Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[egj]

I'm surprised his "Won $ at SD" percentage is only around 50%. Is that number correct?

[The 13th 4postle]

Hey Im writing a story on wikinews which is the news arm of wikipedia so if someone really involved could give me a message about the story to get some inside stuff for the story and try to get it out there.

And if you're still in Absolute Poker get the hell out!! I just hope this stuff doesnt happen to Ultimate Bet

[Todpullen]

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, I see his river aggression factors arent infinite in this? Am i looking in the wrong place or missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the infinite river aggression was on limit games, this is NL where he sometimes has to call an all in ... ?

[AC-Cobra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, I see his river aggression factors arent infinite in this? Am i looking in the wrong place or missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the infinite river aggression was on limit games, this is NL where he sometimes has to call an all in ... ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that would make sense, but I didnt realise any of this was on limit.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised his "Won $ at SD" percentage is only around 50%. Is that number correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes because of a bunch of failurevision hands like this:

Dealt to IKESTOYS [5c 3h]
DOUBLEDRAG - Raises $90 to $90
DAVIDP18 - Folds
FRISCOMELT - Raises $300 to $300
IKESTOYS - Folds
XAJA1 - Folds
DOUBLEDRAG - Calls $210
*** FLOP *** [8d 10h 2h]
DOUBLEDRAG - Checks
FRISCOMELT - Bets $480
DOUBLEDRAG - Raises $960 to $960
FRISCOMELT - Calls $480
*** TURN *** [8d 10h 2h] [7d]
DOUBLEDRAG - Bets $7560
DOUBLEDRAG - returned ($2005) : not called
FRISCOMELT - All-In $5555
*** RIVER *** [8d 10h 2h 7d] [8c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
DOUBLEDRAG - Shows [5h Jh] (One pair, eights)
FRISCOMELT - Shows [3d Ad] (One pair, eights)

I posted this hand earlier - he shoves 2x pot on the turn trying to get a bigger flush draw to fold and gets called by a better hand, loller. There are a bunch like that in there.

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only in certain sessions were DD's river agg stats infinite, but it's not possible to do everytime - like when someone shoves a straight into his flush on the river, he can only call - whether he has position or not he may still find himself only being able to call/overcall with someone behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, just to check then, are 20 and 16 still relatively high? Because that sounds a lot different to infinite.

Just to clarify Im totally convinced from previous evidence, just worried about putting this evidence out there. If I personally had seen this first I would of been shocked by the pf agg and the dollars won, but that doesnt have the same effect as then being smacked over the head with the infinite symbol for river AF.

[/ QUOTE ]

bbv is full of fish huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, guess I deserved that. Just not incredibly familiar with the PT statistics, Ill take that as a yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

ive never heard of a winning 6max player w/ a river AF of more than 5

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, I see his river aggression factors arent infinite in this? Am i looking in the wrong place or missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the infinite river aggression was on limit games, this is NL where he sometimes has to call an all in ... ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does AP have unlimited raises HU on the end in LHE games? If not, I would expect him to have to "just call" a cap relatively often.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, I see his river aggression factors arent infinite in this? Am i looking in the wrong place or missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the infinite river aggression was on limit games, this is NL where he sometimes has to call an all in ... ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that would make sense, but I didnt realise any of this was on limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are limit hands as well but these are filtered for NL only. Schneids has a much bigger limit DB than I do I think.

[obvv]

not that it really matters, but its likely that the different departments dont have telephones, I know until at least recently any new employees at a top3 poker site were told to get a paid up subscription of skype and to get an exclusive yahoo/msn screenname, and thats how they communicated with each other (as they have offices in different parts of the globe).. so saying that their invesitgations department dont have "phones" is prolly gonna be correct.

[Dilznoofus]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as a lawyer, I would completely eliminate from this discussion all of the allegations about Mark Seif being involved in the cheating. I have not see anything in these threads other than various circumstantial stuff implicating him. The fact is that there is evidence here of cheating, but it is impossible for the people in these threads to determine who was/is doing the cheating. Absolute is in the best position to do that. I am not a litigator, but I have to believe that accusing a professional poker player, and semi-public figure, of cheating in the game that is his profession is pretty serious and could lead to a libel lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound like his status as a public figure makes it riskier to implicate him than if he were a private individual. Was that your intent? Because it's the other way around.

[ QUOTE ]
*weasel disclaimer: the following is not legal advice, just off the cuff ruminations*

I think we need to be responsible about discussing Seif's involvement, but I'm pretty sure he falls under the NY Times v. Sullivan definition of a "public figure" at least WRT poker, and certainly WRT to a site he actively promotes. So as long as we don't make knowingly false statements or act with reckless disregard to the truth, we're probably ok. The aspect of poker being his profession goes to the amount of damages, if any, rather than whether or not the statements made are libelous. (Essentially, disparagement of professional reputation is per se damaging, whereas in most libel cases it's somewhat difficult to demonstrate actual loss).

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds right. Definitely with respect to whether Seif would be deemed a public figure.