Absolute Poker's Official Response to "superuser" allegations

[El_Hombre_Grande]

I believe it has changed the equation. There is obviously the possibility that these sites are "hackable"-- its looks like we hasve proof of that. So to say that my opinion of the industry security as a whole shouldn't go down is simply incorrect. Before this, I didn't believe it was possible. Now I'm sure that it is. Of course that affects my view of the security risks of all online poker.

But that's not what bothers me the most. At sites that allow PT and PAHUD, this type of idiot will get caught. But i'm more concerned about someone (or several dozen or 500 or whatever) who isn't so blatantly stupid. To be able to just slightly tip the odds -- to know when that all in is AA instead of QQ when you have KK, to know when that big river bet is a bluff when its close --- a superaccount could quietly take hundreds of thousands of dollars without raising eyebrows if it was operated by any number of intelligent persons. No one says you have to play 90/70 with infinity river aggression. You could play 23/17/5 with a hell of a sixth sense.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, what? Now we have the evidence that proves cheating happened, yet we're ignorant to suspect other sites also? You're comming down on AP hard, yet you're quick to tell people they would be foolish to believe this might be happening elsewhere? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not ignorant to be wary other sites. Any dilligent, reasonable, person, should be constantly considering the security of his/her money. That's fair, and it is actually an important process for anyone to protect their assets.

However, there is a leap between being careful, and believing that other sites are similarly rigged.

There is no evidence that other sites are rigged - so it is not reasonable to believe other sites are rigged.


Of course, if evidence of rigging arose, then you should believe other sites are rigged.



*throughout all my posts, when I refer to "other sites," I mean leading sites such as Stars, Party, and even FTP

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is we don't know how this happened. There are theories that it involved someone on the "inside", or AP being hacked. The point is, since we have no idea HOW this happened, we can't say well stars is more secure.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is becoming highly likely that it was an inside job, if that accounts for anything.

However, the point remains that Stars has different software and different systems*. If Absolute had a software hole, then it is irrelevant to Stars (or Party, or whatever) because they use different software. If Absolute had a system hole, it is irrelevant to other sites because they use different systems.

However, because Absolute and Ultimate Bet are owned by the same mob, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some activities/software/processes/systems that are jointly used by both brands. Thus, I would be very wary of UB's activities.

[ QUOTE ]
A year ago I would not of believed it was possible to see other people's hole cards unless you had some kind of trojan on their computers or something. Now it seems that a way has been found and I think the most important thing is to find out exactly how this happened and eliminate the possibility of it ever happening again.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is fair, and I agree with this.


*in this context, I'm using the word 'systems' to refer to the non-software processes of the company - things like auditing, oversight, management, etc.

[GaryTheGoat]

adanthar:
[ QUOTE ]
People keep saying that, but the high stakes games on every single site have been datamined for just about forever and no single player has ever jumped out 1/100 as much as this.

Basically, if someone else is doing the same thing on Stars ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm concerned that Stars seems to be becoming less transparent by:
<ul type="square"> [*]prohibiting datamining of observed tables[*]Lee Jones advocating use of "revolving" screen names[*]prohibiting use of pe, etc.[*]opting out for information going to other commercial databases[/list]
Don't these moves inhibit our ability to protect ourselves from smart superusers? Some of the listed items were used in breaking this Absolute scandal. I think that the current trend should be towards more transparency not less.

Can we rely on ANY poker site to provide the protection that we're paying for with rake?



gg

[ibluffoldladies]

[ QUOTE ]

There is no evidence that other sites are rigged - so it is not reasonable to believe other sites are rigged.
Of course, if evidence of rigging arose, then you should believe other sites are rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but the problem is that it's possible to cheat without there ever being any evidence. If I were a superuser account, I would play losing sessions to cover my tracks, and just take profits that seem normal.

This is the reality that all online players have to face now, and it's pretty damn scary. Now, if these sites started to use a credible third party for audit's, security, etc. (instead of the useless KGC), then my trust in their integrity might come back. That said, I don't even know if there's a way to police or prevent these kind of cheats from happening - even with a credible third party.

[carlgraham]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that you're missing my point, right? The U.S. are a super-power but they're not all the world depends on. You CANNOT regulate something that is spread all over the globe and operates from locations such as Costa Rica.. some day Americans will have to realize this. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a little simplistic. The U.S. has the same authority as any other nation to license/regulate businesses dealing with its citizens. So the government could legalize online gambling, but only for sites which are licensed, then ban all other sites. The WTO accepts reasonable consumer protections (e.g. product safety laws or anti-trust laws), just not outright bans on foreigners doing business. The requirement is that the regulations apply evenly to international entities and domestic ones.

As for licensing, it's quite simple - require independent external audits, file periodic financial records, retain hand histories and hand them over if subpoenaed, submission to U.S. jurisdiction and service of process (i.e. courts), have protections against minors playing, etc. And, of course, pay taxes on profits from Americans!!

I can't see legitimate site which would want to the lucrative (and legal) U.S. market, or risk operating underground rather than legally, just because they didn't like the regulations. Similarly, failure to get the "U.S. Govt Seal of Approval" would probably be somewhat of a scarlet letter - if the regulations were reasonable, what would a site have to hide by not conforming to them?

And how many Americans, when they could directly transfer money to a licensed site, would choose instead to go through the hassle of trying to transfer money through ewallets to sites which don't even bother to adhere to our strict regulations? It would be tantamount to playing at a raked underground poker game, rather than at the licensed casino down the road. Or like sneaking off to South America for a medical procedure available here from licensed doctors.

I think it could not only work, but would benefit casinos and consumers alike by legitimizing the industry.

Cheers, Carl.

[Pokeraddict]

It looks like AP and UB have been removed from BW.

http://www.bonuswhores.com/site-list.php

They are missing from the site list.

[PMR]

And yet they have not been blacklisted.

http://www.bonuswhores.com/blacklisted-sites.php

[poker1928]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but given that absolute gave that one person everyones IP address, it is not a leap to think that they have before. How difficult would it be for a hacker, if he knew everyones IP address, to create a "superuser" account?

[Josem]

having people's IP addresses would be of no significant value in this situation