Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
casinomeister recieved an email from absolute.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...-issue-11.html

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much already saw that response from them, it's another form email. I don't see too much new info in it except "There are no "superuser" accounts that enable players to see other players' hole cards" ... which they obviously are going to say in some random dumb support email response.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...61#Post12123761

[FellKnight]

An interesting analysis, but missing on a few key details, IMO.

1. You are ignoring the 90/80 hand selection or whatever the actual numbers were. In order to be a winner with that sort of hand selection, you would have to win gigantic pots nearly every time that you were ahead, and lose the minimum when you are behind. It is also possible to win by picking up tons and tons of pots postflop, but I am going to make a reasonable assumption that opponents at 15/30NL can realize that when a player is playing 90/80, he is not hitting most flops. It is also possible over such a short term to repeatedly flop huge and just tear up the table, so this is only partial evidence.

2. You mention the blind stealing/c-bets. This is not a tournament. Blind stealing is not the way to win in deepstacked NL.

3. The 450BB overpair hand. That was the one where the DDRAG limped with TT because Ike had AA, yes? Perhaps you can explain how a player who is raising 80% of hands preflop chooses not to open-raise TT?

4. The explanation of the River AF: Even if the perfect storm of situations happened at 15/30NL, where your opponents would rarely bet or raise you on the river, *and* you were betting a whole lot of times and putting lots of pressure on the pot, you are neglecting the most important factor of all... He was always right! This is such a statistical improbability as to be completely unbelievable without hole card knowledge.

5. [ QUOTE ]
He will stick in the big river bet, even when (if he could see hole cards) he would know that he could only get a small bet paid off.

[/ QUOTE ] This is not hard to see why. Even a player as bad as he was can realize that if you overbet all the time, you are going to get more overbets paid off. For a good player, I would call it part of his metagame strategy. For this guy, I would simply say that he stumbled on to a good way to win money faster. And again, he was almost never wrong. There is the one crazy hand where he bet $5550 into the pot on the river and folded to a $90 raise (and the Grinder later said that he actually had the straight), so we are left with only a few possibilites: a) This guy misread the board. b) he thought that somehow the grinder wouldn't want to call so much for a chop pot given the small possibility of losing to the bigger straight. Other than that hand though, this guy never once made a big bet on the river into a hand where an opponent had to call except when he had that hand beat.

6. [ QUOTE ]
We don't see his hand often enough to know how he is mixing it up.

[/ QUOTE ] No, but Absolute can. It should be utterly trivial for them to look at these hands and learn the truth. All we have had from them is "This player did nothing wrong, he got lucky, but we are closing his account anyway"

7. [ QUOTE ]
For example, he was screw played twice that I noticed. In both cases, he made a small turn bet and got raised - and he reraised a solid amount and opponent folded. It's only two hands, so can't say if it means much.

[/ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't mean much, but at this level, you are going to have players play hands in such a way. Against a 90/80, they know he is playing trash, and cannot hit many flops. So they call his preflop raise, they call the flop raise, and try to take it away on the turn. He knows this because he can see their cards, and so he reraises. I would bet good money that in both the hands you talk about, the players who raised the turn had air.

As for the two hands you posted, I fail to see what they show. In the first, although DDRAG has the worst hand, he knows that 9s are going to be very difficult to play after the flop, and he will probably be able to take the pot away. When he gets reraised big, he probably abandons that tack in fear that Ike has decided to get stubborn with his 9s. The turn and river bets are laughable and serve no point.

The second hand is fairly trivial and proves nothing, as I have seen many a good player make plays like this (by the river, the SB should be able to put the BB on either a 7, small PP, or a draw. The river bet screams of value against the first two hands, and he doesn't want to check and let only the third class of hands bluff at the pot.

Fell

[MotorBoatingSOB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, just to check then, are 20 and 16 still relatively high? Because that sounds a lot different to infinite.


[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason there was one hand sample where the River AF was infinite was because he had a 100 hand stretch where he never called on the river, and since River A/F essentially is dividing the number of raises on the river by the number of calls, you get a divide by zero error, which the pokertracker software interprets as infinity. A river aggression factor of 20 is still insane over 400 hands, while at the same time winning over 200 ptbb per 100. This is basically statistically impossible, the odds are beyond any statistical outlier. I guarantee you every player here could look at their entire hand history range, and nowhere would they find a hand history range where they were winning over 200 ptbb/100 over 400 hands while simultaneously having a River AF of over 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is he playing *perfect* poker on the river as opposed to near perfect? The only reason I can see for his river AF to be finite while still playing perfectly would be because he cannot raise an opponent's all-in bet (or capped bet as it applies) when he holds the best hand.

Or maybe I am missing something obvious and there is another reason for the non-infinite river AF.

[flight2q]

You're not being leveled. The most bizarre hands I saw reported were from tournaments, and I've given up trying to make sense of how people play in donkaments. So I asked adanthar to send me a cash game hand history.

