Latest cliffsnotes on Absolute soulreading.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess this was a no go?

[/ QUOTE ]

he never provided the HHs. At the moment, I'm happy to chalk it up to someone losing to a crazy fish.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Youre retarded enough to draw conclusions that hes cheating from a 200 hand database?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this for real?

You read through hundreds of posts, you comment on *one* post that was explained clearly and simply, and you think that is the whole evidence at issue here?


If you're going to level, you need to be a little less obvious about it.

[Komodo]

Yeh, but are these hundreds of posts based on more data than this small sample?

[flight2q]

Komodo, a noticeable number of hands have been collected on several suspicious players. I don't think a great number of hands have been collected on any of the players during the period where their play was seen as suspicious (i.e., starting in late August and up until the news broke in a big way on this forum, so about 3 weeks).

The high stakes players might actually have quite a lot of hands against these accounts, but these are not really being circulated. I don't think most of the high stakes players want to just broadcast their play when they have already reached their own conclusion.

Some of the data is not so good. E.g., people reading threads here, remembering a player's name, and requesting the hand histories for a session from Absolute. So they end up with a hand history in a form that can't be imported into Poker Tracker. One or more people were working on getting the hands imported, so that there could be a more substantial database. But the emailed hand history format really sucks, and it looks like this project has been abandoned. However, if the number of emailed hand histories is not very large, someone could go through them and fix them by hand so they would import.

A couple of players have been mentioned as suspicious where there appears to be no evidence at all, or where the evidence is clearly disputed by the people playing against them. For example, an account named Payup was indicted simply because it had won a tournament playing LAG and Absolute had reported suspending 5 accounts for investigation while someone thought only 4 accounts had been mentioned (but the 5 accounts might have been potripper, doubledrag, graycat, romnaldo, supercardm55 - probably poster was thinking the 4 accounts were potrippper, doubledrag, graycat, steamroller; while romnaldo and supercardm55 seem to just be chip dumping accounts). Another account, steamroller, from what I read seems to have high stakes players who think he is a fish and would eagerly play him again.

In addition to the play that people suspect involves hole card viewing, there is additional play that very much elevates the level of suspicion: the chip dumping sessions, and the deliberately playing as bad as possible while apparently viewing hole cards session(s). For both of these, only anecdotal evidence has been provided. People who have seen the evidence of chip dumping say it is quite convincing. Perhaps at least those HUHU chip dumping hand histories could be posted at Josem's web site, since they will be observed hand histories and won't reveal the style of anyone's play that couldn't have been observed by anyone anyway. Also, I think someone said they made a half hour video when some dumping was going on, so perhaps that video could be made publicly available.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh, but are these hundreds of posts based on more data than this small sample?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[runout_mick]

Spitebump.

I'm such a badass.

[Adrian20XX]

[ QUOTE ]
1 Imagine you work for, or have access to the ISP or some 3rd party traffic routing system, that handles the bulk of Absolute traffic.

2 Assume that the encryption of players cards is weak or breakable. (I know pacific transmit in plain text). Maybe this is what changed in the update?

3 ...

4 Profit

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people have the theory of the Super User Account, but I think what haz31 says is most likely the case.

Here are a few reasons:
* The existance of a super user account is a huge exposure for Absolute Poker, so I don't think there is one.
* If there is a super user account, so then someone is using it unproperly, and this might have personal legal consequences, that can very probably include imprisonment. People (and more middle classs) are more cautious with stuff that involve legal consequences.
* The evidence involved includes showdowns, and also folds to huge pairs pre-flop. I'm pretty sure the deck gets stacked before the hand begins, not during the hand. So, if there is a super-user account they probably will have access to the deck, not only the cards already dealt. So, there is no need to reach a showdown when you are going to lose, and no need to fold pre-flop to huge pairse when you are going to get super extra lucky.
* I don't see why there should be the limit of 1 table on the super user account. If we can play 12 tables, why can't the supposed super user account monitor 12 tables? I don't see any logical reason.

On the other hand, the capture of traffic is a much more consistent explanation for me, and I'll explain why.
* First of all, you can spot the problem from your own playing place, just have to have the technical knoledge and devote the time to analyze the traffic.
* If the traffic can be "read", there is no need to work for the ISP, routing system or whatever. You probably can rent a dedicated server on the ISP of Absolute Poker, if you can open the network card in a promiscuous mode.
* If you are analyzing network traffic, it migh me difficult to prove.
* If you are analyzing network traffic, is this a legal exposure???? I'm not even sure it might be.
* If you are analyzing network traffic, you don't know the cards to come, so you have to make your decision with the cards dealt. So this explains the folds pre-flop against gigantic pairs and the folds on the showdown.
* This could explain also the one table only limitation. Hardware limitations to be able to capture network traffic or decrypt it?

Just the two cents of someone who worked on the IT security industry in a previous life.

Regards ...

[burningyen]

bump for spite

[Josem]

Folks,

Using Hold'em Manager, my own multi-million hand database, and hand histories generously contributed from forum members, I've graphed a chart comparing VPIP and BB/100.

Narrowing that database to players who have 500 hands or more, over 5,000 players remained.

No player is anywhere close to the accused.

[Josem]

btw, i've plotting the accused in red. i don't have access to the full data on the accused, so that is my estimation.