Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[tireuw]

A Handicap-20 golfer using a hockey stick, going out and beating ten scratch golfers who are all using their regular clubs.

[AngryPanda]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like someone going to a golf course with a hockey stick to hit every shot and shooting 59.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite possible as shown in the documentary "Happy Gilmore"

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
A Handicap-20 golfer using a hockey stick, going out and beating ten scratch golfers who are all using their regular clubs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chi-Chi Rodriguez used to hustle golf as a kid by playing with a coke bottle tied to the end of a stick as his only club, so maybe this doesn't work either. Well, with a few dozen people here, we're bound to get a decent one eventually.

[krumeluren]

[ QUOTE ]
I've made some craptastic posts in this thread and resolved to just stay out of it since I'm just a non-balla mirco-stakes grinder, but I couldn't stay away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre flattering me Kurt.


[ QUOTE ]
Its so obvious that:

* you don't understand the significance of the evidence presented
* you don't understand the math involved to analyze it
* every point you make has been gone over 10x already


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an open forum and I have read most posts in the three threads here. What i found was a very biased discussion where almost everybody already had made up their mind and was just presenting selected data with little to none critical analysis.

I haven't seen one post suggesting that the player might have had made a game strategy decision to not call a river bet ever. Everybody just assumed he didn't call because he could see the hole cards.

Also, I might have missed it, but is there really a good discussion somewhere in the threads that makes a sound estimate of the probability of such winning streak with a maniac don't call river approach considering the huge amount of data available? Didn't think so.

Those where my two contributions to this discussion. They do not fit the cheat paradigm and I think thats why they were overlooked.

And Kurt, you shouldn't tilt that easy.

PS. I just say this one more time. I don't know what to believe. Have they cheated or not? All I see is a biased discussion locked within a single paradigm.

[Dr. Spaceman]

I'll restate my suggestion of Battleship as a good analogy of this situation for the general public. Using sports can convey that the cheater suddenly has unreal success, but does not make the point that the success is due to access to hidden information. Sure you can point to a hitter stealing signals and knowing what pitch is coming in baseball, or to Bill Belichick stealing defensive signals in football, but neither of these can ensure success.

Several board games rely on hidden information much like poker does. Battleship and Scrabble are perhaps the two most popular examples. The difference is that knowing your opponents letters in Scrabble isn't a huge advantage unless you are skilled enough to figure out how to block his probable next move. However, knowing your opponents ship-placement in Battleship guarantees ultimate victory. Therefore, Battleship makes a good comparison to the Absolute Poker fiasco.

Now, lets say I have x-ray vision and can see my opponent's setup in Battleship. I can:

A) Call out every single one of his positions correctly and win the game in the minimum number of moves, thus eliciting accusations of cheating (or psychic powers).

OR

B)I can be more sly and miss a few on purpose so my winning is not suspicious.

DoubleDrag was essentially choosing option A.

[ClubChamp04]

These poker results equate to someone beating Roger Federer at the U.S Open 6-0,6-0,6-0 using only a broomstick!

[McSeafield]

I currently continue to play on Absolute. However, my risk is manageable, also against cheater.

Fraud occurs with the best enterprises. That is the reason why each good led enterprise requires a functioning internal control system. Nobody in this forum stated that Absolute is a fraudulent organization. But the speculations circulate in this direction, and can be eliminated only by an independent audit.

The cheats stole probably so arround 400,000 - 600,000$. Possibly more. IMHO the victims can claim damages only on the basis of the outcome of an independent examination. Otherwise they have actually no realistic chance, because they bear the burden of proof. And where is the place of jusrisdiction? Not as easy, believe me. A payment of damages should be for Absolute also no reason to prevent an examination. If Absolute refuses an examination by external auditors, the damage to Absolute will be far larger than 600.000$. IMHO in this case they can close their business voluntarily and all at once.

Victims can file a complaint also here. However, I question a reasonable outcome. Possibly they get an audit then.

[tireuw]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen one post suggesting that the player might have had made a game strategy decision to not call a river bet ever. Everybody just assumed he didn't call because he could see the hole cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is: He is correctly raising when he has the best hand and correctly folding when he has the worst hand nearly every time

[Wolfskin]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the update. There is a big problem though with your approach that you might not have thought about.

Your are trying to estimate a persons win rate from a small sample of hand where he obviously runs extremely hot. This means that the cards did not fall in a very representative manner and your confidence interval is only valid when you hit your cards that good.

I suggest that you use another approach instead. Say that this person has a negative expected winning of -20ptbb/100 with a SD of 270ptbb. What are the probability that such a player makes 284ptbb/100 in 190 hands? And when you have that probability, try to estimate the probability that such person could be found in the poker community's collective PT-.DBase for High stakes poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the math already yourself right? I just won't provide a probability with your assumptions, they aren't realistic.

I included an outlier in my calculation, which I should not have and 1000bb/67 hands don't mean you have that over 100 hands, so the standard deviation is more like 70 and not 270.

We also can't use a -20bb/100 mean, because the sample size we are using includes approximately 500 hands, so we must use a 400bb/100 mean.

[ QUOTE ]
That cannot bet true with a SD of 270ptbb/100 I'm sure. Your other calculations suggest a much larger CI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you are right, this is for a STD of 65 for a winning loose aggressive player on pokerstars.

[krumeluren]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is: He is correctly raising when he has the best hand and correctly folding when he has the worst hand every time

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not true and you know it. There are a number of HHs where he doesn't do that. Why deny it? But since you also are convinced you don't want to talk about those. And whenever some one who is convinced does it they have explanaitions: maybe the terminal wasnt working. Maybe he didn't log into his superuser account. Maybe he miss clicked maybee he ..... Because we know he could se the hole cards.