Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
another sidestory about absolute...

http://www.pokertips.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51313

[/ QUOTE ]

God, those guys really are the lowest of the low.
I know calling for a 2+2 boycott is fruitless, but Absolute has seen my last dollar guaranteed.

[Pokeraddict]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
another sidestory about absolute...

http://www.pokertips.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51313

[/ QUOTE ]

God, those guys really are the lowest of the low.
I know calling for a 2+2 boycott is fruitless, but Absolute has seen my last dollar guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah according to the Wayback Machine Pokertips had it up in Oct 2003 and AP published it in late 2005. I have a feeling more and more affiliates will be joining RikaKazak's lead and dropping AP. AP has already been shady has hell towards rakeback players and affiliates this year anyway.

[FellKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
Battleship is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

agree.

[A2steaksauce]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you still support A.P after all this? The only way these poker sites will suffer is if there is a mass exodus and a big hit in revenue. This seems to be the only leverage we have as poker players and if you're not going to use it then whats the point of all this discussion? They clearly aren't going to answer any questions about anything...so it's time for everyone with an A.P account to find a new home and really punish them.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what we are doing. It's such a shame though, the games there were really good. Is there any other site where the standard max buy in is 200BBs and the min buyin is 40BBs?

[CybrPunk]

Why does AP focus so intently on the fact that their client can't see everyone's hole cards when we know that's the case already? I don't suspect there's a 'superuser' flag or a built-in ability to see everyones cards in the regularly-distributed AP client.

This would obviously be some third-party app that is packaged seperately from the AP client. There's a huge possibly there's a component installed on APs back end that communicates with a client on the outside. It would be the only logical explanation for someone being able to see all hole cards... other than the RNG being cracked.

[aislephive]

Yeah the battleship analogy is the best. The only thing is that you can still lose playing poker even if you make the correct play after seeing your opponents hole cards. In battleship, once you know where their ships are, you're guaranteed victory.

No analogy can be perfect though, and this is by far the best I've heard yet.

[gaijinuronin]

Funny story about 'Absolute rigging':
http://www.pokerconduct.com/cgi-bin/...progammedhands

Oh my god ..now they are rigging the freerols:
http://www.pokerconduct.com/cgi-bin/...absoluteshills

WTF: ...chip dumping?
http://www.pokerconduct.com/cgi-bin/...bsolutedumping

[cakewalk]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, adanthar, for sending me a hand history of Doubledrag playing 15-30 NL deep stack.

I've only looked at the first session of 190 hands so far, but I must say I'm not convinced he can see hole cards. Maybe if I could see Doubledrag's cards it would be obvious, but only Absolute Poker can see those. I probably shouldn't post this, because as soon as I do some significant evidence will materialize, but the evidence is really not there in these 190 hands.

First off, this guy plays better than people are giving him credit for, and he has gears too. He started off raising near every time the pot wasn't raised in front of him (he'd more often flat call if facing a raise, and if not facing a raise in the BB he liked to take the initiative by raising himself). His opponents are just letting him run them over. He collects the blinds a lot, and he collects pots on the flop a lot with continuation bets. He c-bets much less often if the flop is multi-way though - he's not unreasonable, getting two callers, he doesn't c-bet, and if both opponents show interest in the hand he's gone, and even if one of the opponents show interest he's often gone then too.

Eventually people start playing back at him, and he sometimes folds to reraises, and also starts open limping or overlimping some. Ikestoys mentions some hand where Doubledrag doesn't open raise when Ikestoys has a premium hand, but it's during this stretch. He leaves and returns to this style during the session.

Early in the session he represents strong hands quite a bit and probably gets more folds than he deserves. He seems to be selecting some suitable flops for bluff raising, and he is betting the turn strong more often than his hands likely warrant (although maybe he ran hot early). Then he cools it, since it's obvious that he's quite LAG. People still fold to his c-bets tons anyway. He makes very small flop bets, and people clear out of his way just the same. But he starts to show more restraint on the turn and river.

