AP, rigged, etc. #8981.4 - the plot thickens

[apefish]

whee. we may be able to re-commence the witch hunt.

dipthrong posted this over at P5s.


"lol mhrep....wtg evry1 involved in the investigation we all owe u for this.. I think ap is doing a great job in refunding every1 so far, i didnt even no the superusers played the 150ks I got two refunds for them and 2 1ks so i dont think ne1 can really complain bout the way they r handling this"


two cheated 150Ks peeps. which will give two names to check against other stuff.

[undercooover]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While at Nine.com, AJ had a portrait done of himself that hung on his wall over his desk. The photo was a picture of him "American Beauty' style laying spread out on his futon covered in hundred dollar bills.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be surprised if they were actually brothers from the same two parents. I would not be surprised if they were raised together on some level, step brothers or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would fit that they were half-brothers.

Scott Tom is the son of Mr Phil Tom and Ms Beckley. Scott went by his mother's surname during a custody dispute.

Brent Beckley is presumably the son of someone called Beckley. Given that Ms Beckley already has a record of having a son by her name (which would typically be unusual in Western countries, I assume) it would not be surprising if Ms Beckley has another son that used her surname.


Of course, there are some situations - like Ms Beckley not knowing the surname of her son's father - where a son of Ms Beckley MUST use her surname.

[/ QUOTE ]

[apefish]

okay since nobody else wants to do it I'll nominate JANNEMAND.

[DoTheMath]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the likelihood of a 'superuser' account so bizzare to some people? It's one of the basic corner stones of any computer system.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of this issue "superuser account" is an ambiguous term with two or more importantly different meanings:

1) Poker playing account, which, when logged on using standard client software gives the user the ability to see opponents' hole cards.

2) Computer access account on internal AP computers that gives the user access/execute permissions not available to all internal users.

It is reasonable to assume that the second type exists in the case of AP. These exist for most computer operating systems. It is not reasonable to assume that their existance is a clear sign of cheating.

It is assumed by many reading these threads that the first type exists at AP. The existence of this type may well be an indication of cheating. I suggest their existence is not proven. Hole card reading may have been accomplished without a poker account that had any special abilities, but rather through the use of system access priveleges. I do not claim that they do not exist.

Your example tends to conflate the two.

[N 82 50 24]

I mean, I don't agree with the idea of a "witchhunt" persay because I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think just because so and so associated with so and so makes them a cheater.

HOWEVER, the fact of the matter is that the former AP management without a doubt lied, cheated, manipulated and did whatever else it took to make money for themselves. The jury is still out on the new management (which obviously includes a lot of old blood, but supposedly is bearing a new attitude). They have a ton to prove.

I think using our collective searching ability to find out what you can on these guys might have some value. I am glad to have some help on this because it can take hours of searching, clicking, accumulating, etc to really figure out the story as best possible.

Also, with regards to the OP in this thread, I would not be surprised at all to learn that more improper actions were taken over the course of the last few years at AP. For many of the reasons previously stated, I think the number $7 million might not be right. I just don't know. Also, I don't know how anyone would ever prove any of that unless someone who knows all of the details comes forward to share and provide ways to prove what happened. I haven't had a single person able to do so (granted, I've had a lot of people tell me about prop rigging, cheating rings, etc). I will continue to look into things like that as well.

[Dan Druff]

Those arguing against a superuser existing still can't explain why account #363 was necessary to observe POTRIPPER's table, and why POTRIPPER folded his first two hands prior to 363 showing up.

[Josem]

Let me respond to the actually quite coherent and decent post by "DoTheMath"...

[ QUOTE ]
There are a number of methods by which hole cards theoretically could be read without there neeeding to be a poker account with superuser abilities.

[/ QUOTE ]
While you are technically accurate, the term "superuser" can mean an account that has special access to the Absolute Poker system.

There is no evidence that account #363 has actually played any poker itself; thus, it would seem feasible that it is not able to.

[ QUOTE ]
From what I have read here, we haven't seen proof that the suspicious observer account was the account to which the hole card information was transmitted. We just know that the account was logged onto the table as an observer while the suspicious play occurred. It was logged on all that time, but we don't know it was used all the time it was logged on.

[/ QUOTE ]

To make a metaphor:

a) The crime occurred when suspect 363 was in the room.
b) The crime did not occur when suspect 363 was out of the room.
c) There is no other suspect that has the same, perfect, correlation with the crime being committed.

While there is theoretically no video evidence of suspect 363 committing the crime, I'm confident that a jury would give this evidence a huge amount of weight - especially when suspect 363 is linked back to people who would logically have the ability to commit the crime.

It's like a suspect being seen at the scene of the crime, having motive to commit the crime, and having the ability to commit the crime.

Sure, seeing the exact data transmitted to/from 363 would be handy, but it is not currently available. If AP is able to show what data went to/from 363, that'd be handy.

[ QUOTE ]
Do I really believe there was no superuser account? I don't know. I'm just trying to show that a supersuser account may not be required as part of a scheme to read hole cards. There are other possible explanations. I do not claim that the other explantions are more plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other plausible explanations you provide require someone having greater access to AP's computer systems than other people. That seems to be a fairly decent working definition of "superuser."


[ QUOTE ]
The term "superuser account" is inaccurate and potentially harmfuly misleading. We have seen, for instance, people joking about various key combinations needed to log on to AP as a superuser using the regular client software. We have seen one poster suggest that the client software normal people have on their own computers may somehow be compromised. Both of these are consistent with the implications carried by the term "superuser account".

[/ QUOTE ]

While not exactly on your point, I just wanted to highlight again that the client was used across different platforms (Win AND Mac), thus ruling out a virus or other external modification to the software client (trojan) - unless they've managed to make two such modifications.

[ QUOTE ]
Throughout the life of this scandal, I have been concerned with the wild accusations made by some on the flimsiest of evidence. By this I do NOT mean the allegations of cheating through hole card reading and chip dumping. Those have been well-established. I think that it is important to the credibility of our case against AP that we be both precise and accurate. We must not let speculation turn into accusation without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fair and I agree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm suggesting that using the term "superuser account" may not be sufficiently precise, and using that term may give AP some wiggle room, if it turms out the hole card reading was accomplished through other means.

[/ QUOTE ]
The exact definition of superuser account is always going to be subject to definitional arguments.

The point is that some people had access to data that other players did not have access to. The point is that these people apparently had this as a result of their insider roles.

They are effectively "superusers" for the purposes of a generic clear-english working definition of the word.

[GaryTheGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
persay

[/ QUOTE ]

per se?

gg

[waveydavey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is the likelihood of a 'superuser' account so bizzare to some people? It's one of the basic corner stones of any computer system.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of this issue "superuser account" is an ambiguous term with two or more importantly different meanings:

1) Poker playing account, which, when logged on using standard client software gives the user the ability to see opponents' hole cards.

2) Computer access account on internal AP computers that gives the user access/execute permissions not available to all internal users.

It is reasonable to assume that the second type exists in the case of AP. These exist for most computer operating systems. It is not reasonable to assume that their existance is a clear sign of cheating.

It is assumed by many reading these threads that the first type exists at AP. The existence of this type may well be an indication of cheating. I suggest their existence is not proven. Hole card reading may have been accomplished without a poker account that had any special abilities, but rather through the use of system access priveleges. I do not claim that they do not exist.

Your example tends to conflate the two.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn. Now I'm going to have to look up 'conflate'. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

And BTW, my post wasn't directed at you, but at those who flat out reject it as even a possibility and that such things don't exist.