Video: Absolute Cheating by POTRIPPER

[rbnn]

You did not respond to the post, though. The poster asked for "some hands that are especially suspicious." You're response, that Potripper "never misplayed post-flop" was non-responsive.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh, don't really see it. (So that means I'm in on it, right?)

Someone name some hands that are especially suspicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, dude, how about the entire $1000 tourney where the guy NEVER makes a SINGLE postflop mistake, how about that for starters? NEVER. Never misses a value bet, never calls with a 2nd best hand. NEVER. So either this [censored] who has played 4 tourneys, never over a $20 before and never cashed, and then won this, is the best poker player ever or he cheated. Jesus Christ open your eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[hotbacon]

agreed with ama, it is a very bad thing that this is getting so much publicity IMO. though it's bound to happen anyway with something this big, which is good/bad but mostly bad for us.

[hotbacon]

eg the first random person to reply to the Freakonomics article said,
"I think the REAL lesson here is that gambling in a virtual world is a gamble in and of itself."

[rcs1537]

Ty for posting this.

[txbarbarossa]

[ QUOTE ]
POTRIPPER's infamous tournament win is now available on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FczbS7FiWSM

The video is split into four parts, with the next part posted as a response to the preceding one. The source can be viewed for free here.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I had to do was watch 5 mins and it was blatantly obvious. It's so clear. Sickest [censored] ever.

Damn if these toolbags don't acknowledge this they might as well close shop now.

[MyTurn2Raise]

is rbnn a shill?

[Khaos4k]

If this ever makes the 5 oclock news (it won't) I think we all know what the headline will be.

"Cheating in online poker."

No mention of absolute at all. Just a blanket statement of "online poker". [censored] the media and its sensationalist dumbed down sound bites.

[chicken10der]

[ QUOTE ]
is rbnn a shill?

[/ QUOTE ]
nah, just a 1c/2c player that doesn't see anything wrong with completely random play happening to be right every single time.

[goofyballer]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that this hand is evidence of cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a vacuum that hand proves nothing, but when he'll c/f QJ on that flop but check-3-bet another flop with it (when it just happens everyone has air instead of a set), and c/f middle pair when it happens the other guy has top pair, and open-fold KQ when the BB (who hasn't even acted yet) just happens to have AA...it's so, so, so obvious. Seriously, all he had to do to disguise his cheating is just make a couple bad plays, like raising KQ there and folding just for show when it's obvious AA is gonna come over the top, and then all the doubters would be screaming on the forums "IF HE COULD SEE THE CARDS WHY WOULD HE RAISE KQ WHEN HE KNEW THE BB HAD ACES?" But he didn't. All of the doubters have absolutely nothing they can point at to say "I dunno he might not have been cheating."

[admiralfluff]

[ QUOTE ]

You did not respond to the post, though. The poster asked for "some hands that are especially suspicious." You're response, that Potripper "never misplayed post-flop" was non-responsive.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a single independent hand that Potripper played that indicates cheating. I think the most suspicious hands are the KQ fold in an unraised pot with AA to act behind, and the last hand all-in call with T high and no draw.

What is most suspicious, is that he never misplayed postflop. This is next to impossible over a 100 hand sample. Never misses a bluff, never misses a valuebet, never calls when second best. And even this, on it's own, does not indicate cheating.

Then there are the cash game results, showing either near infinite river aggression, and extremely high W$SD rates, or stats indicating chip dumping. These are also anamolous events, but in are not in themselves proof of cheating.


If cheating were 100% impossible, then we would have to accept this occurance as an incredible, 1 in 1 trillion event of dumb luck.

However, as illustrated in the evidence threads, an alternative, plausible, and reasonable method for this occurance has been detected: cheating.

Even if we estimated that the chance someone could gain access to this type of information at 1/1million, because we observed this anamolous occurance, the chances of NO cheating will be exceedingly small.