Simplifying My Absolute Post

[GaryTheGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lori:
[ QUOTE ]
Why would they throw themselves in jail?

[/ QUOTE ]

For personal safety?

gTg

[/ QUOTE ]

where? in Costa Rica?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canada, Panama, Costa Rica, etc...under yet another assumed name.


gTg

[Michaelson]

Poorskillz is right. They were involved in a coverup, it's pretty simple really.

I wonder, though, exactly what does it mean to not trust a company if you continue to play there? Are you just saying that a decreased level of trust should be factored into any determination of what edge a player actually has at AP? If so, it seems pretty disingenuous to phrase that as "If they can't explain that, they can never be trusted."

AP have obfuscated from the get go with all of this, and they continue to do so. We have continually contradictory statements, as well as their refusal to allow themselves to be audited by anyone not chosen by themselves. Their organisational structure is completely unknown, and all we have to go on that the situation will be rectified is their word, which has been shady all along. What I would like to see you address, because I think you overlook it in your posts, is the issue of accountability, and what you think it might mean for online poker generally if an organisation as shady as AP is not--or can't be--held accountable in this instance.

[VP$IP]

jails are not safe. anywhere.

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
That also wasn't the main thing about my post. The main thing is that the present owners must address the fact that they denied the hand histories proved cheating. They can throw everybody in jail and fix all the software they want. If they can't explain that, they can never be trusted.

But you should still play there if you have an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we already know the explanation. At least one of the owners was dishonest and covering up. Throwing people in jail would be a very positive step in convincing people that the matter has been addressed and the current owners don't want it to happen again.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Whichever of the possibilities above is true, there is no question that Absolute was remiss in not having software that flags suspicious play.

[/ QUOTE ]

However important having software that flags suspicious play may be, if bigwigs at a site want to cheat players, I think most of us will assume that they can end around such software. Whatever the finer points of collusion are, and however good of a job sites do in catching other types of cheating, it pales in comparison to being cheated by players who can actually see your hole cards. And it wasn't lack of cheat catching software that allowed the cheating to happen. It was bad apples at the top, because they were the ones doing the cheating. Anyone following the story moderately closely knows that. That's why no one cares about your #4. And it's a pathetic reflection of the poker occupation that players would consider returning to the site just because they think they might up their "hourly" by playing there.

[ QUOTE ]
I would be all for a probably futile effort to put them out of business if it was clear they have retained their theives and were still trying to rob us. But it is not clear.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the "and" in this sentence that is surprising and no doubt pleases the guilty parties. Whether it's clear that they have "retained" their thieves or not, it's crystal clear that they would only have ever 'given them up' if they had no alternative whatsoever, for obvious reasons.

[Q_and_A]

David,

Your original post in the first thread was loaded with cynicism. Many in the two plus two community, though intelligent, are young and do not share your wealth of 50+ years of life experiences. Younger people are not as quick to grasp and accept the cynical reality of life and society in general.

When I read your first post, I was initially taken back. Your comments seemed to betray the energy of the two plus two community in its current search for truth and justice concerning the AP debacle.

I, like most here at two plus two, have read many of you books. I've played poker with you, elbow to elbow, I can also respect your poker acumen from direct observation. Your opinion about poker matters

I'm just a few years behind you in age, so I can interpret and temper your original post (and subsequent AP posts) with life experience. After my initial consternation about your posts, some wine and reflection, I agree with your opinion and advice, (after overlooking your apparent initial unfamiliarity with some facts you have since corrected).

[MarvinMartian]

I really liked the clarity of that last long post you made sklansky. In fact, that post is so well orchestrated compared to your other posts, I'm pretty sure you spent a long time refining it. I, for once, actually understood where you're coming from. I think if you made yourself more familiar with the facts, you'd appreciate where other people are coming from too. You did say afterall, you aren't well versed in the subject matter, which is ironic because even though you're aware of it, you seem to have made judgement.

[Bipolar00]

SSF material right here baby!

[GoBucksIndy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a good idea to revise your view of the situation everytime your previous version has been obliterated by logic and common sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bahahahhaha