Absolute Poker Scandal: An Inside Job

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that investigating Seif's involvement is reasonable, but asserting his guilt is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, all I was saying earlier is that I was suspicious of the session we were talking about, not that he was definitely guilty. I don't think we should push for a witch hunt, but we shouldn't shut down reasonable discussion, either. I do think that this thread should be kept to investigating the facts of the case and the people we can be reasonably certain played a role in this, and any investigations into Seif's role can be done privately and brought to light when compelling information is brought up. We're reasonable people here.

[tereg]

[ QUOTE ]

So we're trying to narrow down reasons for this guy to be interested in those tables, particularly 13. Note that he checks back on it, etc, so it wasn't a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (I've gone though about 80% of this thread). This is just a thought, I don't know if this has any merit.

But, if someone was playing in this tournament and periodically checked chip counts, would there be a possibility that people notice that POTRIPPER had a large chip lead and wanted to kibitz the table to see what this guy was doing to get that lead? Would that explain maybe the table opens for 2 seconds, 30 seconds, etc?

In your data, is there any kind of correlation between when the tables were open and what his chip count was (not including #363) such that people were going in and out of Table 13 more often when he had a very large chip lead?

Also, people might open Mark Seif's table just because it's Mark Seif.

This whole story blows my mind. I'm just wondering if the data might suggest this.

[Red_Diamond]

Did Seif ever give any descriptive reasons for his super lay-downs? I'd like to see his side of the story.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, why has Mark been so quiet about this whole thing? He hasn't made one post or public statement clearing AP or even his own name. I'd love to see him involved here.

[/ QUOTE ]
He pasted the AP reply.

http://www.bluffmagazine.com/blog/bl...0&bcatid=4

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. It was posted on 10/12, before the HH file became available Some choice quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of Company policy, Absolute Poker never divulges personal information about our players nor do we make public any hand information that did not go to a showdown, ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since a huge chunk of the hand histories (showing all player cards and a heap of sequential hands) were posted on 10/14, this statement has to be nothing but a barefaced lie:

[ QUOTE ]
We combed through all hands involving the accounts that were mentioned in the online forums. Please note that only a select number of hands were featured in the threads. Our ongoing investigation continues to show that there were countless instances where a somewhat unorthodox poker strategy resulted in a loss. Allegations that the player accounts at issue “always guessed right” are unfounded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rest of his comments and assurances become less than worthless in the light of this

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice gotcha. Sending the file to Marco with all the info was pretty bad for them, but Marco sitting on it until Absolute dug deeper with their lies was further bad luck for them. At this point, I find it very hard to conclude anything other than that Absolute is actively involved at the very least in the cover-up.

[Anna.]

[ QUOTE ]

But, if someone was playing in this tournament and periodically checked chip counts, would there be a possibility that people notice that POTRIPPER had a large chip lead and wanted to kibitz the table to see what this guy was doing to get that lead? Would that explain maybe the table opens for 2 seconds, 30 seconds, etc?





[/ QUOTE ]

tough to kibitz in 2:30

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So we're trying to narrow down reasons for this guy to be interested in those tables, particularly 13. Note that he checks back on it, etc, so it wasn't a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (I've gone though about 80% of this thread). This is just a thought, I don't know if this has any merit.

But, if someone was playing in this tournament and periodically checked chip counts, would there be a possibility that people notice that POTRIPPER had a large chip lead and wanted to kibitz the table to see what this guy was doing to get that lead? Would that explain maybe the table opens for 2 seconds, 30 seconds, etc?

In your data, is there any kind of correlation between when the tables were open and what his chip count was (not including #363) such that people were going in and out of Table 13 more often when he had a very large chip lead?

Also, people might open Mark Seif's table just because it's Mark Seif.

This whole story blows my mind. I'm just wondering if the data might suggest this.

[/ QUOTE ]
The guy first showed up 8 minutes in. POTRIPPER had a starting stack at that point.

[tereg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, if someone was playing in this tournament and periodically checked chip counts, would there be a possibility that people notice that POTRIPPER had a large chip lead and wanted to kibitz the table to see what this guy was doing to get that lead? Would that explain maybe the table opens for 2 seconds, 30 seconds, etc?





[/ QUOTE ]

tough to kibitz in 2:30

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said not including #363

[N 82 50 24]

There's no real evidence to suggest anything was going on with this latest thing, just trying to follow up all leads here.

[cpitt398]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So we're trying to narrow down reasons for this guy to be interested in those tables, particularly 13. Note that he checks back on it, etc, so it wasn't a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (I've gone though about 80% of this thread). This is just a thought, I don't know if this has any merit.

But, if someone was playing in this tournament and periodically checked chip counts, would there be a possibility that people notice that POTRIPPER had a large chip lead and wanted to kibitz the table to see what this guy was doing to get that lead? Would that explain maybe the table opens for 2 seconds, 30 seconds, etc?

In your data, is there any kind of correlation between when the tables were open and what his chip count was (not including #363) such that people were going in and out of Table 13 more often when he had a very large chip lead?

Also, people might open Mark Seif's table just because it's Mark Seif.

This whole story blows my mind. I'm just wondering if the data might suggest this.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what I was thinking if it was just some random account . The fact that it was in Quebec makes it a little more suspicious but at the same time if you knew about this you would probably watch the entire time b/c it would be entertaining to watch

[rakemeplz]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this sent a shiver down my spine. Some great detective work has gone one here.

FWIW, given how many online casinos there are it would be amazing if this sort of thing never happened ever. Even bank employees have been convicted of supposidly clever transfers from people's accounts in such a way that they may not notice. And banks are, I guess, more heavily regulated than some online casinos. I just hope it gets sorted in a way that leaves no reasonable questions unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

From page 1, doesn't stuff like this go on all the time in shady online casinos, just not in poker? I mean it's always been a point that poker rooms wouldn't cheat as they have too much to lose (customers+rake) but other casinos cheat their online customers just the same in the pit games. These guys are basicly unregulated, so you have to have a heavy amount of faith in the system to believe that the games are not being fixxed in some ways (I do have faith generally speaking in online poker's honesty).

Disclaimer: online poker is not rigged, just thinking aloud generally :O. Didswulf please do not eat me. I am not the gingerbread man.