AP infinity plus one - New AP Statement

[LuckyMux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No mention of them having contacted the police, in any country. Think about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think AJ Green blackmailing AP is a secret by now so I'm just gonna come out and say it: AJ Green blackmailed AP. duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

if the secret has come out, then why aren't they going after him now? If true, wouldn't that be the fastest way for them to regain their credibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain how going after him now would stop him telling the DOJ what he knows any better than a week ago

[/ QUOTE ]

They're supposed to be 'clean' now. If Mystery Consultant And His Magic Scam is the only bad thing in that company, then what can he possibly blackmail them with? More news of his own wrong-doings?

Maybe he's simply being protected because of frat-boy friendship, family ties, etc.

Either they are not reporting him because he 'has something on them', or it's because they just love the defrauding lil' rascal too much. Neither option smells like a 'cleaned-up' AP.

EDIT: Just read Adanthar's post about US citizens. Wedding photo still around...? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[PoorSkillz]

No fear of criminal prosecution + Absolute's business still up and running by next year + Cheaters possibly still with company= Far too easy to risk cheating again (just more subtly)

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
They're supposed to be 'clean' now. If Mystery Consultant And His Magic Scam is the only bad thing in that company, then what can he possibly blackmail them with? More news of his own wrong-doings?

Maybe he's simply being protected because of frat-boy friendship, family ties, etc.

Either they are not reporting him because he 'has something on them', or it's because they just love the defrauding lil' rascal too much. Neither option smells like a 'cleaned-up' AP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
please don't say "cheating" because then I'm going to have to laugh and probably ban you for idiocy

hint: most of these people are US citizens running a poker site

[/ QUOTE ]

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm wondering who in AP has the power to throw out the previous management that was overseen by the ones that seemingly were corrupt? I heard mention that the reason they denied the previous claims of cheating was because they were told to by the ones that were doing the cheating. If that is true somehow, who in AP was able to get them to step down in order to begin cleaning up the mess they made? Other minority shareholders in AP? A group of them? Is their now a name at AP that we can go to as being in charge of AP? Or is Chief Norton the only one who has stepped forward?


[/ QUOTE ]
These are all good questions that Nat can ask when he visits AP.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
No fear of criminal prosecution + Absolute's business still up and running by next year + Cheaters possibly still with company= Far too easy to risk cheating again (just more subtly)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a good reason for us to have someone go and visit AP and inspect the place to see if this is likely.

[PoorSkillz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No fear of criminal prosecution + Absolute's business still up and running by next year + Cheaters possibly still with company= Far too easy to risk cheating again (just more subtly)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a good reason for us to have someone go and visit AP and inspect the place to see if this is likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I don't think Nat visiting AP is a bad idea, I'm pretty sure AJ Green won't be hanging around the office the week Nat drops by.

[R*R]

[ QUOTE ]
I just assumed this was the case, but it seems that some people do not understand it.

There's some rule that the tribe must own the companies operating the gaming operations. Thus, they own the brand.

Meanwhile, the people who own the real assets of AP - the systems, the employees, the databases, the IP, etc - are someone else.


Please stop claiming that the tribe chief owns AP. He does not own AP in the meaningful sense that any casual reader would take that claim to mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can say that in Canadian Income Tax law there is the concepts of dejure control and defacto control.
Dejure control is control on the surface whereas defacto control is the actual controlling ownership that control assets, decision-making etc.. I would suggest that Joe Norton may have been in dejure control only. Others were in defacto control.

[LuckyMux]

I'm pretty sure AJ Green won't be hanging...

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No fear of criminal prosecution + Absolute's business still up and running by next year + Cheaters possibly still with company= Far too easy to risk cheating again (just more subtly)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a good reason for us to have someone go and visit AP and inspect the place to see if this is likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I don't think Nat visiting AP is a bad idea, I'm pretty sure AJ Green won't be hanging around the office the week Nat drops by.

[/ QUOTE ]

if AJ Green is hanging around that office right now, a noose is probably involved somewhere

[carlgraham]

[ QUOTE ]
not one person has ever sent me a single hand history prior to mid-August involving a clear superuser

[/ QUOTE ]

But couldn't this mean that some idiot (a drugged-up AJ?) ruined the party for everyone by using the superuser account in such an obvious way?

Can AP prove that the superuser account capacity just happened to be created this August? Or, if it always existed, someone only stumbled across it two months ago?

Methinks not - unless the account's capacity was just added, the only logical conclusion is that it, as well as any others superuser accounts, have been around for a while.

In that case, lack of prior detection is likely because the people using it were smart enough to mask their play as lucky, rather than incredibly lucky and stupid, like Potripper. That's easier to believe than someone just discovering the account out of the blue.

The only way to assess the true scope of the cheating is to:

1. Identify every possible superuser account - if there's one, there's probably more. Find out every IP address ever logged on from, and compare to AP's insiders and other users.

2. Review every hand ever observed by those superusers. Compile the statistics, players, etc.

3. If any players hit the radar screen by showing up more than average, or by having more success than average, flag those players for audit.

4. Independently, run every hand, or at least representative hand samples from every player, through a system which performs similar analysis as Holdem Manager or Poker Tracker. Use that to identify any players whose play is a certain number of standard deviations away from the norm.

5. Identify every account ever used by insiders (hard to believe they allow that!!!), family members, friends, relatives, dogs, etc.

6. Investigate every flagged player (identified by #3, #4, or #5 above) - see if they ever played each other, have any common deposit/withdrawal accounts, same IP addresses, the nature of any relationship they may have with AP insiders, etc.

7. Analyze the hand histories to see if there's evidence of knowledge of hole cards, if the players played differently when there was no superuser watching, ever chip-dumped, etc.

I'm a relatively novice poker player, and have no auditing experience. But in about 10 minutes I came up with this minimum starting point - I'm sure those smarter and more experienced than me could easily expand on this.

Bottom line - AP and its auditors have the ability, if they honestly want to get to the bottom of things, to identify any prior cheating, or, if there was none, to be thorough enough to actually convince people this was an isolated incident.

Sadly, AP's public statements indicate a strategy of trying to minimize what happened in both scope and in timeframe. Without a thorough and independent investigation, AP simply saying there was no prior cheating will have as much credibility as their month's worth of lying that there was no present cheating.

Cheers, Carl.