Updated Cliff Notes On Absolute Poker Scandal (18th October)

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
i just emailed UltimateBet point them to the relevant topics concerning PotChipper. i don't know what sort of a response to expect, but i asked for any information that may help us determine whether they are the same person without violating the user's privacy. we'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think josem said the name was potchopper

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

[ QUOTE ]
i just emailed UltimateBet point them to the relevant topics concerning PotChipper. i don't know what sort of a response to expect, but i asked for any information that may help us determine whether they are the same person without violating the user's privacy. we'll see, come January 32nd 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, i don't think you should expect much.

[apefish]

Nat I completely agree.

Here's the thing. They could have stepped in at any point and stopped the bleeding.
They have chosen not to.
They aren't here saying "that account doesn't belong to someone who worked here".
They aren't here saying "we have methodology in place that can detect distinct users and compare them to known logins from other computers and they don't match up at all."

They've had chances every step of the way to put their own anti fraud measures to use clearing themselves and they haven't.

Why is that? (rhetorical)

It's getting harder to deny the mounting evidence that some if not all of the accounts central to this fiasco are tied to bigwigs within the site- whether present or former.

They should have gotten out front and started explaining why they simply didn't catch it earlier instead.

[traxamillion]

Post deleted by Gildwulf

[traxamillion]

not everyone takes this lightly

[bknollenberg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i just emailed UltimateBet point them to the relevant topics concerning PotChipper. i don't know what sort of a response to expect, but i asked for any information that may help us determine whether they are the same person without violating the user's privacy. we'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think josem said the name was potchopper

[/ QUOTE ]
yea, that was a misspellament. i said potchopper in the email, but thanks for pointing that out.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

wtf man,

if that's true, that's [censored] up.

if it's not you should be banned.

[Josem]

just on the point of sources etc.


1) i stand by everything i've claimed. my real name is out there, and in addition, a simple google search of my name (michael josem) will identify me as a credible person. having had an admittedly small public profile as an office bearer in various community organisations, i'm not some anonymous fly-by-nighter who will be gone in the morning.

2) i've received a huge number of comments/contributions/etc. i have only posted the two most credible comments to date. i filter a huge amount of crap out.

3) the comments/facts that i've passed along were made by people who:
a) were stakeholders in the industry
b) made specific claims that could easily be disproved if they were false
c) provided a reasonable reason for wanting to remain anonymous
d) provided a reasonable explanation of how they obtained the information.

3) The standard course of behaviour when you think something false has been claimed about you, is to correct the record. Absolute Poker have failed to do so.

[bknollenberg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i just emailed UltimateBet point them to the relevant topics concerning PotChipper. i don't know what sort of a response to expect, but i asked for any information that may help us determine whether they are the same person without violating the user's privacy. we'll see, come January 32nd 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, i don't think you should expect much.

[/ QUOTE ]
no i know, i'm not expecting them to provide some information that is like "OMG ITS HIM", but i'm interested to see what sort of response i get in general. i mean, even though this may be unnecessary and a really small issue, if potchopper is scott tom they probably want him banned, but i don't know how that works if he hasn't done anything at their site, only another. but we'll see, worth a shot.

[Catyoul]

I feel the last conversation with the PR from AP is a sign for an incoming disappointment. They are going to investigate again with an external audit, with no given timetable. In a month or so (maybe even more), we will hear about the results of that audit. By that time and unless some new elements keep coming all the time for the duration of their investigation, the general interest for this story will have faded down a lot from its current point (even on 2+2, the threads will eventually die if nothing new comes up) and they'll get away pretty easily, at least much more easily than with the high pressure currently on them.

So my question is, do you (the people with all the published and as-of-yet unpublished information) have a plan of action for the case they bet on letting matters settle with time ? No need to explain them, just knowing you have a plan of action for their most likely answer would be nice.