Absolute Poker Scandal: An Inside Job

Josem · #1 10-16-2007, 07:20 AM

Cliff's Notes: The Absolute Poker cheaters are part of an inside job - either a rogue employee (bad apple) or rogue company (bad orchard).

Long Version:
1) During a tournament played by cheater 'Potripper,' the person who ended up coming second ("Marco") thought he was cheated. He emailed Absolute, and they sent him a hand history file - an XLS file.

2) Marco opened up this file, it seemed all gibberish to him, and he didn't think anything of it.

3) First Absolute Poker scandal blow up - PT screenshots, etc. Graphical representation here: http://www.absolutepokercheats.com/vpipvbb.jpg

4) Fortnight passes

5) In passing discussion, Marco mentions he has this file. He shares it with a few people, including N 80 50 24(pokerdb.com maintainer, maker of The Poker Film, part owner of Bluff Media) who analyses what is in this file

6) Nat (N 80 50 24) & 2p2 poster Snagglepuss discover that this file is a complete hand history for the tournament - showing every table, and all hole cards of every player.

Hand histories here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=1
View Video here (free registration required)

7) Big excitement over #6

8) In further analysis, Nat + Snagglepuss discovers that this file contains IP addresses and user details (including email addresses) of people observing the table

9) In #8, they discover user #363 is observing PotRipper's table the whole time

10) At the start of the tournament, for the two hands that user #363 is not observing the table, Potripper folds preflop. He doesn't fold another hand pre-flop for 20minutes, when he open-folds with KK held by a player behind him.

11) The IP address recorded for user #363 tracks out to be a user who uses email on an Absolute Poker server hosted by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (More info here)

btmagnetw · #2 10-16-2007, 07:23 AM

need more popcorn

ASPoker8 · #3 10-16-2007, 07:28 AM

vw written Josem.

I am eagerly awaiting SOMETHING from AP. I feel like we need to get this out there to the public more, but that is obvious and I am sure people are doing their best.

phishstiiix · #4 10-16-2007, 07:38 AM

Do we have any evidence that user #363 is the only superaccount? IMO this number is disturbingly large to apply to an account with this sort of power, any idea as to how many other superaccounts could be in use or could have been used in the past?

Josem · #5 10-16-2007, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have any evidence that user #363 is the only superaccount?

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that this is self-evidently impossible to prove.

After all, there is always the chance that a particular superaccount has never been used before.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO this number is disturbingly large to apply to an account with this sort of power, any idea as to how many other superaccounts could be in use or could have been used in the past?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be pure speculation. There's no evidence that other accounts have been used - although, if someone has more of the Absolute HHs from other play by the cheaters, that may change.

Plikoe · #6 10-16-2007, 07:42 AM

Its not that large if u keep in mind beta testing a tournament requires a lot of accounts.

Victor · #7 10-16-2007, 07:44 AM

link to other thread bc that was some sherlock holmes type [censored].

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD

phishstiiix · #8 10-16-2007, 07:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that large if u keep in mind beta testing a tournament requires a lot of accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but im guessing the sort of testing this account was designed for would have been done well before the beta stage. Having 362 other accounts created before this presumably very early stage of testing lends credence to the possibility that there could be a number of other accounts, probably inactive, with this type of ability. As Josem says though, it is purely specualtive and basically impossible to prove without another monumental screwup from Absolute Poker.

whangarei · #9 10-16-2007, 07:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have any evidence that user #363 is the only superaccount? IMO this number is disturbingly large to apply to an account with this sort of power, any idea as to how many other superaccounts could be in use or could have been used in the past?

[/ QUOTE ]

The relatively high user number should not suggest that this is not a superuser. Depending on the robustness of the software development practices many testing accounts with different access privileges could have been created on the fly.

phishstiiix · #10 10-16-2007, 07:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do we have any evidence that user #363 is the only superaccount? IMO this number is disturbingly large to apply to an account with this sort of power, any idea as to how many other superaccounts could be in use or could have been used in the past?

[/ QUOTE ]

The relatively high user number should not suggest that this is not a superuser. Depending on the robustness of the software development practices many testing accounts with different access privileges could have been created on the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, and this is what worries me.