Latest cliffsnotes on Absolute soulreading.

[suzzer99]

It could be something as simple as person on the inside looking at some kind of log, and IMing with GRAYCAT. That would make it fairly tough to multitable.

Also as far as dumb greed. I think if the cheater's knew anything they still could have taken almost as much in just as short of time and still covered their tracks. My best guess is this is an inside ability that has been around for a while. But it just recently, with the aid of the new update perhaps, became available to someone inside the company who was pretty clueless about poker and security in general.

[Injection]

[ QUOTE ]
bump b/c i do what i want

and this is too important to let drop

plz everyone do josem's request

[/ QUOTE ]

[Marnixvdb]

obv don't know if it's a true statement, but PAYUP seems to have shown up in another sidetrack thread: look here

[suzzer99]

There is really nothing remotely suspicious about any of the payup hands adanthar posted in the orginal Absolute thread..

[Injection]

PAYUP was first brought to our attention by Sheets, who said something to the effect of - PAYUP played a maniacal style (during the 150K guaranteed that he won) consistent with that of the cheaters. His win is around the same time as the others (documented in a pokerdb screenshot somewhere).

I thought this may have been the 5th account under investigation as stated by AP since we only knew of 4, but they may have actually been referring to Supercard or Romnaldo instead. Speculation on my behalf.

I don't feel like looking for Adanthar's HH posts on PAYUP, but IIRC wasn't the proof that PAYUP played almost every hand except when his opponents had a pf monster or something? AFAIK we don't have much info on him but his play was identical.

[Josem]

I just sent this email to media@absolutepoker.com:

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Absolute Poker,


I have created a website at deleted web address to avoid accusations of spamming


It details the proof that certain players on your service were able to view the hole cards of other players. Clearly, such a situation is cheating.


You may be aware of my committment to fair and balanced reporting on this issue. At that site, I have created an opportunity for you to provide a response to the allegations contained within it.


If you choose to make a response, I am happy to guarantee that it will be published unedited and uncut* for all viewers to read.


You are welcome to email your response to me at michael@michaeljosem.com


regards,
Michael Josem


*subject to any relevant Australian legislation prohibiting racism, sexism, inciting violence, pornography or other relevant regulations.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Injection]

Good work Josem.

I think you could be forgiven for mentioning the web address http://www.absolutepokercheats.com in the copy of your email though [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Josem]

Assumption: cheater plays with 90% VPIP.

In the 25 hands analysed by Adanthar (the first ones listed in the cliff notes) the cheater folds whenever another player - and only when another player - has AA, KK, QQ, JJ. There is another hand analysed, but it involves a re-raise squeeze, which is a slightly wider range, and we can ignore it for this analysis.


So - what are the chances that a player who plays 90% of hands will randomly fold the 4 precise hands that someone else has AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, and none others?

I think the mathematics can be written out like this:

.1^4 * .9^21

ie, it is .1 * .1 * .1 * .1 * .9* .9* .9* .9* .9* .9* .9 etc.
^--these are the four premium hands ^--these are the rest

chucking that into excel provides the following answer:

0.00109419% chance of occuring.

in other words, a 1 in 100,000 chance of occuring randomly.

hopefully this methodology is right. can someone who is smarter than me (ie, almost anyone) confirm or correct me?

does this then mean that we can say with 99.99890581% certainty that the cheater was cheating in these hands? the more i think about it, i think not, but i feel that there is a calculation somewhere here that would give us the probability that this was cheating - can someone who knows mathematics/statistics well chime in?

[i]incidentally, the figures vary a bit depending on what the cheater's VPIP is. if the VPIP is .95, then there is a 0.00021285% and a 99.99978715% chance respectively. if the VPIP is .8, 0.00147574% and 99.99852426%)

[Josem]

in answer to my own question in bold, i think the following analogy is fair and reasonable. i've been thinking about this, and I am increasingly confident that if the cheater had a VPIP of 90%, then there is a 99.99890581% chance that he is cheating.


Let's say, hypothetically speaking, someone had a secret way to win the lottery (a 1 in 100,000 chance in this particular lottery). You say to this person, "prove it."

So, this person goes away, picks their numbers, and wins the 1 in 100,000 lottery.

Thus, either they won the lottery randomly (ie, it really was a 1 in 100,000 chance) or they cheated. 99.99890581% of the time they will have cheated.


I think the same thing applies here - because the cheater was accused before the data became available.

Obviously, it is not reasonable to accuse someone of winning the lottery of being a cheater after they have won the suspicious - at that time, the lottery win is in the past, and thus has a 100% chance of having occurred (it already did).

However, because the cheater was accused before the data became available - and we then tested the data on our existing hypothesis, I'm now confident, with a 99.99890581% certainty, that the accused cheater was actually cheating

[rakemeplz]

There are other factors that say would cause him to fold like an UTG raise being a likely big pair etc.