It has two sessions, one on 6 Sep, and a shorter one on 7 Sep. After tediously going through the 190 hands of the first session (complete with missing players, actions, and out of order actions, thanks AP) I decided to write up my thoughts up to that point. The way everyone was describing the player, I had thought 190 hands would be more than enough to convince me, but it wasn't at all. And I thought that was significant enough to state.

And an extreme 250 PTBB/100 in PT over 190 hands is not that much of a stretch. Heck that's possible playing like a nit in full ring on your luckiest day. Never mind playing short handed at a deep stack table where someone will throw 225 PTBB at you in one hand.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were cheating, especially since there is chip dumping also going on. But it takes a lot of hands to have real evidence. It's not enough to cherry pick and say "ZOMG how come this LAG calls my push with A2s?" The K2 call DEAD ON IMPACT posted above is much more telling, and people can even question that. There just wasn't anything in those 190 IKESTOYS hands anywhere near as suspicious as that.

[marimba man]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not being leveled. The most bizarre hands I saw reported were from tournaments, and I've given up trying to make sense of how people play in donkaments. So I asked adanthar to send me a cash game hand history.

It has two sessions, one on 6 Sep, and a shorter one on 7 Sep. After tediously going through the 190 hands of the first session (complete with missing players, actions, and out of order actions, thanks AP) I decided to write up my thoughts up to that point. The way everyone was describing the player, I had thought 190 hands would be more than enough to convince me, but it wasn't at all. And I thought that was significant enough to state.

And an extreme 250 PTBB/100 in PT over 190 hands is not that much of a stretch. Heck that's possible playing like a nit in full ring on your luckiest day. Never mind playing short handed at a deep stack table where someone will throw 225 PTBB at you in one hand.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were cheating, especially since there is chip dumping also going on. But it takes a lot of hands to have real evidence. It's not enough to cherry pick and say "ZOMG how come this LAG calls my push with A2s?" The K2 call DEAD ON IMPACT posted above is much more telling, and people can even question that. There just wasn't anything in those 190 IKESTOYS hands anywhere near as suspicious as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the real killer is going to be which hands he folded on the river, which we probably will never know. If he folded a set<set, KK<AA or some other cooler it makes his T high donkament call look even more bizaare and removes all doubt imo.

AP will never release this though, it needs to be independantly investigated.

[ChrisV]

Our cheating theories are easily falsifiable. If our theories on doubledrag are wrong, Absolute should be able to demonstrate that by posting a single hand history from one of the suspect sessions that clearly does not conform with the idea that he can see hole cards. Examples could include doubledrag making a big bet on the turn when his opponent has no outs and can't call, or calling a big bet when he is well behind his opponent. Absolute have not done this and almost certainly will not do it because no such counterexamples exist.

As another poster pointed out, the idea that doubledrag is actually a fairly skilled player is not consistent with him calling 4K on the river with 4 high. That is only consistent with someone simply mashing buttons at random. The odds of someone button-mashing and coming up with the kind of stats doubledrag had in that 190 hand session are about the same as winning the lottery 5 weeks in a row.

Edit: If Absolute release a doubledrag hand in like a week's time, I'm going to be pretty suspicious that the hand was doctored to alter doubledrag's hand. If the hand wasn't shown down, this would be easily possible, since nobody would be able to verify the authenticity of his hole cards.

Re-edit: Now I think about it, there's no value whatsoever in Absolute releasing doubledrag hands since doctoring them can be done in Notepad. Doctoring the server logs would take longer.

[Janis N.]

[ QUOTE ]
If our theories on doubledrag are wrong, Absolute should be able to demonstrate that by posting a single hand history from one of the suspect sessions that clearly does not conform with the idea that he can see hole cards.

[/ QUOTE ]One counterexample isn't sufficient to say he isn't cheating. It would weaken the case from being 99.99 sure to 99.98 sure at most.

Anybody who's actually good at poker understands easily that he was cheating. That doesn't help convincing the people who aren't good that much though.

[flight2q]

Long post, picking and choosing sections...
[ QUOTE ]
1. You are ignoring the 90/80 hand selection or whatever the actual numbers were. In order to be a winner with that sort of hand selection, you would have to win gigantic pots nearly every time that you were ahead, and lose the minimum when you are behind. It is also possible to win by picking up tons and tons of pots postflop, but I am going to make a reasonable assumption that opponents at 15/30NL can realize that when a player is playing 90/80, he is not hitting most flops.

[/ QUOTE ]
The hands won't go into PT, but I think it's about 80/60. Your assumption about 15/30NL players reacting to a player's looseness is reasonable, but that's not what happened at this table. His opponents were laying down to c-bets like clockwork. You might find it suspicious that the c-bets are so effective, but it doesn't make sense that it's DRAG's doing, because he was c-betting like 90% or so when heads up on the flop. So obviously they know he has nothing usually, but still refused to play on.
[ QUOTE ]
2. You mention the blind stealing/c-bets. This is not a tournament. Blind stealing is not the way to win in deepstacked NL.

