Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[BrianBigNFun]

ike, who is your intended audience? Poker players who get glossy eyed at math and statistics or the general populace?

If it's the latter then you use way too much poker jargon like "river bet" and if it's the former, you may want to summarize a bit better, like instead of showing a whole hand history, tell them he called a huge 9 high bluff with only ten high.

[Lori]

"......... using river aggression, a statistic that effectively tells us how well our opponents are reading our play...."

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as a possible media contact I would suggest Steven Levitt, the author of Freakonomics. He runs a blog through the New York Times.Freakonomics Blog He is obviously pretty high profile from the success of the book. More importantly he was also involved in the Pokernomics project Pokernomics Webpage

He even mentions pokertracker on the pokernomics webpage. He seems like he could be the absolute perfect person to condense the poker math down to a level that the mass media would understand, he has a ton of credibility and could pretty easily make a basic post on his blog that would raise the necessary red flag.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is an excellent idea, instant credibility too

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what we want here are established statisticians and poker players that everyone trusts. Not proponents of controversial theories that are still being hotly debated.

[BrianBigNFun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Too complicated, Ike.

[/ QUOTE ]

what part? how would you change it... etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

-no hand histories
-no technical jargon, that includes preflop and postflop
i.e. instead of "every single hand he got preflop"-->"every single two-card hand he was dealt"
-don't make the river call the center of the evidence, I would zero in on the most incriminating piece of evidence which is the infinite river aggression. If properly explained it is the most powerful argument.
-I would just dig right in and get more to the point, instead of using filler stuff like "one fateful night in etc".

So the structure would be something like:

-establish that you are experienced, winning player and not a crackpot
-establish that other experienced, winning players agree with you at the highest limits
-explain the Doubledrag issue in a paragraph, mentioning the 10-high call as fishy. Explain that this in itself isn't enough to indict him, but when a number of opponents pooled their hands together, they discovered...
-the river aggression which is the smoking gun of the argument. It is crucial we explain this in 2-3 sentences why it makes NO sense and no regular player could possibly be that aggressive without knowing the hole cards.
-explain other stats (number of hands played and aggression) as well as other fishy behaviour (folding for one bet, limping in always when someone had a big pocket pair in the blinds when otherwise he is raising any two cards, chip dumping, etc)
-explain what absolute has done
-explain why this is inadequate
-explain what needs to be done to clear Absolute from any wrongdoing (audit, full investigation, etc)

Fin

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent critique- you should be an English teacher

[Janis N.]

[ QUOTE ]
I was frustrated, but I thought he was getting extremely lucky and I'd break him later.

[/ QUOTE ]You're not mentioning how much was stolen from you to show how this is serious business?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm all for fish getting lucky once in awhile

[/ QUOTE ]IMHO call them poor players; not everyone from the general public understands the term fish.

I think in the end you need to again explicitly say something like "These suspicions fall only on Absolute Poker. The integrity of no other poker site is in any way questioned".

[suzzer99]

I think if you convert the HH it would be fine (with maybe a link to the raw one). The T-high call is going to hold a lot of water with anyone who's played even a little poker. I'd hate to lose it. Plus it breaks up the monotony a little with pretty colors.

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you convert the HH it would be fine. The T-high call is going to hold a lot of water with anyone who's played even a little poker. I'd hate to lose it. Plus it breaks up the monotony a little with pretty colors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think posting a HH just gives license for people to skim read it and either not care/understand or if they do understand just say "meh, this happens all the time, the guy's a sore loser"

[suzzer99]

That HH is what got the ball rolling on this and perked up everyone to take it seriously. I think it would be a mistake to leave it out entirely. Just make sure you over-emphasize that THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

[LacquDown]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as a possible media contact I would suggest Steven Levitt, the author of Freakonomics. He runs a blog through the New York Times.Freakonomics Blog He is obviously pretty high profile from the success of the book. More importantly he was also involved in the Pokernomics project Pokernomics Webpage

He even mentions pokertracker on the pokernomics webpage. He seems like he could be the absolute perfect person to condense the poker math down to a level that the mass media would understand, he has a ton of credibility and could pretty easily make a basic post on his blog that would raise the necessary red flag.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI - I actually was in touch with Steve via email a few days ago. He's aware of the scenario and told me that he may or may not blog about it.

[BrianBigNFun]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you convert the HH it would be fine (with maybe a link to the raw one). The T-high call is going to hold a lot of water with anyone who's played even a little poker. I'd hate to lose it. Plus it breaks up the monotony a little with pretty colors.

[/ QUOTE ]

BUt unless it's done in a Card Player Magazine hand analysis style most casual poker players who dont use hand histories will get lost or will stop reading halfway thru. Simple summary is key to media articles and if youre forced to cut corners and details, then make key points as succinct and terse as possible.