AP thread 87.1 - waiting on the statement ITT

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why is he capping 62o if he knows you have AKs.. I guess I'll never even understand limit holdem even if I could see the other players cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if the AK misses it is possible to bluff him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

lhe lesson for the day: ace high is teh nutz

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]


Regarding the charity: This is not about how effective charities spend money. If popcorn is being sold for charity, the money should go there. While some of the $10k might be wasted on administrative BS, it sure as hell will do the world more good than sitting in Scott Tom's dirty pocket. It is garbage like this that AP must make right if they want to clean up their very tarnished image.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. But it is quite reasonable for Absolute to deduct from that $10K first for their expenses and overhead, unless you have some documentation in writing that 100% of *gross* proceeds from the popcorn was going to charity. And possibly that deduction was exactly equal to the gross proceeds. And if not, it could quite reasonably be 90-95% of the gross proceeds. And, like I said, by the time the money that is left gets to truly needy recipients... well, go give some random needy child $100, and you will likely be doing more to help the world.

But I'm just feeling cynical, I suppose. If you can get Absolute to pony up the $10K, go for it, and I will thank you for the effort.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
You make a good point about refunding only "net losses" by players due to GRAYCAT and the others, and I actually thought about that. However, the reverse argument can be made here -- that GRAYCAT was actually freerolling us because there was some chance he either wouldn't get caught or it wouldn't be proven. (The latter was more likely, and probably would be the case were it not for the smoking gun EXCEL file.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that some players actually won against the cheaters and that they will be allowed to keep that money (or already cashed it out), which means that the refunds paid to everyone else will exceed the total profits from the cheating.

[prodonkey]

10k buys a lot of popcorn

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I thought about it, and the money awarded back to the players shouldn't be a percentage of losses. It should be a dollar amount that is a function of hands played versus the cheaters and the limits where they played.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Dude, let's just get our heroes back the money they are down to GREYCAT et. al., plus interest (and some penalty % if somebody can convince Absolute of that).

[apefish]

enough for at least one of these threads.

[Schneids]

DanDruff,

While I don't disagree with how you state AP should repay us some money, I am wondering how you would advise they address hypothetical situations.

Like say this hand, which occurred during the midst of myself and baronzeus and several others discussing graycat and his "god like abilities" and beginning to suspect something was awry:


STAGE #746347738: HOLDEM NORMAL $200/$400 - 2007-08-27 21:35:12 (ET)
Table: LOC NESS AVE (Real Money) Seat #5 is the dealer
Seat 5 - BERGENISGAY ($18582 in chips)
Seat 6 - TRUTHY ($10645 in chips)
Seat 7 - EZ2PLY ($7840 in chips)
Seat 8 - GEMMER ($9153 in chips)
Seat 9 - MAVERI9 ($3162.50 in chips)
Seat 1 - SCHDNFRD ($24712.50 in chips)
Seat 2 - PUNKIN_U ($11576.32 in chips)
Seat 3 - LEAVINGEGYPT ($11085 in chips)
Seat 4 - GRAYCAT ($19612 in chips)
TRUTHY - Posts small blind $100
EZ2PLY - Posts big blind $200
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to PUNKIN_U [Ad 3c]
GEMMER - Folds
MAVERI9 - Folds
SCHDNFRD - Folds
PUNKIN_U - Raises $400 to $400
LEAVINGEGYPT - Folds
GRAYCAT - Raises $600 to $600
BERGENISGAY - Folds
TRUTHY - Folds
EZ2PLY - Folds
PUNKIN_U - Raises $400 to $800
GRAYCAT - Calls $200
*** FLOP *** [8d 6d Jh]
PUNKIN_U - Bets $200
GRAYCAT - Raises $400 to $400
PUNKIN_U - Calls $200
*** TURN *** [8d 6d Jh] [2d]
PUNKIN_U - Checks
GRAYCAT - Checks
*** RIVER *** [8d 6d Jh 2d] [7s]
PUNKIN_U - Checks
GRAYCAT - Checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
PUNKIN_U - Shows [Ad 3c] (ace high)
GRAYCAT - Mucks
PUNKIN_U Collects $2695 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($2700) | Rake ($5)
Board [8d 6d Jh 2d 7s]
Seat 1: SCHDNFRD Folded on the POCKET CARDS
Seat 2: PUNKIN_U won Total ($2695) HI$2695) with ace high [Ad 3c - P:Ad,B:Jh,B:8d,B:7s,B:6d]
Seat 3: LEAVINGEGYPT Folded on the POCKET CARDS
Seat 4: GRAYCAT HI: [Mucked] [Qh 9d]
Seat 5: BERGENISGAY (dealer) Folded on the POCKET CARDS
Seat 6: TRUTHY (small blind) Folded on the POCKET CARDS
Seat 7: EZ2PLY (big blind) Folded on the POCKET CARDS
Seat 8: GEMMER Folded on the POCKET CARDS
Seat 9: MAVERI9 Folded on the POCKET CARDS


On one hand, I won the pot, so, on that level, the hand itself is fine. On the other hand, you could say that, *had* an opponent decided to 3-bet me with Q9, then hypothetically most high stakes players would've lost more money post flop... So in a hand like this, should AP comp me another bet because most high stakes players would've either called a flop bet then called a turn bet OR they would've raised the flop and bet the turn (or bet the river if checking the turn and the river gets checked to them).


Again, I think there's a lot of merit to what you're suggesting. I also think however, there's a lot of room for interpretation to it and it might be too difficult to administer other than merely offering a flat premium on top of whatever money was won/lost (like say offering a 15% bonus... so if you lost $10,000, they would actually reimburse you $11,500, etc).

[Dan Druff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You make a good point about refunding only "net losses" by players due to GRAYCAT and the others, and I actually thought about that. However, the reverse argument can be made here -- that GRAYCAT was actually freerolling us because there was some chance he either wouldn't get caught or it wouldn't be proven. (The latter was more likely, and probably would be the case were it not for the smoking gun EXCEL file.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that some players actually won against the cheaters and that they will be allowed to keep that money (or already cashed it out), which means that the refunds paid to everyone else will exceed the total profits from the cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but that's AP's problem. The number of people who won overall versus the cheaters has to be very low (and probably not very much money). It's just hard to lose much when you can see the other guy's cards. The only exception might be the DOUBLEDRAG intentional losing session on September 16th.

In any case, these dudes were basically in a "cheating freeroll" if they come out near-even at worst and make well over a million at best. Any U.S. judge would award punitive damages in such a case.

[Keepitsimple]

obv very resonable, but AP is obv not

[NLfool]

I think what Dan is asking for is fair. Now how we calculate it another thing. Anytime I hear the words "mental angquish" I think BS but if I ever played against this guy I'd be banging my head against a desk after an hour. Not to mention how many players this superuser tilted. Lots or variables just won't be able to be quantified so good luck with this.

LOL it'd be genius if AP had other gambling games and had a superuser to tilt guys and draw them to these table games.