, even in the game of blackjack, imagine how impossible it is in the complicated game of poker.
SO SINCE IT IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOVE SUCH A LITTLE CHEATING, THEN WHY WOULDN’T THE POKER ROOMS CHEAT A LITTLE?

But most pokerooms do not even bother to cheat little enough in order to hide it. Obviously because so far, no matter how much they increased the rate of cheating, this was not getting exposed by player communication in the forums, and because this poor way of communication is so far the only way this could be exposed. And the casinos also took care to fill up the forums with shills and affiliates who would quickly fill up the threads with many and long posts so any accusing arguments would be difficult to find or to read and think on them. The owners of the forums themselves are affiliates. The casino adverts in them prove this. Now you are accusing Absolute for cheating, like you discovered America. And even then, you tried to present it is as the work of hackers who were common players and had no association with the casino. And not a word that the other casinos might cheat as well. Implying that if any other casinos cheated, this would be immediately exposed like the case of Absolute.
Why did almost all of you attacked me as being out of my mind, that I lost because of my bad poker play, that “they have no reason to cheat”, etc etc, when I accused pokerooms of cheating? It is damn obvious that such arguments come from posters who have common interests with the casinos. The most amusing argument I read, is that it is we who have to prove that casinos cheat and not the casinos who have to prove to us they don’t cheat. Implying that without very strong statistical indications, the probability that they don’t cheat is almost 100% so we are out of our minds just because we give a considerable probability that they do cheat. Of course, the blinding obvious truth is that since they have an interest to cheat, and since it is not possible to statistically prove a little cheating, then the more probable case is that they do cheat a little, even if there were no statistical indications.

I have played thousands of hands at William Hill and Sportingbet.
But I have also played at 888.com, Ladbrokes, Grosvernor, and some others.
Some preflop hands (e.g. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, etc ) as well as some flop hands (e.g. flopping a top pair when having such a strong preflop hand) are bound to produce profit in the long run even after a 5% rake, if you are not the most stupid player of the world. Therefore when after many hundreds of hands, exactly because of these strong hands, you end up with great losses (compared with the money you wagered) instead of great profits, then the probability of such an extremely bad luck happening is less than 5%, perhaps much less than 1%. This is statistical evidence for cheating.
No, my losses were not because of the post blinds, as I chose to play no limit where the posts were 1/50 or 1/100 of the average pot.
No, my losses were not because of the fact that I lost much when I lost and won little when I won because of my bad play. I am not the most stupid poker player of the world. Of course this thing happened, but not because of exceptional stupid play of mine, but because of cheating or very rare bad luck. But a very rare bad luck is itself the definition of statistical evidence for cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

get the [censored] out fish, this isn't about your dumb ass

[carol-ann]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, this is exactly why absolute can basically tell everyone to go [censored] off and not have to admit to anything. Even the people who get totally ripped off will still play there.

You guys might as well stop wasting your energy with this campaign. If the victims will still play at a sight run by incompetent, lying, shady, bastards, then why would you think anyone else will stop?

You already know absolute wont admit to it. You could have a video of the cheater in action sitting next to his lapop that displays all the hole cards, while wearing his absolute security badge, and absolute would deny it, and it wouldnt matter cuz the suckers would STILL keep playing there.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft


basically I felt bad about ikestoys being stolen money from when that happened but now that I see he continues to play there and basically support the site through paying rake I just think that some people have very little spine/principles