Throughout the session he steals the blinds a bunch. He takes down c-bets a bunch. He targets certain players to reraise them preflop, and take it down on the flop with a c-bet. It would be hard for this guy to lose in this environment, even if he simply played like a nit postflop other than the c-bets. However, a lot of his earn for the session comes from good luck. Ikestoys calls off 450 bb with an overpair - I know you guys laugh at the idea that certain hands are only worth so much, but Sklansky would have a heart attack. I think Doubledrag's postflop raises and continued betting deserve more respect than this - but if you think he's such a maniac, then by all means, like KGB would say, pay that LAG his money.

In another hand, he's given a free card on the flop and ends up back dooring a straight. We've all had it happen to us, but it hurts much more if you call a 166 bb river bet in a 29 bb pot when the scare card hits. This is deep stack poker, and Doubledrag plays a style that will put you to the test on the river.

That brings us to the matter of the high river aggression factor. The more bets and raises you make, the higher the aggression factor. Sometimes he makes these small river bets, and they count too. He'll make small river bluff bets even when (if he knew opponent's cards) it's guaranteed that he'll be called. So he's putting money in behind and his aggression factor goes up. By the way, he makes these small bluff bets with weak hands that have no chance of getting called by even weaker opponent hands - if he could see the cards, he could try to induce a bluff (on the other hand, you could argue that that would give the show away if he were to pick off a bluff with an unlikely call). At least, in position, he could check through instead of making an impossible bluff (if you can see hole cards)? But he bets anyway.

His high river aggression is due to a lack of calls, so why isn't he calling many river bets? It's not hard to see. First, his opponents are not making small milking bets against him - for whatever reason, they respond to his style by making 2/3-pot bets, pot-size bets, and sometimes extreme overbets. But his opponents are not making a lot of these bets. That means (they don't bet often) so he has few opportunities to call, and also (they don't bet often) so he is reluctant to call without a good hand. I never saw him call a decent size river bet with a hand like bottom pair vs Ace high. Those times he has like bottom pair he is either folding to a good size bet, or he is betting it himself - either way there's a good chance we don't see his hand.

Another thing he does on the river is to bet a lot out of position, including big bets. It seems he doesn't want to show weakness, or he wants to pick the bet size. Either way, it's hard for him to have a low aggression factor when he leads big on the river - he gets credited for a bet, and it's very unlikely that he will both be raised and call, so it's hard for him to get credit for a call.

He makes a lot of probe bets. For example, he will make a weak lead on the turn. If he only gets called, then he tends to put his opponent on a hand worse than top pair. If he has top pair, or if he rivers top pair or second pair, then suddenly he is making a big river bet. So he is finding some spots to make some big river bets with passable hands, plus he is probably bluffing a fair amount (although only a couple of his big river bluffs get called in the session, he probably bluffs small more). Later in the session, he doesn't probe bet quite as much; he appears to pick up confidence that he can make moderate sized bets and, if not raised, assume opponent weakness. This guy is exploiting an opponent's psychology that they want to get the money in quick on the flop/turn when they finally catch a good hand, rather than wait to get sucked out on. 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. He is making big river bets, and probably an appropriate amount of bluffs - his opponents are making big river bets, but not bluffing enough, so he can play them like a fiddle.

In those cases where Doubledrag bets all three postflop streets, he has essentially 3 patterns. He bets small, and similar size all streets. Or he bets with moderate bet size increases, but usually with decreasing percentage of the pot. Or he bets with big increases, including pot or more on the turn, and big overbet or push on the river. We don't see his hand often enough to know how he is mixing it up.

Doubledrag in these 190 hands did seem to have a good sense (perhaps too good) for when raises were suspect. 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.

Here's an example river small bluff bet that he knows (if psychic) will be called by a better hand. It looks exactly like a bluff/blocking bet. The bet amount looks really small, but that is this guy's style.

Stage #755423639: Holdem No Limit $30 - 2007-09-06 22:52:00.014 (ET)
HJ folds, IKESTOYS raises to $120 ( 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] ) with $6000 stack,
DAVIDP18 calls, DOUBLEDRAG (SB) raises to $240 ( 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ), BB folds, IKESTOYS raises to $870, DAVIDP18 folds, DOUBLEDRAG calls.
FLOP ($1887 pot, 2 players) [ 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ]
both check.
TURN ($1887 pot, 2 players) [ 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] ]
DOUBLEDRAG bets $30, IKESTOYS calls.
RIVER ($1947 pot, 2 players) [ 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] ]
DOUBLEDRAG bets $60, IKESTOYS calls.
IKESTOYS wins $2067 pot.

