AP thread 87.1 - waiting on the statement ITT

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I thought about it, and the money awarded back to the players shouldn't be a percentage of losses. It should be a dollar amount that is a function of hands played versus the cheaters and the limits where they played.

[/ QUOTE ]

The counter argument would be that the superuser would not even have been playing had he not been able to see hole cards, so you would have never had the opportunity to win money from him when he made a wrong decision.

The counter counter argument would be that you were also deprived of money you would have won from a third player had the superuser not been in the game. He should have folded most of his hands preflop, leaving you and the others to legitimately fight over the pots.

This could go on forever.

[aaronbeen]

The Costa Rican authorities are so reluctant to prosecute because these big companies bring jobs and money to their economy. In this situation I doubt any other gaming company would pack up and leave if CR cracked down on AP. In fact in the long run cleaning up the industry will be good for CR.

[Cruzincat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AP has all of the hands. Why can't they just upload them to Poker Tracker, and go to the Misc Tab, and then see the won/lost totals against everyone. If they did that, they'd see for instance that I lost just over $7000 to GRAYCAT. There really is no need for a payout on a per/hand basis, unless they are going to award me that $7000+ AND an additional X$/hand played with GRAYCAT.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying they couldn't, I'm saying they probably won't. And I'm saying that it's not necessarily the most fair way of going about it.

Look at it this way. Let's say someone showed up at Greycat's table and played exactly one hand against him. That hand happened to be hypotheticalplayer's set vs. Greycat's overset and played out exactly as it would have had had no cheating occurred, resulting in hypotheticalplayer losing $1k. Does hypotheticalplayer deserve to get that full $1k back when they only played that one hand and, while they were technically "cheated", didn't really lose anything more than the normal variance one expects at a poker table, and weren't affected by the player in question being a cheater any more than they would have been had he been legit?

All I'm saying is that an estimated EV calc, if done right, would probably be closer to fair in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the flop came AKQ rainbow, turn 8, river 9, and it was 99 vs 88 it could have made a whole lot of difference.

That might not be the best example, but what I am saying is with overcards to both players it changes the dynamics.

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did my post in the last monster thread get deleted?
It was the one with some biographical info about Oscar Hilt Tatum, IV, all publicly available on the internet. There was nothing scandalous (I even stated as much in the post), no speculation, nothing. It was just a post more or less summarizing things that had been posted in other posts. Then this morning I wake up to "Post deleted by Mat Sklansky". Why? Whose interests do you think were compromised by the post and what is worth "protecting"?

I'm one of the "good guys" in this whole ordeal, and I would have expected at least a PM explaining why something that took me a good deal of time to put together was zapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the post contain photographs?

[/ QUOTE ]

It contained ONE -- and it was a picture that was generously provided by his mother-in-law who thought her daughter's lavish French wedding was worth writing a feature story about for the Dec. 30th, 2006 issue of the St. Petersburg Times newspaper (and including pictures). I'd provide the link here, but now I'm worried about it getting censored.
Fine, let's agree that posting links to personal wedding albums might be a tad inappropriate (even though the pic from MY post was NOT from a private wedding album, but rather on a newspaper's website), but I can't see what the objection would be to merely posting pictures of the fine gentlemen who are the head honchos at the online poker room so near and dear to us:



EDIT: I just read the first post in this thread, stating that pictures of Oscar Tatum Hilt are not allowed, even while they may be accessible on the St. Petersburg Times' website. Fine. Google him if you care all that much. I removed his picture but have left up that of Scott "ban-stick" Tom.

[Shaffer]

[ QUOTE ]

If the flop came AKQ rainbow, turn 8, river 9, and it was 99 vs 88 it could have made a whole lot of difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if the flop came 27K rainbow, turn 2, river A, with 77 against KK it wouldn't have. The point is that there's no way to go back and play the hands legitimately with all the hole cards involved, so there's no way to get an accurate estimate of how much was lost to a cheater due to that player's cheating, and that payouts based on individual players losses to the cheaters may not be an accurate representation of who was most affected by the cheating.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Well, with respect to the POTRIPPER tournament you have to start with a refund of entry fees. No one had a chance. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the players he KO'd were just the type who stood a very good chance of winning the tourney. an intelligent person who played with this guy for 10 minutes would have been under the impression that he was making huge bluffs, and played very aggressively against him. Of course, those are the guys who got knocked out. In fact, the best way to play this guy was to get lucky and have a lucky table assignment, and then just get lucky enough to not have run ins with him.

It wasn't a tourney at all. I'm not suggesting any winners should be returning money, at all. But no one should be out one nickel.

The cash games are more complicated. Obviously, first off everyone who lost a dime to these accounts should have that money returned, dollar for dollar. Beyond that, it does get difficult to determine true losses as a "bet saved is a bet won."

[thepokerpundit]

These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along.

[adanthar]

I'm not sure about why Mat deleted the last post, but I went over the last thread and deleted all the Hilt pictures because, after looking at the evidence (both public and not so public), I'm relatively convinced at this point that Hilt's got nothing to do with it. You'll notice I left the Tom pic up.

[ChrisV]

Cmon people this is ridiculous. If the cheating hadn't been going on, the superaccounts wouldn't even have been playing those limits. If you want your money back plus ten percent "being cheated" fee, or some standard amount, great. But please don't try to justify it in terms of the EV you would have won if graycat had been controlled by a drooling retard. Some of the players cheated probably weren't even winning players - should AP return their money minus the amount they would have lost even if the superusers were on the level? When a tournament crashes, do people generally receive restitution for the time they spent playing?

[Cruzincat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about why Mat deleted the last post, but I went over the last thread and deleted all the Hilt pictures because, after looking at the evidence (both public and not so public), I'm relatively convinced at this point that Hilt's got nothing to do with it. You'll notice I left the Tom pic up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see. You deleted the innocent guy's pic, but left the other guy's pic. Darn, where is Mr. Spock with his logic when you need him?