|
View Poll Results: What is your current bankroll for the game you play? | |||
0-15 buy-ins | 21 | 8.86% | |
15-20 buy-ins | 29 | 12.24% | |
20-25 buy-ins | 42 | 17.72% | |
25-30 buy-ins | 16 | 6.75% | |
30-35 buy-ins | 22 | 9.28% | |
35-40 buy-ins | 21 | 8.86% | |
40-50 buy-ins | 19 | 8.02% | |
50+ buy-ins | 67 | 28.27% | |
Voters: 237. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
I like to think that it was the ex-exec Tom at AP who somehow blew (snorted?) through his money, and remembered his access to the super account from the site that he no longer worked for.
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
[ QUOTE ]
I like to think that it was the ex-exec Tom at AP who somehow blew (snorted?) through his money, and remembered his access to the super account from the site that he no longer worked for. [/ QUOTE ] i think this is definitely possible, but he didn't have to be broke. money is an addiction, for a lot of people, the more you get the more you want. i believe the whole situation is pretty simple- Scott Tom, a key member in the founding of AP, at some time learned of a super user account that he's always had access to. he and his group of buddies have been abusing this power for a while, and have been switching/playing different names periodically. i just think they are flat out not great people, and cheating didn't bother them, especially not Scott Tom. they are almost certainly losing players while playing normal, and it probably provided some sort of sick satisfaction to look at their stack or acct balance and see hundreds of thousands. the only thing i can't figure out is why they made it so obvious in the fateful 1k tourney. i guess they got too arrogant/sloppy since they hadn't been caught for a while. but they obv have knowledge of poker, and even if they suck, you'd think they'd realize their play was blatant cheating. maybe someone different got a hold of the account they didn't plan on, and outed them (intentionally or unintentionallly) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
OT, I love how this whole thing is in BBV mixed with Jman's downswing, a thread with pics of girls people have banged and other random degen stories. Awesome backdrop for the work of internet super detectives.
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
Does this article http://www.gambling911.com/Cheating-...er-101807.html change anything?
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
I think thou never wast where grace was said.
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
[ QUOTE ]
Does this article http://www.gambling911.com/Cheating-...er-101807.html change anything? [/ QUOTE ] I'm gonna go ahead and guess you haven't read the first post of the main thread or any of the other ones |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
[ QUOTE ]
yea we can keep this running and just put facts/news updates in the bigger thread [/ QUOTE ] My daddy always done told me, son, he said, son, don't never trust a man with two first names. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
Oh yeah, both adanthar and Josem sound incredibly distinguished and sexy on the P5 podcast. I don't know if this speculation or undeniable fact but I figured i'd just toss it out here in this thread for the time being.
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
I have a question, why can't the law be involved? They are based in tax havens and places where it isn't illegal to run these sites. But fraud and theft has to be illegal doesn't it?!
I don't know anything about this, just asking. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP cheating Speculation thread
Oh yeah, please submit your entries for dumbest post in the main SRS BIZ FAXTS threads. I submit:
[ QUOTE ] How do we know the guy who sent the excel file got fired? Someone must have some type of communication with him? [/ QUOTE ] There are no dumb questions, only dumb people. If it wasn't for the fact that this was posted OCT 18 at 11 AM, after adanthar had explained and answered this 500 times, it might pass for a reasonable query. |
|
|