To present the opposing view, here's a hand where you might wonder what he is doing. It is one of the most questionable hands of the session in terms of whether he is psychic. He picks up a pair on the river, but is out of position, so it looks like he decides to 3-barrel it. I could understand if someone thought he must be able to see the hole cards, but it looks sensible to me. This is the pick of the litter; it's hard to find compelling hands.

Stage #755454264: Holdem No Limit $30 - 2007-09-06 23:23:42.007 (ET)
4 folds, DOUBLEDRAG (SB) raises to $90 ( 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ), FRISCOMELT calls ( J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 10[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] ) with $9154 stack.
FLOP ($177 pot, 2 players) [ 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ]
DOUBLEDRAG bets $60, FRISCOMELT calls.
TURN ($297 pot, 2 players) [ Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ]
DOUBLEDRAG bets $150, FRISCOMELT calls.
RIVER ($597 pot, 2 players) [ 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] ]
DOUBLEDRAG bets $330, FRISCOMELT calls.
DOUBLEDRAG wins $1257 pot.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is like by far the dumbest poker analysis ive read in a long time. of course it proves that our fear that fish would be hard to convince is a legitimate one.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Enough with the earn rate stuff!

It's enough to cause some suspicion, but not relevant to the main argument, which is HOW he got there, which is where we get the 10^20 estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting approach, I have read several post that suggest their main argument for believing this is a cheat is the earn rate together with river aggression. Thats what they consider the best proof to prove a cheat beyond a reasonable doubt. But you don't think so obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

The win rate is the smoke, the river aggression is the fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, pineapple, thank you. I might even clarify further to say, 'The win rate is the smoke, the river aggression coupled with the showdown percentage is the fire.'

I know you guys are versed in advanced statistics but save your energy, it's all practically moot if you don't somehow factor in the latter.

[flight2q]

@ikestoys: I'm talking about the 190-hand session on the evening of September 6 - where he is pushing everyone around preflop and on the flop. I know that there are other sessions. The hand you post is from a different session. Calling a push with a baby suited ace is like - so what - could be spite or anything. Yes, he might have thought that he was a trappy player if he reraised with 33 and only flat called with hoooge hands like TT and JJ. Maybe I will get around to looking at more than 190 hands. The hands that were sent to me and I did look at were not among those imported into the PT screen shots, because they are crappy Absolute email hand histories. Like I said earlier, the way this player had been described I thought that one would readily be able to identify the soul reading from 190 hands, but it turns out not from these 190 hands. [Uh, but see last sentence of this post.]

@Dr.Spaceman: I like the Battleship analogy. Also, I like the analogy of hatchet throwing. A guy throws a hatchet at a tree and hits it, good work. Then they strap Loni Anderson to the target, the guy puts on a blindfold, and throws ten hatchets simultaneously. You know there has got to be a trick.
[ ] picture included

@Trogdor!: We don't know that his standard deviation is less than 260 PTBB/100. Go ahead and toss it into a t-distribution if you want, the results won't be spectacular. For those people wanting to post stats, keep in mind that the distribution for an individual hand is not normal. You might want to use a distribution-free method instead.

@NobleNobleNoble: That 375.00 BB/100 is at minbet poker, baybee!
[X] speculation encouraged in BBV
[X] excessive use of []

@Drag: Thanks. I've been looking at the BBV and NVG threads. Hopefully the HS limit players have good uncorrupted importable hand histories that will make things very clear. Up to now I've seen mostly small hand samples posted, sometimes with obvious import problems like negative $5000 rake (sign me up!).

@dpdawson: Sure, I've sat out sometimes when opponents appear to be psychic. But it isn't necessarily obvious that they are killing the game. Harping on the 190-hand session, Doubledrag goes up and down buyins a number of times. Around hand 170 he is up 1 buyin. Then he flops a set and wins over 2 buyins that hand. Then a short time later he's given odds and runners a straight and wins another buyin. Then he leaves the table.

@sputum: That standard deviation is calculated from that 190-hand session only. That session isn't in Poker Tracker - unless it's there entered from the HH's collected by some other player.