[/ QUOTE ]I mention it to describe the nature of the table; they were letting him run over them. Obv I'm not going to do the calculations, but I wouldn't be surprised that he would have still come out a winner in the session if he open-folded any hand that got to the turn. They were folding to practically minbet c-bets over and over!

[ QUOTE ]
3. The 450BB overpair hand. That was the one where the DDRAG limped with TT because Ike had AA, yes? Perhaps you can explain how a player who is raising 80% of hands preflop chooses not to open-raise TT?

[/ QUOTE ]
He called with TT in the blind, then check-raised the flop when he hit the set. He was flat calling lots of raises. I saw him do it with JJ too against someone without a big hand.

[ QUOTE ]
4. The explanation of the River AF: [...] you are neglecting the most important factor of all... He was always right! This is such a statistical improbability as to be completely unbelievable without hole card knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. The sample is way too small for that. There are only a few times where he calls the river, and he's not doing it with A high, picking off some bluff. For all we know, he folded to some river bluffs. He makes quite a few small river bets with losing hands. He also makes quite a few big river bets, and we see that a couple of those are with losing hands.

[ QUOTE ]
5. There is the one crazy hand where he bet $5550 into the pot on the river and folded to a $90 raise (and the Grinder later said that he actually had the straight),


[/ QUOTE ]That's not in this 190 hand session.

[ QUOTE ]
The second hand is fairly trivial and proves nothing, as I have seen many a good player make plays like this (by the river, the SB should be able to put the BB on either a 7, small PP, or a draw. The river bet screams of value against the first two hands, and he doesn't want to check and let only the third class of hands bluff at the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. This is an example of a hand that also makes sense if he can't see the hole cards. If he can see them, why prevent opponent from bluffing? Sounds like you are coming around to thinking that he didn't see hole cards in this session [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PrimogenitoX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so im having a session on abs where this guy munchkin cat is running like god against me and ofc my first thought was omg its doubledrags new account!

does anyone know who that is

[/ QUOTE ]

He just AIMed me and asked to do 1k swap ABS for Full Tilt...I declined because I was in the middle of a session...says he has 50k+ in his account

[/ QUOTE ]

Yo, g-p...when I kept insisting that munchkin cat send first he just wouldn't do the swap and now he was AIMing me to allow him to chip dump to me and telling me that he was going to chip dump like 50k to a friend later...add munchkin-cat to the list of megasuspicious/shady fools..AIM EC172

[/ QUOTE ]

Im munchkin_cat on ABS. I did NOT IM you, so whoever did is not me. And I'm def not shady.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain CALLING with JT as the nuts on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stage #767418959: Holdem No Limit $20 - 2007-09-20 05:14:55 (ET)
Table: DISCOVERY ST (Real Money) Seat #5 is the dealer
Seat 5 - NOSTRAKHAN ($4921 in chips)
Seat 2 - HARDCORY3011 ($3897 in chips)
Seat 3 - MS_ANDERSSON ($727 in chips)
Seat 4 - MUNCHKIN_CAT ($24538.16 in chips)
HARDCORY3011 - Posts small blind $10
MS_ANDERSSON - Posts big blind $20
*** POCKET CARDS ***
MUNCHKIN_CAT - Raises $70 to $70
NOSTRAKHAN - Calls $70
HARDCORY3011 - Folds
MS_ANDERSSON - Calls $50
*** FLOP *** [8d Qd 9c]
MS_ANDERSSON - Checks
MUNCHKIN_CAT - Checks
NOSTRAKHAN - Checks
*** TURN *** [8d Qd 9c] [6h]
MS_ANDERSSON - Bets $140
MUNCHKIN_CAT - Raises $520 to $520
NOSTRAKHAN - Calls $520
MS_ANDERSSON - All-In(Raise) $517 to $657
MUNCHKIN_CAT - Calls $137
NOSTRAKHAN - Calls $137
*** RIVER *** [8d Qd 9c 6h] [As]
MUNCHKIN_CAT - Checks
NOSTRAKHAN - Bets $1000
MUNCHKIN_CAT - Calls $1000
*** SHOW DOWN ***
NOSTRAKHAN - Shows [10c 7c] (Straight, six to ten)
MS_ANDERSSON - Shows [7h 10h] (Straight, six to ten)
MUNCHKIN_CAT - Shows [10s Jc] (Straight, eight to queen)
MUNCHKIN_CAT Collects $1999.05 from side pot-1
MUNCHKIN_CAT Collects $2189.95 from main pot

[manlyman]

Nice idea, meh execution. I suck at paint..